Major_Tom Disproves NIST Claims in a Number of Key Areas

[ozeco41]

Originally Posted by NoahFence

Using the word "will" implies that the failure hasn't already happened....

Good call. You are correct - M_T is already admitting failure for his book to "sell" because several of us have started to read it and given up.

Now I do have a minor bit of disagreement with this next bit. You quoted this piece of inspired brilliance but failed to identify the obviously highly intelligent person who wrote it:

Quote:

One interesting factor is that, despite my high regard for M_T's technical research, which doesn't fit well with some members here, IIRC M_T has never acknowledged my high praise of these aspects . He routinely quote mines my criticisms which he won't discuss and presents them out of context for his non-critical friends over on 911Forum.

It follows a quote of Oystein's so it could imply that the credit goes to him. Certainly the characteristics of "inspired" and "highly intelligent" fit Oystein BUT the comment was not made by him.

However your response:

Originally Posted by NoahFence

...To some people, praise is just understood. As if it's not even worth mentioning because the fact that they're light-years ahead of everybody on the planet is simply common knowledge. When the criticisms come, then it's time to show everybody how enlightened they are, so that's when they get defensive...

...is spot on target.

....as is your final point:

Originally Posted by NoahFence

...Zero ability to have an acutal discussion, and they think this behavior is normal. No clue where it comes from.

[dafydd]

Originally Posted by NoahFence

And we're pointing out that you've got it incredibly wrong. You know this but refuse to acknowledge it because _____________________

(fill in the blank, CM)

With your engineering qualifications.

[000063]

Originally Posted by Clayton Moore

I didn't claim anything. I was pointing out the ridiculousness of the two debunkers saying 11% or 30% of a tower could demolish 89% or 70% of the tower.

And even if you were ever to cite any debunker actually saying such--and I doubt it--you have nothing more than your usual baseless incredulity.

Originally Posted by alienentity

http://i900.photobucket.com/albums/a...1/GagePope.jpg

Sorry, wrong false profit, err prophet.

Darker robes, no hat.

Originally Posted by dafydd

With your engineering qualifications.

Not actually necessary to understand it. You just need a reasonable amount of intelligence and/or no bias.

Cough.

[LSSBB]

Originally Posted by alienentity

http://i900.photobucket.com/albums/a...1/GagePope.jpg

Sorry, wrong false profit, err prophet.

Awesome trading card! Do you have one of Saint Chandler? How about Saint Judy?

[Oystein]

Originally Posted by Major_Tom

This book contains ...

... FALSIFICATIONS.

A crying shame these FALSIFICATIONS continue to this day.

A scandal you show no interest in ever correcting the FALSIFICATIONS.

[alienentity]

Originally Posted by Major_Tom

My posts are being removed.

Similar to before, where you requested the whole thread be removed.


Same JREF.

I think you can put the blame squarely on CM's shoulders. His first post (and the first one to be moved to AAH) was clearly in violation of the M.A.

I don't blame JREF, the mods are just doing their jobs.

[Major_Tom]

Originally Posted by Major_Tom

This book contains the single best record of measurements and observations on the collapses of all 3 buildings available to the public.

Book available at the website linked below, second menu down on the left.

Does anyone have a problem with this claim? Can anyone produce a better record?

Then, with these observations and measurements, one can review all other claims. By the NIST, By STJ911, by AE911T.

Is this really hard to understand so far?


This is a way to check physical facts. Is this difficult if you drop all the hate and buzz?

[NoahFence]

Originally Posted by Major_Tom

Does anyone have a problem with this claim? Can anyone produce a better record?

Then, with these observations and measurements, one can review all other claims. By the NIST, By STJ911, by AE911T.

Is this really hard to understand so far?


This is a way to check physical facts. Is this difficult if you drop all the hate and buzz?

You just don't get it do you?

[BasqueArch]

Originally Posted by NoahFence

You just don't get it do you?

It's a truther chip cookie.
Those chips are not chocolate.

