Wtc Misrepresentations: New Book, Requesting Feedback
May 17 2012, 01:20 PM
Group: Student Forum Pilot
Joined: 3-May 12
Member No.: 6,812
I am a new poster here. Hello to all participants and readers
This is the draft version of a book on the WTC collapses:
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
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.
May 21 2012, 07:21 PM
Joined: 23-December 09
Member No.: 4,814
You have no idea of the *work* or research I have produced. I don't have a website and therefore don't publish my work... which is is a work in progress. This site does not allow uploads of PDF from my hard drive. 911FF does and I have uploaded some of my work there as well as Deep Politics.
I've also made my PDFs available to anyone who requests them via email or through a PM with an email address. I've sent my work to many people including members of this site.
Your dismissive comments aside from being insulting (something I am used to) disregards the fact that I provide susbstantive written replies to your points... which you refuse to dignify likely because you have no response. You are not a structural engineer, not a physicists and not an expert in explosives. You are intelligent person who has picked a fight with me because you don't like the SPECULATIVE theory I proposed which needs to be tested and further researched. I'm not offering proof, nor debating whether my speculation is better than your speculation.
I don't believe there is evidence in the public record which can prove what initiated the collapse of B7. If it was as I suspect a T truss failure... the T truss certainly could have been fatally damaged by explosives or cutter charges. I can't disprove it and you can prove it was either. MORE STUDY IS REQUIRED.
Aside from your (and others) vague description (speculation) that the building was CDed you have given no development (nor they) of exactly or even inexactly how this might have been done, how it was done, what sort of devices would / could have been used and so forth. You can't say this, nor the others because there is no way to know such things.
And this is why we call for further investigation.
There is no certain evidence of CD in any of the collapses. There are odd aspects to the collapse of the twins at the moment of initiation which apparently seem unlike a collapse... according to Tom... and could be the sign of explosives. I don't think anyone can go to the CD bank with that anomaly.
I have spent several years trying to explain to others that many of the things they consider to be slam dunk CD evidence are not... such as the speed of collapse or the *symmetry of collapse* or the billowing clouds or the amount of dust... or the creation of enormous heat... or the fracturing of the frame into the section lengths it was built from and so on.
There are unusual phenomena.... I can't explain them, but that doesn't mean they must be from CD.
You need to watch your manners. I am not the enemy and I am not rude, or dismissive or insulting. I hope you learn something from Tom's book... I did.
|Lo-Fi Version||Time is now: 25th May 2013 - 03:34 PM|