Connecting the Dots

[mike2810]

I cite as evidence the fact that people have conducted tests where bits of concrete are
dropped from 5 or 6 stories up and onto various surfaces, such as steel, concrete ... etc...
and the result is always the same, the concrete breaks, but does not pulverize. WHY should
anybody expect that in the case of the twin towers there would be total pulverization of so
many tons of materials? Takes a LOT of energy to pulverize stuff, and once that energy is
used up, what is powering the "collapse" .....

your cite of evidence is weak.
Lets take a simple controlled demolition. Ever see the dust cloud that is created? In a CD are not charges only planted to blow the supports, then gravity takes over and collapses the building?

Heck I will answer it since you don't seem to like details. Yep, minimal explosives are used to take out supports. Gravity does the rest.

and by the way. not all the concrete was pulverized. You seem to have missed the photo evidence on that one.

Nice try though MK.

 

[Menard_K]

your cite of evidence is weak.
Lets take a simple controlled demolition. Ever see the dust cloud that is created? In a CD are not charges only planted to blow the supports, then gravity takes over and collapses the building?

Heck I will answer it since you don't seem to like details. Yep, minimal explosives are used to take out supports. Gravity does the rest.

and by the way. not all the concrete was pulverized. You seem to have missed the photo evidence on that one.

Nice try though MK.

Is there any reliable statement on the subject as to just how much concrete was not pulverized?
also in the case of a real CD, is there any instance where tons of building material gets ejected
hundreds of ft from the building?

 

[mike2810]

Is there any reliable statement on the subject as to just how much concrete was not pulverized?
also in the case of a real CD, is there any instance where tons of building material gets ejected
hundreds of ft from the building?

look at the debris piles.
I am not going to bother to provide reports for you MK. You don't believe what has been provided to you so far.

and you are back to not answering question, but coming back with your own bs.
Can you explain all of the dust created by a controlled demolition of a concrete building? Yes/ No.
If yes, then explain how its created.

Failure to do so means you do not understand what happened when the WTC collapsed

Are you now interested in details. Seems you are by asking the question of how much concrete was not pulverized.
Since you are the one claiming it was all pulverized. Do you have a reliable report on how much was pulverized..

To give you a hint. Look for papers on the dust plume created by the collapse. If you used links to sites already given to you the information to reports you seek are most likely there.

 

[Menard_K]

look at the debris piles.
I am not going to bother to provide reports for you MK. You don't believe what has been provided to you so far.

and you are back to not answering question, but coming back with your own bs.
Can you explain all of the dust created by a controlled demolition of a concrete building? Yes/ No.
If yes, then explain how its created.

Failure to do so means you do not understand what happened when the WTC collapsed

Are you now interested in details. Seems you are by asking the question of how much concrete was not pulverized.
Since you are the one claiming it was all pulverized. Do you have a reliable report on how much was pulverized..

To give you a hint. Look for papers on the dust plume created by the collapse. If you used links to sites already given to you the information to reports you seek are most likely there.

what caused a square mile of lower Manhattan to be covered ankle deep in fine powder?
The act of pulverizing stuff uses up energy, how is it that the "collapsing" structure had
such an abundance of energy that it could pulverize mass quantities of material, and not
slow down at all but the wave of destruction just kept going from the moment of first
observed movement right down to ground level?

Like I've mentioned before, 1 building completely destroyed would set off alarms for the
arson investigators, now in the case of 3 buildings completely destroyed .... well it was
supposed to happen just like that because of the commercial airliner crashes into the
towers & the FIRES in WTC 7 ..... oh my! ....

I can just imagine a Colombo scene where he gets to deliver a monolog on the subject...

anyhow .... when do we bust the emperor for indecent exposure?

 

[mike2810]

what caused a square mile of lower Manhattan to be covered ankle deep in fine powder?
The act of pulverizing stuff uses up energy, how is it that the "collapsing" structure had
such an abundance of energy that it could pulverize mass quantities of material, and not
slow down at all but the wave of destruction just kept going from the moment of first
observed movement right down to ground level?

