Moderated WTC 1 features list, initiation model / WTC 2 features list, collapse model

[Major_Tom]

I like how CD is disguised - "intentional manipulation of structural components".

That is what a CD is. You do not need nuclear weapons.

You do not need to blow the building to "kingdom come". Collapse is initiated and steered. Structural components are manipulated.

Both WTC1 and WTC2 seem to have experienced a sustained ROOSD process no matter how you look at CD. The CD question is whether the ROOSD process was initiated or steered.

 

[DGM]

Because studying theories of what happend to the towers while remaining ignorant of the global mechanics is lunacy.

You are baciually asking why anyone would want to know the observable reality before casting an opinion.

The answer seems obvious, no?

Does this explain why you add your opinion as to what the "observables" mean?

 

[Sam.I.Am]

My bold. It has been done to death?

snip...

Yes. It has been done to death. Let me explain.

When a mechanical connection, be it made by a fastener or a weld or other means, has a known fail point (shear, compression and tension are what I am discussing here) and you exceed those known values by a factor of two or more it will fail.

The collapses exceeded those known values by at least a factor of two and the connections failed. End of story

What you are doing is like discussing why a car that was driven off of a 100' cliff won't work afterwards. Normal people say "No **** Sherlock, it was driven off of a cliff!" What you are trying to do is dissect why the front left quarter panel isn't bent up the exact same way as the front right one is so the cars aerodynamics are out of whack.

It doesn't matter, the car was still driven off of a cliff. Once the wheels left the top of the cliff basic physics that even a caveman can understand took over and the results were inevitable. The cliff wins. The car loses.

 

[Major_Tom]

Yes. It has been done to death. Let me explain.

When a mechanical connection, be it made by a fastener or a weld or other means, has a known fail point (shear, compression and tension are what I am discussing here) and you exceed those known values by a factor of two or more it will fail.

The collapses exceeded those known values by at least a factor of two and the connections failed. End of story

Are you aware you are disagreeing with the collapse initation mechanism claimed by the NIST?

NIST in their own words in 2006:

NIST concluded that the WTC towers collapsed because: (1) the impact of the planes severed and damaged support columns, dislodged fireproofing insulation coating the steel floor trusses and steel columns, and widely dispersed jet fuel over multiple floors; and (2) the subsequent unusually large jet-fuel ignited multi-floor fires (which reached temperatures as high as 1,000 degrees Celsius) significantly weakened the floors and columns with dislodged fireproofing to the point where floors sagged and pulled inward on the perimeter columns. This led to the inward bowing of the perimeter columns and failure of the south face of WTC 1 and the east face of WTC 2, initiating the collapse of each of the towers. Both photographic and video evidence—as well as accounts from the New York Police Department aviation unit during a half-hour period prior to collapse—support this sequence for each tower.

NIST’s findings do not support the “pancake theory” of collapse, which is premised on a progressive failure of the floor systems in the WTC towers (the composite floor system—that connected the core columns and the perimeter columns—consisted of a grid of steel “trusses” integrated with a concrete slab; see diagram below). Instead, the NIST investigation showed conclusively that the failure of the inwardly bowed perimeter columns initiated collapse and that the occurrence of this inward bowing required the sagging floors to remain connected to the columns and pull the columns inwards. Thus, the floors did not fail progressively to cause a pancaking phenomenon.

My bold.


http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm
(bolding added)


This is the NIST collapse initiation mechanism as expressed by Usmani, Torero and Chung:

Sam.I.Am, this is how the NIST explains the initiation mechanism. The one you are describing is different.

Concerning the NIST explanation of sagging long span trusses pulling in the 81st and 82nd fl spandrels, the first question to ask is...


1) Does the visual record match the official explanation of how and why WTC2 collapsed?

 

[ProBonoShill]

Major Tom is putting up some data with background information. He says that it is "never documented before". I would think this is a great opportunity to dispute this stuff with documented sources or a self-developed hypothesis. Can this or will this go beyond "suck-a-bomb", "Ajax Explosives", and the multi-mentioned "Satan"? I do find those comments funny but I would rather have the "Engineer" rebuttal versus the Henny Youngman one liners but that is just me. thx

I'm no Henny Youngman, but asking an engineer to explain MT's nonsense is like to asking an F1 mechanic to tune a broken down tricycle.

 

[NoahFence]

Because studying theories of what happend to the towers while remaining ignorant of the global mechanics is lunacy.

You are baciually asking why anyone would want to know the observable reality before casting an opinion.

