Says the guy that thinks the mathematics required to describe the collapse are meaningless. Koko, the math is meaningless in the same sense that a pantone color chart is meaningless to a dog.
I've got more than you have photos. You see, if you really want to describe the collapse, you have to do more than just look at pictures. People who graduated from preschool use things called words and mathematics to define and demonstrate the world around them. They don't just look at pictures. After all, pictures don't explain the mechanics of a collapse on their own. And in most cases, people like you don't even know what you're looking at. This creates the confusion required to let yourself believe you're actually making a cogent point. But the upside for us at least is that it doesn't take too much to prove you wrong. Just like you were when you posted that move scene that we called you out on. Oh..and prove there's no evidence? Did you just ask us to prove their's no evidence? And you want us to believe you passed the bar?
You realize that its really easy to do in this matter. Are you asking muah to spell it out and educate you? LOL
It does not work that way. It is not proving a negative. Not surprising however that none of the troughers with their vast experience in these types of matters get it.
We have all the evidence in the world of collapse. We have none that it was initiated by demolition charges. Floors got broken and dumped stuff on the floors below. Eventually, those floors broke in a cascade. This is simple enough for people even less intelligent than I to understand, once they learn the simple fact that steel loses bearing capacity when it gets too hot.
I already agreed that it collapsed. ALL DEMOLITIONS RESULT IN COLLAPSE. There is no argument that the damn thing collapsed. why do insist on going in circles? so you disagree with nist and stick to your pancake theory.
Did you see him say he believed in a pancake theory? Besides, NIST stated that the initiation of the collapse wasn't a pancake collapse. Do you know the difference?
There is no argument on the part about CD causing a collapse. What is in question here iswhether or not explosive charges were used to initiate the collapse. There is absolutely, without question no evidence that explosive charges were used to initiate collapse. Is that simple enough for you to get your mind around?