Originally Posted by
Grizzly Bear
Not quite. They're specific about claiming that fire/debris damage was too small and sporadic to be fatal. That's how they "skip" half of the past tense; they don't think it's relevant. They assess severity by external appearance, and don't have the mentality to evaluate the circumstances from a design/engineering philosophy; that's all.
Mentality OR
motive I suggest. Whether WTC7 or WTC1/WTC2 any understanding what really happened works strongly against their need to assume that there was CD.
Originally Posted by
Grizzly Bear
Speaking of cause/effect - there's been a distinct lack of comprehending the relationship for many years. Case in point, we're still dealing with the squibs argument; apparently it's insane to think that air could be forced out by pressure imposed by the falling mass...
Yes BUT... at least in that situation there is little misunderstanding from the debunker side.
Squibs remain a truther fantasy NOT shared by debunkers
Two other big issues show lack of comprehending on both sides - and lengthy tedious debates with both sides accepting the truther false or unproven false scenario. They are:
1) For WTC1/2 - whilst debunkers generally are clear that Bazant and Zhou's Limit Case mechanism was not real and could not be applied literally - many still accept the "drop to impact" concept - even tho that did not happen - it was "scrunch down and keep going into ROOSD".
2) Specific to this thread on WTC7 - the Szamboti arguments about girder walk off are premised on an assumption that the columns and wider structure were "pristine" - not affected by heat. Status of that assumption remains "unproven" and almost certainly wrong AFAIK. Even tho a lot of debate has accepted the Szamboti assumption.
That is one aspect where I will be interested to see if Hulsey et al avoid the trap.