Well, I'm trying to look at it from his scenario.
<< Understood. The problem is that his scenario is neither complete or logically coherent - so it won't always be possible to base logical answers on the foundation of confused illogic which are his assertions. And in his scenario he claims that if CD was not used, there should have been a Jolt correct?
<< Yes. I understand that in the actual scenario we would not and could not have had a Bazant Style Limited Case
<< Correct on both "would not" and "could not" and if TZ is basing his work on that, then it's a non starter anyway, correct?
<< Yes – it is that simple. There is “no case to answer” BUT a lot of 'debunkers' enjoy arguing with truther nonsense – and – sadly – some debunkers don't comprehend the simple reality.
I'm not sure it confuses the two from TZ's point of view because if you suppose there was CD, then there was no initiation followed by descent.
<< Agreed BUT don't even imply that T Sz's claims are a “view” in the sense of a coherent overall model of what he is claiming. His claims have no coherent rationale – so trying to draw logical consequences from the claims as if they were logically coherent is given more credit than the claims deserve. It's all one stimulus (explosives) that starts and continues all the way down. My point is, if you (
try to 
) follow his very flawed reasoning, that the explosives were internal
<< He hasn't thought it through. He is trapped because the Bazant scenario he bases his claim on does not allow “only hidden inside columns" to be involved. and a Bazant style collapse (which it quite obviously wasn't) should cause a Jolt which we didnt see (because of the explosives, which we also didnt see
), how on earth would he expect to see the jolt if its happening inside the structure anyway?!
<< All those points are true as far a they can be true when the T Sz material you are trying to address is so incoherently confused illogic. I agree where you are trying to come from. It will always be problematic trying to extend his assertions to their logical consequences because the foundation of T Sz “logic” is not a legitimate starting point.
Presumably there was no cascade failure of the initiation stage for TZ because it was initiated artificially. <
< Yes – but recognise that his claims do not comprehend the artificiality OR the reasoned explanation of the “real event” in its two stages. So his claims are not supported by valid arguments based on clear understanding of his premises.
coolio
<<
I understand. I don't think I'm suggesting a third scenario though. I presume TZ is not suggesting the perimeter columns were exploded was he?
<< His claims show no evidence that they have even been thought through to that level. If not then why does he think a Jolt would be visible?
<<Same response as preceding. And I repeat my caution – there is little to gain in applying validly reasoned argument as if the "Missing Jolt" claims were based on valid argument. They aren't.
As for the real event, I follow you're explanation and it makes sense to me (though I'm not qualified probably to comment either way). I also think I understand the initiation stage. By "cascade failure process" process, I presume you mean how a number of the columns lost their strength over time until the load above which was being transferred to the remaining columns bit by bit was too much and buckling then cascaded presumably very quickly around the remaining columns, initiation completed.. ?
<< Exactly – it is somewhat like a toppling of a row of dominoes – as each one falls it tips over the next. EXCEPT it is two orders more complex. The basics are simple. Some column or other – doesn't matter which and we will never know which – gets heated enough to weaken it so it cannot support the load it was carrying. It crushes/buckles – fails so it no longer supports the load. The load is still there so other columns have to take it up. And how the load is shared is a bit of relatively complicated engineering. BUT bottom line is extra load goes onto another column which then fails. You comprehend the process. I can explain in more detail but it gets complicated – remember that it is a lot of columns spread out in a 2D array and the extra load doesn't necessarily cause the nearest columns to fail. More explanation if you need it but you are already clear on the principle.
no dramas as they say down under.
<< Most of my favourite Aussie words get spelled “*****” in this US dominated forum. 
No overkill. thanks.
<<Great.
- and I'll avoid the temptations to EITHER switch to WTC7 which was not subject of "Missing Jolt" OR continue with the ambiguous references to either or both that you are so fond of. 
)
