OOS Collapse Propagation Model

[Major_Tom]

Ozeco, you win again. (Not against me, but you do not represent a typical poster here in any way.)

I do not care about R Mackey at all, personally. I want him to clean up his own messes. Ne never does and nobody seems to require it of him.


Ozeco, to be very clear, he makes the mess and I have to clean it up. He makes another mess and I have to clean it up. As long as that happens, I will complain about it.

When he admits to some major blunders, cleans up his own mess, we can move on.

You call it a personal attack but I do not care. i need to put much time into countering the incorrect statement he makes.

And I would do the exact same thing to Richard Gage if he were posting here. Or to Steven Jones. If they make messes and do not clean them up, I will point it out until they do.

I will tell R Mackey, Richard Gage, Heiwa or anyone else who leaves messes to clean them up. I am tired of cleaning up all their crap for them.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>

On a more positive note, good comment and I will reply in my next post.

 

[carlitos]

a reasonable question

Feel free to continue to avoid this. How have you differentiated rotation from tilt? On what are your numbers built? Care to share your numbers?

I use the less than 1 degree value.

Value of what?

 

[Major_Tom]

OK, back to ROOSD


1) The key descriptor is: Should be modelled. I agree "overwhelming" is a decent term but in my own OOS model I would not assume that only 1 floor would total the towers. It may. It may not.

By "may not", I do not mean it will stop or "bounce", but that there is no way to say the first 4 floors of crushing match observables without a model.

Maybe you should consider starting a thread at the other forum with that post and you can receive more comments on it.

The ROOSD principle does not insist that a single floor drop causes what was witnessed. We cannot know that. My model says that there is most probably a threshold over which ROOSD could continue automatically.


2) "Inevitable" Seems quite possible but I couldn't say it would look like what was observed. I simply don't know. I use the same idea, but only after a threshold value is reached that I call ROOSD.

I cannot assume what is required to initiate ROOSD.


3) What happened to the outer tube: As you can see at the other forum that is my specialty. I have the best record of what fell inward, what fell outward, how walls broke down.

There is no general rule, some walls have the top sheets fall out and over the lower walls, others it is reversed. No general rule.

4) Inevitable because the strength of the outer tube of columns was bypassed: You mean the upper perimeter wall slips inside or falls outside the lower? That is what I observe. It is interesting because the core is hidden from us, but much of the perimeter is not. Some of this process is visible. Using the perimter, it is easier to see how lower cannot support upper, so I agree.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

For collapse progression this is good, just like before. As you know I go a lot deeper but I have never argued with you about much of anything concerning the progression (except for isolated instances of pressure below the collapse front).

I wish the typical forum member here resembled you more because I would not have to waste my time telling people to use real data as opposed to fake data.

>>>>>>>>>>

And again, I have no vendetta against anyone. They push false data and do not correct their mistakes. I have no interest in them at all outside of having them clean up their messes so I don't have to. You cannot imagine how little interest I have in them. Why accept lies and false data, truther or debunker?

 

[Major_Tom]

Feel free to continue to avoid this. How have you differentiated rotation from tilt? On what are your numbers built? Care to share your numbers?

-In May, 2011 Carlitos asks me to produce data on tilt measurements. One year of discussion on this forum and Carlitos is just noticing that he needs WTC1 tilt measurements.

Surreal. You have never seen us measure tilt before?

This is not logical, what you say. It is like fantasy land. First time you have seen this mentioned? I am not your babysitter. Please review.

>>>>>>>>>>>>

This quote by Carlitos is a wonderful example of what passes for logic here.

I don't see much evidence of memory retention within the posts.

 

[Reactor drone]

R Mackey at 11:35 and 14:50, "We are talking 8 degrees of tilt. That is what the NIST reports. They report 7 or 8 degrees rotation about 1 axis and 2 to 3 degrees about another."

R Mackey: "At 8 degrees rotation, this is the point at which the hinge is completely broken and the upper block will start to fall straight down....this is what we see on the video".


Surreal.

