OOS Collapse Propagation Model

[ladmo]

No. Each floor weighs X. Assume that 5X will overload it to the point of breaking. Load it with 5X. When it breaks, the next floor becomes loaded with 6X. Where is your energy loss? Did you miss the idea of conservation of NUMBER before you took your first physics class?

The faling floors banged into floors that didn't get out of the way fast enoguh. That shattered the slabs. The pans are there in the rubble pile, twisted out of shape and mixed with other stuff so that they are hard to distinguish unless you have some idea what the pile should look like.

Q: Wouldn't energy be lost when shattering is present?

 

[NoahFence]

Explosives or no explosives?

 

[Major_Tom]

NoahFence, see Major_Tom's first principle of WTC research.

...........................



The term Blockhead should be understood in the same way as Gear-head or Dead-head rather in the more derogatory meaning.


Simple ways to recognize Blockheads and harmful Blockhead influences on true, honest debate:


1) Blockheads have the compulsive need to talk of propagationn movement of the twin towers in terms of giant rectangles.

2) They have the compulsive need to turn simple "physics 101" block diagrams into equations of motion, imagining they represent real, complex highly non-homogenous systems like the WTC twin towers, and then taking them seriously.

3) Blockhead ideas require total ignorance of the photographic record. Even though the most complete visual mapping of the collapse processes of both towers is available to anyone with access to the internet, and even though I have kept this high profile thread on the front page of JREF for over one year so AE911T cannot pretend that they didn't see it, both debunker and AE911T blockheads continue to spread blockhead disinfo with impunity.

Meanwhile, stubborn pockets of Bazantista Blockhead resistance still remain within this very thread, spreading blockhead propaganda further and further into their own already dwindling psyches and the helpless, passive minds of the most vulnerable among us. Beachnut, Pgimeno and other Bazantista loyalists still harass me because I do not bow down and worship cubism and blockheads in general.



4) Blockheads seem oblivious to the fact that the collapse propagation rates were identified and measured in 2009, so there is no need to pretend this data isn't visible anymore while guessing solutions. The age of guessing velocity profiles is over if they are now observable and measurable, no?

Blockheads believe that only the first few seconds of roofline motion and seismic records are available to test equations of motion. This belief should have been shattered by 2009 but the information couldn't penetrate into the mind of the true blockhead. The two forms of published Blockhead Rebuckler mathematics applied to propagation rates is Bazant's BV eq 12 and 17, later modified in BLGB and Seffen's eq 19 in his equally useless paper on rebuckling mechanics. Since the actual propagation is visible down much of the west side of WTC1 and was identified and measured in 2009, the equations can now be tested against real measurements.

If anyone bothered to do that cubism and blockhead influence on debate would have disappeared a while ago. Ignorance of the photographic record is a central component to the Blockhead mindset.




The awful, damaging effect of popular Truther blockheads on organizations like AE911T and websites like 9/11 Blogger.


Very poor management at AE911T has created an atmosphere in which people who sincerely inquire into the WTC collapses are stereotyped as people who do not believe that any sustained ROOSD process is possible within the towers.

They create an atmosphers in which "truthers" are classified as "blockheads", but blockheads that believe you need the firepower of the Fifth Fleet to "pulverize" a "lower block".

To Richard Gage the demo question is all about an all out assault on baby block "A". It must be "pulverized" without mercy. Whereas to David Chandler, every ejection of dust is "proof" of a "little bomb". And because we had seen so many ejections along the crush fronts from basically every visible floor, to him this means there were thousands and thousands of bombs planted on every floor and next to every window.

These organizations have blindly shut their minds out to the obvious evidence in support of ROOSD propagation and the dropping of the very tall perimeter walls.

It is the preaching of Blockheads within AE911T that has contributed to the intellectual game of ping-pong as much as the debunker blockheads, if not more. A lack of technical oversight at AE911T, 9/11 Research and STJ911 are directly responsible for the poisoned and superficial research environment within those groups and those subject to their resulting propaganda.




