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

[Major_Tom]

Yet another clue, the upper portion of the south wall fell out and over the lower portion during collapse initiation.

From a sequence of inages showing south wall collapse evolution here

 

[Major_Tom]

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.

First, they show that neither the NIST nor yourselves studied the real building movements. You need to get over that illusion before anything else.

A collapse initiation mechanism was faked. They have no idea of the "how and why" of the WTC1 collapse.

What does it tell me? It is best to collect observables before publishing a report.

This is why I have this crazy idea to look at the events with real data instead the fake data your were using. Real data on movement changes everything.

 

[tsig]

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.

He wants us to follow the bouncing buildings and sing after him "It's an inside job".

 

[tsig]

First, they show that neither the NIST nor yourselves studied the real building movements. You need to get over that illusion before anything else.

A collapse initiation mechanism was faked. They have no idea of the "how and why" of the WTC1 collapse.

What does it tell me? It is best to collect observables before publishing a report.

This is why I have this crazy idea to look at the events with real data instead the fake data your were using. Real data on movement changes everything.

You mean fuzzy x-generation* videos?

* we don't know how many copies from the original.

 

[NoahFence]

First, they show that neither the NIST nor yourselves studied the real building movements. You need to get over that illusion before anything else.

A collapse initiation mechanism was faked. They have no idea of the "how and why" of the WTC1 collapse.

What does it tell me? It is best to collect observables before publishing a report.

This is why I have this crazy idea to look at the events with real data instead the fake data your were using. Real data on movement changes everything.

Dude. I specifically said NO NIST.

Personally, I have no "data" - faked or not. If you're looking to me to be in the MT / FEMR over-analyze camp, I'm sorry. I don't need that to know why they fell. I'm simply trying to figure out if you're under the impression that explosives were involved. If so, there are fundamental questions that you need to address before you go into why column 79 on the 58th floor fell before column 43 on the 72nd floor....or whatever.


It is those questions that I'm looking for an answer to. I know you have a hard time with NIST and their findings. I get it. What I don't get is weather or not you have a different conclusion. This is why so many of us so-called 'debunkers' are so adamant about truthers' entire theories.

If you believe explosives were involved, than it stands to reason that you also think something was amiss re: Pentagon and Shanksville. It would go a long way in clearing the air if someone here would step up to the plate and offer a theory on the entire day's events.

Again, I know the building movement. It was DOWN. Really, really fast.

**It should also be noted, MT, that you didn't answer my question**:

I want YOU to tell us what YOU think it says.

What do YOUR FINDINGS tell you about the collapse. Not what your findings tell you about other people's findings. What is YOUR bottom line?

 

[Major_Tom]

No. The best sources publicly available.

 

[Major_Tom]

I told you. It shows me that YOU don't have clue what YOU are talking about.

YOU and many other people. Very gullible for believing in fake claims about early building movement.

All data and observables seem to point to a core-led failure.

 

[NoahFence]

I told you. It shows me that YOU don't have clue what YOU are talking about.

YOU and many other people. Very gullible for believing in fake claims about early building movement.

All data and observables seem to point to a core-led failure.

Just gonna skip right over your theory, huh?

Assume for a moment you're correct. I don't have a clue.

Educate me. Tell me what YOUR findings say. YOUR conclusion. It's not enough to say "NIST is wrong"

Show me.

Actually, lets just start small. It seems for a pretty smart person, you're kinda dumb.

Yes or no - Explosives were involved.

Just a simple yes or no to start.

 

[carlitos]

Or you could use your own eyes to see how the air emerges from the 98th fl relative to the floors below during the movement.

You can see how the air moves through the smoke movement.
...

You can see how the pressure builds in reality just by looking at the gif.

You can see how the 94th floor reacts to the movement. You can see the 92nd floor.

No, actually. I can't see any of those things. Your interpretation of gifs reminds me of Jack White's photo analysis.

 

[Oystein]

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.

Because, as I have mentioned a few times ago, I am NOT dicussing Bazant here and now with you. I am discussing YOUR theory and YOUR predictions (or wild guesses) from it!

Stop the goal post dance!

 

[Oystein]

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

No, it's juvenile condescension.
I am discussing the holes and contradictions in your theory, your predictions, your logic.
You are wiggling away like a weasle from it, it seems!

If you want to learn something it hardly matters how you feel about me personally.

Correct. But I felt I should give you some aduklt advice anyway.

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.

There is no good information in thise blurry images, which are thge result of very lossy compression.
Also, those images are NOT your theory.


I have been asking you:
How did you arrive at predictions about ejections from your theory? You can't present me with observations to explain how you predict the observations. Your theory should be able to predict the observations even before you make observations.
So please spare me the observations in your next post and instead show how you work your theory to make predictions about ejections. This, and nothing else, please.