Like I've mentioned before, 1 building completely destroyed would set off alarms for the
arson investigators, now in the case of 3 buildings completely destroyed .... well it was
supposed to happen just like that because of the commercial airliner crashes into the
towers & the FIRES in WTC 7 ..... oh my! ....

I can just imagine a Colombo scene where he gets to deliver a monolog on the subject...

anyhow .... when do we bust the emperor for indecent exposure?

You keep bring up points that have been addressed. Keep posting the same rant does not make them true.

I am going to shift things a bit. I am not talking about the WTC. Have you ever seen vids of a controlled demolition of a building?
You do realize that in typical CD only enough charges are used to blow the supports. Gravity does the rest. Gravity does not care what caused the building supports to fail. So how does so little explosives create such a large dust cloud?

Which emperor you going to bust?. emperor Griffin, Jones, Harriet, etc.

 

[SanderO]

what caused a square mile of lower Manhattan to be covered ankle deep in fine powder?
The act of pulverizing stuff uses up energy, how is it that the "collapsing" structure had
such an abundance of energy that it could pulverize mass quantities of material, and not
slow down at all but the wave of destruction just kept going from the moment of first
observed movement right down to ground level?

Like I've mentioned before, 1 building completely destroyed would set off alarms for the
arson investigators, now in the case of 3 buildings completely destroyed .... well it was
supposed to happen just like that because of the commercial airliner crashes into the
towers & the FIRES in WTC 7 ..... oh my! ....

I can just imagine a Colombo scene where he gets to deliver a monolog on the subject...

anyhow .... when do we bust the emperor for indecent exposure?

Lots of incorrect in this comment.

There wasn't a square mile covered in ankle deep dust.. that's BS.. where did you get this from?
What does the rate of destruction have to do with the amount of dust created? Cite some research

Your incredulity is not proof of anything other than you are unfamiliar (like many) with structure/engineering, material science and physics. You continue to come across as a child who is trying to understand something beyond their mental capacity and uses media created cartoon like explanations.

 

[Menard_K]

You keep bring up points that have been addressed. Keep posting the same rant does not make them true.

I am going to shift things a bit. I am not talking about the WTC. Have you ever seen vids of a controlled demolition of a building?
You do realize that in typical CD only enough charges are used to blow the supports. Gravity does the rest. Gravity does not care what caused the building supports to fail. So how does so little explosives create such a large dust cloud?

Which emperor you going to bust?. emperor Griffin, Jones, Harriet, etc.

The perpetrator of the BIG LIE
wanted to destroy evidence therefore use more explosive than absolutely necessary.
Buildings 1, 2 & 7 contained critical evidence of fraud, if the towers had not been
pulverized, people would expect to find aircraft wreckage in the rubble.

 

[mike2810]

The perpetrator of the BIG LIE
wanted to destroy evidence therefore use more explosive than absolutely necessary.
Buildings 1, 2 & 7 contained critical evidence of fraud, if the towers had not been
pulverized, people would expect to find aircraft wreckage in the rubble.

MK, you still do not answer simple questions asked of you? Why is that? Are you a disinfo agent?:mrgreen:

Who is the perpetrator of the "big lie?"

and your use of pulverized is not correct. The buildings were not.

 

[Menard_K]

MK, you still do not answer simple questions asked of you? Why is that? Are you a disinfo agent?:mrgreen:

Who is the perpetrator of the "big lie?"

and your use of pulverized is not correct. The buildings were not.

You can point to bits that did not get completely pulverized, HOWEVER
why is it that mundane things like desks & chairs, Telephones, were conspicuously absent
from the rubble because all of that stuff had been pulverized.

The perpetrators of 9/11/2001 wanted to make sure to destroy evidence.
so more explosive was used that necessary to simply bring down the tower(s).

 

[mike2810]

You can point to bits that did not get completely pulverized, HOWEVER
why is it that mundane things like desks & chairs, Telephones, were conspicuously absent
from the rubble because all of that stuff had been pulverized.

The perpetrators of 9/11/2001 wanted to make sure to destroy evidence.
so more explosive was used that necessary to simply bring down the tower(s).

show me where your statement is true. It is not up to me to show you that you are wrong. You brought up the no furniture, etc.
Provide reference source to your knowledge of this tidbit?