Blockheads are nothing but many peas in the same pod, but rather than being round, the peas are green and cubic

Perhaps to you there are truther blockheads and debunker blockheads who represent the "two sides" in some open "debate", but to me there are just a bunch of blockheads playing ping-ping instead of doing sincere analysis of the most important issues while they unwittingly trash and plant disinformation in their own recorded history upon which future generations will examine us.

Whereas I like a good game of ping-pong, sincere historic review of this magnitude merits a much higher level of personal responsibility and quality of discussion than blockheads can provide.

 

[NoahFence]

Hey, I'm just trying to figure out where you're going with this. If you believe in CD, then no amount of graphs in the world will back you up. That's all.

Instead of being a holier-than-thou jerk, why not just write a reply with 1 or a reply with 2 words? Is it really that tough?

 

[Major_Tom]

Let us consider the consequences of MT's first principle as it affects both truther and debunker blockheads.

Major Tom's First Principle of WTC Study:

If you discuss the possibility of demolition of WTC1 or 2 without knowing anything about global mass flow within the buildings (ROOSD) or collapse mechanics, you are running on one of these:

Well, according to this idea, both truther and debunker blockheads and rebucklers have been running on a hamster wheel this whole time...

going nowhere but in circles.

Both Richard Gage and R Mackey have been wasting your time.


Meanwhile, the most important questions concerning the collapse initiations of WTC1 and WTC2 are virtually ignored.

I have already shown that the NIST does not answer the "how and why" of how WTC1 really failed.


You were like those kittens watching the ping-pong game in the video. You never noticed that the NIST description of the WTC1 collapse initiation was a fairy tale.

You were hypnotized by the ping-pong ball and never noticed you were given a fictitious collapse initiation scenario for WTC1.

Totally fake but you didn't notice because you were entranced by the bouncing ball.

I can show the same thing for WTC2. NIST fails to identify the how and why as they claim. Same problem. A fake initiation mechanism based on sagging long span floor trusses.

That is what I was doing in a thread called "WTC2: Complete collapse mechanics", before....well, you know....

.....................................................

Secondly, the domination of the mainstream debate by blockheads shows us how truly gullible and vulnerable the average reader is in the face of a mediocre physics argument.

It really doesn't take much trick physics to fool many people. Let that be a big wake-up call to the average reader of how vulnerable you are to technical arguments and professional engineers. Please be more careful. Maybe some people are intentionally trying to distract you, who knows?

 

[NoahFence]

Let that be a big wake-up call to the average reader of how vulnerable you are to technical arguments

Understood. So then, don't be technical. Just say explosives or no explosives.

 

[beachnut]

Explosives or no explosives?

He only claims the gravity collapse was an illusion. Not sure how he thinks the evildoers did it. I like how he makes fun of models and then says you need to know engineering before you can understand 911 collapses, but he uses only observation, no math (like in engineering), no engineering (like in engineering), just looking at video and making up what happened.

The blocks, the graphic of the blocks is classic Heiwa like, attacking models because he does not understand them. Where is the math for OOSCPM?

In his inside job theory, it would be interesting to know what his bad guys in his fantasy did. Explosives? Thermite like Jones made up? Strategic cuts with saws? Cuts with torches? Exploding bolts?

The WTC towers would be CDed by deconstruction due to the magnitude of E=mgh. The building would be taken apart, top down.

 

[Major_Tom]

Understood. So then, don't be technical. Just say explosives or no explosives.

According to MT's first principle, that is an incredibly naive request.

Recall, if you have no concept of general mass flow, how would you know the difference between natural ejections and artificial ejections, even if they happened right in front of your nose?


My first principle insists that a person cannot lazily approach the question of demoltion of WTC1 and 2 and expect a real answer. According to the principle, if you are clueless of the mass flow, outside of a thermonuclear weapon, a demo team could do anything they wish and you would have no freaking idea how to tell the difference.


According to the first principle, you wouldn't even know where to look without an understanding of ROOSD flow. For example, Richard Gage would look for hundreds of charges pulverizing everything in sight because he has no "guage" in his analytical brain that can distinguish between natural ejections from global mass flow and anything more suspicious.


