OOS Collapse Propagation Model

[DGM]

ROOSD describes a gravity driven post-initiation descent. The summary ofthe study highlights that it does not prove nor disprove *CD*, and provides one route by which MIHOP could be accomplished whilst retaining a gravity driven primary destruction mechanism. .

I'm all for you examining this as carefully and as thoroughly as you like. You can examine every pixel on every video with a microscope for all I care. I hope when your done you publish your results (in a proper reviewed journal) for everyone to see. I just hope that the above bolded quote is not your driving force.

 

[femr2]

MIHOP is an accusation against the U.S. government of mass murder.

Nope. It means Made.It.Happen.On.Purpose. There's nothing in there to point fingers at a nefarious culprit. More assumptions. Getting quite tedious this.

I think you already know. Ever considered the depth of the consequences of being wrong because of thinking irrationally?

No idea what you are suggesting I'm wrong about. Am not at all happy with the NIST study, that's for sure. Doing what I can to clarify its shortcomings and provide better answers. If I make mistakes, no problem. They can be corrected.

 

[femr2]

I must insist that you have not ever referred to NIST's conclusions, merely to NIST's collapse mechanism description, which is not their conclusions.

NIST don't provide a collapse mechanism description. Their conclusions apply to, and end at, the initiation sequence, which they got wrong. After that their collapse mechanism description is basically *global collapse ensured*. (Handover to abstracted Bazant limiting case model there, well, a bit later on after 12ft of structure is ignored).

 

[DGM]

Nope. It means Made.It.Happen.On.Purpose. There's nothing in there to point fingers at a nefarious culprit. More assumptions. Getting quite tedious this.

Now this sounds like a good thread title! Care to start one and explain how?

 

[femr2]

I'm all for you examining this as carefully and as thoroughly as you like. You can examine every pixel on every video with a microscope for all I care.

Cool.

I hope when your done you publish your results (in a proper reviewed journal) for everyone to see.

Well I publish what I'm doing as I go along, but I'll probably formalise at some point, if there's anything significant to include. Not really interested in the *proper* reviewed journal stuff. Not my thing. If I publish anything it'll probably be via the911forum. It can be peer reviewed from there just as effectively as anywhere else.

I just hope that the above bolded quote is not your driving force.

No, but it is of course a question. The statement is something that is in MT's study, so I'm simply clarifying why it's there in the context of the prior message.

If the end result of all the tracing malarky PROVES something one way or the other, I'll be making it as visible as possible of course.

 

[femr2]

Now this sounds like a good thread title! Care to start one and explain how?

Not really. If you want to interpret MIHOP as some terrorists crashing an aircraft, knowing that the result would be desctruction to ground, that's one interpretation of MIHOP.

I don't subscribe to the notion of GWB donning a ninja suit and spending 10 years rigging every nut and bolt with supernanothermiate. Assumptions of some others are getting very tedious. Blinkered viewpoints, pfft.

 

[DGM]

If the end result of all the tracing malarky PROVES something one way or the other, I'll be making it as visible as possible of course.

That's a good thing! As long as the definition of "proof" is observed.

 

[beachnut]

Not really. If you want to interpret MIHOP as some terrorists crashing an aircraft, knowing that the result would be desctruction to ground, that's one interpretation of MIHOP.

I don't subscribe to the notion of GWB donning a ninja suit and spending 10 years rigging every nut and bolt with supernanothermiate. Assumptions of some others are getting very tedious. Blinkered viewpoints, pfft.

MIHOP means the US government made 911 happen on purpose. You need to get your 911 truth stuff straight if you are retaining your CD delusion or not.

It does not matter how your study goes, or how OOS goes. The WTC fell due to impacts and fire. Since you will only be posting your nonsense in a forum where lies and delusion carry equal weight with reality, it is funny you claim you are wasting time, when you are by definition wasting time. Prove NIST is wrong in a paper published in a real journal; the best part is if NIST is wrong, the WTC towers still fell by gravity due to impacts and fire. But go ahead stop wasting time posting and waste your time proving nothing about 911 like the OOS model. BTW, the OOS model combined with all the evidence on 911, proves no CD, no thermite. When will you and Major Tom use reality based evidence?

 

[pgimeno]

Nope. It means Made.It.Happen.On.Purpose. There's nothing in there to point fingers at a nefarious culprit. More assumptions. Getting quite tedious this.

Hm, so, "someone" Made.It.Happen.On.Purpose but that "someone" is noone specific, it's... well, in Spain we say "Fuenteovejuna^WP". Alas, that's even more irrational than I thought.

NIST don't provide a collapse mechanism description.

Sorry, I meant "collapse initiation sequence description". Got them mixed up.

But I must insist yet again:

Their conclusions apply to, and end at, the initiation sequence, which they got wrong.