[BasqueArch]

[quote=Oystein;8387414]

Quote:

Originally Posted by a ****** book that will have zero impact as long as it is full of lies and distortions
RED FLAG #1:

The first and foremost major indication that the collapse histories as published contain some major technical omissions is that the collapses of the Twin Towers is never described in terms of progressive floor collapse.

Quote:

He posted elsewhere but did not distance himself from CM, nor did correct the FALSIFICATIONS in his book, which continue to this day:

Will you correct the FALSIFICATIONS in your book that continue to this day A.S.A.P., Tom? Why haven't you done it yesterday? Hat more important things to do, like blaming others, perhaps?

Originally Posted by Oystein

Agreed.

M_T apparently insists on keeping his FALSIFICATIONS in place forevermore.

Originally Posted by Oystein

Start criticising yourself, and heed criticism.

Hasten NOW to purge the FALSIFICATIONS from this unreadable, magnanimous, arrogant mess! Learn some humilty and clean up your unbearable act! You WILL fail if you don't radically change your message! What a shame to let your years of lonesome toil go thusly to waste!

Originally Posted by Oystein

... FALSIFICATIONS.

A crying shame these FALSIFICATIONS continue to this day.

A scandal you show no interest in ever correcting the FALSIFICATIONS.

Originally Posted by Major_Tom

Does anyone have a problem with this claim? Can anyone produce a better record?

Then, with these observations and measurements, one can review all other claims. By the NIST, By STJ911, by AE911T.

Is this really hard to understand so far?

This is a way to check physical facts. Is this difficult if you drop all the hate and buzz?

My advice is to answer the first false claim -

"RED FLAG #1:
The first and foremost major indication that the collapse histories as published contain some major technical omissions is that the collapses of the Twin Towers is never described in terms of progressive floor collapse. "

Then we can move on to the other claims.
Otherwise you will face the full force of the Prussian Bulldog's fury !

[ozeco41]

Originally Posted by Major_Tom

Originally Posted by Major_Tom

This book contains the single best record of measurements and observations on the collapses of all 3 buildings available to the public.

Book available at the website linked below, second menu down on the left.

Does anyone have a problem with this claim? Can anyone produce a better record?

Then, with these observations and measurements, one can review all other claims. By the NIST, By STJ911, by AE911T.

Is this really hard to understand so far?


This is a way to check physical facts. Is this difficult if you drop all the hate and buzz?

This is as close as I have seen from M_T to ask a reasoned question. By his standards the ambiguities, false claims and loaded questions are very low. So it is a positive step by Major_Tom.

So et me see if we can get M_T to improve it to fully acceptable standards.
[/engineer's hat off]
[lawyer's hat on]

1) "Is this really hard to understand so far?" No it isn't hard to understand so far. But there are two issues:
a) Lack of understanding is not the issue in most objections to your claims M_T.
Most times we understand clearly what you say. But we disagree with it. So the issue is "disagreement" not "understanding"; AND
a) There are still a few bits of inaccuracy/lack of clarity.

Try this one first from the original statement:
(i) "... book contains the single best record of measurements and observations" I suggest you mean this: "... book contains a record of the the single best set of measurements and observations" Are you not claiming that the measurements and observations are the best? Or do you really mean that your recording of them is "the single best record available?" The first option is consistent with your later comments. Do you agree?

Now these from the later post:
(ii) "Does anyone have a problem with this claim?" Yes. It is ambiguous as explained above.
(iii) "Can anyone produce a better record?" The same ambiguity. Do you really want a better recording of the measurements and observations OR are you asking for better measurements and observations?

Also I suggest you are chasing a strawman. The objections to your claims are mostly targeted at your illogic and insulting style. NOT at your measurements and observations. I have no problem with your measurements and observations. (And this proviso hopefully stated with legal precision. I am not aware of a single member who has legitimately disagreed with the facts of your measurements and observations other than members who disagree with you because they label you "truther". Everyone please read carefully what I actually said before you land on me with counter claims. )

(iv) "Then, with these observations and measurements, one can review all other claims." That is a true statement but as you are well aware the next step is where you and I have some fundamental disagreements - let's wait till we get there.