Or, alternatively, admit that you used the term "predictably" loosely and actusally meant "according to my gut feelings"."

 

[Oystein]

First, they show that neither the NIST nor yourselves studied the real building movements. You need to get over that illusion before anything else.

A collapse initiation mechanism was faked. They have no idea of the "how and why" of the WTC1 collapse.

What did you not understand about the phrase "please omit the acronym "NIST"" in NoahFence's post? Why did you use the acronym NIST when you were specifically asked NOT to use the acronym NIST and instead discuss YOUR own theory?

What does it tell me? It is best to collect observables before publishing a report.

This is why I have this crazy idea to look at the events with real data instead the fake data your were using. Real data on movement changes everything.

You already have a theory, or so you seem to claim.
Good theories allow you to make predictions.
You wrote a post earlier where you twice insinuated that you have made "predictions". If we are talking science here, then it is fair to assume that you made those predictions by applying your theory, to explain observations. That implies you would NOT use observations to make predictions, only to confirm them.
So now we need to know: Which ejections does your theory predict, at which times, and which non-ejections would your theory predict? Does your theory explain (predict) ejections in those floors where they happened, both just below the collapse front and, individually, several floors lower? Does your theory predict all the ejections that did not happen, both just below the collapse front and, individually, several floors lower?

 

[Oystein]

I told you. It shows me that YOU don't have clue what YOU are talking about.

YOU and many other people. Very gullible for believing in fake claims about early building movement.

All data and observables seem to point to a core-led failure.

"a core-led failure" - that's a theory.
Does that theory predict ejections? If so, show your work!

Your theory is NOT about NoahFence, or me, or "us". It is about the collapse of WTC1 (and/or 2). So it can't possibly make predictions about people like us.

So stop evading YOUR OWN TOPIC!
Discuss YOUR OWN THEORY!
Show how you arrived at YOUR OWN PREDICTIONS using YOUR OWN THEORY, and NOT observations! Observations do not explain obesrvations. Theories explain observations.

You always forget to work with your theory to explain observations.

You apparently have no clue how scientific epistemology works in the 21st century!

 

[femr2]

What did you not understand about the phrase "please omit the acronym "NIST"" in NoahFence's post? Why did you use the acronym NIST when you were specifically asked NOT to use the acronym NIST and instead discuss YOUR own theory?

Probably because MT doesn't have to do what you or your esteemed colleague (lol) NoahFence says or demands. Where do you think you are ? Funny stuff.

How about I try it the other way around...

Go across the street and get me some or-ange sher-bert!

 

[Grizzly Bear]

No nobody can force him, but it would be nice to know what his point is since the only thing that's obvious is his utter hatred for a report he himself is confused over... If he were more focused on making his point rather than repeating how gullible he thinks everyone is, his discussion might actually get somewhere. This subsection may not be "truther friendly" but that doesn't mean one has to set the same example.

 

[femr2]

No nobody can force him, but it would be nice to know what his point is since the only thing that's obvious is his utter hatred for a report he himself is confused over... If he were more focused on making his point rather than repeating how gullible he thinks everyone is, his discussion might actually get somewhere. This subsection may not be "truther friendly" but that doesn't mean one has to set the same example.

Which is fair enough. I think his point has been made time-and-again over several threads, but hey. I was just highlighting the suggestion that MT did not understand the phrase as being a bit silly.

 

[Major_Tom]

Personally, I have no "data" - faked or not. If you're looking to me to be in the MT / FEMR over-analyze camp, I'm sorry. I don't need that to know why they fell.

This has got to be one of my favorite quotes of the last few pages.


An excellent representation of the JREF approach.

He don't need no stinkin' data, analysis, report or nothin' to know why those buildings fell.

He knows the answer in his gut. It's just a gut feeling. That is all the proof he needs.

 

[Major_Tom]

Because, as I have mentioned a few times ago, I am NOT dicussing Bazant here and now with you. I am discussing YOUR theory and YOUR predictions (or wild guesses) from it!

Stop the goal post dance!

My stated goals have been the same since the OP in the OOS propagation thread.

Stated clearly:

My debate strategy is pretty clear. I have been following this general pattern:



a) First, Introduce a correct collapse propagation theory. Clear up many misunderstandings of all parties in the "debate". Misunderstandings by AE911T, by many regular JREF posters, by STJ911, by Bazant.

Knowledge and observation of the ROOSD process allow us to be specific when "debating" unlike any time previously.