For the purpose of that discussion, i.e- the lack of jolt due to a rotating upper section, they're acceptable figures and given that the building tilted about 7-8 degrees in a second a small variation in where you place the "hinge is completely broken and the upper block will start to fall straight down" moment will give you different degrees of tilt.

We know you've placed that point at about 1° and we know the NIST reports mention a figure of 8° in a few places. Unless you can demonstrate that both of those figures represent the exact same point in time there's not a lot of point bringing this up.

 

[Major_Tom]

Reactor drone, the NIST issues a +20 million dollar report to discover the how and why of the collapses. They tell you the south wall failed.

Their explanation of the WTC1 collapse is something like this:

(This is from Usmani, Chung Torero)



But in reality all observables point to the core failing.

And you ask no further questions. Hey, who needs science when you have strong faith?

Is there any reason you would consider scientific that explains why the core failed? The NIST reports do not claim this at all.

And so the cores fall out of WTC7 and WTC1. It was a very bad day for cores.

 

[beachnut]

...
As NIST said "global collapse was inevitable".

Major_Tom - does your ROOSD explanation differ in any significant way from my preceding explanation?

Cheers
Eric C

Gravity collapse is the conclusion based on all the evidence. Where does Major Tom's Satan come in? This entire thread for Major Tom was based on Major Tom's need to back in CD. Did you miss that?

Anyone who studies Major Tom's work finds he thinks he can use this nonsense he weaves to support his CD theory. No big deal but when your objective is CD, it fails from the beginning. This is not a personal attack, it is fact. Major Tom can't refute his purpose is to support his CD theory. No big deal, he is not able to defend his CD theory with fact, or evidence. Who is Major Tom's Satan?

... "gravity-driven collapse" is a mere illusion ...

How will Major Tom use this thread to support his claim? As an engineer, I am interested how he will twist this to serve his claim.

Big picture , impacts, fire, gravity collapse. Big picture for Major Tom, he says it is now easy to place explosives/something to make the WTC tower fail, and they were set by someone evil. He basically fails to comprehend there was no inside job, and aircraft impacts equal to bombs of 1300 and 2000 pounds of TNT doomed the WTC by setting fires with 66,000 pounds of jet fuel with the heat energy of 315 TONS of TNT, and then the gravity collapse released the energy of 130 TONS of TNT in each tower, simple as E=mgh.

No attack on Major Tom, his conclusion is self-critiquing, called nonsense.

... "gravity-driven collapse" is a mere illusion ...

 

[Major_Tom]

Beachnut, the master of selective quote mining.

Beachnut, I wrote the OOS paper, remember? Are you suggesting I do not believe in gravity driven processes?

Through the posts I can see how people tend to draw their conclusions and it has little to do with reason or science.

 

[carlitos]

-In May, 2011 Carlitos asks me to produce data on tilt measurements. One year of discussion on this forum and Carlitos is just noticing that he needs WTC1 tilt measurements.

Actually, I have made no claim, so I require no measurements. You said that you were using the 1 degree figure (of "tilt?") in response to Mackey saying that there was a ROTATION of 7-8 degrees. To clarify what YOUR CLAIM WAS, I asked you "How have you differentiated rotation from tilt?"

Did you answer it? Did you show your numbers?

ETA - the core failed first, and yet it was the last thing standing? That makes no sense.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

ETA - the core failed first, and yet it was the last thing standing? That makes no sense.

If anything it would have failed in the impact region only at collapse initiation. The rest was the progressive collapse of the floors, then the remainder of the core, etc., etc... you get the point.

 

[Major_Tom]

It sounds as though you post here because you're jealous of DOC (almost 500,000 hits) and doronshadmi (over 350,000 hits).

I can't relate. It is not a contest. If I wanted a very large readership, I would post some propaganda and crap science link the Architects and Engineers for 911T (not including Christopher7 and a few others.. )

Or like Gravy. Or R Mackey.


Or Steven Jones. It is much easier when you just make stuff up as you go. Research is slower.