 

[Menard_K]

show me where your statement is true. It is not up to me to show you that you are wrong. You brought up the no furniture, etc.
Provide reference source to your knowledge of this tidbit?

You know as well as I that its impossible to prove a negative
that is there were NO bits of office furniture to be found in any sort of recognizable form.

HOWEVER, may I post a challenge to anyone reading this forum & that is show me
documented evidence of some bit of office furniture that did survive in any sort of
recognizable form. Where is it?

 

[SanderO]

You can point to bits that did not get completely pulverized, HOWEVER
why is it that mundane things like desks & chairs, Telephones, were conspicuously absent
from the rubble because all of that stuff had been pulverized.

The perpetrators of 9/11/2001 wanted to make sure to destroy evidence.
so more explosive was used that necessary to simply bring down the tower(s).

Mundane things (whatever this is meant to be) cannot survive a 400,000 ton mass of materials mechanically assaulting them in less than 14 seconds. They simply don't have the mechanical properties to withstand the forces involved.

 

[Menard_K]

Mundane things (whatever this is meant to be) cannot survive a 400,000 ton mass of materials mechanically assaulting them in less than 14 seconds. They simply don't have the mechanical properties to withstand the forces involved.

Note that there was a restaurant at the top of the north tower, said Restaurant had all sorts of metal kitchen gear and was near the top of the building so it did NOT have "400,000 tons" of stuff assaulting it. WHAT HAPPENED TO IT?

Tons of STUFF, ordinary objects that people see every day, like Telephones ( etc.... )
and ALL of it pulverized? and you see nothing wrong with this picture?

Truly AMERICA is in deep do-do!

 

[SanderO]

Note that there was a restaurant at the top of the north tower, said Restaurant had all sorts of metal kitchen gear and was near the top of the building so it did NOT have "400,000 tons" of stuff assaulting it. WHAT HAPPENED TO IT?

Tons of STUFF, ordinary objects that people see every day, like Telephones ( etc.... )
and ALL of it pulverized? and you see nothing wrong with this picture?

Truly AMERICA is in deep do-do!

I think some of those heavy things were recovered and broken. It was a violent chaotic... avalanche of 1300 feet to the ground. What sort of things are you looking for... elevator machines were recovered... albeit beat up quite a lot. You haven't examined what was recovered... have you? You are simply making this up... right?

 

[Menard_K]

I think some of those heavy things were recovered and broken. It was a violent chaotic... avalanche of 1300 feet to the ground. What sort of things are you looking for... elevator machines were recovered... albeit beat up quite a lot. You haven't examined what was recovered... have you? You are simply making this up... right?

"I think some of those heavy things were recovered and broken." and again
I say that 9/11/2001 is the most poorly documented disaster since the invention of photography.
WHERE ARE THE PICTURES of ground zero, in a mass of stuff allegedly sorted for human remains
how could anyone miss large kitchen fixtures ( etc... ) We will still never know exactly what was in
all of those truck-loads of stuff removed from ground zero the night of 9/11/2001.

& this is EVIDENCE. The fact that it hit the "NEWS" that the largest single bit of any office furniture, was a very beat-up file cabinet and really if anybody had so much as a photograph of a larger single bit, would they not come forward and show it to the world?

The significance is one of TOTAL DESTRUCTION, in any case of total destruction,
the POLICE investigators will consider this VERY suspicious.
Now in the case of the twin towers, its
OH .. WE KNOW that the plane crashes brought down the towers. case closed!
oops! .... not so fast, Total Collapse was NOT inevitable!

WHY do people go on about this stuff as if total collapse was inevitable?

 

[SanderO]

"

WHY do people go on about this stuff as if total collapse was inevitable?