According to the first principle, you cannot be totally lazy in your own efforts to understand what has been shown to you while asking somebody else for proof of "bombs". Even if they produced proof and placed it right in front of your nose, you assume you will recognize it. Without some understanding of ejections associated with ROOSD propagation fronts, you have no clue what you are looking at when examining the visual evidence.

David Chandler may see thousands of bombs while you miss gaping clues in front of your noses because you are hypnotized by the bouncing ball.....but to me there is no difference. While ignorant of global mass flow, what is the difference between your analysis and that of Chandler?




Therefore, for a Blockhead to say, "Prove demolition to me now", My answer must be, "Stop being a blockhead and get a clue of what you are actually looking at, and then perhaps you will understand where to look for your answer.


So again,

Understood. So then, don't be technical. Just say explosives or no explosives.

With so little understanding of the collapse process, you would recognize nothing even if placed in front of you. Visual evidence cannot be understood or processed without a proper undrestanding of WTC Twin Towers Collapse Dynamics

If you understand what has been shown to you and you know that the collapse initiation process is the most important place to look, then perhaps the complete visual record and feature lists with show you what you claim to be looking for.

Maybe the "evidence" has been in front of your nose all along but you have been looking in all the wrong places. Or rather led by the nose to the wrong places in a big, fake debate.

 

[Major_Tom]

The blocks, the graphic of the blocks is classic Heiwa like, attacking models because he does not understand them. Where is the math for OOSCPM?

No, Heiwa is like you. He is a blockhead (in the sense of Gear-head or Dead-head) just like you, and that is the whole point.


Heiwa is nothing like me. He is just another blockhead who happens to be a truther arguing against another blockhead who happens to be a debunker.


In truth you are identical. You both lead people by the nose to the wrong places.

 

[beachnut]

No, Heiwa is like you. He is a blockhead (in the sense of Gear-head or Dead-head) just like you, and that is the whole point.


Heiwa is nothing like me. He is just another blockhead who happens to be a truther arguing against another blockhead who happens to be a debunker.


In truth you are identical. You both lead people by the nose to the wrong places.

Here is your problem, why you can't figure out 911.

i cannot see how Osama could have dropped WTC1 and WTC7 by collective core failure. I also cannot see how he got the WTC2 NW and SW quarters of the 75-77 west MER panels to be ejected from the building with flooring still attached.

How could Osama have compelled the NIST to fabricate a collapse initiation scenario for WTC1 and WTC7 that flatly contradicts observables?
http://the911forum.freeforums.org/obama-reports-bin-laden-dead-t545.html

And.

These are just some of the factors which, when studied in depth, show that the supposed "gravity-driven collapse" is a mere illusion to mask an intentional act so barbaric, so inhumane and morally impoverished that the fabled characteristics of Satan come to mind. ...

You have some fantasy about 911 and can't define it very well. Good luck trying to figure out engineering, hope you like math.

Your model is not original.

 

[Major_Tom]

Dear friend, it is good to see you read my posts on the other forum.

I was wondering where you were getting some of those quotes, and am quite pleased to see you have been studying my post history.

I haven't studied yours as much, but I have noticed you only post a couple of posts over and over and over again....


....like...... thousands of times.

Anyway, I feel like I have a new admirer the way you have taken to my past writings.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>.

Dear friend, I have explained that, to me, all blockheads are just peas in the exact same pod, but the peas that are cubic instead of round.

If a person lies to me and they are a truther, they are still lying.

Likewise, a lying debunker is lying. I have a problem with the lies, not the ideology.

Which brings me to another principle.....
......................................

Major_Tom's Second Principle of WTC Study:

Since the general mass flow and collapse mechanics of the towers is largely knowable and is available as WTC Twin Towers Collapse Dynamics, and since the ROOSD concept has been discussed openly for some time, you should be highly suspicious of all truther and debunker blockheads that continue to dominate the mainstream "debate".

..........................................


There are many examples of people, debunker and truther, who seem to be clearly saying untrue things in public settings. Any honest participant in the discussion should find this disturbing.

History isn't about which side plays better ping-pong. It is about reality, no matter how unpopular it may be. But in such a highly charged atmosphere, what is real? Which brings us to a third key principle....