No, the initiation sequence is covered as objective 1 of section 8.2 and as section 8.3.1 of chapter 8 of NCSTAR 1, and you have criticized just a small part of these. Given that the whole chapter 8 is NIST's conclusions, to claim that "NIST's conclusions are scant, very poorly described, and wrong" is a bit too broad given the tiny part of them you've criticized.

 

[pgimeno]

Not really. If you want to interpret MIHOP as some terrorists crashing an aircraft, knowing that the result would be desctruction to ground, that's one interpretation of MIHOP.

That's not an interpretation of MIHOP. That's a redefinition of MIHOP. MIHOP has always meant that the U.S. government made it happen on purpose.

 

[Major_Tom]

If we show that WTC1 was pulled down from the core, not the south perimeter, it shows the NIST was clearly wrong. That is not just a tiny mistake.

It shows everything you worship as infallible expertise can be very wrong.

Welcome to planet Earth.

 

[beachnut]

If we show that WTC1 was pulled down from the core, not the south perimeter, it shows the NIST was clearly wrong. That is not just a tiny mistake.

It shows everything you worship as infallible expertise can be very wrong.

Welcome to planet Earth.

Why do you need NIST to know impacts and fire destroyed the WTC? You are obsessed with NIST, not me.

You have a delusions, it is CD. I am an engineer, I have an excuse not falling for your CD delusion.

 

[alienentity]

If we show that WTC1 was pulled down from the core, not the south perimeter, it shows the NIST was clearly wrong. That is not just a tiny mistake.

It shows everything you worship as infallible expertise can be very wrong.

Welcome to planet Earth.

But I thought you said ROOSD only deals with collapse propagation, and NIST only dealt with the collapse up to the point of initiation. So they have nothing to do with your area anyway.

The silliest part IMHO is that all you're going to accomplish is to demonstrate another possible natural collapse after initiation. So the towers fell from plane and fire damage - tell us something we don't know

I left out the 'NWO agents planted the demolition incendiarexplosivewhatevers so as to perfectly mimic a natural collapse - fiendishly clever' Truther Hypothesis, which still, after 9 years has no real evidence in support of it.

This is beginning to look like the definition of pointless.

 

[pgimeno]

If we show that WTC1 was pulled down from the core, not the south perimeter, it shows the NIST was clearly wrong. That is not just a tiny mistake.

It shows everything you worship as infallible expertise can be very wrong.

You get some things wrong:

1. You haven't proved what you claim you have proved. Your arguments are not backed by sound engineering practice. Every so often in the paranormal world, someone shows something which looks abnormal and is interpreted in a certain way, but which has a different, not-so-obvious explanation which escapes an untrained eye. It's hard to be sure we're not in front of such a case, so there isn't a powerful reason to believe your interpretation of what you are showing. Given the qualification of the people who participated in the NIST report, it will require similarly qualified peers to review their work on that matter to determine if there was a mistake or not.
   
2. What you are criticizing is a very tiny part of NIST's conclusions, which just applies to one of the towers (you fail to criticize the equivalent for WTC2, see post #976). Even in case you were right on this one, that wouldn't invalidate the gross of the rest of the conclusions, including the tiny part about the collapse initiation sequence for WTC2.
   
3. Speaking for myself, I don't attribute infallibility to any person, and I worship nothing and noone.

Welcome to planet Earth.

It seems planet Earth is a bit different from your misconceptions. Welcome to the real world.

 

[beachnut]

It's not based on anything I've written. You could say that a lot of what I do *debunks* many *twoofer* claims, yet as I am also critical of bodies such as NIST, and question and *debunk* elements of the *accepted* narrative, your assumptions are, well, just that. Lots of claims are wrong. There are far too many folk who react badly to valid criticism of NIST you know

Perhaps you could revert to discussion on thread topic.

Are you or Major Tom engineers?


The OOS is for Major Tom to say CD is possible. You don't debunk his CD theory? CD is the easiest theory to debunk since it is founded on nothing but opinion, lies and fantasy.

 

[sheeplesnshills]

If we show that WTC1 was pulled down from the core, not the south perimeter, it shows the NIST was clearly wrong. That is not just a tiny mistake.

First its a big IF. You do not have the expertise to do that. Assume that you actually manage to prove what you say, so what? So there is more than one way the towers could have collapsed due to impact and fire. I never assumed there was only one way............

It shows everything you worship as infallible expertise can be very wrong.

Only fools worship anything and Engineers never assume they or or anyone else are infallible.......you would know that if you were one.

Welcome to planet Earth.

Its life Jim, but not as we know it

 

[Major_Tom]

Please read the thread on Femr's data before you deny the validity of the data I am posting.

This thread cannot move forward if you are in total denial of the data I am presenting but are too lazy or unskilled to produce any data yourselves.

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

Pgimeno, I could prove it now, but it requires an audience that is not in denial of the trace data.

This is the core of the NIST's conclusions, not just a tiny part.

