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

[Major_Tom]

I am not the one that believes in things which are contratry to the visual record. You are.

I am not "excluding" anything. I'm just saying that the visual record doesn't lie.

People lie to themselves and others, but the visual evidence doesn't.

The NIST collapse initiation scenario for WTC1 does not match the visual record. This is a fact. If you deny visual evidence in front of your nose, it has nothing to do with me or any trap.

If your beliefs do not match observables, you have some things to deal with on your own and blaming me or some trap won't make the observables change.

 

[ozeco41]

You made a choice there to not state where the trap lies in. May I remind you:
- You limit yourself to only a small part of the evidence. For example, you leave out the audio record. The structural record. The forensic record. The eye witness record.
- You limit yourself to a tiny tiny portion of the visual record; an arbitrary choice made there, the criteria of which are unstated, but seem to fall along the line "I cherry-pick quirks that I, personally, and without further study, consider ... quirky"
- You limit yourself to theories advanced by others, but fail to aim for a theory of your own. In science, theories are thrown out when better ones arise. You are not even attempting to do that, so you fail

You try to lure us into accepting your limitations and personal ignorance and incredulity. That's the trap.
Using the visual record is not the trap. ...

Clearly and concisely stated Oystein.

I am not the one that believes in things which are contratry to the visual record. You are...

That is a false accusation Major_Tom. Why try to erect a strawman based on untruths? Oystein was explicitly clear just as I was in my earlier posts. The fault in your approach - rather the one fault out of several which is relevant here - is that you limit yourself and attempt to limit us to a narrow subset of the available evidence.

Why don't you explain or respond to that fact which both Oystein and I have repeatedly identified? Why do you seek to limit the evidence which you will allow? The misinterpretation of Oystein's post does you no credit. Especially when your post immediately follows the post by Oystein which you misrepresent and the misrepresentation is there for everyone to see.

...I am not "excluding" anything...

You have to be joking.

I'm just saying that the visual record doesn't lie.

None of us is saying that the evidence itself "lies". Whether your attempt to take it out of context is untruthful is a different question.

...People lie to themselves and others,...

once again the sleezy innuendo - it fails to impress me.

but the visual evidence doesn't....

Evidence is not capable of lying - deliberately telling untruths with the intention of misleading - it is the humans who misuse the evidence who may be lying.

...The NIST collapse initiation scenario for WTC1 does not match the visual record. This is a fact.

SO WHAT??? We have been waiting for months for you to show either a different explanation of the collapse and/or show why some minor details of mechanism are of any relevance, to whom they are relevant and why.

Then still more snide comments based on half truths taken out of context:

...If you deny visual evidence in front of your nose, it has nothing to do with me or any trap.

If your beliefs do not match observables, you have some things to deal with on your own and blaming me or some trap won't make the observables change.

...again the same misrepresentation. The comments - Oystein's and mine - are not about the bit of visual evidence you admit but about the bulk of evidence you artificially exclude PLUS your false claims in denying the limitations and confusion of your method.

 

[NoahFence]

No, what people actually saw on-scene doesn't count. When MT refers to the "visual record", he means actual records, such as photos and video.

I wish I was kidding, but that seems to be exactly what I've inferred.

Okee doke.
So we need to eliminate the thousands of people on-site and refer to the millions who've seen the photo and video.

I'm good with that. MT?

 

[Oystein]

What Ozeco said. Bravo.

In addition:

I am not the one that believes in things which are contratry to the visual record. You are.

This in a post immediately following mine, where I asked:
What do I believe that is contrary to the visual record?
Please answer that!
(The goal here of course is to show that you don't know what I believe. If you think you do know, you should be able to state it).

I am not "excluding" anything. I'm just saying that the visual record doesn't lie.

This in a post immediately following mine, where I lectured you about all the things you are excluding, among them:
the audio record. The structural record. The forensic record. The eye witness record. Plus most of the visual record.

People lie to themselves and others, but the visual evidence doesn't.