Major_Tom's Third Principle of WTC Study:

The historic visual record, preserved as completely is possible, is a researcher's best friend.

.......................

It is simply the best BS detector available. Nothing else compares.

 

[beachnut]

Dear friend, it is good to see you read my posts on the other forum.

I was wondering where you were getting some of those quotes, and am quite pleased to see you have been studying my post history.

I haven't studied yours as much, but I have noticed you only post a couple of posts over and over and over again....


....likle thousands of times.

Anyway, I feel like I have a new admirer the way you have taken to my past writings.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>.

Dear friend, I have explained that to me, all blockheads are just peqas in the exact same pod, but the pease are cubic insead of round.

If a person lies to me and they are a truther, they are still lying.

Likewise, a lying debunker is lying. I have a problem with the lies, not the ideology.

Which brings me to another principle.....
......................................

Major_Tom's Second Principle of WTC Study:

Since the general mass flow and collapse mechanics of the towers is available as WTC Twin Towers Collapse Dynamics and the ROOSD concept has been discussed openly for some time, you should be highly suspicious of all truther and debunker blockheads that continue to dominate the mainstream debate.

..........................................

Better make the letters bigger.
Major Tom's principle of WTC study, avoid math, avoid real engineering and make up nonsense based on his theory a bad Satan like unknown evildoer did 911 from inside the government; just make it up.

ROOSD is not new, it is stuff you made up hoping to back in your version of CD. There is no debate, you have delusions of CD, and those are like debating Santa Claus, or Bigfoot.

Looks like being a blockhead means blockheads use science, engineering and math, and 911 truth uses TLAR based on observation of low resolution video. How is your claim the "gravity collapse" was an illusion coming?

 

[Dave Rogers]

Q: Wouldn't energy be lost when shattering is present?

A: Yes. The smaller the pieces the slabs were shattered into, the more energy was required. Dust collected at considerable distances from Ground Zero was found to have an average particle size of order 100 microns, and there was barely enough energy available to reduce the concrete to this size; however, only the smaller dust particles would have travelled to the collection sites, and, as well-known Government apologist Steven Jones pointed out, the majority of the concrete found in the main rubble pile was in much larger pieces. We could argue for ever about the fine details (and truthers will, of course), but a reasonable conclusion to be drawn is that the concrete was broken up pretty much how we'd expect from a gravity-driven collapse.

But next time you see a truther misrepresenting particle sizes, this is one of the things they're getting at. They're trying to argue that there wasn't enough energy to break up the concrete into small enough particles, and to get to this conclusion they have to lie about how small the concrete particles in the debris pile really were.

Dave

 

[Major_Tom]

A: Yes. The smaller the pieces the slabs were shattered into, the more energy was required. Dust collected at considerable distances from Ground Zero was found to have an average particle size of order 100 microns, and there was barely enough energy available to reduce the concrete to this size; however, only the smaller dust particles would have travelled to the collection sites, and, as well-known Government apologist Steven Jones pointed out, the majority of the concrete found in the main rubble pile was in much larger pieces. We could argue for ever about the fine details (and truthers will, of course), but a reasonable conclusion to be drawn is that the concrete was broken up pretty much how we'd expect from a gravity-driven collapse.

But next time you see a truther misrepresenting particle sizes, this is one of the things they're getting at. They're trying to argue that there wasn't enough energy to break up the concrete into small enough particles, and to get to this conclusion they have to lie about how small the concrete particles in the debris pile really were.

Dave

One can see how Dave's misrepresentation of "truthers" is about as intelligent as that of Beachnut. I'm a "truther" and I have no idea where he dreams up these stereotypes in his mind.

The pulverization question comes from some blockhead truthers who are no more intelligent than the blockhead debunkers from this forum.

Secondly, ROOSD mechanics may cause extreme grinding and regrinding processes within the perimeter funnel. There may be reason to believe that ROOSD progression amplified grinding through a natural confinement of debris within a massive "chute" or "funnel" being ground and reground while being driven to earth.

