David Chandler Proves that Nothing Can Ever Collapse

Dave Rogers said:
Fallout, a word of advice from one who's been there: if you want an answer that has some basis in reality, ask someone other than bill smith.

Dave
Click to expand...
You are welcome to drop a few pearls of wisdom on the subject from the fork in your tongue Dave. You know that people are hanging on your every word.
 
Major_Tom's smack-down on all theories

This could go to several old threads, or be the start of a new one, but since I liked the smack-down on Chandler the best, I chise this thread.



Major_Tom wrote a very lengthy series of posts over at the911forum, where he takes a close look at several collapse theories for the twin towers, and explains why they are all wrong: Bazant and collaborators, NIST, Ryan Mackey, David Chandler, AE911T.

I didn't read through the first pages, but I must say that Tom has explained the failures and weaknesses of David Chandler's paper (see OP of this thread) as well es the major claims of AE911T better and more comprehensively than anybody else I've read, I recommend that read to everybody interested in debunking these people and understanding how models work. Starting here:

http://the911forum.freeforums.org/s...he-wtc-collapse-histories-t622-60.html#p18893




To pre-empt the inevitable accusations of truthers: Yes., I was biased when I didn't look at his debunking of Bazant and NIST ;)
 
NoahFence said:
So he doesn't believe ANY theories?

Wow.

How come he and femr bailed anyway?
Click to expand...

I believe the position he is currently closest to is about this:
Collapse initiated with failure in or close to the core, and about the fire floors. He is probably agnostic about what caused that failure, and is open both towards some localized demolition devices and something following naturally from plane crashes and office fires.

I didn't intend my post as being the start of another round of M_T-bashing but rather as recruiting some really good help in bashing Chandler and AE911T ;)

Again, his analysis of the Chandler-model is very good and shows M_T really is capable of understanding his stuff.
 
Oystein said:
I believe the position he is currently closest to is about this:
Collapse initiated with failure in or close to the core, and about the fire floors. He is probably agnostic about what caused that failure, and is open both towards some localized demolition devices and something following naturally from plane crashes and office fires....
Click to expand...
That has been his position for some time. His "agnosticism" is generally neither understood not accepted here. Not helped by his habit of making global claims of total disagreement with any party he opposes - even when the opposition may only be over a couple of points.
Oystein said:
...I didn't intend my post as being the start of another round of M_T-bashing but rather as recruiting some really good help in bashing Chandler and AE911T ;)

Again, his analysis of the Chandler-model is very good and shows M_T really is capable of understanding his stuff.
Click to expand...
I have been criticised for supporting M_T in the past. His analytical work is very good as far as it goes and he continues to expand how far it goes. I have had one fundamental disagreement with M_T which I have attempted several times to resolve with him both here and on 911forum. The core of that disagreement is not in his analytical forensic research work. It is his habit that whenever M_T disagrees with a person he sees as being in the opposing camp he takes one point of possibly minor disagreement and extrapolates to the false claim that everything said by that opponent is wrong. This leads him to make many globally dismissive claims usually framed in highly emotive terms. "Totally wrong" etc

Also we should take care to avoid the mistake of putting femr2 and M_T in the same camp in terms of their approaches to explanations of 9/11 matters. They have fundamentally different ways of working even though they usually do not criticise each others work. So claims which lump them together "M_T and femr ......." risk being wrong.
 
NoahFence said:
So he doesn't believe ANY theories?

Wow.

How come he and femr bailed anyway?
Click to expand...

Why put up with the hostile polarised environment?

Black or white, truther v debunker. If you don't fully agree with us you are a "twoofer" etc etc...

Both are committed to a process of exploring technical evidence step by step. That approach attracted full on ridicule from many members here including a co-ordinated character attack. Why should they stay in a hostile climate?

Femr2 in particular was constantly being subject to "force fitting" into a truther position with accusations about where he was going or what he would claim down the track.
 
Oystein said:
Major_Tom wrote a very lengthy series of posts over at the911forum, where he takes a close look at several collapse theories for the twin towers, and explains why they are all wrong: Bazant and collaborators, NIST, Ryan Mackey, David Chandler, AE911T.
Click to expand...

He does seem to have a difficult time distinguishing between rhetorical argument and simplified models versus a full theory. Of course, this is an almost universal trait among conspiracy theorists -- rather than understand a model's limitations and focus on its intended purpose, they'd rather highlight its shortcomings. Which it will always have. That's why it's a model in the first place.