Are you implying that the audio record might be lying?
Are you implying that the structural record might be lying?
Are you implying that the forensic record might be lying?
Are you implying that the eye witness record might be lying?
Etc.

The NIST collapse initiation scenario for WTC1 does not match the visual record.

No one seriously expects any theory of the collapse to match every observed feature.
Do you?

In other words, can we expect you in the end to present a theory of each collapse that matches the entire visual record, without special pleading and using a zillion unproven but brave assumptions? Would that theory then also match the entire audi, forensic, structural, eye witness records? If not, why not?

This is a fact. If you deny visual evidence in front of your nose, it has nothing to do with me or any trap.

What Ozeco said

If your beliefs do not match observables, you have some things to deal with on your own and blaming me or some trap won't make the observables change.

Again, what do you believe my beliefs to be?






And finally, in enhanced font size since you always so conveniently avoid that question:

What were your criteria when you cherry-picked that very short list of visual features?

 

[Major_Tom]

I am sorry to the regular participants of this forum for having this thread posted here.

This thread deals with collapse sequences of WTC1 and 2 on 9-11-01. It was moved here by a moderator against my wishes.


WTC2 Collapse initiation sequence:



The 5 stages of collapse initiation

1) 81, 82nd fl spandrels pull in sharply (along green and blue lines)......................inward bowing

2) 78th fl ejections.....................east wall separates into upper and lower parts


this allows tilting to begin

3) Tilting


whole upper part drops with this action

4) 75th fl east face row of ejections

5) 75th fl west wall north and south quarter of MER panels ejected from building with flooring. NW and SW MER corners are destroyed.



The first 2 stages allow tilting to begin. Stages 4 and 5 finish the tilt and begin the fall.

The first 2 stages initiate tilt. The final 2 stages terminate tilt.





Stage 1: Sharp pull-in of 81st and 82nd floor spandrels along the green lines and the blue line. The pull-in will break the east wall into upper and lower part along the purple lines.




The pull-in along the blue line, on the north face, is shown below:

Stages 2, 3 and 4:


78th and 75th floor ejection locations

The 78th row ejections came out of the 7 areas marked in red along the 78th spandrel.

Emergence of the 78th fl row of ejections signifies the initiation of tilt.

Emergence of the 75th fl row of ejections signifies the beginning of global falling of the upper portion, or "release".



Stage 5: The 75th floor MER beam flooring, southwest corner, is shown as a yellow sheet. The attached west face MER perimeter panels are shown as a red sheet. During the final release of the upper tilting portion, the NW and SW corners of the 75th fl MER beam flooring was forcefully ejected from the building with MER west face perimeter panels still attached.

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

Again, sorry for being in this this forum. Not my wish.

 

[Major_Tom]

For those new to the thread, the following provides a general summary of the methodology used during review of the events of 9-11-01 at the World Trade Center Complex.

.....................................
This website approaches the historic question of what actually happened to the WTC towers by carefully examining the events directly.


The following approach seems quite rational. The reader can think of it as the "A, B, C's" of a rational approach to WTC historic review.:


A) Form and organize a complete visual record

B) Examine all visual evidence very carefully and list notable or suspicious details of each collapse event

C) Compare the visual record with all existing official and academic explanations by answering the following 3 questions in order:


1) Does the visual record match the official explanations of how and why each building collapsed?

2) Does the visual record match any of the known "9/11 truther" explanations of how and why each building collapsed?

And after these questions are answered honestly, the question of possible demolition is addressed:


3) Does the visual record contain evidence of intentional manipulation of structural components behind any of the 3 collapses?

Note that the "demo" question isn't addressed until the third and final question.

The first question to ask is whether the NIST correctly identified the "how and why" of the collapses like they claim. If the answer is "yes", then the demo question need not be addressed at all.

If the mechanisms the NIST claims are correct, there is no more need for any of us to debate and we can all stop inquiring.

It is because the NIST claimed collapse mechanisms do not match the visual record that the mystery continues and there is a reason to address questions 2 and 3. This is a very important part of our history that many of you prefer to ignore.

