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

[Major_Tom]

So how does it actually effect the theory that damage and fire took down the building? We're all ears, you just don't seem to want to go there.

The part you can't seem to get around is, NIST could be 100% wrong, there's still no reason to believe that damage and fire did not caused what was seen.


Is there?

As the posting history shows, the NIST is the only technical theory on the collapse initiations of each building that you have.

You may have your own theory, evidence or approach, like Ozeco, but wrt WTC1 and WTC2, you have no technical theory left.

The NIST argument is based on a particular collapse mode. They have no "generic" theory or "generic proof" of collapse. No such proof exists.
.....................

My guess is that the ultimate source of proof comes from your "gut". If you abandon the NIST reports you have no complex technical argument for collapse initiation left, only your "gut feeling" that what you saw is what really happened.

I think that sums up your ultimate proof: You saw, you see no reason not to believe what you saw, and that is what you call "proof".
......................

If the NIST is wrong and you correctly process the implications of that, then the NIST being wrong, that would be pretty big news, don't you think?

If the NIST was so wrong, wouldn't you want to think about how or why before ignoring the implications?

 

[Major_Tom]

I look forward to seeing your evidence that is separate from the NIST reports. I think Ozeco may be just the man to present some.

As for the NIST reports on WTC1 and 2, the theory depends upon a particular mechanism of collapse. Like the Bible, most people who cite the NIST reports as evidence for collapse initiation don't know where the evidence is located within the reports. They think there is some generic proof independent of collapse mode. IF the collapse modes described by the NIST are incorrect, there is no explanation of collapse within the reports at all.

Others claim evidence independent of the NIST reports, such as Ozeco or DGM. If the experts end up being so wrong, let us consider if this evidence outside the NIST reports still holds and what that evidence is.

 

[Major_Tom]

Lets take a couple of examples - M_T first but I will balance the anti-MT leaning by picking on some other members either in this post or a subsequent post. Be warned...

False dichotomy AND false emotive implication. It is not "One method" (Major_Tom's) versus all the rest falsely lumped together as one.

Nor is "speculation" with the implied connotation of "guesswork" the only option to Major_Tom's implied reasoned objectivity.

How ironic the M_T follows this with his own denunciation of the binary mindset.

I wasn't comparing my method to all others. People were asking me to speculate about things I cannot verify (make a demo theory) and I refuse.

The choices are courses of actions I could take, I do the observables without adding speculation about their causes as if it were true (as if I can see through walls.)

It had nothing to do about the methods of others, just courses I could take.
....................

I think your accusation is due to misreading the text.
.....................

Ozeco, during our posting history you have always accused me of trying to "back in a CD".

My web site is pretty much finished. I show events that occurred, many of which others have overlooked.

I have plenty of information, so after a year of accusations, where is the demo theory?


When am I going to make my move?

I suggested people look carefully at the buildings, especially at the collapse initiation sequences, the mechanical room floors and the basements.


15 months of posts that stay on the same themes from beginning to end.
..................

You accuse Femr2 of the same thing, a set-up for a Grand Poobah demo theory, as is the mindless custom of JREF.

Besides digging deeper into observables, the show is over. Why the year of accusation if we do not more than measure and observe notable behavior?
...................

You have quite a collection of quotes about how you are on to my "ways".

What are my "ways" other than looking and taking careful notes? I don't believe what you believe? Is that the issue?

 

[Major_Tom]

In the WTC1 feature list thread, pg 26, Ozeco wrote:

As I have said on previous occasions I am satisfied that NIST has presented plausible explanations for key items such as Twin Towers collapse initiation and WTC7 collapse.

From this post.

Can you justify this claim? Where in the reports is this shown? I suspect that satisfaction comes from a type of feeling inside your "gut" and that you cannot justify this claim by citing portions of the NIST reports themselves. Please explain what these plausible mechanisms are.

 

[Major_Tom]

I could give you a summary of the group's posting history from the first OP in the OOS thread 15 months ago.

