@vikorr,
Quote:rofl. What I have been doing is asking questions -
A total crock, vikorr.
Quote:specifically the steps people would need to take / how people would bring down the twin towers using your theory.
The information I have provided is neither MINE or a theory. Your crazy beliefs, and those of the millions of other blind individuals who deny reality, who deny science, who deny the facts are meant only to distract and move the discussion away from reality, science and the facts.
You have shown yourself to be woefully ignorant of science and building science. I have tried to keep it simple for you.
The positions I have described to you, the total impossibilities for the USGOCT, the molten/vaporized steel, free fall of WTC7, symmetrical collapses of the twin towers, the bald faced lies of the principal governments investigators, US proprietary nanothermite, the by products of the nanothermite being used for the controlled demolitions of the 3 towers, ... should be enough except for the most blind, brainwashed people alive.
Quote:And why. These are questions you obviously can't answer. And apparently don't want anyone to ask you. Hence the descent into ranting.
These "questions" you have asked are not sensible questions at all. Turn them around and you tell us how the three towers could come down according to the USGOCT. You can't, given your lack of expertise and knowledge of what those studies entailed.
NIST couldn't and didn't for the twin towers. They made the totally unscientific decision that global collapse was inevitable, ignoring all the same impossiblities of the USGOCT, all the things that you have been falling all over yourself to ignore, and stated collapse was inevitable.
Totally unscientific, especially considering it has never happened before or since in the long history of many steel framed high rises with fires much worse and much longer than those of 9/11.
Which is thee most unscientific thing one can imagine.
Their "study" of WTC7, which they admitted and stated that they were having trouble getting a handle on, was a perfect example of scientific malfeasance, lies and totally unprofessional conduct.
When a "study" group lies about free fall, lies about most of the real life conditions of WTC7, ie. leaves out many of the structural elements that were there, any person with a brain knows that that study is a fraud, a planned fraud, a criminal fraud, the greatest abuse that a scientist can carry out.
A Uof A, Fairbanks, building forensic scientist, doing a study of NIST's WTC7 study, was asked, on a scale of 1 to 100, how likely is it that NIST's study is an accurate portrayal of the collapse of WTC7.
His one word reply, ZERO.
Asked if NIST had been a PhD student of his who presented the NIST study as his thesis, would he flunk them?
His one word reply - YES.
Deal with reality, vikorr, not with these silly ethereal things, put forward by you solely as deflections and distractions.
You still have never put forward any evidence for the USGOCT. Why? Because there isn't any.