The answer seems obvious, no?

Dude, this is a conspiracy theory subforum. I've yet to hear you even state your position on the subject.

YOUR observable reality is shared by an extremely small population. The rest of the known universe knows full well why the towers collapsed, and don't need ludicrous minutiae to be sure.

Again, I see no reason why this thread (and the others like it) is in a 9/11 conspiracy subforum. It's all math and science. Put it in there.

 

[Sam.I.Am]

NIST is describing collapse INITIATION in that section, not collapse PROGRESSION. Your ROOS discussion is covering the collapse PROGRESSION if I read it correctly. The collapse PROGRESSION is what caused the panels to be "Ejected" as you put it (I have my own take on that but that's for a different discussion). The INITIATION happened on only a few floors due to aircraft impacts and uncontrolled fires. The PROGRESSION was the result of failed fasteners due to massive overloading and was (in WTC2) from about the 75th floor or so down to the lower levels of the basement.

The PROGRESSION was a pancaking event. Please try to keep up.

 

[Newtons Bit]

Could you type ROOSD long form just once so those of us who didn't catch it the first time knows what the hell it means?

It's an acronym he made up that essentially means progressive collapse. He's unfamiliar with engineering in general and collapse dynamics in particular so it's not surprising that he wasn't aware something already existed explaining the phenomena.

 

[Major_Tom]

It's an acronym he made up that essentially means progressive collapse. He's unfamiliar with engineering in general and collapse dynamics in particular so it's not surprising that he wasn't aware something already existed explaining the phenomena.

I wasn't aware of a paper in circulation that correctly identified the mechanism.

Can you point to any professional or academic paper since 9-11-01 that correctly identifies the true collapse progression mechanism for WTC1 or 2?

I believe you were using BV, BL and BLGB as the most current papers having to do with a progression mechanism when I started the OOS model thread.

NB, are you continuing with those papers as the most refined authoritative source on WTC 1 and 2 collapse progression to date?

I thought I debunked the crush down, then crush up mechanism a while ago. Are you going to stick to that like R Mackey and Beachnut?

Here is R Mackey's description:




R Mackey understanding of the collapse progression process, 8-25-2010:

Think of it in terms of impulse -- the total change of momentum at a particular impact. Impulse is equal and opposite, by conservation of momentum. Impulse is equal to F delta-T (force times the time over which the force is applied), or M delta-V (the raw change of momentum in its familiar definition P = m V).

When we look at the "upper block," it's delta-V is smaller than the delta-V experienced by the newly broken part of the lower block. As you say, the upper block decelerates by an average 1/3 g, while the lower block accelerates by an average 2/3 g. This is because the participating part of the lower block masses less than the participating part of the upper block -- it really is the compacted mass and upper block versus a small number of floors at a time, not the entire lower block.

The reason only part of the lower block participates at any given time is because the lower block is still a mostly intact sparse structure of braced columns. When it's hit, the columns lose bracing, get loaded eccentrically, shear their welds and bolts, and in some cases are totally overwhelmed and fracture entirely. These pieces break at a stress much too low to actually support the descending mass. This also has nothing to do with the strength of the perfectly intact building -- the descending rubble heap isn't contacting the lower structure at its strongest points, and it's introducing brand new failure modes, so the effective opposing strength of the lower structure is far lower than its ideal carrying capacity. Furthermore, where the lower structure does resist at or near its ideal strength, it can only do so for a very brief delta-T -- until reaching its failure strain, which takes only about ten milliseconds at the speeds of collapse -- and this is not enough to amount to all that much total impulse.

The upper chunk, in contrast, is cushioned by a thick layer of rubble. This is compacted about as far as it can, thus it doesn't have those complex failure modes and it doesn't suffer much more "damage" even at much higher stresses. So the rubble pile remains, and the lower structure gives way. This is for the same reason you don't sink into the ground, even though you can push your finger easily through a cupful of soil.

The "upper block," what remains of it, rides on top of this cushion of debris. It is supported pretty well. It also only decelerates at that lower rate, thanks to the much greater inertia of the upper block + debris. So the only real force it suffers is the inertial force, i.e. its own self-weight times its deceleration, again about 1/3 g. It can be expected to survive this deceleration. It's only when the rubble pile has nowhere else to go and the upper block has to suddenly stop, dissipating all of its momentum in mere milliseconds, that it totally fails.

Again, this is slightly idealized, but you get the point. Unless you're a Truther.