So, only one significant and relevant issue at this stage. Please confirm that you mean the "measurements and observations" are the best not the compilation of them into a record.

Otherwise I commend your "step forward" towards discussion. Keep going with the process.

[pgimeno]

Originally Posted by Oystein

My idignated insistence that he immediately correct this FALSIFICATION, though being two-thirds serious, of course mocks exactly that attitude: I employ deliberate hyperbole and pretend that, because there is this error in the book, all the book is fraudulent and ripe with falsifications.

But... but... when the same standards of criticism that he applies to NIST and Bazant is directed at HIM, it is not the same! It's hate and buzz!

[BasqueArch]

Originally Posted by pgimeno

But... but... when the same standards of criticism that he applies to NIST and Bazant is directed at HIM, it is not the same! It's hate and buzz!

It's that for some people, having double standards simply means they're better than the average person, because they have twice as many standards.

[pgimeno]

Major_Tom,

Originally Posted by Oystein

Start criticising yourself, and heed criticism.

That's very wise advice you got from Oystein.

Take it and make advances, or ignore it and keep being stagnated.

[Oystein]

Originally Posted by BasqueArch

...
Otherwise you will face the full force of the Prussian Bulldog's fury !

I happen to be a Georgia Bulldawg

[kmortis]

Keep it on topic, and the topic is not the other posters. Keep it civil.

Posted By:kmortis

[Major_Tom]

So, the best, most comprehensive sets of measurements and observations of all 3 collapsed buildings are available in the book.

Do we agree on that?

Far better than those provided by the NIST or AE911T or STJ911. Agreed?

[Oystein]

Originally Posted by Major_Tom

So, the best, most comprehensive sets of measurements and observations of all 3 collapsed buildings are available in the book.

Do we agree on that?

Far better than those provided by the NIST or AE911T or STJ911. Agreed?

We can't know this as we haven't read the "book".

We haven't read the "book" because

• we already know it contains FALSIFICATIONS
• you show no intention to ever rid your "book" of falsifications
• we already know large tracts of it are out of focus viz. "measurements and observations" when you wander off into amateur psychology and dilettante historizing and in the course insult your readers by innuendo
• you are unable to state to whom this "book" would be of interest, and the reasons why

In addition, we know that you NEVER EVER respond to criticism. Why should we give you approval if you won't even acknowledge the real criticism?

Furthermore, you needn't more praise, you praise yourself enough.

[ozeco41]

Originally Posted by Major_Tom

So, the best, most comprehensive sets of measurements and observations of all 3 collapsed buildings are available in the book.

Do we agree on that?

Far better than those provided by the NIST or AE911T or STJ911. Agreed?

will you ever learn to make a precise statement of claim without multiple inferences overlaid on a core of fact?

No we - or at least I - do not agree and I will not agree until you cease loading your claims with inferences which extend your claim beyond the validity of the supporting facts.

So lets try once more:
1) "...measurements and observations of all 3 collapsed buildings are available" is true
2) "sets of measurements and observations of all 3 collapsed buildings are available in the book" is also true. The inference "only in the book" is not true as far as I am aware.
3) "...the best, most comprehensive sets..." parses to two alternates which are:
(a) "...the best...sets..."; AND
(b) "...the...most comprehensive sets..."
which retains the same ambiguity I have cautioned you about on previous occasions. It may be true that they are the best sets. That does not mean the measurements and observations are the "best measurements and observations" rather that the compilation into a set is the best compilation. Even given that clarification of what your words mean I don't believe that you have proved the point nor do I see why it matters.

Now your final paragraph, first sentence "Far better than those provided by the NIST or AE911T or STJ911." is meaningless until you specify "better for what purpose". Otherwise you are continuing your practice of making false global claims. Global in that you imply "always better" respective of the use to which they are put. False claim - and note it relies on your favourite trick of using inference or innuendo to support those false bits you appear unwilling to state precisely and explicitly.

Some of the measurements could well be "better" for some specific purposes. Whether the "measurements and observations" are better than alternates depends on the purpose to which you want to put them.

So your final "Agreed?" is wishful thinking. You should know by now that I certainly will not fall for an illogically stated false claim. I am sure others would also not agree but they can speak for themselves.


EDIT PS I fully support Oystein's comments - posted whilst I was typing mine.
It is interesting for me to see the two styles - Oystein's possibly reflecting his scientist's approach; mine the precise pedantry of logic possibly a lawyers approach. But we agree on the outcomes.

[OCaptain]

Originally Posted by Clayton Moore

I didn't claim anything. I was pointing out the ridiculousness of the two debunkers saying 11% or 30% of a tower could demolish 89% or 70% of the tower.

This little thing called "gravity" did it.

[Reactor drone]

Originally Posted by Major_Tom

Far better than those provided by the NIST or AE911T or STJ911. Agreed?

If someone who knew nothing about the WTC and the 9/11 attacks asked me where to look for information I'd still point them to the NIST reports. They are far easier to read, contain much more information including detailed visual studies, modelling and reports of the condition of the recovered steel and they have conclusions based on the sum of all of that evidence.

Your "book" by comparison is very narrowly focused, poorly laid out, has no apparent goal or objective and the only conclusion drawn seems to be 'I am a better measurer than NIST'.

[Clayton Moore]

Originally Posted by OCaptain

This little thing called "gravity" did it.

[000063]

Originally Posted by Clayton Moore

Yes, we know, bald incredulity and nothing else.

[ozeco41]

Originally Posted by 000063

Yes, we know, bald incredulity and nothing else.

Long past the "use by date" of trolldom.

[Clayton Moore]

Originally Posted by Reactor drone

If someone who knew nothing about the WTC and the 9/11 attacks asked me where to look for information I'd still point them to the NIST reports. They are far easier to read, contain much more information including detailed visual studies, modelling and reports of the condition of the recovered steel and they have conclusions based on the sum of all of that evidence.

Your "book" by comparison is very narrowly focused, poorly laid out, has no apparent goal or objective and the only conclusion drawn seems to be 'I am a better measurer than NIST'.

If someone asked me I'd recommend they look at the videos of the THREE neocon orchestrated WTC controlled demolitions on 9/11.


9/11: South Tower "Collapse" video compilation
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qhyu-fZ2nRA

Videos of the North Tower Destruction
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evid...tml#northtower


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Atbrn4k55lA
9/11: WTC Building 7 "Collapse" video compilation





http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/wtc7.html

Quote:

"Hey, World Trade 7 fell down like because, because, because, um, the mayor stored thousands of gallons of diesel fuel in an office building. Yeah, that's it. Diesel fuel. It's just a coincidence that every single load bearing member on the ground floor failed at the exact same moment in time. Coincidence. CO-IN-SEE-DUNCE! Trust us. We're the government."

9/11 Videos:
THE CONTROLLED COLLAPSE OF WTC 7

[000063]

Argument by Youtube.

[NoahFence]

Typical.
And we're the ”sheep”?

[twinstead]

Youtubeum strawmaneum

[BasqueArch]

Originally Posted by Major_Tom

So, the best, most comprehensive sets of measurements and observations of all 3 collapsed buildings are available in the book.

Do we agree on that?

Far better than those provided by the NIST or AE911T or STJ911. Agreed?

We all got together on this and the answer is no.

[ozeco41]

Originally Posted by BasqueArch

We all got together on this and the answer is no.

Yes we did.

And I forgot to ask:

"Major_Tom, have you stopped beating your wife?"

...which is the classic example of the loaded question.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loaded_question

..plus the Major_Tom version of "reverse burden" -- it is not our responsibility to identify all his logical fallacies -- it his his responsibility to stop using them.

If he intends to continue posting logical fallacies we should demand that he colour code his posts.

• Loaded questions;
• Lies by inference (or "Innuendo Pointing to Falsehood".)
• False claims of global application;
• False analogy;
• False Dichotomy;
• ...and more.