The global collapse became inevitable after the progression of failures went past the "tipping point" of the structure being able to self support. The planes strike did not collapse the towers. They because a process of strength erosion in the structure which support the floors above . The steel frames experienced loss of fire protection and fires started from jet fuel and electrical explosions were not fought without sprinklers. All these factors including the actual long span open office design led to the global failure as the top mass destroyed all the floors and removed the bracing for the columns below the crash zone leaving them too unstable to self support. The sequence of cascading failures has been explained though your either refuse to understand or are incapable of it... or both. A similar weakening of the frame was seen by FDNY in 7WTC and it was expected to and did experience a global collapse based on their surveys on the day. This "go on about this stuff" is what the head of the FDNY was responsible for. He called for the area to be evacuated and he made the right call.

 

[Menard_K]

The global collapse became inevitable after the progression of failures went past the "tipping point" of the structure being able to self support. The planes strike did not collapse the towers. They because a process of strength erosion in the structure which support the floors above . The steel frames experienced loss of fire protection and fires started from jet fuel and electrical explosions were not fought without sprinklers. All these factors including the actual long span open office design led to the global failure as the top mass destroyed all the floors and removed the bracing for the columns below the crash zone leaving them too unstable to self support. The sequence of cascading failures has been explained though your either refuse to understand or are incapable of it... or both. A similar weakening of the frame was seen by FDNY in 7WTC and it was expected to and did experience a global collapse based on their surveys on the day. This "go on about this stuff" is what the head of the FDNY was responsible for. He called for the area to be evacuated and he made the right call.

It is amazing to me that given the fact that physical science + statistics/probability
indicates clearly that there is something VERY wrong with this picture.
that is WTC7 descending as it did, keeping its shape on the way down, and the
fact of complete & total destruction of the building.
add that to the fact of complete & total destruction of the twin towers,
note that there were forces propelling tons of material out the sides of the tower(s)
and so with that happening, how is it that the "pile driver" sustained sufficient mass
to guarantee the total destruction of the towers(s)

 

[SanderO]

It is amazing to me that given the fact that physical science + statistics/probability
indicates clearly that there is something VERY wrong with this picture.
that is WTC7 descending as it did, keeping its shape on the way down, and the
fact of complete & total destruction of the building.
add that to the fact of complete & total destruction of the twin towers,
note that there were forces propelling tons of material out the sides of the tower(s)
and so with that happening, how is it that the "pile driver" sustained sufficient mass
to guarantee the total destruction of the towers(s)

Consider this possibility:

The load transfer structures which were 3 story in ht from 5-7 failed (for whatever cause) one after the other.. sort of like tipping dominoes... they were connected to each other and so the domino analogy is pretty accurate.

The sequence of failures shows the east penthouse drop first... the columns which supported it was connect to or supported on the aforementioned transfer structures... then the west penthouse as the failures (dominoes fell) propagated westward.

The entire center of the tower was gutted because of the transfer structure IN the central portion had failed.

And finally the perimeter structure around the lower 7 stories topping out at floor 8 - 104 feet above grade collapsed in... pulled in by the same transfer structures. Take a look at the structure to see how this could happen

Now all you left is the curtain wall and the columns just inside of it which were supported east and west on the 8 story tall braced frames and on the north on the ends of the failed cantilevers. And so the last part comes down which is what we all see and THINK is the WHOLE building but it's mainly the curtain wall and the 57 perimeter columns and spandrels holding them together like a cage.

Twins:

Collapse of mass basically crushed all the floor systems... destroyed lateral bracing of the columns which toppled from instability... the facade falling away in large pieces and up to 450 away. Nothing propelled the steel of the facade other than gravity... and air pressure expelled light material through the broken windows of the facade. The dust was carried away to the area around the site by winds created by the collapse and hot clouds also created by the collapse (and fires).

 

[ozeco41]

The global collapse became inevitable

There is a bit of interesting irony which I mentioned for Menard_K's benefit on another thread.

NIST's conclusion "global collapse was inevitable" is undoubtedly correct given that we now understand the mechanisms of global collapse. BUT NIST may have formed that conclusion based on earlier data which may not be reliable.

So the situation may be that NIST got the answer right for wrong reasons.

So the focus of any controversy shifts from alleged doubts about the fact - "global collapse was inevitable" to questions such as "History proves NIST right, does it matter that their earlier reasoning may have been flawed?"

