"Do you have a better basis than NIST." is a reasonable question but it reveals the confusion of objectives which underpins much of Tony's work. Whether NIST was right or wrong or - this case - NIST couldn't demonstrate something - does not change historic fact.
This is a very clever attempt to beg the question. Again. If you're argument is so strong, why do you have to resort to presuming the question is settled? The "historic fact" is that the buildings fell. The official explanation is, no matter how you cut it, bunk. There is simply no way 1100C for 10 minutes in any given location caused the catastrophic failures seen 3 times that day.
This is true, not because I say so, but because the lab tests definitively falsify the NIST theory of collapse as a "Fire-Driven Failure" of any kind.
It's a pity that no one here can seem to wrap their head around the data, but the data does not lie. It has no agenda. The results are true in the future and the past. And no amount of presumption on your part or anyone else's can change the data.
So our "historic fact" is still in need of explanation.
So "Do you have a good and persuasive explanation...?"
1) There was Inward Bowing; AND
2) There has never been a prima facie hypothesis for CD; THEREFORE
Your logical operator does not belong there. Nothing follows logically from that premise, even if it were true.
The existence of another explanation does not guarantee the truth or falsity of the official explanation, no matter how much you want it to. If the official explanation can't answer the questions put to it, then it's probably just a inadequate theory. A poor explanation.
That's the point here. NIST failed. Their data do not support their premise. There is a thermodynamic gap in the explanation, and we all know there's no way to get around thermodynamics.
Where did the energy come from to heat
any member to the point of failure? Not office fires. That was demonstrated most succinctly by the UL tests.
3) IF we are interested in the cause of the IB We don’t need to consider mechanisms using CD.
True.
4) Reasoning by competent engineers suggests a combination of axial overload and initiating pull in from floor structures. Until it passed the critical point and became self propagating.
This is the part that gets me every time: you have some semblance of logic, and then a MIRACLE happens, and you get a "self-licking ice cream cone." It kinda sounds like you're making a case, then, at your critical premise, you ask us to take a leap of faith in the official explanation.
No. I'm not taking NIST's word for anything. Nor am I taking yours. You are indeed asking for it when you say "
Until it passed the critical point and became self propagating."
You just reframed the question: "How did the steel get to this "critical point"? How hot was this point? Where did it happen? How did it initiate such that it became "self propagating"?
You didn't answer any of these questions. You just walked by them
as if they had been answered. But the grift is that you and I both know they haven't.
It's deceptive on your part to presume these questions have been answered, and I'll call it out every time I see it.
"...where you can show sagging trusses caused the inward bowing of the exterior columns?" Strawman - the cause was multi factorial - the contribution of pull in probably defined the direction as "in" and assisted buckling that way in combination with axial loading. Dunno about heating of the columns - doubt it was significant.
Argument from Ignorance: If you can't answer the questions about temperatures and initial causes, any claim of "multifactorial causes" is pure woo. You're just making **** up. Again, if your case was so strong, why would you have to make things up to answer fair questions?
"They said they couldn't show it.." I believe them. So what?
I cannot prove my hypothesis that it was Santa's custard..and I've argued that one more persuasively than most truther arguments.
Tony's not asking you to take his word for anything. You should at least be on that same level or you aren't really having much of a debate. Your beliefs are irrelevant in this discussion unless you can demonstrate them.
And no one is looking for "proof" as much as "corroboration." Do you know the difference? "Corroboration" is usually some part of the evidence/data found that supports the theory. "Proof" is a concept in maths and geometry or other closed, logical system. Not relevant to a forensic investigation.
Corroboration is a much lower standard than proof. Not hard to get if the theory holds any water whatsoever.
"...so I believe them." That would be true - his whole foundation is based on "belief".
He believes them because he has data that
corroborate what they say in that instance. Again, here's that strange word you have detached from NIST's theory of collapse.
The difference between Tony's belief and your belief is that he has reasons for his belief. You're just taking the word of an authority--which, btw, has demonstrated beyond any doubt that they don't care if their theory makes any sense or not. Or you're appealing to youtube videos. Either way, your belief is not justified.
: question. 