...it could make it a bit easier

[DGM]

Originally Posted by ozeco41

Yes we did.

He reminds me of an over-zealous research assistant. He can do the research but putting it into some-sort of useful context is past his abilities.

I picture the accounts asking him, "Why did you spend so much time on this?". His response, "If you have to ask you have no clue".

[ozeco41]

Originally Posted by DGM

He reminds me of an over-zealous research assistant. He can do the research but putting it into some-sort of useful content is past his abilities.

I picture the accounts asking him, "Why did you spend so much time on this?". His response, "If you have to ask you have no clue".

Yes. That is exactly the sort of situation which you see in the real world. And "...putting it into some-sort of useful content ["conteXt" ?] is past his abilities" is the root problem which we see clearly here.

As you know I spent many years managing engineers and other applied science professionals. And the phenomenon is not unusual. Put simply their style of thinking is biased towards digging deeper into the details of the problem rather than heading the other way to develop solutions. I have posted my developing thoughts on these matters. By coincidence I just finished posting my thoughts in This post where I was responding to Scot Sommer's comments on a similar issue.

The most extreme example I met in the real world was with one of my subordinate engineers when I was "City Engineer" for one of our regional cities here in NSW. Let me call him David...

David was trying to deal with a range of problems where he had made a list of about 120 examples. And he was stalled as to how to take the next step.. We were in a team meeting and I got frustrated at his lack of ability to focus holding up the rest of the team. So I asked him to take the list, get a red pencil and a green pencil and go away, come back the next day with the list marked "green" for "safe to leave" and "red" for "needs action now". (Or something similar - detail long forgotten)

He did not come back to me the next day and on day three I sent for him and asked progress. His response (I kid you not) went along these lines:

"Eric you don't understand how complicated this is. There are many more colours of pencils than red and green. And we also have felt tipped markers also with many colours..... And crayons...."

...sheeesh - remember I said "I kid you not!"

The core issue of relevance with this problem of "limited thinking skill pointing in the wrong direction" is that out there in the real world you can usefully employ those who are so afflicted or limited. Put them on "read the text book industry guide book" OR "company standard drawings" OR "tick the boxes check sheet" jobs. Never expect them to develop new concepts or apply old concepts to non-standard situations. And there are enough of those jobs in real world public utilities engineering.

BUT let those types loose on problem solving where their reasoning skills are fully exposed to view -- such as arguing/discussing/debating 9/11 on a forum -- and the results are plain to see.

There are three very prominent examples in currently active threads here. You look I'll point. They are not all engineers but the affliction is not limited to engineers.

[femr2]

All this discussion about MT "the person" is off topic.

Boring.

Which NIST claims are being discussed here ?

[DGM]

Originally Posted by femr2

All this discussion about MT "the person" is off topic.

Boring.

Which NIST claims are being discussed here ?

I'm fairly sure MT is not actively involved with discussing any.

Did you note: He has the "best measurements and observations" in the world?

[Clayton Moore]

Originally Posted by Clayton Moore

If someone asked me I'd recommend they look at the videos of the THREE neocon orchestrated WTC controlled demolitions on 9/11.


9/11: South Tower "Collapse" video compilation
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qhyu-fZ2nRA

Videos of the North Tower Destruction
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evid...tml#northtower


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Atbrn4k55lA
9/11: WTC Building 7 "Collapse" video compilation





http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/wtc7.html



9/11 Videos:
THE CONTROLLED COLLAPSE OF WTC 7

Considering their huge size the three WTC buildings "collapsed" with greater fluidity and relative speed than any controlled demolition video I've ever seen.

As in how do three collapses, due to incidental damage, "collapse" more perfectly and more evenly and "faster" than conventional pre-planned controlled demolitions?

[Oystein]

Originally Posted by femr2

All this discussion about MT "the person" is off topic.

Boring.

Which NIST claims are being discussed here ?

I disagree.

This thread is about, and promotion for, MT "the book", and consequently comments on the book's style and also on the (extremely magnanimous, arrogant, self-centered) way it is being promoted by MT, is very much on topic.

