Debunkers are only confused by the truth. They will dismantle it, thread the bolts, and kick at your nuts to the point that any truth that was there becomes so unpalatible that even Arthur Scheuerman would move on to the next subject. However we seekers of the truth do have one thing going for us, the truth does not change no matter how it is perceived. So who thinks what and which theory or hypothesis pertains to what aspect of such and such of an event or picture or testimony or concrete evidence just doesn’t matter at all. The is evidence everywhere and it needs to be on the table for perusal by all who are interested then brought to an open and independent investigation. Look for the best photographs, best videos, unimpeachable testimony, and real evidence like the melted guns in the NYPD police department museum that came from building 6. These guns were fused to melted concrete, which required temperatures of 2500 to 3000 degrees farenhiet. Debunkers are a little dense, but most of them know , just like George Duhhbya Bu$h, how to use the google and can see them for thmnselves with a little plaque by them telling where they are from…G:

Dipshit.

Here’s a brief overview of why the official story of 9/11 is a farce:

http://pyramid.blog-city.com/911_the_impossible_the_improbable_the_implausible.htm

There’s plenty more but this should suffice.

I just went through the thread one more time; I might have missed something, but from what I could read your only statements on the subject have been:

———–
Please pay attention. As I stated above, any thermally induced sequential collapse would have proceeded differently from what was observed. On top of that, the source of heat (fire) failed to exhibit signs of being sufficiently hot – no widespread window breakage, flame color and composition indicating oxygen-deprived burning, etc. In fact, FEMA has failed to find any significant amount of intact column segments that have experienced temperatures in excess of 250C. That tells you that thermally-induced collapse is just a not a theory matching the facts.
———–

which has already been dealt with, and:

———-
Applying an analogous model to the events of 9/11 we have to conclude that no explanation that fails to account for the peculiarities I have mentioned multiple times – the simultaneous failure of multiple elements throughout the structure, the symmetry and rapidity and totality of the collapse, etc.
———-

but you didn’t further elaborated on this.
Lastly, you said:

———-
There’s plenty of links on my sites and elsewhere illustrating all that I have cited. There is not one model I have seen anywhere explaining the collapse observed – it’s dynamic progression – in light of the official theory.
———-

But obviously I’m not going to browse all your website right now – just point me to the material relevant to the issue at hand and make your statement – we can start from there.

You got that right – I don’t want to continue. The reason for that is that you are unwilling to really read the opponent’s arguments. You give me a whole manuscript to read – and I at least browse through it. You give me a link to a paper in Italian (on an English website) – and I even attempt to make some sense of that even though my knowledge of Italian in non-existent outside of some very rudimentary French. You, on the other hand, seem to be unable or unwilling to just scroll up the page and read my previous comments. That’s your choice, of course, and you are entitled to it, but don’t expect me to go out of my way in order to accommodate you.

Ken, I already stated that I won’t engage in debate someone that is unable to bring arguments without calling me names. Besides in your dissertation you keep a) comparing apples with oranges, and b) making statements without backing them with evidence.

If you want to be taken seriously, do some research as most of us did and bring something more than “I am a marine, trust me” as your only evidence.

Jet A-1 burns at 260C-315C in an open air burn. I myself have fought jet fuel fires in both training and real life onboard an aircraft carrier. In training they light a huge tank on fire, let it get nice and hot, check the temperature, and then the students attack it. They fight that fire and put it out. The instructor relights it or it reflashes and they fight it again. They fight that fire all damn day. Amazing thing… an entire tank of STEEL and yet… it doesn’t melt or lose structural integrity. In an accident the jet fuel usually vaporizes and burns off in a huge fireball. We all saw the fireballs. The fireball will leave behind small office fires. Office fires usually top out around 750 degrees C in a normal office fire. You’ll know that it’s 750 C because glass windows shatter at 700C and the flame will be bright red and yellow and the smoke will be white indicating plenty of fuel. This did not occur that day on 911.

Herbrand, every single person in the U.S. military that has ever taken a fire course knows that you are full of crap. They’ve gotten to the front of the fire themselves WITH hoses and they know as I know that you can only stay close to an open air burn of jet fuel for MAYBE a minute or two at the most and that’s WITH water and proper hose control. You fight a fire by getting close, you stay there at the front of the hose until you can stand it no longer, and then you rotate to the back of the hose. That’s at 315C!!!

So when I hear a fireman say in his own words that “we’ve got small isolated pockets of fire that we should be able to knock them down with two lines” then I know about what kind of fire he’s talking about. He’s not talking about “flashfire” and he’s not talking about a “raging inferno.” Then when I SEE with my own eyes, as EVERYONE can, survivors walking around in the crash zone then I KNOW for a fact based upon my own experience in fighting fires that the temperature is well under the maximum for an open air FUEL FIRE. That puts the fire UNDER 315C! If it was hotter than that then people and firemen wouldn’t be up there alive, they’d be crispy critters. To weaken, not melt, I say WEAKEN hardened steel would require hours and hours of heat at least at 750C. At that point, which is the 50% mark, hardened steel loses 50% of it’s structural integrity. So fire played NO REALISTIC, REAL WORLD, REAL PHYSICS part in the 911 crime.

In the 2nd tower hit, the plane came in at an angle and came out the side. It missed the massive core columns almost completely. To say that even ONE core column was damaged is stretching it. To go further, and play devil’s advocate for you, and say that it was damage that caused the building to fall over would have meant that the building would have fallen over on it’s side and not straight down into itself.

Those are two FACTS based upon EXPERIENCE and not your book learning and “debunker” speculation (-blatant lying-).

Now as Boris pointed out, when you see a gun, a smoking corpse with a hole, and eyewitnesses able to say they witnessed a murder then only a blind person or a CRIMINAL would ignore that evidence to argue the validity of a heart attack.

I ask you again: “What fires have YOU fought and what courses have YOU taken and What aviation/military background do you have?” I am a Marine, Honorably discharged, who worked many years on FA-18 Hornets with classified avionic systems in VMFA-115 and VMFA-451 and has served aboard a U.S. aircraft carrier with pride. I’m sure most people would agree that puts me a notch higher than the speculating “debunkers” and their worthless book knowledge. Or do you care to say that the ENTIRE US MILITARY is twisting physics and lying to people about fighting fires? Speak up. I’m sure the DOD is just sitting around waiting for little ole’ you to enlighten them.

seriously though, I understand that a one-on-one debate of this sort is boring and time consuming. Still, I have yet to read a proper exposition of your view on the collapse backed by proper sources.

I can wait all the time you want, I’m in no rush.

Well here in the US the truthers are a small but vocal minority. Only 4.6% of the US think 9/11 was an inside job, and it is getting smaller each day. With the educated class it is smaller still. Most of it is driven by a hate of Bush, when he is gone the truther loons will fade even more.

He can’t see why the towers would fall the way they did. Ergo, there is something fishy in the way they fell. The fault is in his lack of understanding, not in the event itself. His ideas are based on “I Dunno!”

Forget the fact that many more people see no inconsistency in the way the towers fell, including people who know the most on how these and other massive structures are built. When nearly every structural engineer looks at the event and says there is nothing that demonstrate a controlled demolition, you have to wonder. And these are not “Hack” architects like Richard Gage, we are talking about engineers who can PROVE their worth with real world achievements.

Guys like Boris will avoid committing to a detailed hypothesis of what he thinks happened because his lack of education on the subject would soon reveal itself. Best to play dumb and try and create a controversy where there is none…… Well not with people who know the facts of the event and the science behind it anyway.

You already have “heard” it many times. I am sorry, I don’t have time to run around in infinite circles.