 

[SanderO]

There is a bit of interesting irony which I mentioned for Menard_K's benefit on another thread.

NIST's conclusion "global collapse was inevitable" is undoubtedly correct given that we now understand the mechanisms of global collapse. BUT NIST may have formed that conclusion based on earlier data which may not be reliable.

So the situation may be that NIST got the answer right for wrong reasons.

So the focus of any controversy shifts from alleged doubts about the fact - "global collapse was inevitable" to questions such as "History proves NIST right, does it matter that their earlier reasoning may have been flawed?"

That's sort of my position about NIST... they seemed to miss the sequence and how it happened for some inexplicable reason... but that it was heat which was the straw that broke the camel's back they got correct. I would consider their work a fail because it's a given that steel frames and fires don't mix... what people (me) wanted to know is how this happened at a level of detail which does not interest you, but it does interest me.

I also think that without a ironclad explanation truthers have lots of wiggle room to carry on with their disbelief and that NIST got it wrong and covered up a CD.

But Maynard shows a hardheaded or empty headed stubbornness in comprehending rather simple explanations given him. I can't type and don't proof... but maybe he can't read and comprehend?

It does strike me as odd that so few converts to rational thinking make the jump from truther. That is pretty stunning for someone who claims to want to know the truth. When faced with it they refuse to even consider it a possibility.

 

[mike2810]

It is amazing to me that given the fact that physical science + statistics/probability
indicates clearly that there is something VERY wrong with this picture.
that is WTC7 descending as it did, keeping its shape on the way down, and the
fact of complete & total destruction of the building.
add that to the fact of complete & total destruction of the twin towers,
note that there were forces propelling tons of material out the sides of the tower(s)
and so with that happening, how is it that the "pile driver" sustained sufficient mass
to guarantee the total destruction of the towers(s)

MK,
you have been given quotes from on scene firefighters of the collapse was going to happen.
Why do you ignore and try to spin this into something of a big deal. Yes , engineers and some fire specialists on site stated it was clear at some point the buildings were coming down.
There is not conspiracy behind those statements.

 

[ozeco41]

... what people (me) wanted to know is how this happened at a level of detail which does not interest you, but it does interest me...

And it has taken several years for you and I to get even that close to mutual understanding. Not far to go.

The bit still missing is that the next level of detail is:
a) Not going to be available no matter how hard we try; AND
b) there is nothing I need to understand about WTC collapses that the additional details would provide.
(and c) - natural laziness - no point wasting energy on non-winner pursuits.)

...It does strike me as odd that so few converts to rational thinking make the jump from truther. That is pretty stunning for someone who claims to want to know the truth. When faced with it they refuse to even consider it a possibility.

Not that hard if you go to the two basic issues which drive many of them (that is "most" not "many" in my perception). Base line is personal security/self image. The consequence of limited thinking - esp. reasoning skills. "They" have mostly gone through life with a chip on shoulder needing someone to blame for what they cannot comprehend. Truth or falsity of what they don't comprehend is irrelevant. The frustration of "cannot comprehend" is the driver. So they perennially need someone to blame and "authorities" are an easy target.

All of that well established as their life skill response long before 9/11. Along comes 9/11 and triggers the already established knee jerk. "Blame government - no way could it be my fault because I cannot think".

Then simply add into the mix the broad problem with thinking - which I describe as "divergent thinking". "Convergent thinking" is needed to understand complex multi-factor events. You have to select the relevant bits of data and assemble them in coherent overall argument which complies with known facts. It is rare for a person coming from the "truther" side to present arguments arranged coherently. The process is usually "here are some bits of selected evidence (which I cannot put together is implied) so it proves CD (inside job, whatever) >> now you opposing debunker prove me wrong (because I want you doing the work and I implicitly recognise that you can think whilst I cannot)

And it pleases "debunkers" (and some middle ground sceptics) to take all those bits of evidence and disprove all or most even though we have accepted reversed burden of proof. and that for a claim which has not even been made out to the "prima facie" standard of a "case to answer". And that bit of two sided less than pure debating protocol is the main driving reason that these conspiracy sub forums exist. If we rejected "reversed burden of proof" and insisted "it is your claim - you support it" there would be very little discussion on these forums.

