IPBFacebook



POSTS MADE TO THIS FORUM ARE THE SOLE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE AUTHOR AND DO NOT NECESSARILY REFLECT THE VIEWS OF PILOTS FOR 911 TRUTH
FOR OFFICIAL PILOTS FOR 9/11 TRUTH STATEMENTS AND ANALYSIS, PLEASE VISIT PILOTSFOR911TRUTH.ORG


DIGITAL DOWNLOADS

WELCOME - PLEASE REGISTER OR LOG IN FOR FULL FORUM ACCESS ( Log In | Register )

5 Pages V   1 2 3 > »   
Reply to this topicStart new topic
Wtc Misrepresentations: New Book, Requesting Feedback

MajorTom
post May 17 2012, 01:20 PM
Post #1





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 16
Joined: 3-May 12
Member No.: 6,812



I am a new poster here. Hello to all participants and readers


This is the draft version of a book on the WTC collapses:


Introduction
1: Science vs Subjective Viewpoints
2: WTC Collapses Misrepresented
....2.1: Progressive Floor Collapse in the WTC Towers
....2.2: Purpose of the NIST Reports
....2.3: NIST WTC1 Misrepresentation
....2.4: NIST WTC7 Misrepresentation
....2.5: NIST WTC2 Misrepresentation
....2.6: Bazant Misrepresentation of Collapse Progression
....2.7: Block Mechanics
....2.8: AE911T Misrepresentations of the Collapses
3: Toward Accurate Collapse Histories
4: Reassessing the Question of Demolition
5: Collapses Misrepresented as a False Choice
6: Testing the Thesis for Validity
Author's Conclusions




The same table of contents is on my website, second menu down, here.


Thank you for any questions or feedback to help improve the book.


Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
amazed!
post May 18 2012, 10:38 AM
Post #2





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 4,017
Joined: 14-December 06
From: Fort Pierce, FL
Member No.: 331



I am not qualified to judge the technical stuff regarding collapse, so I did not read that portion.

I did read Author's Conclusion and found it very well written and thought out. That 'minds of people still remain shrouded in the dust' is a very good way to describe what I've thought for quite some time now. Yes, psychological limitations are what seem to be in play for most people.

I love the references to Stanley Milgram's work.

Our 'journalists'? They are utterly corrupt, and do not practice critical thinking, never have. Sycophants, all.

Welcome Major Tom! welcome.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SanderO
post May 18 2012, 11:27 AM
Post #3





Group: Troll
Posts: 1,174
Joined: 23-December 09
From: NYC
Member No.: 4,814



Tom is one of the finest researchers who has looked at the WTC collapses. Hopefully, readers will realize that the false dichotomy between the the 911 Truth and the OCT are represent a choice between two wrong explanations... a debate about nonsensical positions/explanations.

The explanation should be understandable by everyman and Tom makes an attempt to do just that. Take the time to read as much as you can.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
onesliceshort
post May 18 2012, 11:06 PM
Post #4



Group Icon

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 2,612
Joined: 30-January 09
Member No.: 4,095




Welcome Major Tom.

I've been a lurker at Femr2's forum for a while. Great work breaking down the observational evidence.

QUOTE (SanderO @ May 18 2012, 04:27 PM) *
Tom is one of the finest researchers who has looked at the WTC collapses. Hopefully, readers will realize that the false dichotomy between the the 911 Truth and the OCT are represent a choice between two wrong explanations... a debate about nonsensical positions/explanations.

The explanation should be understandable by everyman and Tom makes an attempt to do just that. Take the time to read as much as you can.


I dare say that your evidence void "hypothesis" about "diesel fuel fires" sans smoke (and contrary to the FDNY, ConEd and photographic evidence) "cooking the trusses" of WTC7 definitely falls into the "nonsensical positions/explanations". Even more so given that NIST has been backed into a corner over their "office fires" fantasy.

