Using the attributes list in the OP, it is easy to find the specific mistakes in the reasoning of truthers and debunkers alike. Basically, those involved in all sides of the debate have the common tendency to ignore the features they don't like and replace them with imaginary attributes dreamed up by themselves.
We can see that the NIST does this. They basically dreamed up a building they called "WTC1" and invented non-existent attributes to bolster their claims, while ignoring how the real building moved and failed. As we compare the NIST list of WTC1 collapse initiation atributes with the behavior of the real building, it becomes obvious that their probable cause of collapse initiation is a product of their own imaginations only.
Bazant does the exact same thing in his collapse progression crush down, then crush up equations 12 and 17 in Bazant and Verdure. It is interesting to note how many specific attributes in the OP needed to be totally ignored by Bazant in order to write Bazant and Verdure and his 2 follow-up papers, BVReply and BLGB. In fact, most of the Bazant comments in BVReply cease to have any real meaning if we compare them to the knowm observables and measurables in the list in the OP. It is as if Bazant invented a building in his own mind, and believed this building represented the behavior of WTC1.
Among popular truther groups, when we compare many of their claims to the list in the OP, we see, like the NIST and Bazant, they show a clear preference for fantasy attributes over real observable, measurable ones. For example....
Since it is generally easier to find fault in others than in oneself, for this forum let's consider the claims about WTC1 found on the hone page of the Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth.
Directly from the AE911T home page:
As seen in this revealing photo, the Twin Towers' destruction exhibited all of the characteristics of destruction by explosives:
1) Destruction proceeds through the path of greatest resistance at nearly free-fall acceleration
2) Improbable symmetry of debris distribution
3) Extremely rapid onset of destruction
4) Over 100 first responders reported explosions and flashes
5) Multi-ton steel sections ejected laterally
6) Mid-air pulverization of 90,000 tons of concrete & metal decking
7) Massive volume of expanding pyroclastic-like clouds
8 ) 1200-foot-dia. debris field: no "pancaked" floors found
9) Isolated explosive ejections 20 – 40 stories below demolition front
10) Total building destruction: dismemberment of steel frame
11) Several tons of molten metal found under all 3 high-rises
12) Evidence of thermite incendiaries found by FEMA in steel samples
13) Evidence of explosives found in dust samples
14) No precedent for steel-framed high-rise collapse due to fire
And exhibited none of the characteristics of destruction by fire, i.e.
1) Slow onset with large visible deformations
2) Asymmetrical collapse which follows the path of least resistance (laws of conservation of momentum would cause a falling, intact, from the point of plane impact, to the side most damaged by the fires)
3) Evidence of fire temperatures capable of softening steel
4) High-rise buildings with much larger, hotter, and longer lasting fires have never “collapsed”
If we compare these claims of WTC1 activity with the list of measurable, observable attributes in the OP and the OOS propagation model based on these attributes, we see that the AE9/11T list does not describe WTC1, but some imaginary building which exists only in the minds of the website's authors.
By comparing the list of actual observed and measurable features with their list point by point we can check which of these claims are real and which are pure fantasy.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>.
This is why I earlier characterized the more mainstream "9-11 debate" as one which sets Tweedle-dee against Tweedle-dum. Fantasy vs fantasy weaving a web of illusion. A mouse trap. A room full of mirrors.
All parties make the common mistake of ignoring whole sets of measurable and observable features which they don't like and inserting their own imaginary attributes to support weak claims. The NIST, Bazant, many debunkers in this forum, STJ911T and AE911T are all guilty of inventing their own WTC1 and talking about it as if it is the real building.
Meanwhile they ignore tha actual building, preferring their own fantasy models instead.
It is ironic how many attributes have to be ignored the debunkers that frequent this forum in order to justify the NIST conclusions. While you can see that the popular truth groups STJ911T and AE911T ignore many of the attributes in the OP and invert WTC1 collapse attributes seemingly out of the blue, you cannot see that Bazant, NIST and the many of the posters here are guilty of the exact same thing.
The tendency on all sides is to ignore, invent and embellish physical attributes of WTC1 to justify your own totally subjective stance. The list of attributes in the OP provide direct proof that this is indeed what is happening. It's mostly just a fake debate.
