• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

OOS Collapse Propagation Model

Status
Not open for further replies.
Major_Tom said:
NoahFence, see Major_Tom's first principle of WTC research.

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



The term Blockhead should be understood in the same way as Gear-head or Dead-head rather in the more derogatory meaning.


Simple ways to recognize Blockheads and harmful Blockhead influences on true, honest debate:


1) Blockheads have the compulsive need to talk of propagationn movement of the twin towers in terms of giant rectangles.

2) They have the compulsive need to turn simple "physics 101" block diagrams into equations of motion, imagining they represent real, complex highly non-homogenous systems like the WTC twin towers, and then taking them seriously.
Click to expand...
So, which are they? Can the simple "physics 101" block diagrams be replaced with giant rectangles or can't they? Or are the block diagrams only appropriate when talking about anything but "propagation movement"?
 
Major_Tom said:
One can see how Dave's misrepresentation of "truthers" is about as intelligent as that of Beachnut. I'm a "truther" and I have no idea where he dreams up these stereotypes in his mind.
Click to expand...
Major_Tom said:

The pulverization question comes from some blockhead truthers who are no more intelligent than the blockhead debunkers from this forum.
Click to expand...



What a bizarre sequence of statements. You say you have no idea where I dream up this stereotype, then you describe perfectly accurately where in reality it comes from. I'm familiar with truthers lying about all sorts of things, but they don't usually demonstrate that they're lying in the very next sentence.

Still, it seems to me that an apposite quotation here is:

Why bother at all about Blockheads?
Why should you care what they do?
Cos after all is said and done
You're a Blockhead too​


- Blockheads, Ian Dury and the Blockheads​

Dave​
 
Last edited:
Major_Tom said:
It really doesn't take much trick physics to fool many people. Let that be a big wake-up call to the average reader of how vulnerable you are to technical arguments and professional engineers. Please be more careful. Maybe some people are intentionally trying to distract you, who knows?
Click to expand...
Shocking. MT is suggesting that qualified professionals can't be relied upon, and unqualified personnel or non-professional are preferable. Would you ever take surgery by an amateur?

MT, where's your math?
 
Major_Tom said:
The pulverization question comes from some blockhead truthers who are no more intelligent than the blockhead debunkers from this forum.

Secondly, ROOSD mechanics may cause extreme grinding and regrinding processes within the perimeter funnel. There may be reason to believe that ROOSD progression amplified grinding through a natural confinement of debris within a massive "chute" or "funnel" being ground and reground while being driven to earth.

In this sense the WTC Twin Towers Collapse Dynamics assembled by me, a "truther", and ROOSD progression may help explain why such a massive level of pulverization took place. It you think about it, ROOSD combined with a funneling process could create an intense grinding action, much more than from an ordinary concept of stacked "pancaking".

Quite literally, the ROOSD mass progression could act as a massive natural grinder. The concept is interesting.
Click to expand...


I'm interested in this idea, MT. Personally, of course, I don't believe that much grinding or re-grinding is going to be possible in a supposed gravitational collapse of 100+ steel-framed storeys in the space of 15 seconds, but I would be open to hearing an explanation.

I would also point out that questions about the pulverization of massive steel floor panels (along with everything else), some of them weighing up to 7 tons, does not require a belief in "block" dynamics. The disappearance of these would need to be explained by any collapse model. We do not have examples to compare to, since steel-framed highrises have never before, or since, suffered global collapse from anything, outside of CD. So it's a very strange event you are having to explain via gravitational processes, wouldn't you agree?
 
Last edited:
explosives or not?

Major_Tom said:
According to MT's first principle, that is an incredibly naive request.

Recall, if you have no concept of general mass flow, how would you know the difference between natural ejections and artificial ejections, even if they happened right in front of your nose?
Click to expand...
Of course, none of the ejections of parts of falling buildings were "natural," that's just your poor phrasing continuing apace. High-speed plane crashes, jet fuel fireballs and resultant unfought fires are not "natural" for tall buildings. But you know that.

As for the difference between material ejections from EXPLOSIVES and material ejections from natural forces like leverage / tension / gravity / bouncing / etc. "right in front of your nose," the answer is easy. Either you have blown eardrums and barotrauma, or you don't. Either the dozens of videocameras record big booms, or they don't. Either tons of nanuthermite ignite in a white-hot flash or they don't. Simple.
 
Last edited:
carlitos said:
...As for the difference between material ejections from EXPLOSIVES and material ejections from natural forces like leverage / tension / gravity / bouncing / etc. "right in front of your nose," the answer is easy. Either you have blown eardrums and barotrauma, or you don't. Either the dozens of videocameras record big booms, or they don't. Either tons of nanuthermite ignite in a white-hot flash or they don't. Simple.
Click to expand...
Well said, Sir!!
clap.gif
 
WTC2 Collapse initiation sequence:



The 5 stages of collapse initiation


WTC2_IZ_model2.jpg





1) 81, 82nd fl spandrels pull in sharply (along green and blue lines)......................inward bowing

2) 78th fl ejections.....................east wall separates into upper and lower parts


this allows tilting to begin

3) Tilting


whole upper part drops with this action

4) 75th fl east face row of ejections

5) 75th fl west wall north and south quarter of MER panels ejected from building with flooring. NW and SW MER corners are destroyed.



The first 2 stages allow tilting to begin. Stages 4 and 5 finish the tilt and begin the fall.