Read about it in the "NIST WTC7 misrepresentation" link in Major Tom's post.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SanderO
post May 19 2012, 07:05 AM
Post #5





Group: Troll
Posts: 1,174
Joined: 23-December 09
From: NYC
Member No.: 4,814



OSS,

My hypothesis is not void of evidence... it has plenty of evidence but there are gaps. There could be false reports by Con Ed and NIST and the absence of photos of something doesn't mean it didn't exist. An hypothesis is just that. It needs to be tested. I've suggested that NIST and Con Ed *lied*... and we know that NIST HAS lied about 7 and the twins. I would not take their statements to the bank. I can't prove a lie because I don't have the observations to do so. But I am not going to accept self serving reports as fact.

I have provided work to Tom over the past 3 years and support his efforts and we are largely in agreement about the collapses of all three towers but mainly 1 & 2. I've read all his work even as it was being formulated.

A few months ago I decided to look more closely at 7 and proposed a theory which I presented here. IT IS SPECULATION based on observables and the structure. I don't have access to the floor plans. I don't have any visuals of inside the building's first 7 floors during the day... There are very few photos of even the south side which would show smoke which conceivably might be read as to the fuel source.

Two days ago... a 61 foot yacht on the hard caught fire about 250 feet from where I was working on my own boat (across an inlet). The boat was diesel powered but I have no idea of how much fuel was on board at the time... I'll see if I can find out. The boat had a shrink wrap plastic covering which the owner apparently was removing in preparation for launch. I don't know cause of the fire and if it has been determined. My observations were as follows:

There were number explosions (most small and no massive, but definitely explosions which I and others clearly heard.

There were, of course intense flames which rapidly spread over the entire boat.

There was very thick black smoke for the entire time the fire was un fought... for about 20 minutes until the fire department arrived.

The smoke changed to a dark gray when they fought the fire with water and then to a lighter gray until it was extinguished about 40 minutes later.

Tom is correctly not concerned with speculation, but with observable and a scientific approach to explain them. We are in general agreement that:

The collapse of 7 was led by a core failure (cause undetermined)
There is no evidence that can be ascribed solely to controlled demolition.
The collapse progression included the east penthouse, the west penthouse, the floor system and finally the curtain wall
The speed of collapse (2.25 secs at FF) is not an indication of controlled demolition...(structures which are CD'ed do not collapse at FF typically)
NIST and officials got the observations and explanations of towers 1,2 &7 wrong

I proposed an hypothesis which has a motive for the deception of the official investigation reports and the OCT claims about B7. It is pure speculation. I can't know the motive of those actors. My hypothesis suggests something other than CD and that disturbs you and others. However the evidence you and other provide for CD is not conclusive at all... simply speculation.

Such is life.

By the way Tom writes the following this AM where ie quotes Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse? Science, Engineering, and Speculation
Thomas W. Eagar and Christopher Musso:

"
"WAS THE WTC DEFECTIVELY DESIGNED?

The World Trade Center was not defectively designed."

One may want to recognize that these appear to be the largest sets of cascading floor collapses in history before making claims like this.....

Even if they look with the skill and patience of Joe "Well Above Average' Student, they will see nothing more than misrepresentation wrapped in the appearance of "professional consensus"."

This post has been edited by SanderO: May 19 2012, 08:35 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
amazed!
post May 19 2012, 08:37 AM
Post #6





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 4,017
Joined: 14-December 06
From: Fort Pierce, FL
Member No.: 331



....so then, it's speculation all 'round
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
onesliceshort
post May 19 2012, 12:13 PM
Post #7



Group Icon

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 2,612
Joined: 30-January 09
Member No.: 4,095



QUOTE (amazed! @ May 19 2012, 01:37 PM) *
....so then, it's speculation all 'round


biggrin.gif

What "disturbs" me SanderO is that you make baseless claims yet label those who question your speculation as "koolaid" drinkers. And you keep insinuating that I'm somehow defending NIST's conclusions when in actual fact, the "office fires" crap is the only inroad to extracting more withheld evidence and/or raising awareness that we've been monumentally lied to. The very same withheld evidence that has left well intentioned individuals such as Tom and Femr2 stumped as to how all three towers fell without external factors, given the observables.

I've never pinned my colours to CD in the conventional meaning of the term. I don't pigeonhole multiple witness visual, aural and physical testimonies to explosions and I do accept that there were vehicles and other combustibles exploding (even the holy grail transformers), but you on the other hand refuse to accept even the possibility that they were manmade events.