Both self-proclaimed "debunkers" and "truthers" have helped spread many tall tales. The current atmosphere is thick with poor interpretation of photographic evidence. "The debate" is 95% hot air and fantasy. Knowledge of the ROOSD process destroys many of those illusions, allowing us to talk about specific features of collapse with a common underlying understanding for the first time.



b) Second, destroy the most common illusions that put a stranglehold on true, honest debate. For regular posters at JREF, this illusion is that some accepted authority has provided convincing answers to the demolition question.

The heart of this belief in such scientific authority is an attachment to the claims of "proof" by Dr Bazant and the NIST. Many posters are convinced that mechanisms of collapse of all three towers have been identified.

This is totally untrue. The collapses of all three towers remain a total mystery, and no scientific authority has come close to solving or explaining the mystery.


This is a fact that many here will fight to deny: The true causes for the collapses of all 3 towers remains unknown. In reality, the NIST was not able to identify the causes of any of the collapses.

No mechanism of collapse has yet been correctly identified


Speaking of illusions, to be fair, many claims by 9/11 truth groups are verifiably incorrect and these illusions must also be destroyed. The researchers that I feel have contributed most to 9/11 resreach have been largely ignored by the mainstream 9/11 truth movement. This is because many false claims have been made by AE911T, for example, and the researchers mentioned can probably call their bluff on those false claims. Unfortunately, the tendency of AE911T, for example, has been to shelter itself from honest debate with other truthers such as myself. Not healthy.



c) Once illusions have lost their power to dominate the scope of the "debate", and people overcome the tendency to cite abstract authority as decisive "proof", Free of the stranglehold of illusions, we will debate collapse features more clearly and specifically, maybe for the first time.


All features worth considering will be presented as comprehensive lists of information. We will find that a knowledge of the ROOSD process will give us a much better ability to see the collapse processes as a whole. We will also notice that many subtle features are seemingly inexplicable even with a knowledge of ROOSD.

From my experience, the more I have studied subtle features of the initiation processes and collapses, the more mysterious the events become.

There are many curious features that most people have not noticed about the actual events, mainly because they are looking for big bombs, or tons and tons of TNT, or space beams, or nukes......or pyroclastic clouds, or rivers and streams of molten metal....

If you know about the possibility of a ROOSD process, then you have a great advantage in knowing where to look for curious features of the collapses of WTC1 and 2. It's a great help. There are certain areas that cause natural discontinuities for the ROOSD process, like mechanical room floors, for example, that the observant researcher will want to study in detail.


In this thread I am working on part "b", destroying common illusions.

Ironically, I am still working on part "b", destroying common illusions. Many people are still in denial of the earliest movement and there are still pockets of Bazantistas resisting the true WTC twin towers collapse dynamics.

(And now we will start to pretend that the earliest visible movement along the 98th floor can cause a large, forceful "fart" from the 89th floor, a so-called piston-fart theory).

 

[Major_Tom]

Also, to be very clear, I approach research by asking the following 3 questions in order:


1) Does the visual record match the official explanations of how and why each building collapsed?

2) Does the visual record match any of the known "truther" explanations of how and why each building collapsed?

And after these questions are answered honestly, the MIHOP question is addressed:

3) Does the visual record contain evidence of intentional manipulation of structural components behind any of the 3 collapses?

Notice that the first question must be addressed before the others can be addressed. The first question involves the NIST report so in my threads the NIST is always on topic.


The stated goal of the NIST reports is to find the "how and why" of each of the 3 collapses. This is why the first question must be addressed before all others. If the answer is "yes", there is no further need for us to do any research.

If the true "how and why" of the collapses are known, there is nothing for us to debate. Case closed! But if the "how and why" were not discovered by the NIST, each collapse remains a mystery and each building is certainly worth studying in more detail.

>>>>>>>>>>.

So in this debate and in my threads the NIST results are always on topic. Only when it is shown that the NIST shows neither how nor why any of the 3 buildings collapsed will people give questions #2 and #3 the proper attention they deserve.

Asking me to discuss "my theory" while refusing to discuss the NIST results is truly missing the point of what we are debating.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

Asking me to discuss "my theory" while refusing to discuss the NIST results is truly missing the point of what we are debating.

By "theory" I think much of the demand centers around the results of your "meticulous" examination of the collapses. We get the point that you consider Bazant, NIST, Mackey, et al are incorrect in the information used for their respective arguments. What's missing is what you have gotten out of your own research. What does your exploration of the topic reveal? You've been posting with the impression that you've done considerable work on the topic and providing some of the results you've gained would likely better clarify what's "fishy." Being able to talk about those results IMO would bring about a much more productive "talk" giving people the opportunity to more directly compare "your findings" with the results on more commonly accepted explanations.