MIHOP -femr2 and Major Tom's WTC1,2,7 Demolition Hypotheses

[000063]

Yes - "several" but not the majority of recent posters in these attack threads. Two points follow from that:

First When discussing the wheel nuts on a 1932 Dodge whether or not the detail changes the overall style of the car is irrelevant. I comprehend why folk want to force femr2 into a truther corner. He chooses not to be forced. Good for him.

Femr2 is intellectually dishonest. He doesn't make claims because you can't refute a claim that's never made. He then asks questions that seem to be in support of a Truther theory, and when people respond to them like they were, he immediately mocks them for assuming he actually had a claim. It is remarkably difficult to have a discussion with someone who has no stance.

Take the MIHOP meaning thread. Femr2 went through a lot of effort to defend his use of the term. His statement was that MIHOP
can mean" just about anything, and he wasn't specifying. Then he quoted you on the matter of context, and since the context of the use of MIHOP is overwhelmingly 9/11 discussion, that meant the "It" was 9/11. The funny thing is, all of that could've been avoided if he had just gone "whoops, I misspoke". Instead, there's a lengthy thread where he performs such dazzling feats of logical chicanery you'd think he was running for political office. Femr2 has great difficulty admitting he's wrong, and will twist reason into a pretzel to avoid it.

Second (Probably a different slant of the same point) I am well aware of the many posters who take a "global" position - "if it doesn't change impact damage plus unfought fires caused the collapse it is not worth discussing". They are entitled to their personal viewpoint for themselves. It does not carry the right to deny all other people access to different viewpoints e.g. an interest in the details. If you think about it what they claim amounts to an appeal to authority "some expert has worked out an answer I am happy with - I have no interest in thinking it through for myself".

A frequent claim made by Truthers as well, with the 1,500 experts of AE911T. Problem is, there's nothing wrong with trusting experts if you're incapable of understanding the subject. It's when you hear other experts contradicting them and you think they're still flawless that you should be worried.

"Usually"???? When they are not discussing the big picture they can hardly be accused of getting it wrong - Beachnut style "broadside" accusations notwithstanding.

And Truthers usually studiously avoid the big picture. Because once they start putting the jigsaw pieces together, they realize that there's no way they all fit together. They, like most conspiracy theorists, like to take isolated facts, many of them wrong, and merely imply a larger narrative, or declare some detail a smoking gun. Debunkers are willing to discuss both the details, and how they fit together in the larger narrative.

 

[BasqueArch]

You asked a question BasqueArch. I answered it. The appropriate response from you would be some form of "Thank you" and/or discussion of what I actually said.

Instead you choose to respond with this mess of distortions, evasions, topic shifts, half truths and personal insults in the form of innuendo.

I don't play those games.

Thank you for coalescing Major Tom’s disparate observables into your one post. I am familiar with his threads and web site and ROOSD, but like most people could not find a concise description of his ideas.

BasqueArch Can you or Major Tom point to me where I can find a concise description of the ROOSD attributes?

MT chose not to respond. My response was to ROOSD's claims, not you. I used your condensation of ROOSD and what some people believe are MT's contributions to this field to respond. I should have made this distinction clear in my post. I know you agree with the engineering consensus regarding the collapse of The Towers.
Sorry if I hurt your feelings.

 

[Major_Tom]

Gentlemen, if I had some secret demo theory, why would I keep this information from readers of my own website?

As stated on the site, here is a very simplfied version of a 3 step process I use to verify claims made by others, "truther", debunker or other...

First, The largest and most complete visual record possible is gathered (and linked to the best sets of video through CTV, Xenomorph and Femr)

Second, The visual record is re-viewed and reconstructed to determine the collapse mode and global mass flow. This is summarized in the WTC Twin Towers Collapse Dynamics.

Third, With the visual record and knowledge of the collapse dynamics, all verifiable claims, official or other, are cross-checked for accuracy.

What part of this simple process is so difficult to understand?

 

[Major_Tom]

For the few remaining posters that have difficulty with the ROOSD concept, consider the following comments by Frank Greening:

Might I suggest that everyone take a look at the thesis by A.G. Vlassis entitled:

"Progressive Collapse Assessment of Tall Buildings"

Available on-line at:

http://eprints.imperial.ac.uk/handle/10044/1/1342

See especially Chapter 6.