I don't accept that "office fires" (the lack of which there is visual evidence of) brought down WTC7. You on the other hand make empty claims about "diesel fuel fires" which not only is there no visual evidence for bar black smoke seen in the last hour before WTC7 fell, or that visual evidence or ConEd contradicts, but that the FDNY lends weight to.

What I definitely don't accept is your hypocritical stance in that both NIST and AE911Truth are wrong and that you are somehow trying to find the "middle ground", when anything you've ever uttered on this forum has been in favour of the OCT (even going beyond it as per WTC7). That the conclusions and calculations of NIST are wrong from an architectural standpoint. That they were indeed "gravity driven collapses", just that NIST "got it wrong".

Did you read the link to "NIST WTC7 misrepresentation" in the OP?




Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SanderO
post May 19 2012, 08:58 PM
Post #8





Group: Troll
Posts: 1,174
Joined: 23-December 09
From: NYC
Member No.: 4,814



I am not trying to find a middle ground. I am hoping one day to know what actually happened. We can only use a few things to make sense of the event...

1. Accurate observations - which can be used to extract data which can be analysis with math and physics and engineering
2. The design of the buildings- specs and so forth and the engineering principles for mechanics and structure
3. Physics, chemistry ... science.

No one can see the initiating event in all three towers. Observations lead us to conclude WHERE it was and that was inside and we can't see inside! We can only see POST initiation and analyze that movement. Post initiation observation... using the 3 items above leads to the conclusion that the POST initiation phase *the collapse* did not require CD.. explosives or incendiary devices and there is no evidence of them. What is deemed to be evidence... ejections are not from explosives be an attribute of a gravity driven collapse.

The collapses WERE gravity driven... the cause was structural failure. The likely place was the T trusses which support the core... as the core was the first think to noticeably *go bye bye*. We don't know the cause of the structural failure of the T trusses.

When I refer to drinking the kool aid... I am referring to people who accept the interpretation of others as to what the ejections are, or that the concrete was pulverized in mid air... or that heavy steel girders were ejected 600 feet at 70pmh or that the dust was 4-12" thick for miles around lower Manhattan... and so on. Believing this and repeating it is drinking kool aid.

I've stated that I have a theory about b7... that we can't see inside the area where I suggest the collapse was initiated. Of course a device could supply the energy that I suggest was provided by the diesel fuel.

But what is the evidence of a device? None!

Instead we are given all sorts of motives... insurance, destroying SEC records... MOTIVE is not evidence.

When people mention explosions... I agree there were explosions! I hear them a few days ago when a boat caught fire and there were explosions. Fires often cause explosions!

I offered an explanation... theory for the witness testimony. So you tell me OSS.. what do you think William Rodriguez most probably heard? And why my explanation that it was an electrical explosion caused by the plane strike is wrong or so speculative that it should not be considered?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
elreb
post May 19 2012, 10:58 PM
Post #9





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 2,589
Joined: 31-December 07
From: Maui
Member No.: 2,617



QUOTE (onesliceshort @ May 19 2012, 06:13 AM) *
You on the other hand make empty claims about "diesel fuel fires" which not only is there no visual evidence for bar black smoke seen in the last hour before WTC7 fell, or that visual evidence or ConEd contradicts, but that the FDNY lends weight to.

OSS,

I see the “John” has moved to a new page.

A fellow forum member and I have put together a more comprehensive program which has data to back it up.

There were Zero fuel fires in WTC7. No one can show that there were!

I am currently reading new [original] files now.

The results, most likely will end up on my website.

elreb
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
onesliceshort
post May 20 2012, 07:02 AM
Post #10



Group Icon

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 2,612
Joined: 30-January 09
Member No.: 4,095



QUOTE (elreb @ May 20 2012, 03:58 AM) *
OSS,

I see the “John” has moved to a new page.

A fellow forum member and I have put together a more comprehensive program which has data to back it up.

There were Zero fuel fires in WTC7. No one can show that there were!

I am currently reading new [original] files now.

The results, most likely will end up on my website.

elreb


Looking forward to seeing it!

I've been doing a bit myself on the fire and smoke sources.

The "John" lol.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
onesliceshort
post May 20 2012, 12:09 PM
Post #11



Group Icon

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 2,612
Joined: 30-January 09
Member No.: 4,095



From Major Tom' book..

