Slideshow image

Since your web browser does not support JavaScript, here is a non-JavaScript version of the image slideshow:

slideshow image

slideshow image

slideshow image

slideshow image

slideshow image

Why Fact-check? Why preserve a visual record?

The Website Written as a Book
1: Science and Subjective Viewpoints
2: Toward Accurate Collapse Histories
....2.1: Progressive Floor Collapses in the WTC Towers
....2.2: General Global Characteristics of Collapses
....2.3: Mathematical Basis of ROOSD Propagation
....2.4: WTC1 Accurate Collapse History
....2.5: WTC2 Accurate Collapse History
....2.6: WTC7 Accurate Collapse History
3: WTC Collapse Misrepresentations
....3.1: Purpose of the NIST Reports
....3.2: NIST WTC1 Misrepresentations
....3.3: NIST WTC7 Misrepresentations
....3.4: NIST WTC2 Misrepresentations
....3.5: Reviewing the Purpose of NIST and FEMA Reports
....3.6: Bazant Misrepresentation of Collapse Progressions
....3.7: Block Misrepresentations of Collapse Progressions
....3.8: AE911T Misrepresentations of the Collapses
4: Scientific Institutions Can Be Unaware of Contradiction
5: Reassessing the Question of Demolition
....5.1: The Case of WTC1
....5.2: The Case of WTC2
....5.3: The Case of WTC7
6: WTC Collapse Records Studied as Meme Replication
....6.1: Meme Replication in Technical Literature
....6.2: Meme Replication in Mass Media
....6.3: Meme Replication in Popular Culture
....6.4: John Q Public and the WTC Collapse Records

WTC Twin Towers Collapse Dynamics

Official, Legal Attempts to Explain Collapses

Academic Attempts to Explain Collapses Reviewed

On the Limits of Science and Technology

WTC Video Record

WTC Photographic Record
WTC1 Attack to Collapse
WTC2 Attack to Collapse
Fire Progression, WTC1 North Face
Fire Progression, WTC1 South Face
Fire Progression, WTC1 East Face
Fire Progression, WTC1 West Face
Fire Progression, WTC2 North Face
Fire Progression, WTC2 South Face
Fire Progression, WTC2 East Face
Fire Progression, WTC2 West Face
Debris: WTC1 Around Footprint
Debris: WTC2 Around Footprint
Debris: From WTC1 Westward
Debris: From WTC1 Northward
Debris: From WTC2 Eastward
Debris: From WTC2 Southward
Debris: Plaza Area, Northeast Complex
Debris: Hilton Hotel, Southwest Complex
Debris: General, Unidentified Locations
Damage to Surrounding Buildings
Perimeter Column Photo Record
Perimeter Columns: Types of Damage
Core Box Columns: Types of Damage
Complete Photo Archive
Other Major 9-11 Photo Archives
The 911Dataset Project

WTC Structural Information

Log In


Remember Me

Online Misrepresentations of the WTC Collapses

Forum, Blog Representations of the WTC Collapses

The Book Tested Through Experiments

Miscellaneous Notes, Resources
FAQ for Miscellaneous Notes
History Commons 9/11 Timeline
The 911Dataset Project
Skyscraper Safety Campaign
First and Largest 9/11 Conspiracy Theory
Key Words in Book and Website
Trapped Within a Narrowed False Choice
Vulnerability and Requestioning
On Memes and Memetics
Obedience, Conformity and Mental Structure
Denial, Avoidance (Taboo) and Mental Structure
Taboos Against Reviewing the Collapse Events
Extreme Situations and Mental Structure
Suggestibility, Hypnosis and Mental Structure
Awareness and Behavior
Magical, Religious, Scientific Cause-Effect Relations
The Extreme Limits of Mental Dysfunction
Orwell's "Crimestop", "Doublethink", "Blackwhite"
William James, Max Born: Science as Philosophy
Plato on Self Reflection and Mental Structure
Rewriting History, part 1
Rewriting History, part 2
On Smart Idiots

New Ideas in Education



Why preserve an independent, detailed visual record of the events at the World Trade Center complex on 9-11-01?

Without an accurate and detailed visual record of what really happened, there is no way to independently verify the truth of any claim made by official sources or non-official sources.