So your "That is pretty stunning for someone who claims to want to know the truth." -- the motivation is peace with authority OR blamer authority with blame being the preferred outcome. THEREFORE "When faced with it they refuse to even consider it a possibility." Yes...but.....we tend to give them incontrovertible evidence and/or reasoned argument. They don't want the former and cannot process the latter.

See my recent example on another forum where I spoon fed the foundations of logic underpinning the global collapses of the Twins after a truther asked me to do it. He hasn't even said "thank you' - not that I expected it.

 

[SanderO]

View attachment 67154474

So your "That is pretty stunning for someone who claims to want to know the truth." -- the motivation is peace with authority OR blamer authority with blame being the preferred outcome. THEREFORE "When faced with it they refuse to even consider it a possibility." Yes...but.....we tend to give them incontrovertible evidence and/or reasoned argument. They don't want the former and cannot process the latter.

See my recent example on another forum where I spoon fed the foundations of logic underpinning the global collapses of the Twins after a truther asked me to do it. He hasn't even said "thank you' - not that I expected it.

I have one personal friend who is a published author of the truth movement and is a university prof and a leftist economist. He's pretty rational and recognizes he does not understand technical stuff and will ask me in email to comment of explain something which he read or hears which appears to make sense on it face such as... aluminum planes could not penetrate and damage the steel facade of stronger gauge steel. I spoon feed him as best I can the physics such as noting that a stream of water can cut steel!

My sense is that most intelligent people fall for the cartoon like intuitive responses of incredulity.. such as:

planes can't fly as fast
pilots were incapable of the maneuvers
accelerated collapse means CD
symmetry means CD
400,000 tons of falling building crushes everything but the hardest materials and mangles even them pretty bad.
all explosions are bombs
the evidence was all removed (selectively of course)
burning building collapsing over a 2000 car garage (1,000,000+ tons ) should not burn and smolder for months
materials would not be compressed by the collapse into weird "rocks"
Eutectic corrosion might have taken place post collapse not a cause of collapse
painted on nano thermite would produce the collapse seen
witnesses are reliable include network anchors (without considering the lack of information in the chaos of the day)

and so on.

To get a rational thinker such as Paul to abandon his over arching view that the gumnit was up to no good you have to dismantle all the incredulity examples... unfortunately. It's falling for the reverse burden of proof.

But yea the truth side can't seem to produce a comprehensive coherent explanation / scenario WITH evidence.

I don't like to defend the details of the OCT and the anomalies as if they were smoking guns (reverse burden) but these seem to be the markers of a cover up. I don't happen to agree with the OCT tech explanations or dets but with the basic factors.

People don't understand how progressive runaway failures can cascade through what appears to be a very robust system essentially enabling a small straw to break the back of a huge camel.

This they can't understand... and probably don't want to.

 

[ozeco41]

Sander:
Your last five short paragraphs are as neat a summary as I have seen for some time. Let me comment on them first:

To get a rational thinker such as Paul to abandon his over arching view that the gumnit was up to no good you have to dismantle all the incredulity examples... unfortunately. It's falling for the reverse burden of proof.

Yes...but..... Medically that is treating the symptom. The problem is analogous to a deep seated infection. In reality it is the errant psychology, the pathological thinking processes, the antagonism at authority engaged to cover up a deficiency in the victims mental "coping with life skills". 9/11 CT is only a symptom. Attempting to treat symptoms can have little effect, at best some ancillary assistance to treating the real disease. Proving that a patient is not running a high temperature does nothing to remove the existing infection. Neither does artificially reducing temperature. (Excuse the twisted analogies.)

...But yea the truth side can't seem to produce a comprehensive coherent explanation / scenario WITH evidence.

True - it is the central issue. There has never been a "prima facie" case for CD at WTC. Never. We shouldn't even be "in court", certainly not "presenting the case for the defence". We are long past the trigger point where it would have been put to the Judge "Submit no case to answer your honour?"