My own "theory," such as it is, was best articulated in the supporting slides I produced for the silly debate against Tony Szamboti. I don't see "Major Tom" ever commenting on that -- apart from nitpicking the question of exactly how much tilt one of the two structures experienced before it fell, which isn't really central to my "theory" in the first place.

Curiously, the only theories he seems to actually understand are Truther theories.
 
ozeco41 said:
Why put up with the hostile polarised environment?

Black or white, truther v debunker. If you don't fully agree with us you are a "twoofer" etc etc...

Both are committed to a process of exploring technical evidence step by step. That approach attracted full on ridicule from many members here including a co-ordinated character attack. Why should they stay in a hostile climate?

Femr2 in particular was constantly being subject to "force fitting" into a truther position with accusations about where he was going or what he would claim down the track.
Click to expand...
Evidence; more like misleading to label goal-free, conclusion-free, author comment free videos, Demolition, and host delusional papers, labeled 911 technical papers, at your web site. http://femr2.ucoz.com/index/0-4

FEMR2 911 Links #2 - WTC Demolition http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GP01lPIUZTc
WTC 1 Demolition http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y6uTqoBTOL8&feature=related
etc, etc, etc, no goal open-loop Demolition. How many are labeled Demolition - 911 truth calls the gravity collapses demolition.

Major Tom is paranoid, not exploring technical evidence, he makes up his own new science of posting lots of words which say nothing. "Just plain" comes to mind.

femr2 and Major Tom are 911 truth, the special branch stealth version. You are fooled by their "exploration of technical evidence"? Major Tom uses visual observables as his silly science of look what I see, and then there is no claim, no conclusions. Everyone else is wrong, models and differential equations are wrong, but my work, my non-claims are right; See?

Why are femr2's videos labeled Demolition, when they are visual records of a gravity collapse caused by impacts and fires not fought?

It is not the first time a paranoid 911 truther has attacked reality based work and 911 truth crazy claims, coming out with new crazy goal-free work of words.
 
ozeco41 said:
That has been his position for some time. His "agnosticism" is generally neither understood not accepted here. ...
Click to expand...

I have read some of his threads at the 911forum from the start. He seemed to start out from a position that WTC7 was an obvious demolition, and I still perceive his work as being biased towards looking for clues for intentional demolition. But I also sense that he feels he hasn't found any evidence and that may have lead him closer to the neutral position of agnosticism.
 
R.Mackey said:
He does seem to have a difficult time distinguishing between rhetorical argument and simplified models versus a full theory. Of course, this is an almost universal trait among conspiracy theorists -- rather than understand a model's limitations and focus on its intended purpose, they'd rather highlight its shortcomings. Which it will always have. That's why it's a model in the first place.
Click to expand...
In his critique of Chandler he makes a few smart remarks on the value of simple models, and shows, among other things, that even Chandlers very simple model with two homogenous, basically 1D-blocks would predict progessive collapse at an acceleration closert to g than to 0, if only Chandler had thought of making his 1D-steel fail beyond a certain compression/stress.

R.Mackey said:
My own "theory," such as it is, was best articulated in the supporting slides I produced for the silly debate against Tony Szamboti. I don't see "Major Tom" ever commenting on that -- apart from nitpicking the question of exactly how much tilt one of the two structures experienced before it fell, which isn't really central to my "theory" in the first place.

Curiously, the only theories he seems to actually understand are Truther theories.
Click to expand...
I wasn't even aware that you should have a model that is intended to explain collapse progression.
 
beachnut said:
Evidence; more like misleading to label goal-free,....
Click to expand...

I am aware of your position beachnut. I think I fully comprehend where it fits in the range of possible approaches to management.

However the big flaw which becomes a barrier to your understanding of M_T is your commitment to the idea that the only legitimate form of management is that which is directed towards a pre determined objective. That viewpoint is preferred by military people for reasons which are valid in the military setting. It is also appropriate in many, even most, civilian settings. But it is not exclusively the only way to go.

Another, and equally valid management process, is one which is directed towards heuristic objectives. I will not try to elaborate at this stage, if ever on this forum. However, whether he knows it or not, whether he uses the terminology or not, that is the process which M_T follows. (Likewise femr2 who has indicated many times that he will "get where he is going when he gets there without needing to pre determine the end point.")

The process is unacceptable even "wrong" to the normal military approach.

I don't expect you to agree but, since I have used both methods with success through my pre-retirement career, I have been able to see both sides of your ongoing battle with M_T. Especially your attempts to denigrate M_T's work and insisting that it can only be valid if he follows your preferred method.
 