The recurring pattern is: I show observables and measurables....and the regular posters insult me and freak out.

This is the recurring theme for 15 months: I present information and the regulars freak out. It is a humorous review from the very first rant of Beachnut just after the OOS OP:

As usual it ends in woo

lol

You wasted all that "work" to make up idiotic conclusions. 8 years and you can't get past CD. ... your paper supports a gravity collapse. Does this mean you have left 911 truth and will join reality?

The paper exposes a lack of knowledge of models, the purpose and limitations of models.

It is rather funny that he now follows me around with a 2007 Satan quote claiming that I don't believe in gravity collapse.

It is as if he know less now than in this first rant.
...................

That was the first reply to the OOS paper and, as anyone can see, it goes down quickly from there.

(Note the pattern....I present useful information....the regular posters freak out and say many, many incorrect things, the whole time virtually spitting at me with this incorrect information.)

The total freak out pattern is on every page, very hard to miss. Yipes!
...................

It still happens today. If a person presents an observation or measurement, the regulars will start to insult that person and become highly neurotic.

Ironically, most people have no problem with the ROOSD description today, so why do we see the pathological hostility towards me from the very first page of the thread 15 months ago?

With the gift of hindsight, it is hard to miss the seething hatred some of these posters have towards.......observables and measurables.

And the deep-seated suspicion of those damn observers. Those damn measurers!
.............................

Considering there is no Grand Poobah demo theory at the end of the rainbow, our 15 month posting history and the surreal level of hostility I received for presenting facts is all the more funny.

Some of you guys are really paranoid. Many of you were clearly perceiving recorded events as personal threats while preferring false data from a "mother source".

 

[GlennB]

With the gift of hindsight, it is hard to miss the seething hatred some of these posters have towards.......observables and measurables.

Nope. The aggression is aimed at you, because you're dishonest.

The reason is that you arrived here as a vitriolic 9/11 CTist and are being judged accordingly. People assume you retain those beliefs, as you have never renounced them. If you still believe in 9/11 CT you are being dishonest by never addressing any mechanism by which it was carried out. If you don't believe in 9/11 CT then why do you care?

You changed your debate technique, that's all, to one where you have the permanent cover-story of being merely an honest observer while never allowing your observables and measurables to be geared towards arriving at any conclusion, reserving the right to merely JAQ.

What scientist does as much work as you and femr2 without wanting it to lead to conclusions, however tentative? I can't think of one.

You call this "binary" thinking and say you don't want to be slotted into a binary category, but nobody's falling for that. At best it's a rationalisation that you have evolved over the years and one you have come to believe.

Piss or get off the pot.

 

[ozeco41]

I wasn't comparing my method to all others. People were asking me to speculate about things I cannot verify (make a demo theory) and I refuse.

The choices are courses of actions I could take, I do the observables without adding speculation about their causes as if it were true (as if I can see through walls.)

It had nothing to do about the methods of others, just courses I could take.
....................

I think your accusation is due to misreading the text.
.....................

Ozeco, during our posting history you have always accused me of trying to "back in a CD".

My web site is pretty much finished. I show events that occurred, many of which others have overlooked.

I have plenty of information, so after a year of accusations, where is the demo theory?


When am I going to make my move?

I suggested people look carefully at the buildings, especially at the collapse initiation sequences, the mechanical room floors and the basements.


15 months of posts that stay on the same themes from beginning to end.
..................

You accuse Femr2 of the same thing, a set-up for a Grand Poobah demo theory, as is the mindless custom of JREF.

Besides digging deeper into observables, the show is over. Why the year of accusation if we do not more than measure and observe notable behavior?
...................

You have quite a collection of quotes about how you are on to my "ways".

What are my "ways" other than looking and taking careful notes? I don't believe what you believe? Is that the issue?

Back into defensive mode Major_Tom??? I am sorry to see you dig into the trench.

