alt.politics.bush

On Oct 22, 9:30 pm, "What Me Worry?" <__@____.___> wrote:
> wrote in message
[snip]
> That is what desperation looks like for a person who cannot face the facts.

Show me some facts, I'll face them. I have yet to see a "fact"
from any of the adherents to these assertions.

> "me" is desperate to manufacture a rationale to prevent him from having to
> admit that (a) there is substantial, irrefutable evidence which wholly
> disproves the speculative, half-baked NIST "official" WTC collapse theory

No, there isn't, which is why you can't cite any. You'll point me
to the
same half dozen explanations full of errors and erroneous assumptions
that get passed around in the echo chamber that is the basis for this
now commercial enterprise of questioning the events of that day. But
you won't offer up one legitimate fact to support these assertions.

> and (b) there is also a logical chain of reasoning based upon significant
> evidence, basic physics, historical precedent, indisputable expertise and
> (exhaustive) forensic investigative methodology which makes an irrefutable
> case for controlled demolition, as well as naming a prime suspect with the
> means, motive and opportunity to commit the crime.

That there was motive does not support the assertion that it
actually
happened. We all have motives every day to commit crimes, but we
do not. In the absence of any evidence that the crimes were carried
out,
the basic explanation that the buildings failed through common
structural
failure phenonmenon remains the best explanation. Quite honestly,
until someone comes up with some evidence of something else, it
remains the ONLY explanation.

> Like NIST (and many others), this shill has fallen for a string of logical
> fallacies and unfounded premises which were all reverse-engineered from a
> wholly manufactured "official story" with a presumed conclusion.

Actually, it is based predominately upon my own calculations
having
to do with energy and column buckling. I do use some references which
predate the event, Mil-HDBK-5 being one of them. But as interesting
as some of the other works are, the explanation is so stone cold
obvious
to anyone who understands steel structure that one really doesn't have
to rely upon the works of others.

[snip]
> Why do
> these people believe that a short-lived fuel fire can cause a skyscraper to
> collapse,

I don't "believe" I "calculate". The effect of compromising the
primary
structure (with the impact) in combination with the rise in heat on
structure which had its primary fire protection compromised more than
establishes enough capacity to cause collapse.

[snip]
> When did these shills decide to leave physics and reasoning behind

I'm curious what physics you think got left behind? I've
calculated the
available energy. It approaches an order of magnitude more than
necessary.
The damaged columns, and the compromise of the floor also caused
an estimateable amount of buckling stiffness reduction. All margin
was
lost and it was literally only a "matter of time" before the fires
reduced
the stiffness of the steel. (Stiffness reduction due to heat requires
a
certain amount of time. It starts in as little as 30 minutes, but can
take
hours depending upon the temperature).