In this sense the WTC Twin Towers Collapse Dynamics assembled by me, a "truther", and ROOSD progression may help explain why such a massive level of pulverization took place. It you think about it, ROOSD combined with a funneling process could create an intense grinding action, much more than from an ordinary concept of stacked "pancaking".

Quite literally, the ROOSD mass progression could act as a massive natural grinder. The concept is interesting.


It is silly to stereotype pulverization into beliefs by "truthers" and "debunkers" in this year-long thread on ROOSD processes started by me, a "truther".

Such a silly superficial way to think and classify people. (sigh)

Dave has been strongly influenced by blockheads. It could take some time before normal judgement and a sense of fairness and balance in debate returns.

 

[NoahFence]

According to MT's first principle, that is an incredibly naive request.

Recall, if you have no concept of general mass flow, how would you know the difference between natural ejections and artificial ejections, even if they happened right in front of your nose?


My first principle insists that a person cannot lazily approach the question of demoltion of WTC1 and 2 and expect a real answer. According to the principle, if you are clueless of the mass flow, outside of a thermonuclear weapon, a demo team could do anything they wish and you would have no freaking idea how to tell the difference.


According to the first principle, you wouldn't even know where to look without an understanding of ROOSD flow. For example, Richard Gage would look for hundreds of charges pulverizing everything in sight because he has no "guage" in his analytical brain that can distinguish between natural ejections from global mass flow and anything more suspicious.


According to the first principle, you cannot be totally lazy in your own efforts to understand what has been shown to you while asking somebody else for proof of "bombs". Even if they produced proof and placed it right in front of your nose, you assume you will recognize it. Without some understanding of ejections associated with ROOSD propagation fronts, you have no clue what you are looking at when examining the visual evidence.

David Chandler may see thousands of bombs while you miss gaping clues in front of your noses because you are hypnotized by the bouncing ball.....but to me there is no difference. While ignorant of global mass flow, what is the difference between your analysis and that of Chandler?




Therefore, for a Blockhead to say, "Prove demolition to me now", My answer must be, "Stop being a blockhead and get a clue of what you are actually looking at, and then perhaps you will understand where to look for your answer.


So again,



With so little understanding of the collapse process, you would recognize nothing even if placed in front of you. Visual evidence cannot be understood or processed without a proper undrestanding of WTC Twin Towers Collapse Dynamics

If you understand what has been shown to you and you know that the collapse initiation process is the most important place to look, then perhaps the complete visual record and feature lists with show you what you claim to be looking for.

Maybe the "evidence" has been in front of your nose all along but you have been looking in all the wrong places. Or rather led by the nose to the wrong places in a big, fake debate.

You have a unique ability to type a ton of words without actually saying anything.

Is it REALLY that much to ask? That you have a conclusion? Really?


---See, this is the bottom line - if you think explosives were used, you still have to prove how the (bleep!) they survived massive fireballs. Unless you can prove they can, all your little graphs and charts mean ziltch.

 

[Oystein]

...Major_Tom's Third Principle of WTC Study:

The historic visual record, preserved as completely is possible, is a researcher's best friend.
...

According to your oft-cited "feature list", there were only about half a dozend visual observations of both WTC1 and WTC2 made before collapse initiiation.

Was that the "historic visual record, preserved as completely is possible"? Or was that an extremely limited and hand-picked subset of the "historic visual record, preserved as completely is possible"? If the latter, what principle guided your selection process?

(The same can be asked about your short feature lists of collapse initiation and progression of either tower)

 

[tsig]

NoahFence, see Major_Tom's first principle of WTC research.

...........................



The term Blockhead should be understood in the same way as Gear-head or Dead-head rather in the more derogatory meaning.
Simple ways to recognize Blockheads and harmful Blockhead influences on true, honest debate:


1) Blockheads have the compulsive need to talk of propagationn movement of the twin towers in terms of giant rectangles.

2) They have the compulsive need to turn simple "physics 101" block diagrams into equations of motion, imagining they represent real, complex highly non-homogenous systems like the WTC twin towers, and then taking them seriously.