I am tempted to tear apart your dishonest diatribe untruth by distortion by misrepresentation. It is not my preferred style but you leave me in the position where other members here could think that I cannot answer your nonsense. I can. I choose not to AT THIS STAGE. I am not the person you want have "off-side".

Just one example. Your claim that I have "...always accused me [M_T that is] of trying to "back in a CD" is ludicrous. Provide one link or apologise. We all know who uses the trademark accusation of "back in CD" and it ain't me. If you cannot even keep track of which member you want to criticise there is little hope of resolving the confused situation you are in. Ditto the equally false allegation about my treatment of femr2.

PS Members may detect subtle signs of my patience wearing a bit thin.

 

[beachnut]

...
You guys are really paranoid.

Then retract your inside job claims, and say 19 terrorists did 911, caused all the damage by themselves. Instead, you love to attack NIST, when the impacts and fires were know to be the cause of the collapse in 2001. In 2010 you were making up nonsense to back in CD.

You asked this, before you retracted your inside job delsuion and your CD delsuions, which you have not officially retracted to join reality yet.

Hello,
I am requesting feedback on a paper ... Thanks.

Your paper, ...

cores which a demolition team can exploit by setting up sufficient initial conditions higher in the towers.
http://the911forum.freeforums.org/oos-collapse-model-t361.html

An attempt to back in CD, you have the evil guys inside job in 2010, the ones like Satan. You can't let CD go, retract your inside job nonsense and say impacts and fire destroyed the WTC complex, the work of 19 terrorists. When will you join reality? Your work must be important when you make quality posts like this.

...
You guys are really paranoid.

You guys?

Ozeco writes in post 1103: "The big question about the initial collapse is surely "demolition assistance or not?" and nobody with half a brain in 2010 would be supporting demolition."

GIven the information available to me, I cannot support 8 years of murder and theft considering how many questionable, unexplained collapse initiation and pre-initiation features exist for all 3 buildings.

Less than a year ago, you have not retracted the evil Satan like inside job you have. Will you do it today? Paranoid? Was this "smart", or "just plain"? You are still an inside job kind of guy, and you think other people are paranoid.

It is funny, you ask for feedback.

cores which a demolition team can exploit by setting up sufficient initial conditions higher in the towers.
http://the911forum.freeforums.org/oos-collapse-model-t361.html

It looks like woo to me. Feedback complete. And I am an engineer, not a pretend "observation fact checking mapper play engineer". The part about 911 I like best; all that is need is a grade school education against 911 truth's failed claims and crazy technobabble nonsense.

What have you retracted? Nothing.
I think your fundamental problem is knowledge, and it starts at the core of the 911 event. The core of 911 as an event is 19 terrorists. At least 4 of the terrorists flew the 4 jets they took by murdering crew and those who stood in the way. Your problem is you don't think the terrorists can hit the WTC towers, and who knows what you have in store for 77 and 93.

By looking at photos of the towers before 9-11-01, could you even identify the center column? The center panel?

If not when standing still, what about when flying your first commercial airliner?

It is obvious that achimspok is showing evidence of a much higher level of control than the pilots are capable of.

This post reveal you have no idea how we as humans aim, do you drive a car? How in the name of control do you keep your car in your lane? Did you crash the first time you drove a car? If you learned in a small car, did you crash the first time you drove a truck? Did you know there are more control problems in a prop plane than a jet plane? This post exposes your lack of knowledge from control, aiming, flying, prop planes, jets, etc.

When you can't grasp terrorists crashed jets into large buildings; your belief in an inside job and gravity collapse caused by fire is an illusion, becomes exactly what would be expected. 10 years is coming, you could retract your fantasy junk and say 19 terrorists did 911, but you don't believe it; you like your new game of conclusion free observables, the new 911 truth, offer no theory, have no goal. (Balsamo's MO, not very original, but just as math free, or in Balsamo's case worse than math free)

... set some goals and state some conclusions? 19 terrorists did 911, what is your version? Observables?

