The 9/11 Forum

[Major_Tom]

Within this thread I'd like to collect some of Oystein's comments on my "book" both here and on JREF.

I'd like other posters to have the opportunity to read them and either add to his criticism or respond to them, or just see them.

The book will be as good as the feedback presented. Oystein has some pretty negative feedback, and if you agree with him after reading the comments, please let me know (but with a little less hate, please).

[Major_Tom]

You need to realize that his science, physics and mechanisms are on par with Einstein's, Milgram's and William James's. Who are we to criticize this superior genius? There is only kind of response that becomes us: Agree 100% and unconditionally with everything in this monumental book by this amazing, infallible author.

Let's sing chants and praise the Lord Major_Tom!

From this post

[Major_Tom]

Originally Posted by Major_Tom View Post
Ozeco, this quote is from the "snowcrash" thread

This is how you see the technical issues as described in my book, as "black and white"?
.......
Oystein responds: "Perhaps that's (one of the) the problem(s) with your book: That you don't commit to either black or white, even though the nature of the technical issues is such that they lend themselves naturally to eventually being resolved as either black or white.

OneWhiteEye / Kat Dorman, interestingly, calls you "a CD proponent", which I find interesting since he probably knows your work much better and much longer and much more intimately than anyone else."
Here:
http://truthaction.org/forum/viewtop...=asc&start=195 - on apr 15:
Originally Posted by Kat Dorman:
"Oh, I know. Run of the mill CDer talking points. Major_Tom (a CD proponent) has even come up with an acronym for this curious psychological phenomena which broadly affects truthers and debunkers alike:

HTFCYNST - How The **** Can You Not See This?"

Oystein responds: "Do you have an explanation why he would paint you black, when you insist on staying at some undefined grey?


(Interestingly, his remark comes in the middle of a days-long pounding of truebeleaguer who, while CLEARLY pushing all the usual CDer talking points, doesn't have the balls to admit that he CLEARLY is a CD proponent)."

>>>>>>>>>>

End of quote. From this post

Bad Kat! Bad Kitty Kat!

Over 4,000 posts here and I haven't noticed you painting me anything. Are you trashing me behind my back?

[Major_Tom]

Originally Posted by Major_Tom View Post
Thanks for the comments.

The thesis of the book is expressed within the first paragraph:

Quote:
One of the two central arguments of this book is that there is no fact-based technical account of the World Trade Center collapses. This is verifiably true beyond doubt. The true collapse modes of the Twin Towers are not accurately determined within any academic, professional or government literature.

Direct measurements and observations extracted from the visual record of the collapses grossly contradict history as it is generally presented.


Even so, the thesis deals with the curious situation in which there is no accurate technical history of the WTC collapses available but many people believe or assume one exists.
.........................

Oystein: "I am still not sure what the other is"

Originally Posted by Major_Tom View Post
The most obvious case seems to be the collapse progression modes of WTC1 and 2. It appears that WTC1 and 2 were the largest examples of chains of progressive floor collapses ever.
..........................

Oystein: "Why, and to whom, is a more accurate desciption of the collapse progression modes interesting? The simple models predict global collapse even in the ideal cases most extremely geared towards survival. So it seems it doesn't matter much if progression was ROOSD-style or XYZ-style, does it?"

....................
Originally Posted by Major_Tom View Post
The group AE911T does not seem to be aware that the collapse progression modes seem to be a massive cascading chain of progressive floor collapse. Why?
.......................

Oystein: Because they are only interested in squeezing money out of a fantasy tale.

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

Originally Posted by Major_Tom View Post
Is there some academic, professional or government literature on the subject of WTC1 and 2 we can show them which identifies the collapse modes of the 2 towers so as to clear up all this confusion?

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

Oystein: "The confusion arising from AE911T and other such groups that claim CD in the absence of any evidence is best dealt with by simply discarding it. Otherwise, I am not sure wherein the confusion lies. Inaccuracy <> confusion."


from this post

[Major_Tom]

Oystein: "Is this a Stundie?

sm...50.html#p19824
Originally Posted by Major_Tom
WTC1 is a clear case of either incompetence or outright fraud
......................

Oystein: "I don't know what this is a case of - could be this, could be that - but I see it with great clarity!"