Re-examination of the complete visual record is the only way to distinguish between false claims and the true events. Without such re-examination, any false claims can be made by any party for any reason, and the average person, now or in the future, would have no way of knowing or verifying what actually happened free from bias.

Are there anomalies witnessed within the collapse events?

One such fundamental concept within physics and all sciences is that of "anomaly". This concept is obviously also very important in the discussion of the WTC collapses.

The emergence of anomaly within sets of observations and measurements is a highly philosophical subject. One of the best attempts of examining the subject is was by Thomas Kuhn, and it is not surprising that he was a physicist but also an historian with a philosphical edge.

Consider the definition of anomaly from Merriam Webster online. From the book:

3 definitions of ANOMALY (Merriam-Webster):

1: the angular distance of a planet from its perihelion as seen from the sun

2: deviation from the common rule : irregularity

3: something anomalous : something different, abnormal, peculiar, or not easily classified

The first definition is not related to the WTC towers so that leaves definitions 2 and 3.

As a deviation from a common rule, in the case of the WTC collapses what is "the common rule"? As something irregular, in the case of the WTC collapses, irregular in comparison to what? To what are the collapses to be compared to determine if phenomena are irregular?

Or consider the third definition: An anomaly is simply something different, abnormal, peculiar, or not easily classified.

Well, according to the current written history of the WTC collapses there most certainly seems to be anomalies within the collapse processes. There are anomalies by definition. This is undeniable, though there are quite a few people who will deny it religiously, probably until death.

Anomaly is a highly complex philosophical subject that is at the heart of scientific revolutions and changes of world views. Even so, everyone and their *bleep*ing uncle seems to have firm, fixed ideas about whether physical anomalies were observed during the WTC attacks and collapses. And, magically many do this without needing to look at the events.

As the history is currently written, anomalies are and will always be an integral part of the WTC collapses. I don't think there is any way around that at this point.

If the technical history of the collapses is written as a series of misrepresentations, the existence of anomalies are the inevitable result. There is a price to pay for screwing up ones history.

Anomaly is inseparable from the written records and the visual records of the collapses. Contradiction is now permanently written into the history, so anomaly will always be a part of that history (by definition). Recall the third definition of anomaly:

3: something anomalous : something different, abnormal, peculiar, or not easily classified

If people screwed up their technical histories over the last decade and we are still talking about it in 2013, confusion and contradiction are an integral part of the WTC collapses. Nothing will change that in the future.

How were you able to assemble so much of the phenomena of the twin towers collapses into coherent sets of mappings?

By taking advantage of the talents of others. Some of these ideas already existed but not in the form of mappings. Ideas such as "peeling" or "unzippering" of the perimeters already existed in scattered forms and in forum discussions. What I did was collect elements of mappings prepared by myself and others and put them in a form which could be presented to hostile audiences. In order to understand why it is useful to look back at the environment that existed in technical literature and forums in 2007-2008 and still exists today. My first experiences with mappings was with Steven Jones and my second was with Gravy among others. I quickly learned that both ends of the spectrum are filled with BS and neither seemed interested in visual evidence, just talking points.

It is not hard to present the general idea of ROOSD to readers who are open, but I wanted to present it in the form of a usable basis for more comprehensive mappings of the collapse events that could survive quite hostile attacks that were certain to follow from multiple sources.

I took advantage of work by Femr2, achimspok and a poster called OneWhiteEye, among others. Some of their work is not just good, but is rather overwhelming and can stand on its own within hostile environments.

I want to stress that ROOSD is only one aspect of the larger body of mappings which currently exist. The initiation mappings are still ignored and are bombarded with the usual insults and distractions whenever presented.

What do you hope to achieve with the effort you have put into this research?

One original purpose was to help create an atmosphere in which people used common sets of observations and measurements when discussing or arguing about these collapse events. When I saw how both sides of the artificial polarity react to such measurements it was a real eye-opener for me.

Due to the rather bizarre reactions that accurate observations and measurements receive from multiple sources, I was forced to change that original goal.