 

[carlitos]

It is much easier when you just make stuff up as you go. Research is slower.

 

[Major_Tom]

No part of the NIST conclusions would be affected in case the tilt was wrong.

Thanks for the quote. Priceless and I think a good representation of what many posters seem to believe.


I believe that you sincerely believe what you say.

I don't see a bit of science there, but of you click you heels together 3 times and keep repeating, "The south wall caused the building to fail at less than 1 degree tilt.....the south wall caused the building to fail at less than 1 degree of tilt...."

perhaps we can make it true.




And when this is done we will need to close our eyes real tight so as not to see the early movement of the antenna and northwest corner. And keep them closed so we don't notice that the upper south wall fell out and over the lower.





Yes, Keep the eyes closed tight, keep clicking your heels and maybe it will become real.

That, readers, is the NIST and JREF WTC1 collapse initiation scenario in a nutshell.

Your official history.

 

[pgimeno]

No part of the NIST conclusions would be affected in case the tilt was wrong.

Thanks for the quote. Priceless and I think a good representation of what many posters seem to believe.


I believe that you sincerely believe what you say.

I think that you do too.

Please read NIST's conclusions of their report. They are stated in NCSTAR 1 chapters 8 and 9.

Please point to me where the tilt is specified within NIST's conclusions (chapters 8 and 9 of NCSTAR 1).

Unless you can provide such, my sentence holds.

 

[Major_Tom]

Actually, I have made no claim, so I require no measurements. You said that you were using the 1 degree figure (of "tilt?") in response to Mackey saying that there was a ROTATION of 7-8 degrees. To clarify what YOUR CLAIM WAS, I asked you "How have you differentiated rotation from tilt?"

Did you answer it? Did you show your numbers?

ETA - the core failed first, and yet it was the last thing standing? That makes no sense.

What makes no sense is that you have posted insults at me for about 1 year, yet your comment reveals you have understood nothing of what I said.

It is like you never even read the posts. You are even further behind than Beachnut.


You are just wondering about that now? Then you ask to see tilt measurements? My God, you have been replying without even reading the posts, haven't you?

 

[beachnut]

What makes no sense is that you have posted insults at me for about 1 year, yet your comment reveals you have understood nothing of what I said.

It is like you never even read the posts. You are even further behind than Beachnut.


You are just wondering about that now? Then you ask to see tilt measurements? My God, you have been replying without even reading the posts, haven't you?

You failed to find evidence for your CD lie, what is your new goal?

... 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. ...

You have delusions of CD, what is new? Why has UBL's death awakened your interest in your failed attempt to back in CD with your nonsense and failed math? Your tilt measurements were nonsense before, have you fixed them yet?

Who is your Satan who did 911? UBL, or Bush? Have you dropped your CD theory and finally figured out gravity collapse?

I knew it was a gravity collapse on 911, I am over 9 years ahead of your pseudoscience technobabble approach. You are over 9 years behind, in your 10 year of failure failing to support your CD claim with evidence.

Beachnut, the master of selective quote mining.

Beachnut, I wrote the OOS paper, remember? Are you suggesting I do not believe in gravity driven processes?

Through the posts I can see how people tend to draw their conclusions and it has little to do with reason or science.

So you retract your failed CD theory, here and now?

... 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. ...

Go ahead tell us your work supports impacts, fire and a gravity collapse are the answer to the WTC towers collapsing.

Oh, you wrote the OOS paper, and what Journal is that in? Was 911 an inside job? What is your conclusion on 911?

 

[ozeco41]

Ozeco, you win again. (Not against me, but you do not represent a typical poster here in any way.)...

It is not about win lose. I was simply making an attempt to present an alternate way of discussing 'progressive collapse' without all the nonsense and half truths of personal attacks or insults.

I asked you one question only:

...Major_Tom - does your ROOSD explanation differ in any significant way from my preceding explanation?...

Can you answer that question without falling for the trap off looking for or expecting details which are not there by my deliberate choice? If you can agree that my explanation is compatible with the broad outline of what you call ROOSD we may be able to continue discussion.