I don't like to defend the details of the OCT and the anomalies as if they were smoking guns (reverse burden) but these seem to be the markers of a cover up. I don't happen to agree with the OCT tech explanations or dets but with the basic factors....

Within weeks of entering into internet forum discussion of WTC Twin Towers collapse 9/11 I made a strategic decision. I do not rely on the reasoning of authorities - primarily NIST. The reason simple. "CTists" (It was before "truther" became popular) kept switching objectives. I was interested in explaining WTC Twins collapses and showing no need for CD then no CD needed or not. The CT's would keep switching to "Prove that NIST was wrong". The two are distinct and separate issues. It matters not what NIST said/say the facts of history about WTC collapse were fixed Sept 2001. no report written years later can change the historic fact. So the obsession with NIST is irrelevant to what why and how did the Towers collapse?. Yes I comprehend that people who do not have the necessary engineering forensic skills may not be able to validly form their own conclusions but.... a tempting derail there. But the idea that is implicit in these arguments is that what NIST writes somehow determines history. It would be great if that was true. Get NIST to write a report explaining how 9/11 never happened and, lo and behold, all the buildings are restored. And that bit of reductio ad bleeding ridiculous is the logical outcome of how far too many people treat NIST reporting. Not for me. And you will know how often I confront the issue and insist on separation of the objectives.

People don't understand how progressive runaway failures can cascade through what appears to be a very robust system essentially enabling a small straw to break the back of a huge camel....

Yes.. And two of those for the Twins. Initiation via a cascade failure of the impact and fire affected zone then runaway down the open office space. The latter easy to explain and comprehend for any honest person. The former easy in concept but a lot harder in detail because we can never know specific detail. And "generic details" is a hard concept to sell. All of it nigh impossible when the person's psychology is locked in denial.

This they can't understand... and probably don't want to.

Reverse those two and I will agree.
They don't want to so they make sure they don't.

..and all of these forums I follow have sunk to "ritualised trolling and counter trolling" as the dominant time waster activity. It is a long time since there has been genuine need to respond to new issues. All the serious technical questions long since adequately answered. And where to draw the line between "worthy of an answer" and "too ridiculous to treat seriously"? Bottom line IMO is that explosives or thermXte based CD at WTC is as ridiculous as mini nukes. But we laugh at mini nukes, death rays from space, multi-media hoaxes or energetic dustification --- And all the red herring chasing of the thermXte stuff which is only the carry over of a failed re-branding marketing exercise by Jones, S ....'nuff said.

 

[SanderO]

..and all of these forums I follow have sunk to "ritualised trolling and counter trolling" as the dominant time waster activity. It is a long time since there has been genuine need to respond to new issues. All the serious technical questions long since adequately answered. And where to draw the line between "worthy of an answer" and "too ridiculous to treat seriously"? Bottom line IMO is that explosives or thermXte based CD at WTC is as ridiculous as mini nukes. But we laugh at mini nukes, death rays from space, multi-media hoaxes or energetic dustification --- And all the red herring chasing of the thermXte stuff which is only the carry over of a failed re-branding marketing exercise by Jones, S ....'nuff said.

I agree and my only remaining interest IS the details.. a theoretical... only because we are data starved on the detail level... to detail the sequence of all three collapses. No one is attempting 7WTC. I've put out something which doesn't get taken up as debate.

But on you NIST is irrelevant theme... to what actually happened and debunking NIST proves only that NIST made mistakes... is perhaps... they didn't make honest mistakes... assuming they did in their findings... why would they, how could they make the sort of mistakes they did and for example moss ROOSD? Was there anything going on with NIST, malfeasance or stupid blunders? Perhaps unanswerable except only with thought experiments and that would true naval gazing.

But most of these debates are now wastes of time with nothing new.

Kawika still has his hair on fire about the NIST column 79 thing which for the life of me I don't see what the obsession is all about. I know he believes fires couldn't do it and this is one way to prove in his mind they didn't do it at col 79. To my thinking col 79 doesn't matter up there.

How long will people send money to Gage and other clowns for the same rubbish we've been subjected to for years and years?