Most of this material has also been published as a paper entitled "Progressive Collapse of Multi-Storey Buildings due to Failed Floor Impact" in Engineering Structures 31, 1522, (2009)

A quote from this paper is very pertinent to the present discussion:

"It can be concluded that in the event of a failure and subsequent impact of a single floor plate onto the floor plate below , the lower impacted system is highly unlikely to possess sufficient dynamic load carrying capacity to resist the imposed dynamic loads and prevent progressive collapse. .... This is particularly true when the falling floor completely disintegrates and falls as debris without retaining any residual strength or spanning capability

Here is a link to the published paper:
http://spiral.imperial.ac.uk/bitstream/10044/1/1466/1/EngStr09 - AGV_BAI_AYE_DAN.pdf


Greening:

According to Vlassis the "ductility supply" that would be available in the connectors (bolts and welds) is key to collapse propagation because it controls the "joint rotation demand", (theta), of typical beam - column connections as well as column - column splice/connections.

Seismically qualified connectors fail at rotations > 0.05 radians.

Vlassis estimates that for a single floor impact in a typical "tall building", the beam-to-beam impacts that would inevitably occur, involve connector deflections of 0.1 - 0.3 radians and would therefore most certainly result in connector failure.

 

[ozeco41]

Femr2 is intellectually dishonest. He doesn't make claims because you can't refute a claim that's never made. He then asks questions that seem to be in support of a Truther theory, and when people respond to them like they were, he immediately mocks them for assuming he actually had a claim. It is remarkably difficult to have a discussion with someone who has no stance....

Thanks for your comments. We are not very far apart in our understanding. The difference being that I comprehend and have decided to go along with femr2's tactics of restricting his scope of discussion to the "micro" of the current detail AND studiously avoiding the "macro" or "big picture". I do not agree with parts of those tactics but it is the scope he has clearly defined and many times. I decided, probably about a year back, to wait until he moves onto issues which affect the "big picture". So I differ with those members who want him on the big picture now and try to force him to go there. There are subtle and not so subtle consequences of the position I have adopted.

...Take the MIHOP meaning thread. Femr2 went through a lot of effort to defend his use of the term. His statement was that MIHOP
can mean" just about anything, and he wasn't specifying. Then he quoted you on the matter of context, and since the context of the use of MIHOP is overwhelmingly 9/11 discussion, that meant the "It" was 9/11. The funny thing is, all of that could've been avoided if he had just gone "whoops, I misspoke". Instead, there's a lengthy thread where he performs such dazzling feats of logical chicanery you'd think he was running for political office. Femr2 has great difficulty admitting he's wrong, and will twist reason into a pretzel to avoid it....

Without regurgitating the whole of that IMO silly thread my view is that the truth lay between the two extreme positions adopted by femr2 and the mass of detractors. MIHOP has a literal meaning and given its origins it by default, in 9/11 contexts, tends to imply USGovt or its agencies. Whether "it" is the whole of 9/11 events or just some part not nearly as clear cut in actual usage. I described the situation in one of my early posts that I was aware of MIHOP being used literally with the literal use being obvious in context. My personal experience attests that as fact. And even if I am the only one who has used it literally my usage falsifies the globally exclusive claims that the femr2 opponents descended to when they insisted that MIHOP can only and always means USGovt MIHOP. A ridiculous argument position to descend to IMO.

...A frequent claim made by Truthers as well, with the 1,500 experts of AE911T. Problem is, there's nothing wrong with trusting experts if you're incapable of understanding the subject. It's when you hear other experts contradicting them and you think they're still flawless that you should be worried....

Yes

...And Truthers usually studiously avoid the big picture. Because once they start putting the jigsaw pieces together, they realize that there's no way they all fit together. They, like most conspiracy theorists, like to take isolated facts, many of them wrong, and merely imply a larger narrative, or declare some detail a smoking gun. Debunkers are willing to discuss both the details, and how they fit together in the larger narrative.

Yes - two of the most commonly employed truther tactics are "avoid fitting the detail into a coherent bigger picture" AND making claims by innuendo/inference to allow them to move the goal posts of called on a false claim.

Thanks again for the comments.

 

[ozeco41]

Thank you for coalescing Major Tom’s disparate observables into your one post. I am familiar with his threads and web site and ROOSD, but like most people could not find a concise description of his ideas. ..

