The 9/11 Forum

by **Major_Tom** » Thu Apr 05, 2012 1:59 am

directly from page 2 of the linked thread, femr posts...

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

Originally Posted by ozeco41:
Whether it was "perimeter led" or "core led" does not change the overall picture

femr: Upon what are you painting that *picture* ?

So for clarity, do you agree that the data presented suggests a *core-led*, rather than *perimeter-led*, er, picture ?

Ozeco:
that a weakened impact zone dropped the top block and from that point "global collapse was inevitable".

femr: If you put the NIST report to one side, upon what exactly are you basing your statement ?

Ozeco:
However the concern that many members have, looking ahead a few steps, is that a "core led collapse" could make it easier to claim that the core was cut by demolition devices.

femr: Such concern is irrelevant speculation.

Ozeco:
The practice that both Major_Tom and femr2 adopt in their posting, that of insisting on step by step exposing of their logic and not foreshadowing what is down the path, lends further support to those who see the path inevitably leading to claims of demolition.

femr:
Your personal perception of posting *style* is also irrelevant. Sounds a little paranoid. Any unsupported *claims* would be rapidly examined, so you have nothing to fear, yes ? Why worry eh ? There's nothing ahead that could possibly cause you to question your belief that, regardless of the actual initiation sequence, it makes no difference at all. Makes you wonder why the likes of NIST even bothered to look at initiation at all.

It would be great if NIST got it right, but hey ho

Ozeco:
I have commented previously on the discussion tactics

femr: There are no *tactics*. Continuing to believe such is a little worrisome.

Ozeco:
So let the "progressive revelation" tactics continue.

Femr: Eh ?

It's very simple...

Do you agree that presented factors indicate a core-led *picture*, or not ? If not, why not ?

Ozeco:
I also subscribe to "I don't see how any of this invalidates the main thrust of the NIST findings."

femr: Which findings do you mean (with references please) ?

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

This is the type of shit we had to put up with while attempting to get you to look at the building and read the NIST reports. I am sorry if you are offended but I could produce many, many posts like this.

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

Ozeco, with the gift of hindsight, what were our sneaky tactics? Did we ever do what you were accusing us of doing page after page?

Did we ever get you to cite anything in the NIST reports that support you beliefs? (No) Are you any more versed in the visual record of what actually happened to any of the buildings? (No evidence of it)

by **Major_Tom** » Thu Apr 05, 2012 2:17 am

Ozeco, post #72 in that thread sums up how you approach the information about building behavior I posted in the OP. Link here

It is an interesting approach, the whole while you are accusing femr and me of some "tactic".

Let us review your limits of interest in the building behavior....

In the link, you define your interests thus:

I have no interest in discussing it until and if it falls outside my own broad findings as to those stages 5, 6 and 7 AND my own finding that there was no demolition. Both of those criteria align with my understanding of the NIST position. Until then I have no interest in discussion. I covered that in my last sentence "Any more micro details may be of interest depending on the objective of the person expressing interest." You are interested in the details for some reason.

Note that just as the building began to visibly move, with a 1 to 2 degree tilt and the northwest corner of floor 98 falling only about a half a meter, a very large light colored dust ejection is seen coming out of floors 88, 89 south face, 10 floors below. Rather massive, cement colored ejections 10 floors below the early movement.

This is just one of the "insignificant details" in that OP you showed no interest in knowing.

You continue:

(1) The possible picture of contradictions you are building is "insignificant details" in the context of my interst and I suspect the interest ofmany others posting here. AND (2) ...if the contradictions are to become significant it is your responsibility (burden of proof) to put forward and support a reasoned claim.

As I look back, I am so glad that the researchers here didn't try to stick their heads in such a box.

Even today, you do not know anything at all about early behavior and early ejection patterns, do you? And you do not know this because it "fell outside your range of interest". Even today, you never bothered to try to understand the NIST claims and prefer your own interpretation of NISTs "broader claims".

