Yes.
Recall I set a framework for explanation. I will only outline the explanation I would give to a layperson who is genuinely looking for an explanation.
So "Stage 1" explanation:
An aircraft struck the tower, caused damage which weakened the structure and started fires.
Fires were not fought for a number of reasons and caused further damage to accumulate.
Some time elapses then the fire and impact damage affected zone is so weakened that it collapses allowing the top block of the tower to start to fall.
From that moment the complete collapse of the towers is inevitable. I can give details if needed.
Prima facie the impact plus fire damage caused the collapse.
What more do you want?
The "interested layperson" may have heard stories about demolition.
At this early stage that one is easy:
"there is no evidence for demolition other than partial bits of claims made by conspiracy theorists. It is now 10 years and if there had been any truth in demolition it would have been published before now."
No point in opening the collection of truther falsehoods to confuse an honest layperson making genuine enquiries.
The content of "Stage 2" depends on what questions the "interested layperson" raises. There are many possible tracks. Hence my reluctance to try to either summarise or list it all.
If you are able to take on the role of "interested layperson" then put some questions that a genuinely interested layperson could ask. If not we can call the halt right now.
So what? Why does that claim matter to my "interested layperson"???
I said I would explain to an interested layperson - so no way will I comply with your unique style of logic...
My "interested layperson" does not know about NIST. And I do not suffer from/am not limited by your repeated confusion of objectives. The last thing I would do to my "interested layperson" is push him towards a secondary objective of "prove NIST wrong". His interest is "why did the towers collapse?" NOT "was the official report correct?" - that may arise as a secondary matter at Stage 2 or later.
Your need is not for evidence - rather for a coherent legitimate process of logic which joins the bits of available evidence. That method of linking the available evidence needs to be free from your preset bias towards CD plus your tactic of limiting the evidence to those bits of visual material which suit your approach.
There is no prima facie case that the collapses were anything other than "natural".
So if your objective is "introduce CD" you need to establish a prima facie case as step one. And for efficiency I suggest that you set aside the technical investigations into ever more minute details. Look to the domains of "Strategic - Why Do It?"; "Logistic Improbabilities" and "Security Impossibilities" because no matter what you "prove" in the technical domain the barriers in each of those other domains will individually block whatever technical findings. And, when combined, they make the task as close to impossible as we can claim in a para-scientific environment.
And if your objective is pursue the technical details then, as a matter of personal interest OK but don't imagine it can lead further. It will never get you to the real issues facing any claim for CD. Those real issues cannot be overcome by technical analysis.
