I have added the location of the tanks, pipes and generators using data from existing reports that will not change in the final report.
This information has not been discussed on this or any other thread that i know of.
You cannot dispute these facts.
No one has ever disputed the locations of the fuel tanks and louvers and pipes. Your continued harping that these things will not change is a moot point. No one is argueing them.
Instead we are argueing things such as your rideiculous contention that smoke should, ,, check that,, , must be coming from the louvers if there is a fuel fire on the 5th floor. That certainly need not be the case unless the fire is actually in the generator room! No one has stated(other than you, by your insistence that smoke emanate from the louvers) that this is where the fire should be.
As for the elevator cars being ejected, you seem to be of the impression that something had to hit the cars themselves in order for them to be ejected. Again this need not be the case. Something lodged in the shaft, haveing cut the cables upon entering them, would eject the cars as they fell and ran into the debris. There are probably other modes by which the cars could be ejected as well that do not require falling debris actually hitting the cars. Yes this requires some imagination based upon the actual make up of the building and its systems and the conditions existing in the building. Instead, you simply dismiss this evidence of damage to the central core of the building that does indeed occur 90 feet (or so) into the structure.
You dismiss this because there is no direct evidence of exactly what caused the cars to be ejected, no direct evidence of the amount of damage that resulted as they were ejected from the shafts. However on the other hand you are quite convinced that explsoives were used to demolish this building despite absolutly no direct evidence that such a thing took place and extremly thin circumstantial evidence of it. A non-expert claims he "knows" and explosion when he hears one and you accept it without any question and the building fails internally and since that 'looks like' explosive demoltions that you have seen before you buy into that theory.
Given that there is vastly more circumstantial evidence including some direct evidence that debris damage and/or fire brought down this structure than there is for planted explosives I conclude that you;
a) have quite the double standard regarding evidence,
b) have a political motive for accepting the least likely mode of collapse.
