alienentity
Illuminator
- Joined
- Feb 21, 2009
- Messages
- 4,325
There are a number of misrepresentations in C7's statements above, plus a great deal of bare assertion, the standard 'I am God' viewpoint of persistent truthers who believe they have magic powers to perceive what others think, apparently.
Here is the most important sin of omission of C7 - From NCSTAR 1-9 Volume 2, pp 599 - 600
'12.5.2 Aspects Following the Collapse Initiation
Once simulation of the global collapse of WTC 7 was underway, there was a great increase in the uncertainty in the progression of the collapse sequence, due to the random nature of the interaction, break up, disintegration, and falling of the debris. the uncertainties deriving from these random processes increasingly influenced the deterministic physics-based collapse process, and the details of the progression of the horizontal failure and final global collapse were increasingly less precise.
So while C7 completely ignores most of the NIST data, focusing on a tiny aspect which he then misrepresents, in fact NIST explain very carefully why the model does not look like the actual.
And yet, in another display of cognitive dissonance, C7 claims simultaneously that the NIST fit their models artificially to match, and that their models don't match.
So which is it? It can't be both...LOL
Of course the answer is that C7 is presenting yet another strawman argument, so there is no correct answer to it at all.
