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.

[SanderO]

Amazed,

Don't beat up on yourself. 99.9999% of the observers are in the Peter Jennings club. That club is largely informed by using analogy or comparison to make sense of the world. We all do it when we don't have the technical background or expertise... which is why courts use expert witnesses.

No collapse has ever been filmed in the act... Few have seen one... and certainly no tall building have collapsed because a collapse requires structural failure... from causes such as fire, mechanical damage, and earth quake of a intense weather event or an explosion.

As most truthers have noted, building don't collapse from fire... office fires. But in the case of the twins there were other factors to consider:

The unique design and assembly of the structural frame/system.
the damage caused by plane impacts to the structural frame
the presence of jet fuel fires

So we have no personal references of seeing building collapses - we don't know what it looked like in the past. We have no recorded videos of towers collapsing EXCEPT for CDs (is that prejudicing our thinking Mr. Jennings?). We have no examples of buildings completely collapsing from office fires (not exactly an analogy) We have only one example of a skyscraper being hit by a plane - ESB and it did not collapse - but it was a different design and a much smaller plane.

And of course we have all the images of explosions on TV and the movies plus the handful of CDs to use a references.

If you add a motive ... the inside job to start wars - false flag... it further prejudices what you think you are seeing.

And when someone comes along to tell you that you may be and likely are wrong about your observations... you shoot the messenger and label them a plant, a spy, a shill for the insiders and worse. I've been there.

Thank you Tom for your eloquent presentation and hard work.