We are very different in our approaches to fact-checking. If you never took the time to understand the core NIST claims, of course you will never need to see contradictions within it. If you never took time to look at the buildings carefully after all this time, you are guaranteed to never see contradictory behavior.

If you play hockey with the puck only in your mind, you would have to be a fool to lose the game.

With a puck and stiff competition, everything changes.
.............................

That is why you see no contradictions while I do. You do not look.

by **Major_Tom** » Thu Apr 05, 2012 3:07 am

With the comments in the features list thread as a reference, I repeat the exchange between Ozeco and OWE a few pages ago...

Ozeco: What sector of the demographic of readers of NIST is affected if NIST is wrong on a detail?

OWE: Probably the ones downstream of Objectives 2, 3 and 4, eh?

Ozeco: Let's try a hypothetical - "What impact would it have if NIST published an addendum 'BTW folks the first bit to fail was the core columns and the perimeter came second.' "?

OWE: I suppose we'd be wondering why they thought so. Why the about-face? Why the totally different causal chain? Hey, it was pretty important to keep the fireproofing on, we all get that (and many certainly didn't need the report to say so). More fireproofing, better adherence. Now, what about the core? Why did the core become overloaded? Need to boost primary vertical support FOS by 25% to accommodate load redistribution?

How about avoid (stupid) tube in tube design? How about avoid large floor spans in quarter mile high skyscrapers? How about more redundancy in primary load paths? How about sensibly limiting the height of skyscrapers?

If you can flip between core failure and perimeter failure and call it a "detail", then, yes, you and I are very, very different. If forceful ejections 10 floors below the collapse initiation sequence is a "detail" outside your range of interest, then we live in different worlds.

There is no amount of bridging that will bring those worlds closer together.

by **Oystein** » Thu Apr 05, 2012 1:29 pm

Major_Tom wrote:Ozeco, post #72 in that thread sums up how you approach the information about building behavior I posted in the OP. Link here

Thanks for linking that excellent post.

Major_Tom wrote:It is an interesting approach, the whole while you are accusing femr and me of some "tactic".

Not sure if that's an "accusation". It is generally a great idea to employ tactics when you want to achieve a goal. Sports teams are sometimes accused of having no tactic or the wrong tactic, but rarely is the claim that someone HAS a tactic an accusation.

So whether a tactic is good or not depends on what you want to achieve.

ozeco explains very well what HE wants to achieve, and I guess "the accusation" lies at most in his assessment that your tactic is not going to achieve HIS goal.

Major_Tom wrote:...
Note that just as the building began to visibly move, with a 1 to 2 degree tilt and the northwest corner of floor 98 falling only about a half a meter, a very large light colored dust ejection is seen coming out of floors 88, 89 south face, 10 floors below. Rather massive, cement colored ejections 10 floors below the early movement.

This is just one of the "insignificant details" in that OP you showed no interest in knowing.
...
As I look back, I am so glad that the researchers here didn't try to stick their heads in such a box.

Even today, you do not know anything at all about early behavior and early ejection patterns, do you? And you do not know this because it "fell outside your range of interest". Even today, you never bothered to try to understand the NIST claims and prefer your own interpretation of NISTs "broader claims".

Let's insert here another quote from the ozeco post you linked to:

ozeco41 wrote:Now your post seems to imply that you disagree with my statement:
Major_Tom wrote:...Ozeco post 41: "Whether it was "perimeter led" or "core led" does not change the overall picture that a weakened impact zone dropped the top block and from that point "global collapse was inevitable."
Setting aside innuendos, intended or not, do you disagree with that statement of mine?

And then continue reading what you wrote:

Major_Tom wrote:We are very different in our approaches to fact-checking. If you never took the time to understand the core NIST claims, of course you will never need to see contradictions within it. If you never took time to look at the buildings carefully after all this time, you are guaranteed to never see contradictory behavior.
...
That is why you see no contradictions while I do. You do not look.

ozeco has been clear all along that he is not interested in finding faults and contradiction within NISTs work on the level of detail that you delve into when you describe areas of dropping structure and puffs of whatever colored dust ejections.

The question remains firmly: Do these detailed observations (of light-coloered dust ejections earla on and what not) 'change the overall picture that a weakened impact zone dropped the top block and from that point "global collapse was inevitable"'? I think ozeco is still right: If they don't change that overall picture, then why bother. If you want to convince him, or anybody, that they DO change that overall picture, you have to first state it, and then...

ozeco41 wrote:...if the contradictions are to become significant it is your responsibility (burden of proof) to put forward and support a reasoned claim.

by **uglypig** » Thu Apr 05, 2012 3:54 pm

Yeah, even if the trusses remained fireproofed it would have still collapsed (most probably) so yes it changes the overall picture

NIST report was about determining what happend to those buildings and how to prevent it from happening again, a clear message concerning the FOS of core in tube-in-tube design is clearly vital in this regard.

If he wants to argue as a proponent of natural collapse (fire happend and everything collapsed) all he needs is to point out the impacts and fires, no need for the NIST report.

Bottom line: NIST was wrong and no amount of sophistry can bury that and if you can't admit it than.... what's the point in arguing a dishonest person.

by **Major_Tom** » Thu Apr 05, 2012 4:50 pm

SanderO wrote:Tom,
It occurs to me that the one of the reason that the facades at the Mech floors are attached in some cases in the collapse is that unlike the OOS flooring these were steel framed and likely moment connection between the facade and the floor beams. The Mech floors were structurally like 3D rigid donut structures cantilevered off the core's perimeter. The OOS floor to facade connections were pinned and were much weaker.

The ROOSD likely failed the core side beam stub outlooker connection as there were only 8 on the long side and 6 on the short side causing the floor on the inboard side to go down first and a virtual hinge at the facade which cause them to kick out at the bottom where the Mech floor facade panels were joined to the OOS panels below. Hunch.

I think these insightful comments are worth remembering.

Sander, you have a drawing and some information on those connections somewhere in the forum. Do you know where I can find it?

From a different post Sander wrote:

I think the main point of Smart Idiots....or one of them is the amazing failure of intelligent people to describe what is before their eyes.

Exactly. Or their failure to understand they have to look carefully with their own eyes and their own mind before diving into a state of false certainty.

It is false certainty that characterizes the smart idiot. They have a very difficult time saying one of the most profound phrases in all of philosophy, I don't know.

Within the sharp polarities of the "debate", note how few people are capable of carefully looking at something with their own eyes and are capable of saying, "I don't know".

by **Major_Tom** » Thu Apr 05, 2012 5:27 pm

Major_Tom wrote:This serves as a good comparison.

Please notice how important the birdie is to these people playing badminton:

Now, imagine watching them do the exact same thing, but without a birdie.

It would go from being a good match to a spectacle of two crazy people chasing a mutual hallucination.

That little tiny birdie makes a huge difference in the interaction being witnessed in the video.

It is true. That birdie may seem insignificant when viewed separately, but in this context it makes all the difference.

My guess is that if one feels they can twist the NIST reports like a pretzel into any shape one wants, this is similar the game lacking a birdie.

If one can jump between core-led collapse and perimeter-led collapse as if they are skipping rope, or jump between a 1 degree tilt and an 8 degree tilt like it makes no difference to NIST's "broader conclusions", that is treating the reports as if they are sculpting clay, formable into any shape one wishes without affecting the "broader outcome".

Core-led collapse, no problemo. Perimeter-led collapse, no problemo.

I cannot argue against a flexible cartoon that can change shape according to the wishes of the beholder.

This is what I called a "franken-model" earlier. It can be twisted into any shape for any argument.

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

I need a substitute phrase for "franken-models". Any ideas, reader?

by **SanderO** » Thu Apr 05, 2012 7:58 pm

Moment Connection.pdf: (42.36 KiB) Downloaded 4 times

mech flr section.pdf: (5.33 KiB) Downloaded 5 times

: core cross bracing.PNG (48.91 KiB) Viewed 93 times

core beam stubs.pdf: (13.81 KiB) Downloaded 5 times

Tom,

I made the following cartoons about column to beam connections and one *section thru the mech floors.

by **Major_Tom** » Thu Apr 05, 2012 8:20 pm

ozeco41 wrote:Then I only recently put into words the realisation that I am in a small minority of people who seek to explain WTC Towers collapse from the perspective of the actual mechanism.

Exactly. I was reading your posts from pages 37 of this thread and they are very good. Do I contradict myself by saying that after the last few posts? I don't think so.

I have tried to tell you that since our first post exchanges. You really were in a very small minority but you thought this information was pretty well known.

It is not and the proof is everywhere.

by **Major_Tom** » Fri Apr 06, 2012 2:56 am

OneWhiteEye wrote:

I have, independently of this subject, long come to the conclusion that quality is not valued in many places in the modern world. What is valued is cheap, fast, and good enough. For anyone who believed with great confidence that the collapses were strictly the result of impact and fires, the NIST reports were superfluous - they already knew the answers. Then the existence of the reports is tantamount to nails in the coffin for any alternative scenario, so far as they're concerned. Doesn't matter if the report's correct because the report was never necessary to a true believer, anyway.

(It is interesting to see the typical 'true believer' scenario inverted and stood on its head. I think it fits exceedingly well).

Identical. Symmetry between the poles.

As I mention in the "book", a third approach is to verify all claims to the best of ones ability.

Quality. Accuracy. There is no substitute for just being accurate. So few people seem interested in that boring approach.

Certainly not trying to dismiss your inquiry, uglypig, and I appreciate that there are some people who can understand that a failure investigation of any sort (but especially with international attention and millions in the budget) has, as its primary purpose, to conclude with an accurate assessment of the failure sequence and conditions, otherwise the only failure of note is that of the failure investigation team to satisfy their charter.

To me this is a no-brainer. The NIST even states it clearly in the outline of their approach. Stunning how few people seem to care about an accurate outcome.

Core-led collapse, no problemo. 8 degree tilt and perimeter-led, no problemo.

What's the difference? Building fell, no? All they need to do is "beef them up more".

More beef where? Don't know, just beef it all up.

(sigh)

by **ozeco41** » Fri Apr 06, 2012 9:52 am

Oystein wrote:
Major_Tom wrote:Ozeco, post #72 in that thread sums up how you approach the information about building behavior I posted in the OP. Link here

Thanks for linking that excellent post....

That post you referenced Oystein is as accurate and valid today as it was when I posted it. Including correctly providing for Major_Tom's (limited) area of interest. i.e. "technical details which are either not significant OR for which Major_Tom implies significance but is not prepared to demonstrate what the significance is". It was one of my many attempts to discuss with Major_Tom. He has never responded to the points I make clearly when those points identify the limits he wants to place on discussion.

Oystein wrote:
Major_Tom wrote:It is an interesting approach, the whole while you are accusing femr and me of some "tactic".

Not sure if that's an "accusation". It is generally a great idea to employ tactics when you want to achieve a goal. Sports teams are sometimes accused of having no tactic or the wrong tactic, but rarely is the claim that someone HAS a tactic an accusation.

So whether a tactic is good or not depends on what you want to achieve....

Chase back the history and you will find that I covered my backside by explaining clearly that the tactics were implicit i.e. that they existed in the structure of posts by those members AND were capable of determination as a matter of objective fact. I courteously left it to the two other persons to accept as "deliberate" if they so desired OR for them to rebut the claim of fact that the tactics were "impicit". Simply stated they were given the opportunity to rebut the "intention" OR the "fact" and it was an inclusive or - they could, if they chose, rebut both.

The contrast between the responses of femr2 and M_T at that time is interesting for those who like to read gamesmanship. :wink:

Oystein wrote:ozeco explains very well what HE wants to achieve, and I guess "the accusation" lies at most in his assessment that your tactic is not going to achieve HIS goal...

...again look at the post in context of several posts over several occasions. I gave two options PLUS (to avoid false dilemma) the option of "specify your own if you do not agree with either of mine". It would be a rare occasion when I make claims which have loopholes in the logic. :twisted:

Major_Tom wrote:...This is just one of the "insignificant details" in that OP you showed no interest in knowing...

Quote mining of course. The true context edited out by M_T's quote mining is that I showed no interest in knowing until he demonstrated why it was significant. Thereby putting the ball back into his court to support the contention he was making. And the burden of proof is his - he is the one claiming the detail in question is significant.

Major_Tom wrote:...As I look back, I am so glad that the researchers here didn't try to stick their heads in such a box...

A typical snide comment which does nothing to progress discussion.

Oystein wrote:...Let's insert here another quote from the ozeco post you linked to:
ozeco41 wrote:Now your post seems to imply that you disagree with my statement:
Major_Tom wrote:...Ozeco post 41: "Whether it was "perimeter led" or "core led" does not change the overall picture that a weakened impact zone dropped the top block and from that point "global collapse was inevitable."
Setting aside innuendos, intended or not, do you disagree with that statement of mine?

And then continue reading what you wrote:
Major_Tom wrote:We are very different in our approaches to fact-checking. If you never took the time to understand the core NIST claims, of course you will never need to see contradictions within it. If you never took time to look at the buildings carefully after all this time, you are guaranteed to never see contradictory behavior.
...
That is why you see no contradictions while I do. You do not look.

ozeco has been clear all along that he is not interested in finding faults and contradiction within NISTs work on the level of detail that you delve into when you describe areas of dropping structure and puffs of whatever colored dust ejections.

The question remains firmly: Do these detailed observations (of light-coloured dust ejections early on and what not) 'change the overall picture that a weakened impact zone dropped the top block and from that point "global collapse was inevitable"'? I think ozeco is still right: If they don't change that overall picture, then why bother. If you want to convince him, or anybody, that they DO change that overall picture, you have to first state it, and then...
ozeco41 wrote:...if the contradictions are to become significant it is your responsibility (burden of proof) to put forward and support a reasoned claim.

Your explanations, Oystein, fully support the position I have taken and explained to M_T on many occasions. I have explained in great detail over many posts here and on JREF why I consider some technical issues "details". Stated generically (and at some risk of being misunderstood) a detail is only of significance at levels up to the system hierarchal level where it changes a conclusion. If it does not change a conclusion at the level of system under discussion it is not significant. Back to a specific: I remain to be convinced that "core led' or "perimeter led EITHER changes the conclusion that the falling top block caused the global collapse of the lower tower OR is a matter that is of interest to a significant portion of the demography of people interested in WTC collapse. M_T has been invited many times to demonstrate that either of those claims are false.

So the burden of proof is on Major_Tom to show that these issues I have labelled "details" are significant. He has never risen to the challenge - falling back onto insult on most occasions.

I remain open to being persuaded. All that is required is to put on the table (A)the reasons that a specific technical detail is of significance AND (B) the identification of the group to whom it would be significant. And, by the way, that step would simply open the barriers so that debate can progress. :wink:

by **Major_Tom** » Fri Apr 06, 2012 10:53 am

Ozeco:

So the burden of proof is on Major_Tom to show that these issues I have labelled "details" are significant.

Each "feature" could be thought of as individual threads within this forum.

If you need an invitation with explanation to read some of the best threads within this forum from 2009-2011, that is your position.

Long time readers most probably know that those "features" of MT are nothing more than a condensed verson of the work of forum members from 2009-2011.

What can I say? Read the forum before posting in it?

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>.

feature lists = condensed version of technical observations within this forum from 2009-2011.

The feature lists are not "mine". It is as if I distilled some of the technical essense of this forum over the last few years and put it in linkable lists.

All you would have to do is read the information in the sections on WTC1, 2 and 7 in this forum to see the expanded version of each "feature".