Oystein said:
I have read some of his threads at the 911forum from the start. He seemed to start out from a position that WTC7 was an obvious demolition, and I still perceive his work as being biased towards looking for clues for intentional demolition. But I also sense that he feels he hasn't found any evidence and that may have lead him closer to the neutral position of agnosticism.
Click to expand...
That is close to my reading of his progress.

I am aware that my attitude is out of step with a large body of opinion on this forum. I have been criticised for commending work by M_T where his work was correct. I can enter into discussions with people who have doubts about technical 9/11 matters and seem to genuinely be seeking better understanding...call it "truth" if you wish.

AND I care not if their initial starting position is demolition side or no demolition side.

In fact looking back to my first involvement 2006-7 most of the doubters have started from the pro-demolition side. Yes a few were "I don't think there was demolition but can you explain......(whatever)" but most came to forum discussions having been fed some truther lines a la Jones or later Gage.
 
Last edited:
Oystein said:
...I wasn't even aware that you should have a model that is intended to explain collapse progression.
Click to expand...
The interesting aspect for me has been M_T's introduction of the term "ROOSD" (runaway open office space destruction).

I first described the Twin Towers collapse progression process late 2007 but without the label. Others have described more or less similar mechanisms - recall however that most debunker side explainers use abstract models in their explanations. M_T and I are in the minority when we prefer to rely on explaining the actual mechanisms. Labels or "branding" are powerful marketing ploys - I never had the label and have used "ROOSD" because it is accurate and saves a lot of typing.

The amusing sideline however has been the ridicule directed at M_T's "ROOSD". Said ridicule despite the fact that the concept it labels is as close as we have to a mainstream accepted explanation of the mechanisms of the progressive collapses of WTC1 and WTC2.
AND M_T used it to claim "no demolition needed" for the global collapse stage. :rolleyes:

go figure. ;)
 
ozeco41 said:
I am aware of your position beachnut. I think I fully comprehend where it fits in the range of possible approaches to management.

However the big flaw which becomes a barrier to your understanding of M_T is your commitment to the idea that the only legitimate form of management is that which is directed towards a pre determined objective. That viewpoint is preferred by military people for reasons which are valid in the military setting. It is also appropriate in many, even most, civilian settings. But it is not exclusively the only way to go.

Another, and equally valid management process, is one which is directed towards heuristic objectives. I will not try to elaborate at this stage, if ever on this forum. However, whether he knows it or not, whether he uses the terminology or not, that is the process which M_T follows. (Likewise femr2 who has indicated many times that he will "get where he is going when he gets there without needing to pre determine the end point.")

The process is unacceptable even "wrong" to the normal military approach.

I don't expect you to agree but, since I have used both methods with success through my pre-retirement career, I have been able to see both sides of your ongoing battle with M_T. Especially your attempts to denigrate M_T's work and insisting that it can only be valid if he follows your preferred method.
Click to expand...
Major Tom is the one who showed up claiming explosives did 911. Oops, a predetermined objective! He can't figure out who did 911. Where have you been for 10 years?


Major Tom has no idea what models are for and attacks them out of ignorance. His attack on the delusional work of Chandler, Ross, and other dolts who champion the moronic 911 truth movement are not needed. Chandlers work on 911 is due to extreme bias, not physics.

femr2 is a MIHOP Demolition truther - you have to search carefully to find his conclusion on 911, his predetermined claims. It is not worth the time, Demolition is clearly his claim, or his Videos would read, Terrorist Caused Gravity Collapse. His ignorance fuels the nuts out there.

Ironic, I know his goals and objectives... Major Tom's work has no goal. Please explain his goal, show me his objective. His post make clear his objective and goals are to attack science, attack models, attack differential equations, attack math, back in CD and blame unknown Satan like entities. His objective, explosives started the collapse, and his work lacks substance. No big deal, it is all BS. I am not sure why you support the inside job nonsense, is it due to political bias, or what? Defending anti-intellectual attacks on engineering? Why?

Military approach? What the heck are you talking about?

19 terrorists did 911 - my position - do you have another position on the event 911? Fire destroyed the WTC complex, passengers "shot down" Flt 93, and Flt 77 with ASOB destroyed a section of the Pentagon. You have another version?


I understand Major Tom, he is a BS artist, and there is ample proof. Your defense of his artistry is super.

femr2, Major Tom both started with the inside job conspiracy theory junk - makes your post awkward. Major Tom attacks science and he attacks the idiot junk from 911 truth to back in his CD, because he knows some unknown Satan like people did 911, not the 19 terrorists.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom