Moderated WTC 1 features list, initiation model / WTC 2 features list, collapse model

[Major_Tom]

There are isolated and localized ejecta that seem to be separate from the visible collapse front.

There are times when the collapse front can be seen moving down floors in a rather uniform way and quite predictably and one single isolated ejection will emerge that seems of a different source.

This is an example from WTC2:

There is a single isolated ejection from one side of a corner office that doesn't move with the rows of ejections.

Here is a glimpse of this same isolated ejection with an odd pair from the other corner:

They do not move with the more predictable collapse front at all.

 

[tsig]

There are isolated and localized ejecta that seem to be separate from the visible collapse front.

There are times when the collapse front can be seen moving down floors in a rather uniform way and quite predictably and one single isolated ejection will emerge that seems of a different source.

This is an example from WTC2:

[qimg]http://www.sharpprintinginc.com/911/images/photoalbum/9/necorner1.jpg[/qimg]

There is a single isolated ejection from one side of a corner office that doesn't move with the rows of ejections.

Here is a glimpse of this same isolated ejection with an odd pair from the other corner:

[qimg]http://femr2.ucoz.com/_ph/5/2/636608796.gif[/qimg]

They do not move with the more predictable collapse front at all.

Looks like a continuous collapse to me.

 

[Oystein]

...
There are times when the collapse front can be seen moving down floors in a rather uniform way and quite predictably and one single isolated ejection will emerge that seems of a different source.

This is an example from WTC2:

[qimg]http://www.sharpprintinginc.com/911/images/photoalbum/9/necorner1.jpg[/qimg]

There is a single isolated ejection from one side of a corner office that doesn't move with the rows of ejections.

Here is a glimpse of this same isolated ejection with an odd pair from the other corner:

[qimg]http://femr2.ucoz.com/_ph/5/2/636608796.gif[/qimg]

They do not move with the more predictable collapse front at all.

In scientific skepticism, predictions are made from theories.
I cannot see how you arrived at these (hinted at) predictions using a theory. What is that theory? Why does this theory predict these ejections, and doo you claim the NIST theory would predict no such ejections? If so, please provide your work to show from the NIST theory how you'd arrive at that latter prediction.


Alternatively, you could admit that your "predictions" are only wild guesses from your personal gut feeling, and not anything sciency.

 

[Major_Tom]

Yes, a clearly identifiable ROOSD progression and a couple of obvious ejections that follow an independent mechanics.

Identification of a collapse mechanism through and updated knowledge WTC twin towers colapse dynamics allows us understand pressure build-ups below the collapse fronts in a different way.

Anyone can see the ROOSD front move down the WTC2 east face or WTC1 west face. Anyone can observe how windows just below the collapse fronts are not blown out until the collapse progession reaches the floors themselves.

Anyone can see that just a few floors below the collapse fronts we do not see random windows popping out from overpressures.

As tsig mentions a type of floor-by-floor continuous collapse front is quite distinguishable. The localized, forceful isolated ejections below the collapse fronts, in torn, arare distinguishable from the fronts and often move independently as the images show.

 

[Major_Tom]

In scientific skepticism, predictions are made from theories.
I cannot see how you arrived at these (hinted at) predictions using a theory. What is that theory? Why does this theory predict these ejections, and doo you claim the NIST theory would predict no such ejections? If so, please provide your work to show from the NIST theory how you'd arrive at that latter prediction.


Alternatively, you could admit that your "predictions" are only wild guesses from your personal gut feeling, and not anything sciency.

The NIST has no collapse progression theory for WTC1 or 2, remember?

Progression would be Bazant. You really want to use your crush down, then crush up blocks again?

You have no theory for the progression mechanism at all.

 

[Oystein]

Yes, a clearly identifiable ROOSD progression and a couple of obvious ejections that follow an independent mechanics.

Identification of a collapse mechanism through and updated knowledge WTC twin towers colapse dynamics allows us understand pressure build-ups below the collapse fronts in a different way.

Anyone can see the ROOSD front move down the WTC2 east face or WTC1 west face. Anyone can observe how windows just below the collapse fronts are not blown out until the collapse progession reaches the floors themselves.

Anyone can see that just a few floors below the collapse fronts we do not see random windows popping out from overpressures.

As tsig mentions a type of floor-by-floor continuous collapse front is quite distinguishable. The localized, forceful isolated ejections below the collapse fronts, in torn, arare distinguishable from the fronts and often move independently as the images show.

Do you have a mental image of your theory, and imagine these things from there? Or is there work that accompanies your predictions? That would include a model of the internal and external structural condition of the affected floors (where were there holes, where intact floors and walls?) and some calculation of pressure build-up and paths.

 

[Oystein]

The NIST has no collapse progression theory for WTC1 or 2, remember?

Yes, I remember that.
That means we can't predict from the NIST theory if such ejections would occur as observed or not, correct?

Progression would be Bazant. You really want to use your crush down, then crush up blocks again?