A secondary goal is to record how people reacted to the collapse events, how people handled the historic record. Not a pretty picture. I want to record the collapse of rational, skeptical thought as it is happening. In this sense the work is a study of human perception, knowledge, and understanding concerning the WTC collapse events.

Consider the "post 9/11 era" children that follow us. They are given a world in which it is commonly said that "9/11 changed everything", yet they are given no accurate means by which to examine or question the trigger events that caused it all.

They are being put in a seriously dysfunctional situation. I would expect the healthiest of them to have very little respect for what we are collectively giving them.

I'd like to show some of them just how fragile minds can be if one loses the spirit of fact-checking through individual initiative and direct experience. There is a way out of this type of vulnerability and groupthink but it requires individual effort and a healthy sense of requestioning. Without it people can participate in horrible things without even being aware they are doing so.

This really is what the results of the Milgram experiments can teach people. Those experiments were set up. This is real. So what is it that the 60% of people who kept pushing the button in that experiment were missing?

What would the reaction from the scientific community be if they found out that institutions such as NIST had it wrong for all these years?

ROOSD mappings really are an embarrassment to many people, including ASCE and the publishers of JEM in particular, and people would have to scramble to cover their asses, most probably by ignoring it and through historic revisionism. Certain truther groups would also have to cover their asses, most probably in the same way.

The true embarrassment to the NIST, however, is in how badly the collapse initiation processes are presented to the public.

The ROOSD mappings provide an overall context in which other mappings can be studied. For example, one part of the collapse progression mappings are those of the overpressurization ejections witnessed. It doesn't take a genius to see that the overpressurization patterns witnessed cannot be examined or understood outside of the context of ROOSD. Yet that is exactly what many people imagined they were doing.

As of now, no independent study of overpressurization patterns witnessed exists within the context of a ROOSD scenario. One cannot model the towers as a big freaking piston and have a realistic explanation for the overpressurization patterns witnessed. Yet that is the only way in which overpressurization patterns have been discussed within the historic record. People in past discussions have used the "great piston" model to "explain" overpressurization patterns witnessed and they have used the method of handwaving. The handwaving has been so vigorous that were one to attach some feathers to the people doing so they quite possibly could have taken flight.

That is it. That just one unaddressed element of our common recorded history.

The ROOSD mappings provide the overall context through which other mappings can be approached.....but they also open up a whole new can of worms.

Can the ROOSD collapse progression theory presented in part 2.1 of the book be used to explain all phenomena observed during the WTC collapses?

Once again it is important to stress that ROOSD is only one part of a larger, more comprehensive body of mappings. It does not exist in a vacuum and the mappings should not be broken into separate individual fragments and treated as if the fragments have no relation to each other. The more subtle portion of the mappings have to do with the collapse initiation processes.

The ROOSD mappings are not an end in themselves and that is why they cannot be separated from other phenomena which are also observable.

ROOSD mappings allow one to recognize the grossest features of the collapse processes of WTC1 and 2, and they give a context through which other observed collapse phenomena can be studied.

But nobody can describe the ROOSD process in a few posts and correctly say, "Now I know what happened." One needs a comprehensive set of mappings and a knowledge of the visual and written history to approach that highly complex issue.

For example, one can neither verify nor refute NIST claims about the initiation processes or approach the highly controversial question of demolition using only the ROOSD mappings.

This is why I emphasize repeatedly that ROOSD mappings only provide a gross context through which to understand what one is observing. ROOSD provides context, but not concrete answers to many of the questions still being asked. More comprehensive mappings are necessary for that and that is why some of the best individual researchers I have encountered assembled them.

On the other hand, without ROOSD mappings or descriptions one doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell of understanding anything that one is seeing during the collapse processes, including the grossest features. This is the position that so many people still find themselves in even 12 years after the collapses. Without ROOSD mappings, strong, stubborn opinions are nothing more than false certainty.

With ROOSD mappings alone, strong, stubborn opinions are also nothing more than a state of false certainty.

How and why were the collective WTC collapse mappings assembled?

To allow for independent verification of all claims made about the WTC collapses. The process used is very simple. Observe carefully, measure carefully, verify all claims.

Failure to do that in this case results in psychological malady, stubbornness and a pseudo-history.

