21-08-2013, 10:42 AM
Kyle Burnett Wrote:Jeffrey Orling Wrote:I say there is not enough evidence for or of CD and so one should have the default that it was natural.Well at least you've implicitly acknowledged that there is evidence of CD, now if only you could get over the notion that one should have a default conclusion rather than all hypothesis to the same burden of proof.
Perhaps I mispoke a bit here. I think that the RESULTS that we see... the towers coming down as they did... IS EVIDENCE of destruction of capacity to support the service loads... in the twin this destruction occured at the plane strike region and the tops dropped down beginning a ROOSD which is a natural destructive process. In 7 the transfer structures lost capacity and the redistribution of loads is a natural process which led to the entire structure down there losing capacity and the top of the building coming down
All three collapses... the dropping down phase was natural ... or need not have had CD devices and there is no evidence in this phase.
The twins had both mechanical destruction and heat weakening. The issue is how much load capacity destruction did this mechanisms do. Tony says they could not do enough. I say they could and that could only be determined conclusively with more data. He tries to minimize the mechanical destruction from the plane strikes and the amount of weakening from heat from fires. These are his guiding assumptions to his CD conclusion. If these factors were sufficient then the top drops would not require any devices.
Others in the truth movement believe that ROOSD was not possible that is the columns all through out the towers had to be destroyed and cite material ejections as evidence of this. But the contradictory evidence is clear in the surviving core columns after the floors and the facade had fallen to the ground.
If one wants to assert a device did something, one needs proof of it and I don't see any proof.