No, I want your theory, your work, and how those two result in your predictions.

You have no theory for the progression mechanism at all.

Maybe. But I don't claim to have specific predictions, so I don't need a theory here. You talk about predictions, so I must assume you either have such a prediction and worked it out, or your prediction is only guesswork and nothing sciency. If I fail to see a third possibility, maybe you can pint it out.

 

[Major_Tom]

Do you have a mental image of your theory, and imagine these things from there? Or is there work that accompanies your predictions? That would include a model of the internal and external structural condition of the affected floors (where were there holes, where intact floors and walls?) and some calculation of pressure build-up and paths.

I have the only visual mapping of the collapse dynamics for both towers posted on the OOS thread.

This is what you have from BLGB:

No, this is not a joke. It is the most current published description of pressure build-up in the towers.

This is your model, like a big "piston-fart". I'll refer to the pressure model from BLGB as the piston-fart model.

What is especially amusing about the piston-fart model is that Bazant uses it to explain how debris was ejected so far away from the base of the towers. Twin towers collapse dynamics uses the phenomenon of perimeter "peeling" instead.

 

[Oystein]

I have the only visual mapping of the collapse dynamics for both towers posted on the OOS thread.

Cool.
How does this visual mapping predict ejections or no ejections here or there? Is there any work on that?
Remember, some posts ago you talked about "predictable" ejections and what not.
Do these predictions follow from your theory in any sciency way, or is that just guesswork on your part?
In other words: Where is your work that came up with these predictions?

Alternatively, admit that your "predictions" are really just your personal gut feeling.

This is what you have from BLGB:

...

I am not discussing any Bazant here at all. Why do you shove this in all the time? Stop it, if you want to be taken serious!

 

[Major_Tom]

I am not discussing any Bazant here at all. Why do you shove this in all the time? Stop it, if you want to be taken serious!

That is your most current published theory on ejecta. Don't you recognize that?

Can you see the collapse front moving down the building in this image?

Yes, we all can.

Can you see the floors just below the collapse front? You can use your eyes to see a pressure differential at the leading edge of the collapse front.

You can see the floor from which the single corner ejecta emanates. Only one side of one corner office seems to be affected. Not hard to see there is a local source of pressure focussed out of only one side of the corner. You can see other windows on the same floor and only one small locality acts like this.

 

[NoahFence]

They do not move with the more predictable collapse front at all.

You expect every beam and girder to move in a predictable fashion? The only word that can be used to describe the collapses is CHAOS.

 

[Oystein]

That is your most current published theory on ejecta. Don't you recognize that?

MY theory? I hope you can quote me on that!
I don't have a theory and make no predictions.
But if you insist, please show your work that results in the predcition from Bazant's theory that ejections would NOT occur as observed!

YOU claim you have a theory and DO make predictions. I ask: From your theory? Show your work, please!

Can you see the collapse front moving down the building in this image?

[qimg]http://www.sharpprintinginc.com/911/images/photoalbum/9/necorner1.jpg[/qimg]

Yes, we all can.

Can you see the floors just below the collapse front? You can use your eyes to see a pressure differential at the leading edge of the collapse front.

You can see the floor from which the single corner ejecta emanates. Only one side of one corner office seems to be affected. Not hard to see there is a local source of pressure focussed out of only one side of the corner. You can see other windows on the same floor and only one small locality acts like this.

You want me to SEE on still pics what your theory predicts viz. ejections? How silly is that! I don't have an intuitive grasp on the forces and dynamics involved in this Gigajoules-event. I don't pretend to have a supercomputer on my neck.

"Not hard to see there is a local source of pressure focussed out of only one side of the corner" -> No! I don't "see" that at all! How would I know what is local and what is not? You can't see pressure, and you can't see the building conditions inside which would very much play a factor in how pressure builds up and gets released.

You are talking out of your but, right?

M_T, why should I trust your vision on such chaotic, complex dynamics if you think that the following is correct logic:

Freefall never happens in intentional demolitions. There was freefall. Therefore, unintentional collapse due to fire is unlikely/impossible​

You fail in the application of the most basic rules of logic. Logic 101, about third lesson. That's where you fail. Why don't you see that you need to do much better formally to prove theories?

 

[Major_Tom]

You invent your own logic and attribute it to me. Similar to Beachnut.


You cannot see these?

The photograph is taken during these moments.


You shouldn't "believe" anyone. You should look, think and verify instead. "Believe" is what you already do.

 

[beachnut]

There are isolated and localized ejecta that seem to be separate from the visible collapse front.

There are times when the collapse front can be seen moving down floors in a rather uniform way and quite predictably and one single isolated ejection will emerge that seems of a different source.

This is an example from WTC2:
http://www.sharpprintinginc.com/911/images/photoalbum/9/necorner1.jpg



There is a single isolated ejection from one side of a corner office that doesn't move with the rows of ejections.