...
This is the recurring theme for 15 months: I present information and the regulars freak out. ...

By looking at photos of the towers before 9-11-01, could you even identify the center column? The center panel?

If not when standing still, what about when flying your first commercial airliner?

It is obvious that achimspok is showing evidence of a much higher level of control than the pilots are capable of.

You present nonsense based on nothing of substance. 18 May 2010, Does this mean you are retracting this nonsense? Are you going to say you believe the terrorists did fly by hand to crash into the WTC? Are all your past 15 months claims and nonsense, retracted?

 

[ozeco41]

OK Folks. Major_Tom has decided to declare war.

Lets see if we can pin him down on some of his distortions/misrepresentations.

If you abandon the NIST reports you have no complex technical argument for collapse initiation left, only your "gut feeling" that what you saw is what really happened....

Major_Tom.

NIST says the collapse of each of the Twin Towers started by failure of the impact and fire damage affected zone - that part of the tower ceased to hold up the top block of stories.

I say that. By the way I worked it out for myself - I have never relied on NIST reasoning - I have explained why several times on this forum and ad nauseum on other forums.

NIST says it

I think all the debunker side members here will agree.

You say we are wrong.

So Major_Tom what did happen if it wasn't the failure of the impact and fire zone holding up the top block.

Tell us what you say happened so we can progress OR agree that we are right.

 

[BasqueArch]

This is an example of core failure mechanism that pulls in the perimeter wall similar to what femr has shown.

It shows that in general there are ways to create IB by partial core failure rather than with long truss sagging as the NIST claims.

There are a number of observable features that are consistent with a core-led initiation mechanism for WTC1 and 2. I had shown them in the threads that were removed.

You miss the entire point.
One method limits itself to observables, measurables and provables.
Another method injects speculation.
If I limit myself to measurables, observables (verifiable things), I am just a "fact-checker". …

1) So the south exterior core columns row “failure mechanism” pulled in the perimeter columns.
For WTC1
a² +b² =c²Solving for a (vertical drop of core columns) where b (horizontal distance from core to bowed perimeter = 55.4 feet for 55" inward bowing over 20 or so minutes ) and where c (hypotenuse, the length of the trusses = 60 feet) , a then (the core columns drop ) = 23 feet.

The outer core columns, at the south side of WTC1 suddenly dropped 23 feet in order to cause a gradual, over 20 minutes, 55" inward bow of some the perimeter columns, double the drop shown on the illustration.

2) The illustration shows only 3 floors dropping. The columns and floors above, attached to the dropped columns below, would also have dropped the same distance.

3) This failure mechanism would, at such severe angle, have severed the trusses at both ends and the first core bay for all the floors up to the roof leading to a collapse of these floors and antenna hat truss support. The handicap of not being a structural or mechanical engineer is evident.

4) I couldn’t find the observable of that failure mechanism in Major Tom's list of features. No, not the bowing of the perimeter columns, the failure mechanism for collapse of these core columns. Was it natural or demo?
There are no “measurables, observables” for the cause of this core columns collapse, just wishful speculation.

 

[NoahFence]

Tell us what you say happened so we can progress OR agree that we are right.

Like that'll ever happen. The only thing MT and F2 are ever totally sure of, is that they're right and everybody else is wrong.

 

[GlennB]

Taking "natural causes" to mean purely the effect of aircraft impact and fire, with no human intervention prior or subsequent to the impact, then let's analyse reasons to re-assess the signs leading up to collapse -

1. If the Towers collapsed through natural causes, then the timing and nature of those collapses were correct. That is, they were bound to happen that way - it was the way the physics of each situation dictated. In this case suggesting that NIST made mistakes in their assessment of the (natural) reasons scores points over NIST, which might be a reasonable enough aim if all you want to do is advertise your superior expertise.

