20-05-2012, 01:15 PM
The explanation, theory I advocate for the twin towers' collapse and for B7 are not unique to me... nor did I originate these theories.
I came upon my understanding by falsifying the official explanation and the CD explanations.. none of which matched the observables. I've written all along that the twins' collapse COULD have had assistance in the initiation from devices... but the collapse phase shows no evidence of them... and can be described by engineering and physics such as the collapse of the *Spire*.. which was not dustified before our eyes as Fetzer claims for example. Virtually ALL the observations whic support CD in the collapse phase are MIS read and are artifacts of a gravity driven collapse of the floors with the *cage* of the facade.
My research led me to call this a *vertical avalanche*. When I found the 9/11 Free Forums in early 2010, I discovered that the author of this book had called this process ROOSD.. or Runaway Open Office Space Destruction. I had no idea when he came about this theory but adapted his acronym and have used it since that time. My own research... resulted in the production of many graphics and calculations. I've posted many of them to this site and to the 911 Free Forum where there are scientists, engineers and physicists with much more advanced analytical skills than I possess. Most of my presentation have been well received... but not all.
I posted a theory that the hat truss had failed at its center and the antenna atop WTC 1 plunged right down through the core. I learned at the 911 FF that it did not! It began to descend and then broke and toppled over! I revised my thinking about that.
The author of the book in the OP is not a friend or someone I speak with or even know his name, age or location. The same applies to femr2 (Brit) whose work is stellar on the analytical motion of the towers on 911... Same for achimspok (German?). There I found an engineer with a military explosive background (AU) who likewise does not see CD and supports the ROOSD explanation for the collapse. Probably the most advanced thinker is the administrator and moderator OneWhiteEye a physicist and engineer. These are the people, along with Major Tom who have developed and documented and supported the explanation of the collapse of the towers. NONE of them have, as far as I can tell nailed the initiation cause as CD or not CD. I think this is because they cannot *see* into or at the location where they believe/know the collapses were initiated - the core.
Lemkin is simply flat out wrong that the CD is the best fit of the observables. He doesn't understand the engineering issues, the physics or the data from the observations. Like, Fetzer, Wood, Chandler, Gage he is spinning a tale based on seeing the event through his own bias... not the objective data.
Chandler is an interesting case. He did manage to make a crude plot which showed the 100 foot descent at FF for B7 (femr2 has done far superior and accurate traces). But Chandler then sets himself up as *the expert* and goes on to narrate and describe what is happening... what he sees and what we are told to see in the collapse of the twin towers. There is no data... or when there is it is cherry picked to support a point he wants to make. YIKES! Last year he *analyzed* a segment which he claimed showed a fall steel beam had explosives go off on it. Another Smoking gun! However when this was closely analyzed it turned out not to be what he claimed. Wrong like so many of his pronouncements. No retraction.
And what about Jone's bogus diagonal cut column? Would you buy a car from this man? Or trust him as a scientist or someone who is rigorous in scientific method? I don't after that and several other boners.
And Fetzer hauls up Chuck... a retired high school physics teacher to explain CD with nonsense false depiction of the structure and the physics! YIKES That's dipping pretty low in the barrel to come up with a scientist.
I don't have to convince Lauren Johnson of anything. I provided a book which she can learn something from about 911. I don't care if she does or doesn't... or anyone does or doesn't. I am not spreading anything but the notion that you need to reexamine what you assume to be true about the TECHNICAL issues.... which most people don't have the skills to have knowledge based opinions about in any case (do you hear me Lemkin???") Opinions YES... such as the uninformed ones of Johnson and Lemkin of course Fetzer the most vocal purveyor of nonsense.
And the same applies to the deceased Lynn Margulis, who did not inform herself about the technical issues and lent her support to junk science... she was snowed by what she thought was vetted real science and the cherry picked observations that Lemkin says is the best fit. Even actual scientists can be lazy and therefore be fooled especially when the venture outside their own expertise. Not a wise move Dr. M.
Lauren Johnson... you don't know what you are talking about with respect to the collapse of the buildings just as Lemkin doesn't. Pure ideologues with hubris and no self restraint to slander someone you don't agree with. The problem is that no one will characterize what you did here in this forum on the 911 section. I did. You don't have to argue with me because you can't win this one. You put your foot in your mouth already and it's better to say nothing now.