The underlying question can be phrased as:

Are the claims of ________________ concerning the WTC collapses consistent with the visual record of events? Are they consistent with the written history?

In the blank one can insert

Steven Jones
Richard Gage
you (whoever you are)

or anything or anyone one wants.

This comparison gives a powerful method backed by a powerful set of tools to fact-check all claims made about the WTC collapses.

One thing anyone can verify for themselves is that Bazant didn't follow that simple process. He is a very poor observer. The NIST did not follow that simple process. Very poor observational skills. Technical leaders of AE911T and STJ911 did not follow it either. Awful observational skills. They all just talked past each other using no common body of observations and measurements.

The final result is a dangerous situation.

My original goal was to get people to follow that simple process. I found through direct experience that getting people to follow that simple process in this case is impossible.

Many people are pretending to know more than they actually do about the WTC collapses. Many people and organizations such as the NIST regularly demonstrate that they are very poor observers and quite vulnerable to being fooled by false technical information.

My secondary goal is to show those who come after us, those living in the post 9/11 era, how poorly these groups observed, measured, and verified. The general idea is that when given a bunch of lemons, make some lemonade.

The rest is watching people revise and cling to driftwood fragments of their own history, and recording it.

How is any of this "dangerous"?

Within just the last 12 years there have been many well known examples of what can happen when various people and groups with poor observational skills feel free to use their own observations and measurements.

The Iraq war is just one example. The levee system protecting New Orleans is another example. Fukushima is an example. The current turbulance in economic systems is just one more example.

Portions of the levee system, when put to the test, simply collapsed in on themselves.

In that case it is a question of engineering and accountability, not inevitability. Obviously, one lesson to learn from that is the design and construction had some inherent vulnerabilities.

In the same way, with the gift of hindsight, some of those reading this would now agree that it seems the twin towers were ROOSD vulnerable systems.

With the gift of hindsight one can see that terrorists do not need airplanes to create the same type of major destruction. All they needed to do is take advantage of inherent weaknesses in ROOSD-vulnerable systems.

But they weren't ROOSD-vulnerable only on 9/11/01. They were ROOSD-vulnerable every day since they were first constructed. The inherent vulnerability was always there.

One may argue that these events were not dangerous to oneself personally. Poor sets of observations and measurements and a lack of oversight and fact-checking skill can lead to all sorts of dangerous situations for other people.

In all these cases some people were left quite vulnerable due to highly bias sets of observations and measurements used by others.

Why did the mappings take so long to assemble?

They didn't.

There was a quiet revolutionary change within The 9/11 Forum around October, 2009 and again in February-March 2010. Page 24 of the "missing jolts" thread can be cited as the beginning of a quiet revolution.

It was the first time within forum records that people stopped talking in terms of simplified cartoons and began to map the actual movements of the buildings in earnest. Few people are aware of this transition, but if one looks at the posts before October 2009 and again before February 2010, it is easy to see that people had no idea what the hell they were talking about before then.

People were taking blocks literally within that forum using the standard pre-October 2009 cartoon argumentation. An entirely new world emerged later based on extremely accurate and quite detailed mappings.

The book and website are about how people with next to no information came to premature conclusions based on false certainty. (They still do.) The book is about how naive and vulnerable people have been to generic cartoon argumentation and false technical information. Much of this vulnerability can be seen by how people communicated about the collapses through forum records.

If one looks back at those earlier posts it is as if people were living in the stone age compared to what is knowable today. Information since then is on a different level entirely. If people don't understand that, it is very difficult to explain to them.

The actual mappings were delayed because the NIST didn't release sizable portions of the visual record to the public until after a response to FOIA requests in 2009-2010. Using that information a few independent researchers were able to assemble elements of both the ROOSD mappings and the initiation and overpressurization mappings within months. The mappings were assembled quite quickly considering how much work went into them. The work is all recorded within forums.

The delay from 2001 to 2009 is not the fault of independent researchers. It is due to the NIST keeping the assembled visual record private. Delays after 2010 are not the fault of independent researchers. These mappings have been available to the public since then.

Why are mappings of observations and measurements important when studying the movements of a complex physical system?

They act as constraints on ones concepts and imagination. Each correct observation "pins one down".