The first 2 stages initiate tilt. The final 2 stages terminate tilt.





Stage 1: Sharp pull-in of 81st and 82nd floor spandrels along the green lines and the blue line. The pull-in will break the east wall into upper and lower part along the purple lines.




The pull-in along the blue line, on the north face, is shown below:


cazz47pull.gif





Stages 2, 3 and 4:


78th and 75th floor ejection locations

The 78th row ejections came out of the 7 areas marked in red along the 78th spandrel.

ejection__locations.jpg



Emergence of the 78th fl row of ejections signifies the initiation of tilt.

Emergence of the 75th fl row of ejections signifies the beginning of global falling of the upper portion, or "release".



Stage 5: The 75th floor MER beam flooring, southwest corner, is shown as a yellow sheet. The attached west face MER perimeter panels are shown as a red sheet. During the final release of the upper tilting portion, the NW and SW corners of the 75th fl MER beam flooring was forcefully ejected from the building with MER west face perimeter panels still attached.

>>>>>>>>

Each of these 5 stages are distinctly recognizable from the outside of the building.
 
Last edited:
Please recall that one of the most important lessons of WTC Twin Towers Collapse Dynamics is that the collapse initiation processes of WTC1 and 2 are the most important places to look for intentional manipulation of structural components.

We had threads on both WTC1 and 2 initiation sequences, but they were merged and removed from the forum.

I have started 3 threads that have been merged or moved. Is there any thread in this forum that covers the most important events to study in any detail?

Where can someone discuss the collapse initiation processes with real data and not the fake data regular posters have been using? I would start one but .....
 
Major_Tom said:
Please recall that one of the most important lessons of WTC Twin Towers Collapse Dynamics is that the collapse initiation processes of WTC1 and 2 are the most important places to look for intentional manipulation of structural components.
Click to expand...
Why would we do this?

This is easy Major_Tom. You're on step 9 looking for evidence of foul play. You should be on step 1 explaining why things are not as reported on 9/11. You're skipping way ahead.

Get it?
 
Last edited:
Major_Tom said:
Please recall that one of the most important lessons of WTC Twin Towers Collapse Dynamics is that the collapse initiation processes of WTC1 and 2 are the most important places to look for intentional manipulation of structural components.

.....
Click to expand...

Start here:
Why should we be looking for "intentional manipulation of structural components"?

If you can do this (with factual reasoning) people will listen.
 
Major_Tom said:
Please recall that one of the most important lessons of WTC Twin Towers Collapse Dynamics is that the collapse initiation processes of WTC1 and 2 are the most important places to look for intentional manipulation of structural components.

We had threads on both WTC1 and 2 initiation sequences, but they were merged and removed from the forum.

I have started 3 threads that have been merged or moved. Is there any thread in this forum that covers the most important events to study in any detail?

Where can someone discuss the collapse initiation processes with real data and not the fake data regular posters have been using? I would start one but .....
Click to expand...

This has nothing to do with 911 conspiracy theories, it is technobabble nonsense. Science proves 911 truth claims of CD are false, any scientific study of 911 would expose 911 truth claims as nonsense. Your threads are nonsense, not science or about 911 truth, only about your obsession with some inside job nonsense. Can't you debunk CD yet?
 
Major_Tom said:
Please recall that one of the most important lessons of WTC Twin Towers Collapse Dynamics is that the collapse initiation processes of WTC1 and 2 are the most important places to look for intentional manipulation of structural components.
We had threads on both WTC1 and 2 initiation sequences, but they were merged and removed from the forum.

I have started 3 threads that have been merged or moved. Is there any thread in this forum that covers the most important events to study in any detail?

Where can someone discuss the collapse initiation processes with real data and not the fake data regular posters have been using? I would start one but .....
Click to expand...

??? CD's???
 
Major_Tom said:
Please recall that one of the most important lessons of WTC Twin Towers Collapse Dynamics is that the collapse initiation processes of WTC1 and 2 are the most important places to look for intentional manipulation of structural components.
............
Where can someone discuss the collapse initiation processes with real data and not the fake data regular posters have been using? I would start one but .....
Click to expand...

Do you have any visual evidence of intentional manipulation of structural components? You've concentrated on visual evidence only, and you seem to think structural models in conjunction with visual data are inadequate but I've yet to see any visual evidence presented to support whatever case you're trying to make. All I see is a building buckling until the point of failure.
 
It is obvious from the propagation mechanism that the initiation sequences of WTC1 and 2 are the most important events to study.

When WTC1 was examined it was pretty clear that the regular forum members were quite ignorant of the actual movements and ejections.

The threads were combined and then moved out of the forum.

That is what has surprised me the most, that not only are the posters woefully ignorant of the initiation processes, but they seem to experience no shame at destroying the only efforts to examine the sequences carefully.




It would be hard for many regular readers to not see the censorship in such an act. This is not surprising. I am interested to see if there is a single regular poster on this forum that that is capable of disagreeing with the herd.

Just a little experiment to see if there is one among you that is capable of debating honestly without censorship.

Anyone out there with just a drop of courage who can reply without an intellectually embarrassing response?
 
Perhaps a review of the information presented is in order so the posters can see how ignorant they were over both the WTC1 initiation movement and the propagation movement?

It will be quite an embarrassing review for you. Are you sure you really need to be reminded again?

I have it all in print, but the memory loss on this forum is astounding.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom