SanderO wrote:...Tom's analysis arrived at the ROOSD mechanism using an examination of how the facade (and the surviving core) behaved... plus it includes the observations of the descending crush front inside the facade cage. ROOSD is derived from observation but it has been described in engineering literature. Tom did not invent ROOSD but he has given it an acronym.'....
Whilst assigning the ROOSD acronym was the "marketing initiative" which gave Major_Tom prominence on this initiative it is not IMNSHO the greatest of M_T's achievements with ROOSD.
My opinion is that M_T's greatest achievement with ROOSD is in the extensive and accurate research he has done and published on the ROOSD portion of the "global collapse" or "progression" stage of Twin towers collapses.
One aspect of that work being the identification of how the various bits perimeter broke away, how they fell and where they landed. I am not aware of anything nearly as comprehensive being done or published and I doubt that there has been any work to equal M_T's. I have commended M_T's work on this aspect many times - including on JREF where the naysayers tend to go ballistic at any praise of M_T (or femr2 et al
A second aspect of his work has been the differentiation of speeds/movement sequence between the various zones of OOS in their respective towers.
Yes there have been others who have identified the process without the ROOSD label. I was one when I published a broad outline of the process back in 2008 on the then active Richard Dawkins Net Forum. But I stopped at the broad outline - it was all I needed and I do not share M_T's motivation or aptitude for detailed research. Dadeets may remember the Dawkins Forum discussion from the brief time he spent on Dawkins Forum - I'm not sure how the time he was active there overlapped my publishing of the global collapse explanations - I think he came later.
So it is interesting to see M_T's work being used in the setting of an audience of "committed truthers". It may be amusing to see if it attracts the same cynicism in that extreme of the 9/11 polarised debate scene as it does in JREF where many members are biased the other way. I think it could be better received given that the JREF response is mostly driven by the "blue sky" phenomenon directed at M_T rather than what he claims. M_T is branded "truther" on JREF so many members hold to the line that everything he says must be wrong.
Another point in it's favour for Vancouver is the setting that Dadeets gives it:
dadeets wrote:I am assuming separation of initiating OOS floor from columns the indirect result of explosives of some kind. (“Major_Tom” does not claim to provide answers to what exactly initiated ROOSD, or
if it was an intentionally applied force.)
...which is not quite fair to Major_Tom's position. M_T was clearly describing "progression" not "initiation" so it is not an omission on M_T's part to leave out commenting about "initiation". And the Vancouver audience is unlikely to be concerned about the reversal of the logic of proof in the "assumption" of explosives. But we don't need to go there in this thread.