And in the case of JREF, if you cannot honestly answer the first question then your arguments against anything but the "official story" are quite cheap and superficial.

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

Why is re-examination of the most complete visual record possible the key element in honest historic review of 9-11-01?

Because the visual record is the best BS detector we have.

People tend to lie to each other and to themselves. The visual record doesn't lie. As explained in the web site:

"A detailed visual record can be double and triple checked, sometimes from multiple viewpoints. Without an accurate recorded history, it is impossible to verify or disprove any claim made by any agency or individual, no matter how grossly inaccurate."

 

[NoahFence]

Because the visual record is the best BS detector we have.

I saw these events in real-time. Does that qualify as having seen "the visual record"?

 

[NoahFence]

1) Does the visual record match the official explanations of how and why each building collapsed?

100%, undeniable, YES.

2) Does the visual record match any of the known "9/11 truther" explanations of how and why each building collapsed?

100%, undeniable, NO.

And after these questions are answered honestly, the question of possible demolition is addressed:


3) Does the visual record contain evidence of intentional manipulation of structural components behind any of the 3 collapses?

100% undeniable, NO.

 

[Mister Earl]

I wonder if your average truther is aware that Dylan Avery admitted that the whole loose change thing was bogus. He started denying that part after he saw dollar signs.

 

[NoahFence]

DOH

Thread moved to Science forum..next stop, AAH.

 

[Oystein]

Different sub-forum, same questions:

What Ozeco said. Bravo.

In addition:



This in a post immediately following mine, where I asked:
What do I believe that is contrary to the visual record?
Please answer that!
(The goal here of course is to show that you don't know what I believe. If you think you do know, you should be able to state it).



This in a post immediately following mine, where I lectured you about all the things you are excluding, among them:
the audio record. The structural record. The forensic record. The eye witness record. Plus most of the visual record.



Are you implying that the audio record might be lying?
Are you implying that the structural record might be lying?
Are you implying that the forensic record might be lying?
Are you implying that the eye witness record might be lying?
Etc.



No one seriously expects any theory of the collapse to match every observed feature.
Do you?

In other words, can we expect you in the end to present a theory of each collapse that matches the entire visual record, without special pleading and using a zillion unproven but brave assumptions? Would that theory then also match the entire audi, forensic, structural, eye witness records? If not, why not?



What Ozeco said



Again, what do you believe my beliefs to be?






And finally, in enhanced font size since you always so conveniently avoid that question:

What were your criteria when you cherry-picked that very short list of visual features?

I would like to put emphasis on

What were your criteria when you cherry-picked that very short list of visual features?

Several posters have asked you this. No reply so far. Instead, you invited everybody to cherry-pick their own features.
Which sounds like admitting that your choice was totally arbitrary.
Was it?

Would a different set of subjectively chosen quirks yield a different theory, Major_Tom? Or would any set of arbitrarily chosen quirks yield the same conclusions? This would logically mean that we could discard 100% of your chosen features and go with those that NIST relied on. Correct?

 

[NoahFence]

MT is beyond help I'm afraid. Delusions of grandure!

 

[Oystein]

It seems that Major_Tom has abandoned his own thread. I propose two possible reasons:

1. He does not think it belongs in science, as he has no intentiion of presenting science
2. He runs away from answering tough questions about the very basis and premise of the entire thread

Re 2: I think M_T has by now realized that hs entire work of several months hinges on the feature list, and that an honest answer to this...

What were your criteria when you cherry-picked that very short list of visual features? ​

...would bring it crashing down into the basement in 15 seconds or less.

 

[NoahFence]

My google-fu is superior!

I found and UNCENSORED a censored thread! Kudo's to me!

 

[NoahFence]

Geeze... he bailed from his own thread.

 

[NoahFence]

Yep. Its still here.

How can something that got removed still be available?

 

[ElMondoHummus]

How'd this thread get moved over here from 9/11CT? There's not a whole lot of legitimate science in it, and what math exists is pretty basic.

