Quote:
Originally Posted by jjshabado
Deuces, just so you know, the report you quoted sources the NIST report numerous times. It doesn't contradict the NIST report that I can see. And furthermore the NIST doesn't dispute that the collapse happened sequentially.
Edit: What's the report that Deuces is claiming was released within days of 9/11? It's not the one he just quoted.
Let's backup here for a second.
There are essentially two theories of collapse which enjoy popular credibility: natural collapse theories, which say 2 planes brought down the 3 buildings, and controlled demolition theories.
Among the natural collapse theories, there are many differing theories. When I refer to the "official theory" I am referring to what NIST says happened. Kukraprout, in (I assume) acknowledging that NIST has given no mechanism and (I assume) recognizing that is a problem for natural collapse theory, seems to have randomly picked some paper from the wikipedia article I linked to and claims here! see this? this explains it! But he really didn't think that through. He didn't notice that the article:
- was published 2 days after the attacks so necessarily rushed
- has no scope to include alternative theories and so assumes it's major conclusion
- does not incorporate any physical evidence from the scene into it's theories
- is highly conceptual guessing
- does not consider a wealth of viewpoints and findings of those who (literally) waited for the smoke to clear to form opinions.
- was written before any report which had any level of access to the physical evidence and so can't quote NIST or FEMA
- was summarily rejected by NIST as a mechanism