[thedopefishlives]

Originally Posted by Clayton Moore

Considering their huge size the three WTC buildings "collapsed" with greater fluidity and relative speed than any controlled demolition video I've ever seen.

As in how do three collapses, due to incidental damage, "collapse" more perfectly and more evenly and "faster" than conventional pre-planned controlled demolitions?

So it doesn't even look like a controlled demolition? Thank you for acknowledging that there is no similarity.

[TSR]

Originally Posted by Clayton Moore

Considering their huge size the three WTC buildings "collapsed" with greater fluidity and relative speed than any controlled demolition video I've ever seen.

As in how do three collapses, due to incidental damage, "collapse" more perfectly and more evenly and "faster" than conventional pre-planned controlled demolitions?

Easy peasy: They didn't. There was quite a bit of damage to surrounding buildings, as far away as six block IIRC.

[000063]

Originally Posted by Clayton Moore

Considering their huge size the three WTC buildings "collapsed" with greater fluidity and relative speed than any controlled demolition video I've ever seen.

As in how do three collapses, due to incidental damage, "collapse" more perfectly and more evenly and "faster" than conventional pre-planned controlled demolitions?

False premise. All three buildings collapsed sloppily, in all directions, asymmetrically, hitting multiple other buildings. In fact, 7 was one of the buildings 1 hit.

[ozeco41]

Originally Posted by femr2

All this discussion about MT "the person" is off topic...

There is very little if any discussion of "the person."

Most of the discussion is about the claims that he makes - specifically the false logic he uses to support some of his claims - persistent errors which he refuses to address on this forum and one other forum I am aware of. Plus the constant "overlay" of snide comments and falsehoods presented by innuendo.

My own comments have been sharply divided into two areas:
Those about M_T's technical research which runs alongside yours or overlaps in many ways. I have been unreserved in my praise of his technical work which I admire to the same high level as I admire your work.

However the claims which M_T builds on the technical work plus his excursions into pseudo-psychology and his constant posting of insults add nothing to 9/11 debate.

M_T is well known for his loathing of the climate here on JREF. There are aspects of behaviour here which are not good just as there are similar attitudinal problems on other forums. JREF may look worse to the undiscerning person because there are more members here who may make less than gracious comments. But the mix is the same as on other forums I post on but which have fewer members and less activity. And in my mind irrelevant whether the more extreme members come from "truther" extreme positions OR "debunker" extremes. They are all easily filtered out noise if we focus objectively on the substance of debate.

And the substance of debate here in this thread is M_T's own OP which is a demonstrably false claim that "Major_Tom Disproves NIST Claims in a Number of Key Areas". He set the OP and he used his "book" as evidence. That puts the logic of his claim to disprove NIST fairly in the frame for discussion PLUS the book which he uses to support the OP and neither can be addressed without the underlying persistent errors of logic and aggressive style being challenged.

So, in that regard, M_T is evading discussion of his own OP. That is equivalent to an "hostile witness" situation in law - when the opposing lawyers are permitted to be more aggressive in their cross examination. The hostile witness brings it on himself just as M_T has brought it on himself here.

Bottom line in the case of M_T is that he comes begging for emotive responses as shown by his snide commentary and insults all framed in an evasive style which relies on innuendo as a means of implying lies.

Originally Posted by femr2

...Boring....

Yes - for anyone who is not interested in improving posting behaviours or simply has a focus on the purely technical issues. For those who are interested in resolving the concerns they would be easily resolved if M_T would address those concerns. They have been explained multiple times - can you see one instance where M_T has responded to the issue being raised?

Originally Posted by femr2

...Which NIST claims are being discussed here ?

That is not the topic. The topic is the OP claim that "Major_Tom Disproves NIST Claims in a Number of Key Areas." Specifically the topic is not whether NIST is right or wrong on anything - rather has Major_Tom proven that NIST is wrong. So far he hasn't and has singularly failed to even address the topic of his alleged "disproof". The focus is the alleged "disproves" NOT the NIST claims per se.