Well... then again, some of the other threads here are a bit like that too ... but still...

 

[W.D.Clinger]

How'd this thread get moved over here from 9/11CT? There's not a whole lot of legitimate science in it, and what math exists is pretty basic.

Well... then again, some of the other threads here are a bit like that too ... but still...

Only the moderators know for sure, but page 19 is a representative page of this thread, and posts 724 through 726 contain a brief but otherwise representative discussion of whether a pseudo-technical thread with no avowed connection to 9/11 conspiracy theories belongs in the 9/11 CT subforum or in the SMMT subforum. That discussion continues in posts 728 through 731, e.g.

I tend to agree. There is no link to 'conspiracy' other than the coincidence that the scientific deliberations are about WTC buildings and 9/11 collapses.

Now, if the objective was explicitly stated.....the thread could possibly be a legitimate topic for this 9/11 Conspiracy Theories sub forum.

No such objective or link was ever stated.

 

[Major_Tom]

As noted many times elsewhere, the breaking is just one event among 5 distinct events duting the collapse initiation sequence:

WTC2 Collapse initiation sequence:



The 5 stages of collapse initiation

1) 81, 82nd fl spandrels pull in sharply (along green and blue lines)......................inward bowing

2) 78th fl ejections.....................east wall separates into upper and lower parts


this allows tilting to begin

3) Tilting


whole upper part drops with this action

4) 75th fl east face row of ejections

5) 75th fl west wall north and south quarter of MER panels ejected from building with flooring. NW and SW MER corners are destroyed.



The first 2 stages allow tilting to begin. Stages 4 and 5 finish the tilt and begin the fall.

The first 2 stages initiate tilt. The final 2 stages terminate tilt.

...................................................
'
The first visible movement is the pull in of the spandrels along the green lines and along the blue line. Then, before tilting begins, 7 ejections are seen along the low points of the staggered purple line.

The 7 78th fl ejections mark the beginning of tilting.

The hinged tilt ends with a sharp row of ejections along the 75th fl spandrel and the ejection of the corners of the west MER perimeter with beam flooring attached.

If you look at the breaking of the purple line in sequence qith the other observables, it is easier to understand.

If you look at the events in sequence, one can clearly see the distinct 78th row ejections and 75th row ejections in this gif:

Note how the emergence of the first row of ejections corresponds the the beginning of visible tilt. Note how the sharp row of ejections from the 75th fl emerges as the "hinge" breaks. After that there is a continous flow of ejections down the building.

The earliest ejections along the east face are.....

Discontinuous >>>>> discontinuous >>>> smooth ROOSD progression

This pattern is visible for anyone to see.

Therefore, both the beginning and end of tilting is marked by the emergence of distinct rows of ejections and these rows of ejections are separated by 3 floors and are noticably discontinuous. After these 2 discontinuous rows of ejections is when the smoother ejections associated with a continuous ROOSD process begins.

 

[Major_Tom]

In a different discussion femr was able to produce a wonderfully high quality gif of the east face falling away from the building:

This is the best glimpse I have ever seen, and it forces me to add a slight modification to the 5 stage collapse initiation model a few posts ago.

I need to add the two yellow panels to the lower sheet to match the visual record.
..................................................

Some posters may wonder how I managed to identify the purple step pattern as the lowest line of bolted connections above the 75-77 fl MER panels. This is how it is done:

First, take the NIST graphic and duplicate the step pattern along the top face every 3 floors as shown.

The orange line show where a straight row of welded connections are just above the MER panels so the yellow line cannot be correct. The red step pattern is the lowest pattern that is correct, and below that ther are a straight line of welded connections along the orange line.

There is only one way to fit the lowest panels between the red line and the orange line, and it is like this:

Using these steps anyone can verify that the purple step pattern is along the lowest bolted connections just above the 75-77 MER panels.

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

This information shows that the WTC2 east face wall broke along the lowest row of bolted connections just above the 75-77 MER levels with the exception of 2 panels that remained attached to the lower wall.