QUOTE
These waves of confusion about the collapse progression process are indeed visible throughout claims by David Chandler and Heiwa, and within the AE911T evidence list. But it is also very important to note that these same waves of confusion can be seen through the Wikipedia entry on the collapses, through gravysites and the the govt loyalist site forum, through the many news articles cited in within this section of the book.

As a result, an environment of extreme confusion is created in which evidence-based discussions of the collapses among groups of intelligent, informed adults is very difficult if not impossible. This confusion is verifiable all around us and effects all technical discussion. Some of us have been watching the effects for a few years, perhaps without realizing just how all pervasive it is.


1) Poor observation skills: Recognition of observable and measurable building features is considered optional or unnecessary.

2) No verification of claims: Incapacity or unwillingness to verify claims. A lack of awareness that independent verification is possible.


3) Surrogate Models: Models for building behavior are accepted as true even though they have little or no correspondence with what was observed.


No matter where your current opinions stand, there would be no firm basis for having them without independent research. This is easy to understand by imagining ones situation if there was no independent research for the last 5 years and one had access only to the literature available from government, academic or professional sources.


QUOTE
Please recall that the scientific method as defined is wholey dependent on accurate and detailed observations and measurements. Therefore, it seems obvious that an accurate collapse record would be based within the most comprehensive and accurate list of observations and measurements on the collapses possible.

As can be verified many times over in the course of the "debate", careful, accurate observations and measurements are essential and no amount of analytical ability can substitute for poor eye-sight. No amount of "thinking" can replace the careful use of accurate observations and data. No one can "decree" how the building moved; they have to map it.


I agree 100% that if you don't poke about in every nook and cranny, look for corraboration, verification and basically "put the hours in", don't bother. If you're not prepared for the headache, heartbreak and lost hours (yes, I felt your pain in the "you have to do it yourself" tirade Tom lol). Be prepared to start from scratch if need be. If it's wrong, it's wrong.

I think there are many people who look through even more than the three types of "lenses" referred to in the book (NIST/GLs, AE911Truth and OOSers(?!)) but those are the main three (vocally).

I have a question. Where does AE911T claim that "thousands of explosives" are required? Is it a direct quote or an assumption based on their claims?

For the record, I believe that the structures were weakened and "blown" or taken out at specific areas. Particularly WTC7.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
onesliceshort
post May 20 2012, 12:10 PM
Post #12



Group Icon

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 2,612
Joined: 30-January 09
Member No.: 4,095



Double post.

This post has been edited by onesliceshort: May 20 2012, 12:11 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SanderO
post May 20 2012, 02:50 PM
Post #13





Group: Troll
Posts: 1,174
Joined: 23-December 09
From: NYC
Member No.: 4,814



I suppose one can calculate how much explosives it would taker to pulverize 90,000 tons of concrete in mid air. It clearly wasn't a single event.. and it wasn't even 100 explosions...one per floor more or less... both of those scenarios would look very different from what we observe... so perhaps it was 10 per floor? That would be in the order of 1000 explosions. Even 10 per floor would likely not look like what we see and what Chandler describes.

Basically AE911T's explosive controlled demolition theory is based on poor observations and fantasy. That's obvious to anyone who has carefully observed the destruction of the twin towers.

The tilting top and its fate are another case of the truth movement failing to see what was before the eyes and to understand the basic physics plus the distribution of and the center of mass of the top section as it came down.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
MajorTom
post May 20 2012, 03:40 PM
Post #14





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 16
Joined: 3-May 12
Member No.: 6,812



OSS, consider the Chandler "race with gravity" argument.


Or the following image from the "third law' video;




What is he pointing to?

Some may call that a collapse front. To him, ANY ejection is treated as proof of a bomb.


Ny the way, thanks for the comments. The book is still being written, so the comments provide useful feedback.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
MajorTom
post May 20 2012, 03:54 PM
Post #15





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 16
Joined: 3-May 12
Member No.: 6,812



From a demo point of view, it seems important to realize that some ejection patterns may be natural and some may not be natural. It is the responsibility of those making the arguments to point that out and to make an effort to attempt to distinguish between the 2 cases. For example, the ejection from the south side of WTC1 around the 88th floor level during the collapse initiation process 10 floors above is quite strange. I have never seen anyone give a coherent explanation for it. But that does not mean that the ejections indicated by yellow arrows in the image is just as strange.