I came upon my understanding by falsifying the official explanation and the CD explanations.. none of which matched the observables. I've written all along that the twins' collapse COULD have had assistance in the initiation from devices... but the collapse phase shows no evidence of them... and can be described by engineering and physics such as the collapse of the *Spire*.. which was not dustified before our eyes as Fetzer claims for example. Virtually ALL the observations whic support CD in the collapse phase are MIS read and are artifacts of a gravity driven collapse of the floors with the *cage* of the facade.
My research led me to call this a *vertical avalanche*. When I found the 9/11 Free Forums in early 2010, I discovered that the author of this book had called this process ROOSD.. or Runaway Open Office Space Destruction. I had no idea when he came about this theory but adapted his acronym and have used it since that time. My own research... resulted in the production of many graphics and calculations. I've posted many of them to this site and to the 911 Free Forum where there are scientists, engineers and physicists with much more advanced analytical skills than I possess. Most of my presentation have been well received... but not all.
I posted a theory that the hat truss had failed at its center and the antenna atop WTC 1 plunged right down through the core. I learned at the 911 FF that it did not! It began to descend and then broke and toppled over! I revised my thinking about that.
The author of the book in the OP is not a friend or someone I speak with or even know his name, age or location. The same applies to femr2 (Brit) whose work is stellar on the analytical motion of the towers on 911... Same for achimspok (German?). There I found an engineer with a military explosive background (AU) who likewise does not see CD and supports the ROOSD explanation for the collapse. Probably the most advanced thinker is the administrator and moderator OneWhiteEye a physicist and engineer. These are the people, along with Major Tom who have developed and documented and supported the explanation of the collapse of the towers. NONE of them have, as far as I can tell nailed the initiation cause as CD or not CD. I think this is because they cannot *see* into or at the location where they believe/know the collapses were initiated - the core.
Lemkin is simply flat out wrong that the CD is the best fit of the observables. He doesn't understand the engineering issues, the physics or the data from the observations. Like, Fetzer, Wood, Chandler, Gage he is spinning a tale based on seeing the event through his own bias... not the objective data.
Chandler is an interesting case. He did manage to make a crude plot which showed the 100 foot descent at FF for B7 (femr2 has done far superior and accurate traces). But Chandler then sets himself up as *the expert* and goes on to narrate and describe what is happening... what he sees and what we are told to see in the collapse of the twin towers. There is no data... or when there is it is cherry picked to support a point he wants to make. YIKES! Last year he *analyzed* a segment which he claimed showed a fall steel beam had explosives go off on it. Another Smoking gun! However when this was closely analyzed it turned out not to be what he claimed. Wrong like so many of his pronouncements. No retraction.
And what about Jone's bogus diagonal cut column? Would you buy a car from this man? Or trust him as a scientist or someone who is rigorous in scientific method? I don't after that and several other boners.
And Fetzer hauls up Chuck... a retired high school physics teacher to explain CD with nonsense false depiction of the structure and the physics! YIKES That's dipping pretty low in the barrel to come up with a scientist.
I don't have to convince Lauren Johnson of anything. I provided a book which she can learn something from about 911. I don't care if she does or doesn't... or anyone does or doesn't. I am not spreading anything but the notion that you need to reexamine what you assume to be true about the TECHNICAL issues.... which most people don't have the skills to have knowledge based opinions about in any case (do you hear me Lemkin???") Opinions YES... such as the uninformed ones of Johnson and Lemkin of course Fetzer the most vocal purveyor of nonsense.
And the same applies to the deceased Lynn Margulis, who did not inform herself about the technical issues and lent her support to junk science... she was snowed by what she thought was vetted real science and the cherry picked observations that Lemkin says is the best fit. Even actual scientists can be lazy and therefore be fooled especially when the venture outside their own expertise. Not a wise move Dr. M.
Lauren Johnson... you don't know what you are talking about with respect to the collapse of the buildings just as Lemkin doesn't. Pure ideologues with hubris and no self restraint to slander someone you don't agree with. The problem is that no one will characterize what you did here in this forum on the 911 section. I did. You don't have to argue with me because you can't win this one. You put your foot in your mouth already and it's better to say nothing now.