3) Blockhead ideas require total ignorance of the photographic record. Even though the most complete visual mapping of the collapse processes of both towers is available to anyone with access to the internet, and even though I have kept this high profile thread on the front page of JREF for over one year so AE911T cannot pretend that they didn't see it, both debunker and AE911T blockheads continue to spread blockhead disinfo with impunity.

Meanwhile, stubborn pockets of Bazantista Blockhead resistance still remain within this very thread, spreading blockhead propaganda further and further into their own already dwindling psyches and the helpless, passive minds of the most vulnerable among us. Beachnut, Pgimeno and other Bazantista loyalists still harass me because I do not bow down and worship cubism and blockheads in general.



4) Blockheads seem oblivious to the fact that the collapse propagation rates were identified and measured in 2009, so there is no need to pretend this data isn't visible anymore while guessing solutions. The age of guessing velocity profiles is over if they are now observable and measurable, no?

Blockheads believe that only the first few seconds of roofline motion and seismic records are available to test equations of motion. This belief should have been shattered by 2009 but the information couldn't penetrate into the mind of the true blockhead. The two forms of published Blockhead Rebuckler mathematics applied to propagation rates is Bazant's BV eq 12 and 17, later modified in BLGB and Seffen's eq 19 in his equally useless paper on rebuckling mechanics. Since the actual propagation is visible down much of the west side of WTC1 and was identified and measured in 2009, the equations can now be tested against real measurements.

If anyone bothered to do that cubism and blockhead influence on debate would have disappeared a while ago. Ignorance of the photographic record is a central component to the Blockhead mindset.




The awful, damaging effect of popular Truther blockheads on organizations like AE911T and websites like 9/11 Blogger.


Very poor management at AE911T has created an atmosphere in which people who sincerely inquire into the WTC collapses are stereotyped as people who do not believe that any sustained ROOSD process is possible within the towers.

They create an atmosphers in which "truthers" are classified as "blockheads", but blockheads that believe you need the firepower of the Fifth Fleet to "pulverize" a "lower block".

[qimg]http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTNRQz817TMSbdeUEO2e4BAQt74JUu_gv6iIG_jo2_B7pQeaKYz[/qimg]

To Richard Gage the demo question is all about an all out assault on baby block "A". It must be "pulverized" without mercy. Whereas to David Chandler, every ejection of dust is "proof" of a "little bomb". And because we had seen so many ejections along the crush fronts from basically every visible floor, to him this means there were thousands and thousands of bombs planted on every floor and next to every window.

These organizations have blindly shut their minds out to the obvious evidence in support of ROOSD propagation and the dropping of the very tall perimeter walls.

It is the preaching of Blockheads within AE911T that has contributed to the intellectual game of ping-pong as much as the debunker blockheads, if not more. A lack of technical oversight at AE911T, 9/11 Research and STJ911 are directly responsible for the poisoned and superficial research environment within those groups and those subject to their resulting propaganda.




Blockheads are nothing but many peas in the same pod, but rather than being round, the peas are green and cubic

Perhaps to you there are truther blockheads and debunker blockheads who represent the "two sides" in some open "debate", but to me there are just a bunch of blockheads playing ping-ping instead of doing sincere analysis of the most important issues while they unwittingly trash and plant disinformation in their own recorded history upon which future generations will examine us.

Whereas I like a good game of ping-pong, sincere historic review of this magnitude merits a much higher level of personal responsibility and quality of discussion than blockheads can provide.

delete

 

[tsig]

According to MT's first principle, that is an incredibly naive request.

Recall, if you have no concept of general mass flow, how would you know the difference between natural ejections and artificial ejections, even if they happened right in front of your nose?


My first principle insists that a person cannot lazily approach the question of demoltion of WTC1 and 2 and expect a real answer. According to the principle, if you are clueless of the mass flow, outside of a thermonuclear weapon, a demo team could do anything they wish and you would have no freaking idea how to tell the difference.


According to the first principle, you wouldn't even know where to look without an understanding of ROOSD flow. For example, Richard Gage would look for hundreds of charges pulverizing everything in sight because he has no "guage" in his analytical brain that can distinguish between natural ejections from global mass flow and anything more suspicious.