Without accurate, common sets of observations and measurements ones opinions are similar to hot air balloons.

They are similar in that:

1) They take their form and size by being inflated with hot air
2) They go which ever way the wind blows

Accurate observation and measurement are the pegs or "constraints" which hold the balloons to earth.

Without realistic constraints in the form of observation and measurement ones views can float anywhere they want and there will be nothing to challenge or stop them.

Many balloons floating together in the same air currents, but detached from accurate observations and measurements, will give the appearance of "consensus". or group cohesion.

Realistic constraints test ones beliefs and allows one to fact-check the claims of others. Many people with strong views will not like these realistic constraints. There are people that do not want their beliefs to be tested against sets of observations and measurements. This type of fact-checking is sensed as a threat.

I used to refer to the earlier mappings as "BS detectors". Comparison of mappings with the many claims floating about among the public allows one to spot how people often make false claims and believe them without realizing they are doing so.

The history of the collapses is nothing more than a series of talking points. In this respect conventional truther and debunker are identical. Journalists are also identical.

The history of the collapses is just a series of talking points based on authoritarian world views. In this setting the authority is NIST and Bazant. They are perceived as the authority and the talking points emerge from them. Popular technical explanations of the collapses will always be nothing more than a hypnotic repetition of those talking points.

Why should the reader believe the collective mappings within this website and book?

Each individual element of the mappings can be verified. Verification requires individual initiative. Some people are not capable of that or they are just too lazy to do it. They will believe instead because short of the capacity to verify information they have no choice.

No part of the mappings requires belief. They were written in a form in which each element can be verified by the reader. In this case belief is just a passive substitute for verification.

The Bazant papers from 2002 to the present are only one fragment of a much larger whole. My fundamental question, which my book and website addresses, is of a comparison between the visual and written records of the WTC collapse events when those records are taken as a whole.

To do this I use more powerful tools than were previously available in 2001, 2005 or 2008.

In a tricky way I have gently "pitted" talented researcher against researcher and used their collective work to make a much more powerful set of tools than has previously existed to fact-check all claims.

I "believe" no one. Belief is not necessary.

What is the source of the scientific community's resistance to correction?

That is where the technical studies end and the psychological studies begin. A question like that cannot be answered through technical argument.

From my own experience I have found that it is difficult to approach the claim in my thesis or the subject of the WTC collapses in an evidence-based way because of a fundamental Achille's heel found most everywhere one looks if they have the eyes to see it.

People are largely detached from the visual record of the WTC attacks and collapse events and they are largely detached from the written record of those events which followed.

This fundamental Achille's heel explains most everything I witness concerning technical literature on the subject of these collapse events.

If one is divorced from both the visual and written records they often feel free to say anything that pops into their head but have no capacity, instinct, or even interest to verify whether the claim is true.

It is a fundamental ignorance of the visual and written records that leads to the breakdown of skeptical thought and evidence-based understanding of this issue.

On a positive note it is an excellent opportunity to catch a glimpse of life throughout the technical hierarchy and in society in general. It is possible to see vulnerability on all levels.

Is it just another case of the sunken cost fallacy, I.E, they bought so heavily into the flawed block mechanics concept (for so long) that their reputations are now at stake from a negative finding?

I think people hunger for certainty. The current written record in the form of government reports and academic papers provides that feeling of certainty. It is the feeling of certainty that many people seem to crave, not accuracy and fact-checking.

Questioning that long-held feeling of certainty at this point in time can be quite a dizzying experience for many people.

It is not difficult to see why so many people treat observations and measurements as some sort of hostile enemy. It is because they are consciously or unconsciously clinging to something.

It is also not difficult to see what various people are clinging to.

One must be flexible enough to conform ones concepts and beliefs to the most accurate observations and measurements available.

What will it take for this ingrained disdain of precision mapping to be over-turned? It seems to me that the mere fact that ROOSD is a better 'theory' (in terms of verifiability) will not be enough to shift their stance!

Of all the mappings available, it may be the WTC1 collapse initiation mappings that provide the most extreme demonstration of how poorly people observed these physical processes. ROOSD is only one part of a much larger set of mappings. The mappings provide an accurate context for technical discussion and verification of specific claims but they also test the limits of human perception.

