NB's Post - Corrected for Accuracy
NB
I was hoping that by now you might have read my post, thought about what really happened on 9/11, and appraise the evidence before you in a more informed and level manner. It appears that I was optimistic.
The accepted scientific or engineering position is that when I am presented with an argument on a vital subject, this argument must reach certain standards of validity. This must be verifiable through calculation, our understanding of existing systems, and evidence.
In the case of 9/11 a wealth of evidence exists including the NIST report and material by a wide range of independent sources from the US and abroad.
Your explanations in support of your theories are no more than a description of what you believe happened, and anyone can do that. The evidence presented for a certain argument should be judged firstly by that evidence's ability to stand alone. For example can the argument, or hypothesis, be tested in any way. Such tests can include physical models, video evidence, historical precedent, and established scientific precedent.
In my opinion, your hypothesis has almost no independent verification. It is not supported by engineering models, basic structural issues, or our understanding of fire performance. It is not supported by credible evidence, and such evidence as you do present is clearly not based on a thorough review of available material.
Of greatest concern are the misquotes and unsubstantiated theories which you post. Whatever the provenance of such posts, how are those of us on this board to differentiate the information you give us from the information a person that might be willingly trying to deceive us, or at least willingly keep us in the dark might give?
Do you really think a good critical thinker should accept an explanation that is only a description of a belief of what happened to be fact? Do you not agree that it is incumbent upon us to investigate, understand, and analyse before reaching a conclusion? Do you believe that that a single source or a small group of unqualified activisits with little or no expertise in specialist should be believed before expert technical opinion?
In your posts you qualitative details whatsoever. There is no comment on the capacity of the structure to support load, and at what locations, in order to arrest or significantly support the collapse. You do not give any indication of how loads are to be magically transferred through the hat truss to the core. You do not post any calculations demonstrating the capacity of the core.
It is clear to me, and the others on this site, that you fail to grasp both the basic engineering principles and logical analysis required in order to understand the actual events which led to the collapse of WTC.