Thanks for the response. Remember that MT is not the only person to have "invented" or "discovered" or "described" the mechanism. What he did was give it a label. I know that I posted descriptions late 2007 >> onwards. Others will have done so but most debunkers seem to have been content with a Bazant style description OR have used a more academic language plus maths approach than the more homely descriptive style I would use. Horses for courses. My focus has been on explaining to a lay audience on the Internet - not writing formal style for an academic paper. The saving feature for the collapse progression stage being that you don't really need the maths. The available forces and energies are overwhelming - usually by orders of magnitude. Both academic and internet are legitimate venues but call for a different style. BTW I have never authored a professional engineering paper - my few ventures into the arena being in the fields of management and HR practices.

...MT chose not to respond. My response was to ROOSD's claims, not you. I used your condensation of ROOSD and what some people believe are MT's contributions to this field to respond. I should have made this distinction clear in my post. I know you agree with the engineering consensus regarding the collapse of The Towers....

Thanks - I understand now where you were coming from.

...Sorry if I hurt your feelings.

Not a problem - I have a thick hide. My feelings were more of irritation that I wrote a fairly serious response and your response did not mirror the points I was trying to present.

 

[Major_Tom]

Yes - two of the most commonly employed truther tactics are "avoid fitting the detail into a coherent bigger picture" AND making claims by innuendo/inference to allow them to move the goal posts of called on a false claim.

Thanks again for the comments.

I would say the most commonly employed tactic by most all truthers and debunkers is a total lack of effort to fact-check verifiable claims by all sources, official or other.


Total lack of the instinct to verify claims independently.

To me there is very little difference between the two main camps. They are both content with unverified hand-me-down knowledge. Both camps seem quite content believing in some authority figure with little capacity or desire to verify claims.

 

[ozeco41]

I would say the most commonly employed tactic by most all truthers and debunkers is a total lack of effort to fact-check verifiable claims by all sources, official or other.


Total lack of the instinct to verify claims independently.

To me there is very little difference between the two main camps. They are both content with unverified hand-me-down knowledge. Both camps seem quite content believing in some authority figure with little capacity or desire to verify claims.

The big difference between the two camps - and that is if we accept the "two camps" dichotomy - is that the official side has a coherent overall concept. Viz "impact damage plus unfought fires caused the collapse" whilst the truther side has no such overall concept.

So those trusting the "official side" OR the key points of that official side have something to accept as authoritative. There is nothing on the truther side which has that level of authority.

So the two sides are nothing like equal in the basis for their faith in authority. Whether or not individuals check their claims.

 

[beachnut]

I would say the most commonly employed tactic by most all truthers and debunkers is a total lack of effort to fact-check verifiable claims by all sources, official or other.


Total lack of the instinct to verify claims independently.

To me there is very little difference between the two main camps. They are both content with unverified hand-me-down knowledge. Both camps seem quite content believing in some authority figure with little capacity or desire to verify claims.

...
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.
...

Which camp are you in? Looks like you are in the delusional CD camp, based on your failed observations.

 

[Major_Tom]

The big difference between the two camps - and that is if we accept the "two camps" dichotomy ....

I cannot accept the "two sides" approach in that the truthers censor me as well as debunkers.

- is that the official side has a coherent overall concept. Viz "impact damage plus unfought fires caused the collapse" whilst the truther side has no such overall concept.

Don't you need a little proof with that? And how well have you fact-checked the claims?

If you have no problem with the R Mackey diagram and comments posted earlier on this page, then it shows the same gullibility that many truthers are accused of. It shows that the believer made little if any effort to look at the actual building.

He is not only wrong, he is very, very wrong. (Yet he is only repeating what the NIST claimed.)
...........................

So those trusting the "official side" OR the key points of that official side have something to accept as authoritative. There is nothing on the truther side which has that level of authority.

As long as the claims are not checked, it is still blind belief. The few people who I have seen take the time to verify claims do not share your faith in NIST. As long as a person doesn't look closely, everything looks fine.

So the two sides are nothing like equal in the basis for their faith in authority. Whether or not individuals check their claims.

If they have no instinct to check claims, both approaches center around faith and gullibility.

If you have a bigger church, it is still a church.
....................................

One thing that I have in common with Femr2 is basically every truth group ignores pretty much every observation we make.