These mappings are embarrassing to those who are considered to provide authoritative certainty. Claims of various perceived authorities, both truther and debunker, can be fact-checked and argued through the mappings.

That, I think, is way too hot for many people to handle.

From personal experience, my guess is that it would take hell to freeze over for many people to transcend the cheap talking points and sincerely examine various claims, including ones own, through the currently available sets of observations and measurements. That is the last thing a stubborn, self-certain person would want to do.

Detailed mappings are possible. Getting people to work within the confines of observation and measurement is most probably not.

Getting many people to read and understand the written history is nearly impossible.

Are the collapse measurements and observations the only things we can take for absolutes, or are even they potentially misleading?

Fragmented pieces of information, even if those fragments are correct, can be misleading.

Interestingly, even the ROOSD concept can lead to a false state of certainty if it is fragmented from a larger whole.

If we stipulate, say, that both AE911T and NIST have explanations that don't match the observables -- or, for that matter, that no one has an explanation that matches the observables -- what are the consequences?

For one, it demonstrates that my stated thesis is true. The very first sentences in the book:


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.

Why did I put the question "What is science?" at the very beginning of the book?

Because if the basic concepts of science or some scientific method are not understood, the reader doesn't have a prayer with what follows.

From the beginning of the book:

Part 1 consists of 3 subsections:

1.1 What is Science?
1.2 Science and Subjectivity
1.3 Some Negative Effects of the Physical Sciences

Physics is considered to be the fundamental physical science and describes the basic mechanisms of movement on which engineering is based, so it serves as a perfect example of a science in this brief review.

In a complex technical subject, these fundamental ideas of what science is based upon are essential to know. From the book:

The key elements of the western scientific method according to the wikilink summarized:

1) Must be based on gathering observable, empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning.

2) Consists of systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

3) Scientific researchers propose hypotheses as explanations of phenomena, and design experimental studies to test these hypotheses. These steps must be repeatable, to predict future results.

4) Expectation of full disclosure is to document, archive and share all data and methodology so they are available for careful scrutiny by other scientists. This allows statistical measures of the reliability of these data to be established.

These basic concepts are not difficult to understand and if people want to talk about a highly complex technical subject, they should understand some of these basic principles.

Of all the sciences it is the hard physical sciences that are generally considered to be the most exact. Physics is considered to be the fundamental physical science.

If Max Born, after a career at the center of establishing fundamental principles in modern physics, is convinced that modern physics is actually philosophy, then maybe many other physical and social sciences are in the same boat.

I think that what he means is that the most fundamental principles in physics, when examined deeply, are actually philosophical in nature. If true of physics, it seems so much more true of subjects like psychology, history, or sociology.

Why do I start the book with a basic outline of the scientific method?

Because without it some people will make up any old *bleep* that suits their subjective needs.

Why do I use the domains of physics to demonstrate how mechanics is nothing more than a conformity to observation and measurement?

Because physical sciences are widely considered to be the most established and physics, for a good reason, is considered to be the fundamental physical science.

Why did I put use examples from relativity and quantum mechanics.

Because the same process was played out in all the domains of physics listed in the diagram:

Many engineers never study physics beyond the classical realm. As a result they may imagine some set perfection within the physical sciences that doesn't exist in reality.

A more realistic and historically accurate viewpoint would be to see how people are often forced to fly by the seats of their pants when confronted with new sets of observations that cannot be explained through established systems of analysis.

This need to fly by the seat of ones pants when confronted by anomaly and contradiction is demonstrated when a scientific revolution takes place.

In the normal course of day to day science people become accustomed to studying known systems. The collapse of the WTC towers is new. These are not known systems, and it is very interesting to watch people make many clumsy mistakes as a result.

Many people react as if no anomaly exists within the written and visual records and the collapses are "easy to understand". They then project that stupidity outward at others in the form of judgement.

The establishment of quantum mechanics is a wonderful historic example of a bunch of creative individuals forced to fly by the seats of their pants when confronted with new, seemingly anomalous, sets of observations.

Highly creative individuals were put in situations where anomaly and contradiction could no longer be denied. New systems of mechanics were developed as a result by individuals flying by the seats of their pants. In each case they were doing nothing more than conforming their theories to the new sets of observations and measurements.