3 corners of the building and the antenna have their release moment with a 0.5 second interval while the columns were tilted at less than 1 degree.

All 60+ columns in the west wall failing together within a 0.5 second interval (the data actually shows 0.25 seconds!!)

The first row of forceful ejections come out before the perimeter starts to move. The timing suggests the core became pressurized just 0.1 to 0.25 seconds before the release moment of the antenna.

And the NIST did not even recognize that any of this occurred. Instead, you get some description about how the columns failed from south to north over an 8 degree tilt.


These are not tiny mistakes.

 

[pgimeno]

Pgimeno, I could prove it now, but it requires an audience that is not in denial of the trace data.

I hope you're not implying I am. Just to leave my position clear, I'll repeat what I've said, with some operational keywords highlighted:

1. You haven't proved what you claim you have proved. Your arguments are not backed by sound engineering practice. Every so often in the paranormal world, someone shows something which looks abnormal and is interpreted in a certain way, but which has a different, not-so-obvious explanation which escapes an untrained eye. It's hard to be sure we're not in front of such a case, so there isn't a powerful reason to believe your interpretation of what you are showing. Given the qualification of the people who participated in the NIST report, it will require similarly qualified peers to review their work on that matter to determine if there was a mistake or not.

Note the absence of any questioning of the data whatsoever. You have even said this:

we can see that massive failure inside the core is what most probably caused the collapse of WTC1, not the loss of the south wall as the NIST claims.

And that's a good thing to say for you if you aren't sure, and I'm not sure either that your interpretation is correct.

Regarding WTC2, I have already pointed out what I believe are misinterpretations of data (in the form of a labeled photograph), and you have not addressed my objections yet. If I am correct with my criticism and you are correct with respect to WTC1, then you're on par with NIST: 1 building failure each. There's a major difference, though: you're making 50% of your case out of it, while NIST is doing about 1% of theirs. And that's under the hypothesis that you're right, which still remains to be proved.

What about addressing the objections I posted about your interpretations of the WTC2 photograph you commented? Audience problems again, perhaps?

This is the core of the NIST's conclusions, not just a tiny part.

No, it isn't.

In particular, if we forget about section 8.1 (Introduction) and 8.2 (Summary) of chapter 8 of NCSTAR 1, you haven't addressed any of these:

• Subsection 8.3.1 (Summary of Probable Collapse Sequences).
• Subsection 8.3.2 (Structural Steels).
• Subsection 8.3.3 (Aircraft impact).
• Subsection 8.3.4 (Reconstruction of fires).
• The first, second, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh, eighth, ninth, tenth, eleventh, twelfth, thirteenth, fourteenth and fifteenth points in subsection 8.3.5.
• The whole section 8.4 (Factors affecting life safety) which covers almost 8 pages.
• The whole section 8.5 (Operational codes, standards, and practices) which covers almost 6 pages.
• The whole section 8.6 (Future factors that could have improved life safety).
• The whole chapter 9 (Recommendations).

And so far you have failed to provide sound arguments for this one:

• The part related to WTC2 of the third point of subsection 8.3.5.

A reading of Subsection 8.3.1, which is a summary of the probable collapse sequences, reveals that it doesn't even include the part you're criticizing, meaning that you're giving it much more importance to it than they are. Don't forget that NIST's objectives are a direct result of the National Construction Safety Team Act.

These are not tiny mistakes.

Assuming they are mistakes at all, that's still your opinion. Want to make a quantitative evaluation?

 

[sheeplesnshills]

Please read the thread on Femr's data before you deny the validity of the data I am posting.

This thread cannot move forward if you are in total denial of the data I am presenting but are too lazy or unskilled to produce any data yourselves.

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

Pgimeno, I could prove it now, but it requires an audience that is not in denial of the trace data.

This is the core of the NIST's conclusions, not just a tiny part.

3 corners of the building and the antenna have their release moment with a 0.5 second interval while the columns were tilted at less than 1 degree.

All 60+ columns in the west wall failing together within a 0.5 second interval (the data actually shows 0.25 seconds!!)

The first row of forceful ejections come out before the perimeter starts to move. The timing suggests the core became pressurized just 0.1 to 0.25 seconds before the release moment of the antenna.

And the NIST did not even recognize that any of this occurred. Instead, you get some description about how the columns failed from south to north over an 8 degree tilt.


These are not tiny mistakes.

Your error is in thinking that a) its important to anyone that NIST had it exactly right and b) imagining it gets you any closer to MIHOP.

Sure but go ahead and get your theory peer reviewed and published by a relevant publication where real structural engineers can see it.

 

[dafydd]

Your error is in thinking that a) its important to anyone that NIST had it exactly right and b) imagining it gets you any closer to MIHOP.

Sure but go ahead and get your theory peer reviewed and published by a relevant publication where real structural engineers can see it.

I'd love to be a fly on the wall when real engineers receive that paper!