Madre de Dios! Dios nos libre!

Are you still locked into that mindset, NB? Are you still going to try and beat that dead horse?

The R Mackey description comes from a fantasy projection of the following overly-simplified 1-D "block" model onto real buildings in the real world.

This represents a crush down, then crush up system. This is how current acedemia apparently understands the true mechanics of collapse progression in the WTC1 and 2 high-rises.

The more rational mind would suggest a ROOSD progression and 4 wall perimeter dropping instead.

I went a step further and visually mapped the whole darn thing.

 

[Sam.I.Am]

This is Heiwa rev.2 isn't it?

I'm outta here. You can't reason with the mentally infirm. I'll just leave this behind:

You claim that you have "Debunked" what is essentially what is a well understood phenomena in structural collapses that has happened many many times prior to 9/11 (just in not such a spectacular fashion caught on film from many angles). If you have done so then I suggest that you submit a paper to a recognized journal explaining what exactly was wrong with the previous description of the phenomena (just a forewarning, you will have to use math and words with a lot of syllables). If it is as you claim (that you debunked it) then you my friend will become world renowned within the engineering community for seeing something that hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of engineers have overlooked for well over a century.

Please keep us informed as to your progress on that front. We all could use the laugh.

 

[beachnut]

That is what a CD is. You do not need nuclear weapons.

Trying to back in CD again? CD look like Gravity collapse, the primary energy involved in destroying the building is E=mgh. CD looks like gravity collapse, not the other way around. It fooled 911 truthers, they are in their 10th year of failure with CD. Why are you still fooled by the CD delusion? In ten years you could have had a PhD in structural engineering instead of making up a feature list, your collapse model without math or physics.

Some of your fellow 911 truth movement cult think it is a nuke, or beam-weapon, your claims of CD are the same, not true, fantasy.

You do not need to blow the building to "kingdom come". Collapse is initiated and steered. Structural components are manipulated.

No BOOM with your quiet explosives? New Explosives that leave no blast effects? You can drop CD.

Both WTC1 and WTC2 seem to have experienced a sustained ROOSD process no matter how you look at CD. The CD question is whether the ROOSD process was initiated or steered.

What? There was no CD, you need to catch up, you are about 10 years behind.

Are you aware you are disagreeing with the collapse initation mechanism claimed by the NIST?

This is your ploy, attack NIST and think the poster needs or defends NIST. Does not matter what you think NIST got wrong, it was impacts and fires, not your claims of CD and a Satan like NWO. Don't need NIST, you need NIST so you can bash it, makes good technobabble have a scapegoat so people forget your method is eyeballed opinions, not engineering.

NIST in their own words in 2006:...
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

Where is your paper? Published this stuff yet, it has been nearly 10 years.

This is the NIST collapse initiation mechanism as expressed by Usmani, Torero and Chung:

And where is your rebuttal paper?

Sam.I.Am, this is how the NIST explains the initiation mechanism. The one you are describing is different.

Thought your work was original? Would you work stand without bashing NIST? Why does anyone need NIST, we knew the WTC collapse in a gravity collapse on 911, and that was confirmed during clean up, when no evidence of the inside job was found.

Concerning the NIST explanation of sagging long span trusses pulling in the 81st and 82nd fl spandrels, the first question to ask is...

Go ahead explain with engineering.

1) Does the visual record match the official explanation of how and why WTC2 collapsed?

Yes, impacts and fire, gravity collapse. That was simple; and the chief structural engineer of the WTC towers agrees, it was impacts and fire. You should try engineering instead of opinions.

Official Explanation is aircraft impacts and fires caused the collapse. The chief structural engineer agrees. Too bad you don't have some engineering stuff to support your claims of CD.

Fastest Falling Object from WTC2

Confirms gravity exists?

Core remnant survives initial collapse

Which means the core did not lead the collapse, it lagged? Or what?

Got a conclusion besides the gravity collapse is an illusion?

 

[Oystein]

The thread had just started, and Major_Tom was already in dodge, duck, evade and avoid mode.

Major_Tom, please reply to...

Is this list of observed features before the collapse exhaustive? If not, why did you pick these four, and none of the other probably hundreds and thousands observations made before the collapse? Do you feel that none of the other hundreds or thousands features pre-collapse ought to get explained?

(Same question could be asked for collapse initiation and collapse progress features, of course)

...and

...
As for features left out...