MT note: I have seen Stundie post here and I would be honored to be considered for a Stundie at JREF.

[Major_Tom]

Originally Posted by Major_Tom View Post
The information appears in the form of a book.

0.1 Introduction
...
The Introduction / Preface starts off with
Originally Posted by Major_Tom
One of the two central arguments of this book is that there is no fact-based technical account of the World Trade Center collapses.

Oystein: "I then read the entire Introduction / Preface in search of the second of the two central arguments of this book, and couldn't quite find it. Are my rerading skills insufficient for this book?

Also, I notice that this introduction introduces us to parts 1, 2, 3 and 5, but not to part 4 ("Reassessing the Question of Demolition"). Ommission? Afterthought? I must admit I was more interested in that part than in any of the 5 others..."


As for the intended readership, M_T states:
Originally Posted by Major_Tom
First and foremost, I focus this work toward those who realize that discussions that do not center on the need for accuracy are a waste of time.


Oystein: "I see a few problems with that.

1) The necessary level of detail and accuracy is usually a function of the objectives at hand. First you have a discussion (a topic, a starting point, a hypothesis), and then, from that, you work out the details and level of accuracy you need.
2) No matter how accurate and detailed Major_Tom's work already is, he cannot possibly claim to have discovered ALL knowable details to FULL knowable accuracy. Even he had to stop SOMEWHERE. So the next M_T could write a book just like his and "accuse" the original Major_Tom of not having layed out all details in full accuracy - in other words, if creating an "accurate technical history" is Major_Tom's objective, he will of necessity fail. Major_Tom should then reply: "Well, resources are limited, and withouth first providing a motivation derived from obhectives, why dig deeper?"
3) I haven't read the book and all the accurate details yet - haven't even started - but I remember from previous debates with M_T that he has artificially limited his focus on visual observations, apparently to the exclusion of many other types of knowable facts. Is that still so, and if yes - why?"

From this post

[Major_Tom]

Oystein, you can offer further criticism of the book here if you like (or at JREF).

[OneWhiteEye]

Bad Kat! Bad Kitty Kat!

Over 4,000 posts here and I haven't noticed you painting me anything. Are you trashing me behind my back?

You're not? Then bad kitty indeed.

[Oystein]

Oystein, you can offer further criticism of the book here if you like (or at JREF).

I started at JREF, I'll continue here. But you may REPLY to my criticism either here or there. Why don't you

[Oystein]

Bad Kat! Bad Kitty Kat!

Over 4,000 posts here and I haven't noticed you painting me anything. Are you trashing me behind my back?

You're not? Then bad kitty indeed.

See, M_T? OWE really thought until now that you are a CD proponent! Surprise surprise!

Now would you answer the question I asked:

Do you have an explanation why he (OWE) would paint you black (i.e. call you a CD-proponent), when you insist on staying at some undefined grey? Could it perhaps be that your over 2700 in this forum, your main oeuvre of public duscussion, have summarily left precisely that impression - that you are indeed a CD-proponent?

[OneWhiteEye]

I do have a possible explanation. Sometimes I am stupid, and wrong. I'm pretty sure Major_Tom started out that way, but it has been an awful long time since I've heard anything - and I honestly mean anything at all - which would indicate a pro-assistance/CD position.

Things are a little different here (better or worse is completely subjective) in that the best groove is not really giving a shit what someone's beliefs are, but what kind of things they do to shed light on the various topics and how well they may do it. A mark of that is not being driven by ideology in pursuing these interests but rather motivation out of genuine curiosity, or at least more the latter than the former. In the past, it was an unspoken taboo to go to the heart of someone's underlying beliefs when they weren't wearing them on their sleeve, because it shouldn't matter if they did good work and it didn't affect that work. Don't ask don't tell, if you will.

Major_Tom has been consistent in keeping whatever belief system well under control, in my opinion. Especially so if I've been carrying around a mistaken impression of those beliefs all this time...

I don't know if I've assessed the situation correctly from the beginning or, even if I did, missed a flip. We really don't talk about it. I assumed he was inclined towards assisted initiation. But when you don't talk about such things, it's kind of hard to know. Pretty much everything he writes is documentary/historical/critical, with the critical coming down quite even-handedly. Using the characterization "CD proponent" isn't at all fair since there's no evidence of Major_Tom evangelizing CD, at least in several years(?). Is there?

