So are you saying that even with odds against it of a million-to-one, you would accept the credibility of the NIST 'prevailing heat from migrating office cubicle fires' hypothesis?
Yes, assuming you're representing the hypothesis correctly. Because it actually happened. Unlikely events happen all the time.
Well I didn't think you had to be a detective to see that?
Plastic can look like an apple. What something looks like is not what it is.
You state that no buildings over 30 stories have ever been felled by controlled demolition [commercially].
Since these buildings tend to exist in high density commercial areas, there are obvious reasons for using other demolition methods.
Probably the biggest single reason, other than the debris cloud, is that it is hard to get buildings to drop straight down.
So you cannot provide any evidence of the similar towers you claimed existed. Gotcha.
The NIST hypothesis requires very smart fires and a secret fuel stash.
So because they determined it probably went a certain path, it means that it had to have been directed along that path?
Fires that amazingly performed a complete high speed building demolition.
Most demolitions don't take seven hours.
And did so, accidentally no less, on a building 56% taller than those in the published engineering record.
And? My point was that any such building you provide wouldn't have been close to the size of WTC 7, which means saying it had a "similar outline" is dubious at best.
AND, produced a total collapse with a visual outline previously identifiable only with those steel towers felled by controlled demolition.
What steel towers? Provide examples.
You appear to be confused so I'll re-phrase that question.
Do you believe that demolition engineers could do what the NIST argues was possible with the prevailing heat from migrating office cubicle fires?
Induce a column failure comparable to what the NIST claims to have happened to the undamaged column 79.
Yes, but it'd be a much, much worse than million-to-one chance of them pulling it off right. Of course, any statistician can tell you that million to one chances are well known for being unreliable. Unlikely things may happen, but a sane engineer should never count on them.
Of course, once you include the other factors you're ignoring (building on fire on multiple floors, having to plant explosives and wiring in secret in a heavily trafficked building in the middle of Manhattan, using an experimental method of demolition), then it's out and out impossible.
No.
What I am saying is that building demolition companies would have to be magicians in order to get the necessary abeyance of reality to create high speed total steel building collapses by fire.
MM
They sure would. Which is
why they don't use fire, on account of it being unreliable. Who do you think you're rebutting here? Fire can collapse steel buildings. It'd be nigh-impossible to do in any sort of controlled manner, but it could happen.
Whether a CD crew could make fire collapse the building is not relevant to the question of whether random fire made the building collapse. Quit trying to backdoor "CD" so you can backdoor "explothermite".
I'd also like to assert that your "high-speed" has no objective scientific definition in this context, and you're using it to add credibility.
Also, you didn't answer my last question;
"How did they make sure WTC 1 hit 7 and gave them an excuse, without damaging any of the explosives or wiring?"
I'm not sure what you're looking for with this fishing expedition.
He cropped the page so floor 33 was at the top. You couldn't see how the lower drawings were numbered but the floors above were marked with ascending numbers. His own video does not support his claim.