Before the collapse...
Aircraft impacted the WTC tower.
Aircraft impact kinetic energy was 2093 pound of TNT.
Aircraft impact was 11 times the design impact energy, of 186 pounds of TNT.
Aircraft impact was an order of magnitude greater than the design could handle, this is an engineering physics term for bad news, in this case.
Aircraft design knocked of significant portions of fire insulation under the WTC floors, which falls off if touched by hand.
Aircraft impact knocked off significant insulation in the core which was a special design of 3 inches of wallboard, gypsum board.
Aircraft impacts destroyed the fire systems, making it impossible to fight the fires, sprinklers system was rendered useless.
Fire were started on multiple floors with 10,000 gallons of jet fuel started at impact by disintegrating jet engines whose parts flying around were hotter than the auto igniting temperature of jet fuel.
Fire burned on multiple floor causing damage to steel structure now essentially unprotected, doomed.
Fires were aided in burning due to large gaping holes and hundreds of windows blow away by a kinetic energy impact 11 times greater than design.
Steel can't stand up in fire, it fails.
[qimg]http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/woodbeambentsteel-full.jpg[/qimg]
The building was doomed at aircraft impacts.
The building design was for a 707 low on fuel, lost in the fog trying to land. This design was verified after 911 by a study, and they found impact threshold for resisting collapse at 200 mph. Some people argue Robertson could not do a study for aircraft impacts in the 70s, but engineers are able to take the strength of their structure and the physics of the aircraft impacts and make do engineer calculations by hand, no computers are needed. Amazing Robertson was right.


As for features left out...

Before the collapse...
I left out all the oxygen generators injected into the WTC tower, these devices have crashed aircraft as the burn out of control.


Don't forget, Before collapse...
66,000 pounds of jet fuel, which was double bad, it was first used as a kinetic energy weapon, and then it started the largest office fires in history. Jet fuel heat energy equal to 315 Tons of TNT, in each tower.

Office fires... So hot people were burning, they were forced to jump vs burn. Have you been in a fire where your skins starts to burn from a fire and you are not in the fire?

If we were adding math and physics to the project of feature list.
We have E=mgh, the available energy to destroy the WTC tower, over 139 Tons of TNT in available energy; which is why things were ejected, air jets were seen, and the structure was destroyed.

From an engineering stand point, all the observables are what you would see in a gravity collapse. ...

It seems that all of these observables^* can't be dismissed as insignificant, especially the airplane impacts, the spilling of tons of fuel, and the big fires.

Major_Tom, why did you leave out the fires, and the damage that the aircraft caused?



* Admittedly, some of these features weren't directly observed, such as the stripping of fireproofing fron the steel. But the plane impact was observed, and it can be deduced that some fireproofing must have been severely affected. So, M_T, would you dismiss the removal of fireproofing as irrelevant for your model?

Major_Tom, please don't dodge, duck, evade and avoid any longer! You can't build a theory on observations, if you deliberataly limit the observations to a handful hand-picked once!

 

[femr2]

As for features left out...

I'm sure MT has no issue with additional features...

Aircraft impacted the WTC tower.

No excrement Sherlock.

Aircraft impact kinetic energy was 2093 pound of TNT.

Stupid AE911-like attention grabbing energy metric.

4e9 J is a more useful number.

Aircraft impact was 11 times the design impact energy, of 186 pounds of TNT.

Again, stupid hype-driven TNT equivalency.

Aircraft impact was an order of magnitude greater than the design could handle, this is an engineering physics term for bad news, in this case.

The design handled it fine, or haven't you actually read any of the reports ?

Aircraft design knocked of significant portions of fire insulation under the WTC floors, which falls off if touched by hand.

No ability to quantify how much or where.

Aircraft impact knocked off significant insulation in the core which was a special design of 3 inches of wallboard, gypsum board.

No ability to quantify how much and where.

Aircraft impacts destroyed the fire systems, making it impossible to fight the fires, sprinklers system was rendered useless.

It was on fire, yes, cunningly keen observation there.

Fire were started on multiple floors with 10,000 gallons of jet fuel

• 7415 US gallons according to NIST
• 1483 US gallons of which burned outside the tower immediately after impact
• 5932 US gallons remaining inside the tower
• 2966 US gallons within impact zone

Exaggerating the values for some reason beachnut ?

started at impact by disintegrating jet engines whose parts flying around were hotter than the auto igniting temperature of jet fuel.

The big explosion probably helped ignite the fuel.

