15-05-2011, 09:26 PM
Jeffrey Orling Wrote:NIST offered no explanation of how the towers actually collapsed.Right, and in doing so, NIST was "deferring to him beyond their explanation of how they became "poised for collapse" left off", Bazant's papers being the per-reviewed explanation for how the towers came down.
Jeffrey Orling Wrote:I challenge you to cite where they explained the mechanism of collapse and especially in a manner which resembles ROOSD.I'd like to see you cite where you imagine I suggested anything of the sort.
As for the911forum.com, I'm Pavlovian Dogcatcher over there, I'm guessing you are Sander? As for credentials and experience, I studied architecture and physics through high school and into college, but went on hiatus before 9/11 and lost the last shreds of my faith in our establishment at that point, and have hence moved on to studding deep politics instead. So I don't nearly match you in credentials and experience, but then you don't match Bazant either, or likely the people who peer-reviewed his papers, and we both agree they are crap.
As for my understanding of what happened to the towers, the massive destruction of evidence makes it difficult to assess in detail. However, in general terms based on what little evidence is available; I've no doubt that incendiaries and explosives were used to weaken the structures before a final sequence of explosives placed throughout the buildings were detonated to bring them down.