2. The only other reason to criticise NIST is when your own analysis shows that the causes were not natural.

Which represents your position, Major_Tom?

1. shows you to be a clever guy who has spent 4 years here proving how clever you are, secretly having given up 9/11 CT theory for WTC1+2.

2. is, in fact, 'backing in CD'.

This is binary simply because there are only two options, not because anyone has omitted others.

 

[Major_Tom]

So Major_Tom what did happen if it wasn't the failure of the impact and fire zone holding up the top block.

Tell us what you say happened so we can progress OR agree that we are right.

Something failed but none of us knows what caused it. Some of us feel certain they know, the more honest posters realize they do not.

Given the available evidence, it would be foolish to trust the NIST for the answer.

Given the available evidence, it would also be very foolish to believe that STJ911 and AE911T have the answer.
...............

My approach has been careful independent observation since, given the available evidence, it would be foolish to "trust" any of the most vocal claimants.

 

[Sabretooth]

Something failed but none of us knows what caused it. Some of us feel certain they know, the more honest posters realize they do not.

Given the available evidence, it would be foolish to trust the NIST for the answer.

Given the available evidence, it would also be very foolish to believe that STJ911 and AE911T have the answer.
...............

My approach has been careful independent observation since, given the available evidence, it would be foolish to "trust" any of the most vocal claimants.

So, using all the available evidence, what is your conclusion as to why the buildings collapsed?

 

[Major_Tom]

Ozeco, a constant theme throughout your posting history:

The practice that both Major_Tom and femr2 adopt in their posting, that of insisting on step by step exposing of their logic and not foreshadowing what is down the path, lends further support to those who see the path inevitably leading to claims of demolition.

I have commented previously on the discussion tactics and the inevitability that any attempt to sneak in a CD scenario will run into major barriers.

So let the "progressive revelation" tactics continue.

:

You followed us around calling measurements and observables "tactics" for a long time. This post represents your views of our "tactics" over the last year pretty well, does it not?

In the same post your repeat your assertion: "I also subscribe to "I don't see how any of this invalidates the main thrust of the NIST findings.""

Which shows me you are uninterested in fact-checking your own source of proof.

Like a big fat Bible, the answer is in there somewhere, no? You believe it is because you have not examined your beliefs, or your BIble, and compared them to actual verifiable evidence.
..................

Declare war? Look at the paranoid, anti-intellectual nature of the forum. There is the source of the extreme polarity. This forum is the source of hatred of measurements and measurers, of verification.

 

[GlennB]

Something failed but none of us knows what caused it.

Then "it" failed naturally or unnaturally. See my post #372

 

[carlitos]

From the other thread:

It's the world's longest slow-pitch, but my personal opinion of femr2 / Major_Tom's endgame is this:

Analyze the collapses in in order to find the smallest specific failure that could have *initiated* the global collapse. Then, calculate what small device / cause could have been used to artificially start the initiation. A small "boom" for instance (ETA - based on recent posts, a boom small enough not to be heard by a certain camera in a certain location). It's a bit of circular logic, in that there would be no way to know that, for instance, a certain column failure would cause global collapse without studying the global collapse retrospectively to learn this, but that's just my 2p.

 

[DGM]

Something failed but none of us knows what caused it.

Then back to my question. Is there reason to believe there was human intervention (besides the obvious planes)?

 

[Major_Tom]

Then back to my question. Is there reason to believe there was human intervention (besides the obvious planes)?

My personal opinion? I think one would have to have a turnip for a brain to not see extreme contradiction in all attempted explanations to date assuming the available evidence was examined carefully.
................

People generally avoid seeng this by not verifying claims, by not examining the events themselves. They seem quite happy with second hand knowledge from an authority source, even if the claims by that source are wrong.

It is best not to fact-check claims by authority or that warm fuzzy feeling of certainty may go away.

 

[carlitos]

Hi Major_Tom,

I can't tell if that is a "yes" or a "no" - perhaps you could clarify?