Which burned off after 10/15 minutes of course, and "the [NIST] simulations were insensitive to both the amount and distribution of the jet fuel. Sensitivity studies showed that the amount of fuel spilled in the simulation only influenced the results of the first few minutes; the long-term behavior of the simulated fires was unaffected."

Fire burned on multiple floor causing damage to steel structure now essentially unprotected, doomed.

No ability to quantify what structural elements were unprotected. More exaggeration implied.

Fires were aided in burning due to large gaping holes and hundreds of windows blow away by a kinetic energy impact 11 times greater than design.

A flair for the sensationalist you think ? Yes, the large explosion broke some windows, and the aircraft impact made a large hole. Air got in. Fires burned. Really deep observations of pre-initiation, initiation and post-initiation behaviour these...engineer/aircraft accident investigator/pilot/test pilot (all for over 30 years each). Impressive. 120 years old by now ?

The building was doomed at aircraft impacts.

The building withstood the impact fine.

the largest office fires in history

Nope.

Jet fuel heat energy equal to 315 Tons of TNT, in each tower.

TNT again. Fixated. Burned off after 10 minutes. See above.

If we were adding math and physics to the project of feature list.

Physics based units would be handy then...

We have E=mgh

Is that the extent of your *math and physics* ? Which is in Joules...

the available energy to destroy the WTC tower, over 139 Tons of TNT in available energy

TNT again. Sheesh. Joules. ~4e11 J. And it's Gravitational Potential Energy.

which is why things were ejected

Do you see MT highlighting rapid ejecta ?
Howsabout perimeter peeling instead ?

air jets were seen

Indeed. Factual explanation ?

and the structure was destroyed.

Astounding observation. Well done.

Not overly impressed with your additional features beachnut.

 

[Oystein]

I'm sure MT has no issue with additional features...
...

We'd like to hear from him. And the reasons for why his feature list is so ridiculously short.
Doesn't it worry you that M_T dodges, ducks evades and avoids so stubbornly?

 

[femr2]

We'd like to hear from him. And the reasons for why his feature list is so ridiculously short.
Doesn't it worry you that M_T dodges, ducks evades and avoids so stubbornly?

If you continnually suggest a mode of destruction which does not fit observables, yet in the same breath call for MT to explain *what it all means !!1!1*, when there are threads which go into significant detail about the mechanisms being proposed, ROOSD for instance, then can you blame him for pointing you* at your own flawed stance ?

* you, aka whomever.

I posted a rather significant NIST quote just a moment ago..."NIST’s findings do not support the “pancake theory” of collapse"...

...and...

...tumble-weed...

ROOSD is essentially a refined *pancake theory* involving regional rubble driven OOS floor pancaking far in advance of trailing core and perimeter destruction.

Pancaking within the tube, in advance of core and perimeter destruction. No *upper section pile driver* going on there. No *10 floors crashing onto one*. ROOSD raced off down the tower at a roughly terminal rate of about 27m/s, right from the get-go.

Easily observed.

NIST don't think that's what happened...

Surely you have to turn around and be a bit surprised... ?

Surely some of the information you've been given has to sink in at some point and you track that back to initiation and go, hang on...
"the NIST investigation showed conclusively that the failure of the inwardly bowed perimeter columns initiated collapse"
...what the ?
"this inward bowing required the sagging floors to remain connected to the columns and pull the columns inwards"
...remained connected ? Then how on earth can the crush front race off down when IT DID ?

Gotta start using your noodles folk.

I know from my own experience here, it's not what you say, but who says it. Whatever *conclusions* MT might provide you with, you'll disagree with simply on principle. Most of you are openly here for *entertainment*.

You have the information. If you are not capable of getting the hint...

 

[AZCat]

Stupid AE911-like attention grabbing energy metric.

4e9 J is a more useful number.

...

Again, stupid hype-driven TNT equivalency.

...


TNT again. Fixated. Burned off after 10 minutes. See above.


Physics based units would be handy then...

...

Is that the extent of your *math and physics* ? Which is in Joules...


TNT again. Sheesh. Joules. ~4e11 J.

I disagree. TNT-equivalent has long been used as a measure of energy release, and is more familiar to lots of us than Joules. It is no different than the convention of using "feet of water column" in lieu of psi or Pascals.

 

[beachnut]

No excrement Sherlock.

Is Major Tom a no plane truther, leaving out the plane? He has to leave out the fire and impacts, it will ruin his CD theory. Funny how those with the CD/inside job nonsense leave out the simple features, and evidence.

Stupid AE911-like attention grabbing energy metric.

