Wtc Misrepresentations: New Book, Requesting Feedback Options

[MajorTom]

I am a new poster here. Hello to all participants and readers


This is the draft version of a book on the WTC collapses:


Introduction
1: Science vs Subjective Viewpoints
2: WTC Collapses Misrepresented
....2.1: Progressive Floor Collapse in the WTC Towers
....2.2: Purpose of the NIST Reports
....2.3: NIST WTC1 Misrepresentation
....2.4: NIST WTC7 Misrepresentation
....2.5: NIST WTC2 Misrepresentation
....2.6: Bazant Misrepresentation of Collapse Progression
....2.7: Block Mechanics
....2.8: AE911T Misrepresentations of the Collapses
3: Toward Accurate Collapse Histories
4: Reassessing the Question of Demolition
5: Collapses Misrepresented as a False Choice
6: Testing the Thesis for Validity
Author's Conclusions




The same table of contents is on my website, second menu down, here.


Thank you for any questions or feedback to help improve the book.

[amazed!]

....so then, it's speculation all 'round

[onesliceshort]

....so then, it's speculation all 'round

(IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif)

What "disturbs" me SanderO is that you make baseless claims yet label those who question your speculation as "koolaid" drinkers. And you keep insinuating that I'm somehow defending NIST's conclusions when in actual fact, the "office fires" crap is the only inroad to extracting more withheld evidence and/or raising awareness that we've been monumentally lied to. The very same withheld evidence that has left well intentioned individuals such as Tom and Femr2 stumped as to how all three towers fell without external factors, given the observables.

I've never pinned my colours to CD in the conventional meaning of the term. I don't pigeonhole multiple witness visual, aural and physical testimonies to explosions and I do accept that there were vehicles and other combustibles exploding (even the holy grail transformers), but you on the other hand refuse to accept even the possibility that they were manmade events.

I don't accept that "office fires" (the lack of which there is visual evidence of) brought down WTC7. You on the other hand make empty claims about "diesel fuel fires" which not only is there no visual evidence for bar black smoke seen in the last hour before WTC7 fell, or that visual evidence or ConEd contradicts, but that the FDNY lends weight to.

What I definitely don't accept is your hypocritical stance in that both NIST and AE911Truth are wrong and that you are somehow trying to find the "middle ground", when anything you've ever uttered on this forum has been in favour of the OCT (even going beyond it as per WTC7). That the conclusions and calculations of NIST are wrong from an architectural standpoint. That they were indeed "gravity driven collapses", just that NIST "got it wrong".

Did you read the link to "NIST WTC7 misrepresentation" in the OP?

[elreb]

You on the other hand make empty claims about "diesel fuel fires" which not only is there no visual evidence for bar black smoke seen in the last hour before WTC7 fell, or that visual evidence or ConEd contradicts, but that the FDNY lends weight to.

OSS,

I see the “John” has moved to a new page.

A fellow forum member and I have put together a more comprehensive program which has data to back it up.

There were Zero fuel fires in WTC7. No one can show that there were!

I am currently reading new [original] files now.

The results, most likely will end up on my website.

elreb

[onesliceshort]

OSS,

I see the “John” has moved to a new page.

A fellow forum member and I have put together a more comprehensive program which has data to back it up.

There were Zero fuel fires in WTC7. No one can show that there were!

I am currently reading new [original] files now.

The results, most likely will end up on my website.

elreb

Looking forward to seeing it!

I've been doing a bit myself on the fire and smoke sources.

The "John" lol.