05-08-2013, 04:56 PM
Jeffrey Orling Wrote:No I am not.
The term debunked was made popular by Griffin. I don't care for it thought I have used it as a handy shorthand term.
I believe, as I stated that your assertions have not be demonstrated as true and have been shown to produce incorrect conclusions.
The towers did fall and there is not a shred of evidence that there was a CD. You think you can prove or have proven that the collapse was impossible without placed devices on 24 columns. You haven't succeeded.
My thinking about 9/11 collapses has evolved. I wanted explanations because we all were told how strong these towers were.... implication being they couldn't collapse. That turned out to be an myth. They came down because of the engineering design and the fact that they were assualted with fires which weakened them along with the mechanical destruction from the planes. I don't see anyone showing this was not possible... without making stuff up.
The paper proves the columns were not involved in resisting the collapse and that has not been debunked.
The 24 core columns being removed to initiate the collapse notion is not in the paper. It was part of a discussion on the JREF Forum where I was asked why I thought the columns were not involved and how I think the collapse was accomplished. So that has nothing to do with the paper and the fact that you continue to use it as though it does have something to do with the paper (although you haven't proven it could not have been the case) is an indication of your motives here.
I think it is your job to go around to various sites and smear anything that threatens the natural collapse hypothesis. The only other explanation for your behavior is extraordinary obtuseness mixed with a dislike for anything you don't want to believe regardless of its basis in reality.