I see in those images a bunch of colored lines & boxes added to a chaotic mess.
Gross patterns can emerge, even in the midst of chaos. So I think that, if someone were to put in a bunch of time, looking at lots of photos, then perhaps that effort might reveal some interesting patterns about how a building fell. (Not what caused it to fall, mind you...)
And then I see comments like these:
Originally Posted by Major_Tom
By using this technique along the south side of WTC2 as seen in the post before this one, a 110 story wall can be dropped very short before hitting the buildings just across the street.
This way ones own insurance money can be collected while lessening the damage of the buildings across the street.
[and]
Not much room, so the whole WTC2 south wall needed to be dropped short.
One way to do that may involve destroying the 74-78 MER belt and allowing the middle perimeter to fragment into smaller parts down to the 44th floor.
[emphasis added]
... and I think, "why bother?"
His whole effort is so laden with confirmation bias as to be utterly untrustworthy, and therefore worthless.
And, a significant point, even if he happens to be right about some aspect of it, he has cried "wolf" (or "inside job") so many times, that he's lost the minimal credibility it would take to convince me to waste the time.
Worse, it seems clear from some of his comments that he is going to back some of his "it was done deliberately for insurance & neighborliness reasons" into his analysis of how the building came apart. Thereby polluting those "observations" as well.
Funny that someone who "has come to no conclusions" & is "just looking at observables" has so blatantly concluded that the placement of this mess of debris was exquisitely, impossibly preplanned to "spare the neighbors any unnecessary discomfort".
Funny that the planning failed so miserably.
Why you dont comment the debunkers???