I use Bohm, Feynman, and Einstein as examples because they were not afraid to say "I don't know" when confronted with anomaly and contradiction. They didn't hide behind institutions and groups. They were very honest about what they know and what they don't know. They pushed fundamental concepts to their outer limits. They had a healthy distrust for established institutions.

They were well outside of institutionalized groupthink mentality in their fields. Dealing with anomaly and contradiction were a normal part of their lives.

The parallels to the WTC collapses should be obvious. FEMA and the NIST were also forced to respond to a highly complex, new situation. The written and visual records demonstrate how well they were able to respond.

With the gift of hindsight, a careful observer can see they responded like an institution can be expected to respond.

Why do I follow these descriptions of science with section 1.2 SUBJECTIVITY WITHIN SCIENCE?

Many readers who observe what is happening on various forum discussions can see there are very little evidence-based exchanges going on. The large majority of exchanges are nothing more than a big pot of subjective soup on low heat.

For the most part, they are confessionals of how people perceive and process information. It is a world where many people just make *bleep* up to support whatever it is they feel the need to cling to. The exchanges are psychological in nature and rarely technical.

To the degree that technical histories of the collapse events are misrepresented through multiple sources, discussions based on these misrepresentations are confessionals of what various people believe.

In a world where people feel little or no obligation to conform opinions to observation and measurement, nothing more can be expected. Nothing more should be expected.

Since the history of the collapses has effectively already been written, one can step back and ask, "what is it?" Well, it, too, is a big subjective mess.

Not only is there subjectivity within the science of the WTC collapses, in this case the science is dominated by subjectivity. That is an embarrassing thing for some people to admit.

Human subjectivity certainly does creep into efforts to apply basic principles within the scientific method to the study of phenomena. The case is so extreme with respect to the WTC collapses that it isn't easy to extract the science from the big pot of subjective soup. Even at the highest levels of the technical hierarchy it is subjectivity which dominates, not reproducible science.

Quick review of the most basic principles within the scientific method:

1) Must be based on gathering observable, empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning.

2) Consists of systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

3) Scientific researchers propose hypotheses as explanations of phenomena, and design experimental studies to test these hypotheses. These steps must be repeatable, to predict future results.

4) Expectation of full disclosure is to document, archive and share all data and methodology so they are available for careful scrutiny by other scientists. This allows statistical measures of the reliability of these data to be established.

This is a pretty simple set of rules. With respect to the WTC collapses, these simple rules were not applied. The result is, inevitably, a big subjective mess.

It is as of people are on a beach picking up driftwood of the shipwreck that was the technical histories of the collapse events, just so they have something to call "certain" or "science".

Or like after a campfire, it is as if people are looking through the burnt embers of the collapse histories to salvage something to say, "this is real, this is what really happened".

In the investigations of the WTC towers, is there a fundamental constraint to which all speculation must conform?

Yes, to direct observables (perceivables) and raw data.

Wikipedia as written in part 1: "To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on gathering observable, empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning."

The Oxford Dictionary: (scientific method is) "a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses."

Can the collapse initiation and progression mappings on which the book is based be debunked?

Not really. Individual measurements are only specific components of much larger mappings. If anyone produced better measurements than the ones I currently use, I'd simply use their measurements to produce even better mappings.

It is impossible to "debunk" the accuracy of the mappings as a whole because if anyone produced better work on any specific feature of the mappings, I'd just use or link to their work instead.

It isn't a question of "debunking" the mappings. Effort to produce better information of any detail will simply help me to produce better mappings.

Nobody can "debunk" the mappings as a whole because I would just absorb their information and link to their work. Any "debunking" of specific features of the collapse processes only helps me produce mappings of an even higher quality.

The website not only examines the specifics of the WTC collapses with grueling detail, but also grapples with the intricacies of how humans respond to complex events. Many troubling conclusions about the fallibility of our perceptions and philosophies are revealed.

Troubling but I also hope liberating for some people. The so-called "debate" revolves around a narrowed false choice between the NIST and some common truther talking points.