The more popular truthers and debunkers are identical in that they ignore observables and measurables. I mentioned earlier that this whole forum would go "poof" under a re-evaluation of observables and measurables. So would most of the claims by AE911T.

Neither church could stand to be exposed to the process of verification.

 

[ozeco41]

I cannot accept the "two sides" approach in that the truthers censor me as well as debunkers....

True. In the "good old days" (2007-8-9 possibly) we recognised "genuine sceptics". The position you take and femr2 is in the arena of genuine scepticism - and I will get shot at for making that comment.

...Don't you need a little proof with that? And how well have you fact-checked the claims?....

We have been there several times with no reaching of understanding. I do not accept your severe limiting of the avenues of checking to those selected bits of video evidence which you push.

There is available sufficient evidence to support "impact damage plus unfought fires caused the WTC collapses." Conversely there is no coherent evidence to support human assistance other than flying of planes into the two buildings. The collection of evidence into a coherent argument does not have to be in any official or authoritative paper. To satisfy me it has to be capable of being assembled into a coherent full or sufficient explanation. It is and I can assemble it to satisfy me.

...If you have no problem with the R Mackey diagram and comments posted earlier on this page,...

I am of supreme indifference to R Mackey's visual aids to explanation. I think that you try to make too much out of a little point. Whatever inaccuracies there may be in Mackey's diagram do not affect my conclusion "impact damage and unfought fires caused the collapses".

...then it shows the same gullibility that many truthers are accused of.

You will need to try harder if you want to show me as "gullible"

...It shows that the beleiver made little if no effort to look at the actual building.

He is not only wrong, he is very, very wrong. (Yet he is only repeating what the NIST claimed.)....

...as I said on previous occasions I am indifferent to whether Mackey's explanation is right or wrong - it has no effect on my conclusions. As I have commented previously you tend to switch objectives mid-stream. The issue is not whether Mackey is right or wrong. The issue is "so what?" More precisely "How does that error effect the finding of impact damage plus unfought fires caused the collapse"

...As long as the claims are not checked, it is still blind belief. The few people who I have seen take the time to verify claims do not share your faith. As long as a person doesn't look closely, everything looks fine....

You are drifting. My claim was/is "impact damage plus unfought fires caused the collapses". I have sufficient elements of evidence to support that claim. I am not constrained to limit my sources of evidence to your narrow group of selected bits of visual evidence. I am not constrained to accept everything that R Mackey OR NIST or any other authority puts forward.

...If they have no instinct to check claims, both approaches center around faith and gullibility...

You are responding to your own attempted imposition of a strawman - I am not limited to your strawman.

...If you have a bigger church, it is still a church.

I don't know what that is supposed to say/mean.

 

[newton3376]

For the few remaining posters that have difficulty with the ROOSD concept, consider the following comments by Frank Greening:

There is no "ROOSD concept"...there is just some guy (you) on the internet trying to label something everyone already knew...

You peddle your label as if it means something significant....it does not.

The bottom line is it is now ten years later...

NIST published over 10,000 pages....there have been numerous journal articles published related to the events of 911....

There have been studies by various agencies, universities, and individuals....and pages upon pages on internet discussions.

And what is the bottom line in all of this?

That ten years from now your evidence will have exactly the same impact on the Engineering world as it does now...zero.

 

[Major_Tom]

R Mackey serves as only one gaping example of many. R Mackey is only repeating what he read in the NIST report without any verification. It is not originally his mistake. He is repeating a mistake by the NIST.

There is available sufficient evidence to support "impact damage plus unfought fires caused the WTC collapses."

Most people would claim the evidence you speak of is within the NIST reports.

Is this where you think the evidence of which you speak is located? If not there, where can I see it?

My claim was/is "impact damage plus unfought fires caused the collapses". I have sufficient elements of evidence to support that claim. I am not constrained to limit my sources of evidence to your narrow group of selected bits of visual evidence.

Of course not. Could you share your main sources of evidence? Can you subject it to the process of verification?

 

[ozeco41]

There is no "ROOSD concept"...there is just some guy (you) on the internet trying to label something everyone already knew...

That's probably a tad optimistic. "everyone".

 

[newton3376]

That's probably a tad optimistic. "everyone".

Only if one interprets "everyone" literally....