Here is a glimpse of this same isolated ejection with an odd pair from the other corner:

http://femr2.ucoz.com/_ph/5/2/636608796.gif



They do not move with the more predictable collapse front at all.

Gravity collapse, the ejected stuff is the Al cladding. You have published more evidence of a gravity collapse. What was your point and your conclusion? Do you still have the claim the gravity collapse is an illusion?

 

[Major_Tom]

Once again, thanks for the interesting responses.

After flushing out the usual excuses a return to the WTC1 collapse initiation. We all know the lfirst stated aim of the NIST reports is to find the "how and why" of each collapse. The collapse initaition sequence is an important place to look.

Here the building is beginning to move along the 98th floor during the the earliest visible motion yet a large grey ejection is emerging from the south side at fls 89-88 at the same time.

http://www.sharpprintinginc.com/911/images/photoalbum/13/southdust1.jpeg


Since the "how and why" of collapse are what the NIST is looking for, this seems a pretty big clue.


Anyone can see the ejecta activity from the outside of the building during these moments:

http://femr2.ucoz.com/CNN_Aircheck_Eric_Letvin_Cli24.gif



We do not see hurricane winds or anything close. We do not see much activity below the initiation zone along the west face at all.

Yet a rather powerful 89th fl ejection happens during these same moments.

It seems pretty obvious a big clue is coming out of the south face at this time. There is no need to believe anything. Just look.

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

Ignore the true minimal tilt angle, ignore the strong ejecta from the south face fl 89-88, click your heels three times and keep repeating "south wall failure, south wall failure..." and maybe it will come true.

You are already "believing". Try critical thinking instead.

Changed repetitive images to links. Do not post the same images over and over again.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: LashL

 

[Oystein]

You invent your own logic and attribute it to me. Similar to Beachnut.

What logic do I invent? The "freefall never happens in CD, therefore NIST is wrong with fire-induced"?
See, maybe I got your logic wrong. That's why I asked you to formulate your argument in precise terms. What premises do you have? What induction rules do you apply? What conclusions do you draw?

You cannot see these?

[qimg]http://femr2.ucoz.com/_ph/5/2/636608796.gif[/qimg]

The photograph is taken during these moments.


You shouldn't "believe" anyone. You should look, think and verify instead. "Believe" is what you already do.

Yeah, I can "see" blurry puffs on blurry building.
I can imagine why that happens.
Imagination is not proof.

Listen, pal, I am not saying you are wrong.
I am saying your predictions do not follow formally from your theory, and do not not follow formally from any Bazant theory.

I want you to not appeal to imagination but to formally use the theory that you claim to have to make predictions.
You see, on of the ways that makes a good theory stand out before a bad theory is its ability to make predictions that are in line with observations, and that the bad theory does not make.

This is your chance to show how your theory is a good theory.

 

[Oystein]

... The collapse initaition sequence is an important place to look.

Here the building is beginning to move along the 98th floor during the the earliest visible motion yet a large grey ejection is emerging from the south side at fls 89-88 at the same time.

[qimg]http://www.sharpprintinginc.com/911/images/photoalbum/13/southdust1.jpeg[/qimg]

Since the "how and why" of collapse are what the NIST is looking for, this seems a pretty big clue.


Anyone can see the ejecta activity from the outside of the building during these moments:

[qimg]http://femr2.ucoz.com/CNN_Aircheck_Eric_Letvin_Cli24.gif[/qimg]



We do not see hurricane winds or anything close. We do not see much activity below the initiation zone along the west face at all.

Frankly, my dear, who do you seriously expect to see anything at all from this ****** gif? I can't even tell there if the building has columns or floors at all!

Yet a rather powerful 89th fl ejection happens during these same moments.

It seems pretty obvious a big clue is coming out of the south face at this time. There is no need to believe anything. Just look.

Yeah. It seems.

Ignore the true minimal tilt angle, ignore the strong ejecta from the south face fl 89-88, click your heels three times and keep repeating "south wall failure, south wall failure..." and maybe it will come true.

You are already "believing". Try critical thinking instead.

If you desire to be taken serious, such mean rethorics don't help you.

 

[Major_Tom]

MY theory? I hope you can quote me on that!

Then why don't you show some spine and inform Pgimeno, Beachnut, TFK and R Mackey what is wrong with it so I don't have to keep repeating it?

You remain noticably silent while your fellow Bazantistas lecture me on its virtues.

 

[Major_Tom]

If you desire to be taken serious, such mean rethorics don't help you.

It is practical advice. You seem to be quite the artist at blocking out contradictions from your mind.

If you want to learn something it hardly matters how you feel about me personally. Your reaction to the images shown has nothing to do with me. That is between you and yourself, a reflection of how you process information.

 

[NoahFence]

These observations of yours.....

WHAT
DO
THEY
SAY?

If you get around to answering that, please omit the acronym "NIST".
I want YOU to tell us what YOU think it says.