Sorry for the typos, the edit feature doesn't allow me to correct it for some reason.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
MajorTom
post May 20 2012, 04:13 PM
Post #16





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 16
Joined: 3-May 12
Member No.: 6,812



Or, consider the image from the Anders Borkman website shown below:




Flooring cannot hang from one side at such an angle, so why show something like that? If one allows the flooring to fall onto the intact floor below, then what will happen to the next floor? Or the one after that? Which particular floor will be able to support all mass above it? Based on what logic?


Now, if one can sustain floor collapses until the earth stops the process, then perhaps there is a tricky way to utilize this caged, confined process which makes intentional demolition much easier than previously thought within the unique layouts of these buildings.


Within the either-or false choice, this simple possibility is ignored.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
elreb
post May 20 2012, 04:43 PM
Post #17





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 2,589
Joined: 31-December 07
From: Maui
Member No.: 2,617



QUOTE (SanderO @ May 20 2012, 08:50 AM) *
I suppose one can calculate how much explosives it would taker to pulverize 90,000 tons of concrete in mid air.

Speaking only for WTC7

From what I’m learning about ‘Thermate”, it is more of a chemical reaction and not based on explosions.

I was taught to cut a tree down from the bottom.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SanderO
post May 20 2012, 08:03 PM
Post #18





Group: Troll
Posts: 1,174
Joined: 23-December 09
From: NYC
Member No.: 4,814



Elreb,

Thermate is heat producing and not explosive and so you can use it, I suppose like a lance to slice through and destroy the integrity of the steel and the structure. Agreed.

Were is the evidence of core steel which shows signs of being sliced with thermate in B7?

In fact, I've seen no evidence of ANY WTC steel which is convincing evidence of explosions or thermate cutting. Most of what I see is broken cleanly at the ends (connection failure)... mangled and bent from crashing down and collisions... bent from buckling from the collapse zone. And there are some built up box sections where the webs and flanges parted... again breaking at the weakest part.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
elreb
post May 20 2012, 10:17 PM
Post #19





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 2,589
Joined: 31-December 07
From: Maui
Member No.: 2,617



QUOTE (SanderO @ May 20 2012, 02:03 PM) *
Thermate is heat producing and not explosive and so you can use it, I suppose like a lance to slice through and destroy the integrity of the steel and the structure. Agreed.

Agreed...

The government destroyed most of the evidence; however we have the pictures of Thermate use.

We are working on getting good “still” shots of test experiments, including bolt destruction to compare to the real steel. Less than one pound of Thermate will cut most bolts or rivets.

None of this will be displayed on this website.

I have no theory and I am not taking a “thick” headed approach to this.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
onesliceshort
post May 20 2012, 11:35 PM
Post #20



Group Icon

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 2,612
Joined: 30-January 09
Member No.: 4,095



Hi Tom

QUOTE
Now, if one can sustain floor collapses until the earth stops the process, then perhaps there is a tricky way to utilize this caged, confined process which makes intentional demolition much easier than previously thought within the unique layouts of these buildings.


I personally think that the answer lies in how two buildings struck at different areas (one more central than the other), at different heights, can fall basically in the same fashion and at the same rate of collapse (I know I've oversimplified it - being a layman)

And yes, there are multiple anomalies with the initiation of collapse of WTC1.

http://www.sharpprintinginc.com/911/index....osition=155:155

The vibration seconds before the "rush" of smoke. The total non effect on the visible fires by whatever caused this same rush of smoke. And for me personally, the smoke that seems to cling to the western facade even though it's not sheltered from the wind (seems to be a balancing act between internal and external forces). All occurring above the impact zone.

I'm speculating on an explosive event within the core, the blast of which has been funneled through the elevator shafts. Possibly at a much lower location. Problem is, I don't know how this would initiate the collapse.

I'm just throwing that example of my (untrained eye) observations out there for discussion's sake.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

5 Pages V   1 2 3 > » 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 




RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 15th October 2019 - 04:57 AM