Joules are worthless for expressing the energy in laypeople terms. An engineer would make it meaningful and give an idea what all those joules mean. If you like I can teach you how to change joules to what the energy would be like in TNT, or gasoline, etc. It help grasp what it means. But go ahead, try to make it look more like science, try to fool people. You have to erase your fancy talk because of what reason? Do I need to remind you of your nonsense.

4e9 J is a more useful number.

Oh yes, 4e9 J says so much! Wowzer. Yep, that was helpfuel, very useful. Wow.

4.38X10⁹ Joules, so much better than...
2093 pounds of TNT, like the impact of 175 was equal to a 2000 pound bomb.

I don't think joules gets the impact of what happen, what the energy was that crushed people into tiny pieces, what the terrorists did.

You use joules, I will explain what it was really like. I don't remember my Football Coach using joules to describe the impact of me and the Fullback in joules, and he was the Physics Teacher.

Again, stupid hype-driven TNT equivalency.

Wrong, anyone can put it in Joules as you demonstrated. This is quibbling, and you are good at it.

The design handled it fine, or haven't you actually read any of the reports ?

Wrong again, you failed to read the reports.
The impacts dislodged fire insulation, doomed the building.
The impacts did 7 and 11 times more damage than the design impact.
The impacts destroy the fire systems.

Thus we have impacts an order of magnitude over design, which is significant. 7 and 11 times more.

It is cool, I am right, the impacts did it, and you need to remember the jet fuel is part of the impacts. It is a system kind of doomed. Go ahead explain why the impacts did not doom the WTC towers. Make my year.

No ability to quantify how much or where.

Nonsense, as you do with smoothing accelerating beyond recognition we can extreme very well based on the energy of impact how much damage was done. You know how many shotgun blasts the impacts were equal to?

Take the joules of shot gun blast and divide into the 4,380,000,000 Joules. Good luck.

My goodness you model the WTC 7 collapse with data, smooth it and make the mistake of making this failed statement? We can as good as, or better than you smooth acceleration quantify the lost insulation.

BTW, LOOKS like it was a lot, the building failed Quickly, steel fails very quick in fire. Quibble some more.

• 7415 US gallons according to NIST
• 1483 US gallons of which burned outside the tower immediately after impact
• 5932 US gallons remaining inside the tower
• 2966 US gallons within impact zone

Exaggerating the values for some reason beachnut ?

You are using NIST? This is funny.
I took the fuel at takeoff and did some pilot stuff, and came up with 10,000 gallons, 66,000 pounds of jet fuel.

I don't understand how you can use NIST stuff as your source, you did not check it like I did? Darn, now you love NIST.

This is cool, NIST is back. I don't use NIST.
Wow, are you making fun of me again. I am an engineer and a pilot, so? Are you saying I can't be both? Not a test pilot, although I did work with test pilots, and my boss had been the top guy, the head of test pilot school in the USAF.

I think putting the Joules into units of TNT is easier to understand, but then you think the Official Theory is Fictional.

 

[Oystein]

If you continnually suggest a mode of destruction

Who - I? Whatever I may continually suggest is not the topic of the thread that M_T started.
Instead, he started a new thread where he pretends to present a model, starting with a VERY short list of observables he seeks to explain.

I aksed if that list was exhaustive.

beachnut pointed out a still short, but longer than M_T's, list of VERY significant observables that do not belong to M_T's starting set of observables to be explained.

Since it is M_T's theory, I believe it is legitimate to ask if his own starting post that lists observables is to be understood as complete, before we go on with the topic, which is (excuse me if I remidn you again of this) not my theory, or NIST's, or JREF's, but Major_Tom's.

femr2, is it okay with you if we discuss M_T's own theory in his own thread about his own theory?

...
Whatever *conclusions* MT might provide you with, you'll disagree with simply on principle. Most of you are openly here for *entertainment*.
...

Before we get to his conclusions, why not start with his premises, which in this case is the "feature list" of observables of the WTC2 collapse? I am not going to comment on the conclusions before I am clear on the premises, facts and reasons that lead to it.

Is that okay with you?

Or would you suggest that I should not ask about the premises (completeness...), and jump right to the conclusions?

 

[NoahFence]

Femr:

Again, stupid hype-driven TNT equivalency.

But is it inaccurate?

 

[jhunter1163]

If you wish to discuss forum moderation issues, please do so in Forum Management and not in this thread. Thank you for your anticipated cooperation.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: jhunter1163