ROOSD is only the first step toward accurate mappings. Without accurate mappings of the events one has no independent way to examine claims made by anyone. Accurate mappings allow one to be independent of all groups, to be liberated of the common propaganda pushed by institutional thinking and by forums such as JREF.

That will give some people independence from the circus that is visible most anywhere one looks concerning this subject. But, of course, it will also piss off some people who are unwittingly trapped inside those talking points.

Omar Khyyam from the Rubaiyat:

Why, all the Saints and Sages who discussed
Of the Two Worlds so learnedly, are thrust
Like foolish Prophets forth; their Words to Scorn
Are scattered, and their Mouths are stopt with Dust

The Two Towers, that is, and that is WTC dust. Such is the nature of the narrowed false polarity through which the collapse histories are commonly presented.

Consider the MIlgram experiments which also produce troubling conclusions. Those conclusions can also be liberating.

Milgram: “It may be that we are puppets-puppets controlled by the strings of society. But at least we are puppets with perception, with awareness. And perhaps our awareness is the first step to our liberation.”

What happened to the upper block of WTCs 1 & 2 after collapse initiation? If it wasn't responsible for crushing the lower foundations all the way to the ground (in spite the claims made by Bazant and Seffen), then why did we not see this object fall over into the streets of NYC? I have heard some say that this would be impossible, due to the particulars of a skyscrapers center of mass.

That is what Thomas Eagar from MIT said about the collapses:

Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse? Science, Engineering, and Speculation
Thomas W. Eagar and Christopher Musso

Journal of Engineering Mechanics

Feature: Special Report

Linked in part 7 of the book


"As the joists on one or two of the most heavily burned floors gave way and the outer box columns began to bow outward, the floors above them also fell. The floor below (with its 1,300 t design capacity) could not support the roughly 45,000 t of ten floors (or more) above crashing down on these angle clips. This started the domino effect that caused the buildings to collapse within ten seconds, hitting bottom with an estimated speed of 200 km per hour. If it had been free fall, with no restraint, the collapse would have only taken eight seconds and would have impacted at 300 km/h.1 It has been suggested that it was fortunate that the WTC did not tip over onto other buildings surrounding the area. There are several points that should be made. First, the building is not solid; it is 95 percent air and, hence, can implode onto itself. Second, there is no lateral load, even the impact of a speeding aircraft, which is sufficient to move the center of gravity one hundred feet to the side such that it is not within the base footprint of the structure. Third, given the near free-fall collapse, there was insufficient time for portions to attain significant lateral velocity. To summarize all of these points, a 500,000 t structure has too much inertia to fall in any direction other than nearly straight down."

It is a common belief, expressed again here:

University of Sydney, Civil Engineering Department

"Once one storey collapsed all floors above would have begun to fall. The huge mass of falling structure would gain momentum, crushing the structurally intact floors below, resulting in catastrophic failure of the entire structure. While the columns at say level 50 were designed to carry the static load of 50 floors above, once one floor collapsed and the floors above started to fall, the dynamic load of 50 storeys above is very much greater, and the columns at each level were almost instantly destroyed as the huge upper mass fell to the ground."

With this literature freely available to any person on the internet and so little to counter it, it is no wonder that so many people think in this fashion.

The reality is that there is no concrete way to answer such a question outside of the context of an accurate and detailed study of the visual record. Judging from his papers Bazant still believes the collapses occurred in this way.

Why does this information appear with an address related to a business called Sharp Printing?

There is no relation between the former business "sharp printing" and the website I created. A shell website existed and I was given permission to use it by both the former owner(s) and the owner of the server they were using, originally to challenge claims by Steven Jones.

The former owner of sharp printing is in no way responsible for the contents of WTC Evidence Based Research.

What is the title of the book?

Since it appears only on this website, I didn't bother to give it a title. If it appears elsewhere in the future, it will have one of these titles:

WTC Collapse Mappings and Misrepresentations: Seeing through the dust and noise

WTC Collapses: Belief, consensus, fact

Created on 05/21/2013 07:30 PM by admin
Updated on 09/03/2013 12:39 PM by admin
 Printable Version

Copyright © 2008 WiredTech, LLC
phpWebSite is licensed under the GNU LGPL