24-08-2013, 01:58 PM
Tony Szamboti Wrote:Jeffrey Orling Wrote:Phil Dragoo Wrote:
The official explanation is served by Jeffrey arguing over the years against controlled demolition while failing to provide an alternative.
To the contrary I have provided an explanation. And this only occured after I stopped acting like a mindless bot repeating what others said.
The alternate is likely that mechanical damage and then heat weakening led to loss of axial strength in the core and the mass above dropped and started the ROOSD process.
Tony say there could not have been enough mechanical damage or heat. This is his ASSERTION not an established fact.
With no hard evidence for or of devices the default explantion is mechanical damage and then heat weakening.
The mech damage was different for each tower and the collapse began differently.
If you don't open your eyes, you don't see.
If you choose to blind yourself to observations and science... you can see/conclude whatever you want.
Interestingly, your default explanation is the present official story.
Unfortunately, it does not explain
- the rapid horizontal propagation across the 98th floor of the North Tower.
- why NIST did not have evidence of high steel temperatures.
- why the columns were not involved in the resistance to the first several stories of the collapse.
and these issues are established facts, not just assertions by me.
blah blah blah... enjoy your 15 min...