You might think so, I thought so, but the evidence of that is... where?

I was using a bit of hyperbole to get my point across in the truthaction debate, not thinking about it being a mischaracterization, for it is at least that. Kind of ironic, Oystein, given some of the exchanges we've had recently. I'm not immune to it, you see.

-----

Sorry, Major_Tom. Not intending to trash you, and certainly not behind your back (I figured there was a half a chance you'd see it anyway). You AREN'T a CD proponent. The choice of words was certainly haphazard, and geared more towards gravitas of bitchslap than anything else.

[OneWhiteEye]

Major_Tom, I thought you were an intelligent CD proponent. That is, not an evangelist as the word 'proponent' might be stretched to include, but someone who suspected assistance at initiation but knew damn well that claiming it is a fool's pastime.

For the record, it wouldn't influence my opinion of you to know whether or not it ever was the case, or still is.

Nor anyone else, for that matter. Whether or not you believe in CD, or inside job of any kind, or nothing of the sort - I don't care. There are people here who definitely are CD proponents and I've got no problem with that. I like them! Sometimes you just have to agree to disagree but that's cool.

Chances are, I couldn't point out the 'flippers', if there are any. Just doesn't matter.

[OneWhiteEye]

Could it perhaps be that your over 2700 in this forum, your main oeuvre of public duscussion, have summarily left precisely that impression - that you are indeed a CD-proponent?

I'm not going to deny the impression is there, but I have to admit an impression may be all it is. The perspective is a little different, though, when you don't care about that aspect of someone. I don't necessarily say 'CD proponent' like it's a bad thing. Actually, those choice of words are deliberately respectful in the sense that I use 'CD nutbag' or similar when I mean to be disdainful. Of course, it's not respectful if it's a mischaracterization, and at the very least it obliterates the distinction between very obviously stupid CD machinations and clever postulations. Subtlety in terminology, however, does not go hand-in-hand with posts calling my opponent "a blithering idiot" and "a piece of shit" (he was both).

[SanderO]

YIKES! You dudes get my head spinning and a lot has to do with not reading these others sites such as JREF and Truth Action... the later of which I read some of the long thread...

This is a complicated issue not only from a technical standpoint, but from the overarching *political one* which attempts to frame the entire event and that means what was the intention of whoever *pulled it off*?

For example... Can we know whether they intended to completely level the WTC and B7? Isn't that an assumption? Wouldn't another equally *valid* one be... they intended to slam 2 jets into the twins and mess them up big time. One might presume that *mess them up big time* has to mean their total destruction. But that's an assumption. I would argue that severe plane damage to those towers even if they did not collapse would render them unrentable, unusable for months or perhaps years during extremely complex and expensive repairs and maybe they'd end up as blights on the skyline until it was decided to take them down stick by stick. YIKES But someone would still make lots of money from that outcome AND... most importantly, I would argue... we would see the EXACT same POLICY outcomes that we did see... wars, USAPATRIOT Act and the further domination of the national security state.

Maybe, as I theorized recently, B7 was not a CD, was an artifact... unintended, unpredicted consequence of the plane strikes... which revealed design flaws and other questionable decisions made by *authorities* and engineers. If B7 was not a CD... then the proximate cause has to be something related back the the plane strikes or the collapse of T1. What could that be? Fires started from stuff that fell off of T1? Isn't that the NIST position? And isn't that a bit hard to swallow? Basically it amounts to someone starting a fire in some office, disabling the power and hence the sprinkler system and 8 hrs later the building falls. If that is the core of the NIST argument no wonder the truth movement smells a rat... and office fires are not going to lead to the observables. They immediately jump to the CD inside job and NIST becomes the coverer upper for the inside job...

Understanding the motion of the collapses... the mapping of the parts, the dust clouds, ejecta etc. is very revealing of the collapse MECHANISM... but not of the collapse CAUSE. And this clearly COULD be placed *devices* in the *right places*. And one of the important points of this supposition is that the right places are rather few... meaning in my mind... that the CD is not as big a project as many seem to think it is. It's the finding and using the Achilles heel and the breaking of the straw that does in the camel. So maybe part of *the story* which needs to be looked at is how simple (I think) or how complex (I don't think) it would be to drop each of those towers... without even the plane strikes... those they sure helped by facilitating the ROOSD.