According to the first principle, you cannot be totally lazy in your own efforts to understand what has been shown to you while asking somebody else for proof of "bombs". Even if they produced proof and placed it right in front of your nose, you assume you will recognize it. Without some understanding of ejections associated with ROOSD propagation fronts, you have no clue what you are looking at when examining the visual evidence.

David Chandler may see thousands of bombs while you miss gaping clues in front of your noses because you are hypnotized by the bouncing ball.....but to me there is no difference. While ignorant of global mass flow, what is the difference between your analysis and that of Chandler?




Therefore, for a Blockhead to say, "Prove demolition to me now", My answer must be, "Stop being a blockhead and get a clue of what you are actually looking at, and then perhaps you will understand where to look for your answer.


So again,



With so little understanding of the collapse process, you would recognize nothing even if placed in front of you. Visual evidence cannot be understood or processed without a proper undrestanding of WTC Twin Towers Collapse Dynamics

If you understand what has been shown to you and you know that the collapse initiation process is the most important place to look, then perhaps the complete visual record and feature lists with show you what you claim to be looking for.

Maybe the "evidence" has been in front of your nose all along but you have been looking in all the wrong places. Or rather led by the nose to the wrong places in a big, fake debate.

So calling people names is all you got?

 

[tsig]

Dear friend, it is good to see you read my posts on the other forum.

I was wondering where you were getting some of those quotes, and am quite pleased to see you have been studying my post history.

I haven't studied yours as much, but I have noticed you only post a couple of posts over and over and over again....


....like...... thousands of times.

Anyway, I feel like I have a new admirer the way you have taken to my past writings.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>.

Dear friend, I have explained that, to me, all blockheads are just peas in the exact same pod, but the peas that are cubic instead of round.

If a person lies to me and they are a truther, they are still lying.

Likewise, a lying debunker is lying. I have a problem with the lies, not the ideology.

Which brings me to another principle.....
......................................

Major_Tom's Second Principle of WTC Study:

Since the general mass flow and collapse mechanics of the towers is largely knowable and is available as WTC Twin Towers Collapse Dynamics, and since the ROOSD concept has been discussed openly for some time, you should be highly suspicious of all truther and debunker blockheads that continue to dominate the mainstream "debate".

..........................................


There are many examples of people, debunker and truther, who seem to be clearly saying untrue things in public settings. Any honest participant in the discussion should find this disturbing.

History isn't about which side plays better ping-pong. It is about reality, no matter how unpopular it may be. But in such a highly charged atmosphere, what is real? Which brings us to a third key principle....


Major_Tom's Third Principle of WTC Study:

The historic visual record, preserved as completely is possible, is a researcher's best friend.
.......................

It is simply the best BS detector available. Nothing else compares.

Looking at videos and making up lies isn't research.

 

[tsig]

One can see how Dave's misrepresentation of "truthers" is about as intelligent as that of Beachnut. I'm a "truther" and I have no idea where he dreams up these stereotypes in his mind.

The pulverization question comes from some blockhead truthers who are no more intelligent than the blockhead debunkers from this forum.

Secondly, ROOSD mechanics may cause extreme grinding and regrinding processes within the perimeter funnel. There may be reason to believe that ROOSD progression amplified grinding through a natural confinement of debris within a massive "chute" or "funnel" being ground and reground while being driven to earth.

In this sense the WTC Twin Towers Collapse Dynamics assembled by me, a "truther", and ROOSD progression may help explain why such a massive level of pulverization took place. It you think about it, ROOSD combined with a funneling process could create an intense grinding action, much more than from an ordinary concept of stacked "pancaking".

Quite literally, the ROOSD mass progression could act as a massive natural grinder. The concept is interesting.


It is silly to stereotype pulverization into beliefs by "truthers" and "debunkers" in this year-long thread on ROOSD processes started by me, a "truther".

Such a silly superficial way to think and classify people. (sigh)

Dave has been strongly influenced by blockheads. It could take some time before normal judgement and a sense of fairness and balance in debate returns.

If you continue calling names all your problems will come home to ROOSD.