 

[Major_Tom]

My claim was/is "impact damage plus unfought fires caused the collapses". I have sufficient elements of evidence to support that claim. I am not constrained to limit my sources of evidence to your narrow group of selected bits of visual evidence. I am not constrained to accept everything that R Mackey OR NIST or any other authority puts forward.

Can you show your evidence and allow it to be examined by others?

I am trying to show how people regularly confuse belief with verifiable evidence.

Do you really have sufficient evidence to support your claim or is it rooted in deep-seated belief?

(There is one way to check which dates back thousands of years and is at the root of the "scientific method". Can you show me your evidence so it can be openly cross-examined?)

 

[newton3376]

Can you show your evidence and allow it to be examined by others?

I am trying to show how people regularly confuse belief with verifiable evidence.

Do you really have sufficient evidence to support your claim or is it rooted in deep-seated belief?

(There is one way to check which dates back thousands of years and is at the root of the "scientific method". Can you show me your evidence so it can be openly cross-examined?)

MT.....all of the evidence has already been cross examined by experts in various fields...they actually don't care what you think or believe unless you can show some evidence that contradicts their conclusions. So far you have shown none.

 

[Carll68]

2) The noise created by the herd mentality attitude "anything a truther says must be wrong" certainly reaches epic proportions.

Simply claiming this does not make it fact.

Fact is, if you would bother too see through your F2/MT haze, a MAJORITY of the posters here will listen to what truthers have to say.


It inst our problem that a MAJORITY of what they say is absolute rubbish.

Me thinks, to borrow your analogy, you are to busy defending someone who is trying to study lug nuts on a 1934 Dodge, when the point is uncovering what kind of car it is.

Many qualified people have determined it is a 1934 Dodge..and yet the unqualified are worrying about the lug nuts....

 

[000063]

Gentlemen, if I had some secret demo theory, why would I keep this information from readers of my own website?

Intellectual dishonesty.

As stated on the site, here is a very simplfied version of a 3 step process I use to verify claims made by others, "truther", debunker or other...

What part of this simple process is so difficult to understand?

The part where your criteria for "completeness" is stated, yet does not include planes hitting the buildings, and your explanation for ignoring the eyewitness testimony, physical evidence, and anything other than your subset of the visual evidence.

More factors and facts considered means a conclusion that is more likely to be correct. Ignoring large portions of said facts and figures lowers the chance of accuracy drastically. This is basic logic, Major. All you have is straw men.

 

[000063]

Without regurgitating the whole of that IMO silly thread my view is that the truth lay between the two extreme positions adopted by femr2 and the mass of detractors. MIHOP has a literal meaning and given its origins it by default, in 9/11 contexts, tends to imply USGovt or its agencies. Whether "it" is the whole of 9/11 events or just some part not nearly as clear cut in actual usage. I described the situation in one of my early posts that I was aware of MIHOP being used literally with the literal use being obvious in context. My personal experience attests that as fact. And even if I am the only one who has used it literally my usage falsifies the globally exclusive claims that the femr2 opponents descended to when they insisted that MIHOP can only and always means USGovt MIHOP. A ridiculous argument position to descend to IMO.

I was arguing, at the time, that the standard usage is "the USG committed 9/11", and I recall femr disagreeing with that. Not saying it was an alternate meaning, a flat out "incorrect". I also claimed that if one uses a non-standard usage of the word, one should explain the meaning, or any confusion that arises is one's fault. He quoted said post, interpreting it as me saying that a non-standard meaning should be accepted if one explains. I corrected him, and then he never bought it up again. Some time after that, I asked him whether his usage of the term was standard or not. He admitted it was a "minority" usage. I asked him again, several times, and when he deigned to respond, claimed it was the standard usage, which seems, to me, to be in direct contrast to his earlier implied position. Emphasis "implied".

I'm leaving aside all the nonsense about what Femr's opinion of what happened was. That was off-topic, I admit and did admit. Bottom line, I did not take the absolute position. I took a position that would let Femr2 save face. Problem is, as far as he was concerned, any loss of face whatsoever, even a minor mea culpa, was and is almost unacceptable. Not only is it difficult to have any sort of substantial discussion with a position that does not exist, one cannot have an honest debate with someone who almost never admits to even the most minor mistake.

Honestly, I'm not sure why Femr2 is in the title of this thread. He doesn't have a demo hypothesis. He doesn't have anything except his stalwart assertion that NIST was wrong about a graph or two somewhere.