I've maintained as I began to understand the structures... the Achilles heels... and the nature of cascading failures which can and often do lead to global system failures...that investigators and researchers can work back to where and what the threshold would be to get that cascading failure going on its own.

However we can't see those Achilles heels (I believe)... they were out of view inside the core areas. We do know that steel frames are weakened by heat. But can we know for certain how much heat was present and if it found the Achilles heels? I don't think so. We can model some scenarios I suspect, but can't prove them from the observables. The NIST animation is an example of modelling a scenario... even if the engineering and math/science was wrong... of how global collapse comes at the end of a cascading failure... a progression of failures within the structure. It's laughable because that one has absolutely no resemblance to what we saw... hence it's also a distraction and has people wasting their time on column 79 nonsense... falsifying a cause which lead to the WRONG progression. What fool's effort.

Tom's efforts as far as I can tell... attempt (rather well) to show that the observables are:

not accurately described by most (stunning!)
inaccurate observations will always produce the wrong explanation though it might be correct for the inaccurate observations
reveals the some/most of the mechanics of the collapses.. such as being *core led*... though he is silent on what initiated that core led process.
that with flawed observations we have devolved into a debate about false *choices* with no one actually taking a rigorous scientific approach using data (best we can establish)

Calling BS on both houses, their *experts* and *supporter/follower/parrots* AND the engineering and scientific community along with a lay down lazy press.. including science writers... is pissing them off and causing the few who see his message to trash his effort at getting at this with an objective (best we can), data driven, using settled science and engineering to describe mechanisms that have not been observed in the past. Nothing earth shattering about any of that. No new laws of nature were laid down on 9/11.

It now seems that the $64,000 question(s) are the *initiation*... CD or fires of some sort. If the collapse phase did not need devices... it's on the the initiation. And here it becomes a theory and then proof is demanded ... which I get all the time when I offer a speculation... They write.... where's the evidence for that... you speculate with no evidence to support it.. where's the proof? And as we can't prove what we can't see... this is not winning friends... especially when devices will obviously *fit the bill*... and *they* could easily set them. And back we return to means, motive, opportunity and intent and the filter through which we see the world... With the officials caught in many lies about what happened it fuels the notion that they knew what happened and or covered it up for some reason.

My head is spinning.

[Oystein]

Restoring Oystein's post...

OWE quote here.


You can handle things around here as you please, so don't feel guilty or anything. I do understand the hyperbole in the truthaction debate.


I am myself already aware that Tom used to be more outspokenly a CD proponent, and appears to have been silent on that matter since at least a year ago. Has he retracted his earlier views, or is he hiding them? What's the motivation behind staying silent on the issue? Is that a stance of sticking strictly with the objective observables, and staying clear of the political implications?

Frankly, I don't buy it.
The entire inclusion of the AE911T claims, and his having a chaper titled "Reassessing the Question of Demolition" give away the information that he must believe that eventually the question of "CD or no CD" can be answered if only his accurate observables were taken into account.
Similarly, by presenting his book in the JREF "9/11 Conspiracy Theories" subforum and thus to an audience interested in that question gives away his awareness that all his work is, at least in part, about CD.
Furthermore, by presenting his book to a forum called "Deep Politics", he reveals his awareness that there are possible political implications from his book.

Now he is currently the master of all this accuracy. One might assume that he would be in the best position at this time to answer the question, or at least offer a tentative opinion - and indeed, we are eagerly waiting for it!

Does it hurt to offer an opinion? Even if that opinion is "I really can't tell yet, because..."? Why make himself so much a target by evading the obvious question? I currently have two favorite options to answer this:

• He is a closet CD-nutbag, but afraid to say so out loud, now that his two or three fans are on record as being pretty sceptical of CD-nutbags
• He's afraid that all these years of working towards more accuracy have not brought him closer to being able to answer the question, in other words, more accuracy isn't all that much better

Sure, there are more answers that I can think of, but these two are the leading ones, in my opinion. And yeah. that's a little provocative on purpose.