Meanwhile let me address some other points:

...I do not care about R Mackey at all, personally. I want him to clean up his own messes. Ne never does and nobody seems to require it of him....

That is not the topic and there is no need for you to address anything that R M has said until either he raises it in this discussion OR someone else raises it with a claim that it is authoritative. Until then forget it.

...Ozeco, to be very clear, he makes the mess and I have to clean it up. He makes another mess and I have to clean it up. As long as that happens, I will complain about it....

Whether or not your claim that he 'makes the mess' is true you are wrong on your twice stated claim 'I have to clean it up'. You are under no such obligation. The only time you even need to consider anything R Mackey has claimed is, as stated previously, if and only if he raises it in discussion with you OR some other person uses it as authoritative.

...When he admits to some major blunders, cleans up his own mess, we can move on...

Wrong! no statements made by parties not involved in this discussion are barriers to the progress of this discussion until someone makes them a barrier. See my previous explanations.

...You call it a personal attack but I do not care....

Whether you care or not is irrelevant - many of your statements are personal attacks just as many statements directed at you are personal attacks. Personal attacks do nothing to assist reasoned discussion.

...i need to put much time into countering the incorrect statement he makes...

Why? You are under no obligation to do so. In fact you are derailing the thread each time you do. (And yes that allegation also applies to several members who direct attacks at you AND I don't care who started the mud slinging.)

...And I would do the exact same thing to Richard Gage if he were posting here. Or to Steven Jones. If they make messes and do not clean them up, I will point it out until they do.

I will tell R Mackey, Richard Gage, Heiwa or anyone else who leaves messes to clean them up. I am tired of cleaning up all their crap for them...

I have several times cautioned you to consider what your objective is. Currently insulting other members tit-for-tat as they insult you is your first priority.

I still suggest that you make discussion of the topic #1 priority.

Do you agree that your ROOSD explanation does not differ in any significant way from my explanation contained in my previous post?

 

[Major_Tom]

Your description seems to work, but mine is much better and more detailed.

Yours is a nice explanation and a guess. Mine is a historic visual record of what actually happened.

You handwave, I document.

And the point?

>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Ozeco, concerning R Mackey, what part of "I don't care what you think" do you not understand?

I mean no offense to you. It has nothing to do with you. You allow people to say many untrue things without corrections. I do not, truther or debunker. I am not asking your permission to make such corrections.

On the other forum people are not allowed to say any untrue thing they want. There are reality checks for both truther and debunker.

I wouldn't allow any truther to come on the other forum and make any claim they want. I do not turn a blind eye to deceptive crap on that forum just because somebody is a truther. Means nothing to me, I look for facts.

The posters here do not do that. You do not have the courage to question others in your herd. For this reason people like yourselves and Richard Gage leave a mess behind you of crap physics and unverified claims. A mess that you do not clean up yourselves. You just keep the crap claims coming unchecked because you do not want to hurt the feelings of another debunker.

Silly claims stand unchecked daily in this forum. That is the custom here. It is your house, not mine. This atmosphere represents yourselves, it is your house to clean or leave all crappy. It didn't become so biased and unscientific by itself. Every regular JREF poster helped it along. Without an atmosphere of checking facts, this forum is a noise box.

 

[carlitos]

<<<<<<<<<<<<<

The part where you keep posting here over and over again, obsessing about R Mackey.

 

[Major_Tom]

He should admit his mistakes so I don't have to keep correcting everyone. You should learn to correct yourselves.

R Mackey is only one example. You crap untrue statement, untrue measurements, insult anyone who doesn't agree with your fantasy, and if I call your bluff?

Ignore me. I call the bluff again. Ignore me. I do it a third time? Accuse me of spamming.

I know that not all readers are blind, and the ones that are not can see through you as if you are made of glass. We have reached that point a while ago and every post confirms it more.

The others probably never will see.


R Mackey will never say, "yes, that is a mistake". And you never ask him to.

So I will. Clean up your mess. Correct your own mistakes.