I assume readers take the time to understand something about this forum over the last few years before posting. If you think these feature lists and the resulting visual reconstructions of each of the buildings is "mine", you have read very little of this forum. (and you missed some of the best parts)

by **SanderO** » Fri Apr 06, 2012 11:25 am

What is a *detail*? Detail usually means a small aspect of a larger thing. Conceptually one can say the details (a detail) matter not because any detail will not significantly change the big picture.

This is a very sloppy way of thinking. Is a core or facade led collapse a detail of the destruction of the twin towers? Is the amount of fuel delivered by the plane or the FOS, or the number of columns destroyed, or the damage to the fire protection of the steel? And so on...

The nature of understanding a complex event such as the collapse and structural failure means accounting for all the factors which contributed to the process. Each one or any one may not have led to the final result... or they may have been contributory to down stream events. But each detail may be and likely is crucial to the big picture. Change on amino acid in a DNA and you can create major havoc in the organism when it is born... Just a minor detail...

God is in the details is how Mies Van Der Rohe put it. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_is_in_the_detail) And he was just a dumb architect!

by **Oystein** » Sat Apr 07, 2012 9:22 am

Major_Tom wrote:Ozeco:

So the burden of proof is on Major_Tom to show that these issues I have labelled "details" are significant.

Each "feature" could be thought of as individual threads within this forum.
...

What the...?

You quote a tiny bit of ozeco's post. That's ok. This quote addresses the issue of significance, and who has to show it.

And then you go on, and ignore all of that, and again praise yourself for 2-3 years worth of heaping up detail upon detail.

Question still remains: How is any of this significant, and to whom?

by **Oystein** » Sat Apr 07, 2012 9:32 am

SanderO wrote:What is a *detail*? Detail usually means a small aspect of a larger thing. Conceptually one can say the details (a detail) matter not because any detail will not significantly change the big picture.

This is a very sloppy way of thinking. Is a core or facade led collapse a detail of the destruction of the twin towers? Is the amount of fuel delivered by the plane or the FOS, or the number of columns destroyed, or the damage to the fire protection of the steel? And so on...

The nature of understanding a complex event such as the collapse and structural failure means accounting for all the factors which contributed to the process. Each one or any one may not have led to the final result... or they may have been contributory to down stream events. But each detail may be and likely is crucial to the big picture. Change on amino acid in a DNA and you can create major havoc in the organism when it is born... Just a minor detail...

God is in the details is how Mies Van Der Rohe put it. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_is_in_the_detail) And he was just a dumb architect!

ozeco has been very clear in his definition:

ozeco41 wrote:Stated generically (and at some risk of being misunderstood) a detail is only of significance at levels up to the system hierarchal level where it changes a conclusion. If it does not change a conclusion at the level of system under discussion it is not significant.

So yes, "core-led vs. perimeter-led" is just a detail if the comclusion you are going to scrutinize is "damage from plane crashes and fire built up till it lead to major movement of top 15 stories" and/or "once top 15 stories moved this much, total collapse was certain".

Same goes for for fuel load and everything.

Same goes for the entire oeuvre of M_T: Whose conclusions need to be changed as a result of this work? I am sure some people's comclusions need to be changed, but not everybody's. For example: I have long ago concluded that no CD took place because a) there is no direct evidence for CD and b) plane crashes and fires are sufficient to explain collapses and c) There were plance crashes and fires. So, can you point out the persons or groups who need to change their conclusions? I think I am not such person. When you point out such persons or groups to whom M_T's findings are significant and thus not mere details, give reasons!

The 9/11 Forum

Smart Idiots

Re: Smart Idiots

Re: Smart Idiots

Re: Smart Idiots

Re: Smart Idiots

Re: Smart Idiots

Re: Smart Idiots

Re: Smart Idiots

Re: Smart Idiots

Re: Smart Idiots

Re: Smart Idiots

Re: Smart Idiots

Re: Smart Idiots

Re: Smart Idiots

Re: Smart Idiots

Re: Smart Idiots

Who is online