So Eric banned me yet again (lol you can’t ban a hacker, what an idiot).

I shouldn’t expect those who claim to have a ~155+ IQ to always be coherent. High IQ doesn’t precisely correlate with interest in specialized knowledge. Smart people can thus still be utter fools. For example given Eric’s historical confirmation biases involving prior death threats—which I’ve read he suspected originating from Islamic extremists—are ostensibly blocking his pre-frontal cortex from fully functioning. I doubt in Eric’s case it’s a fight-or-flight chemical obstruction. Ostensibly his life philosophy (dopamine-linked raison d'être) would confront an existential and/or ego crisis if fully engaging his pre-frontal cortex—a speculation his confirmation bias may be a self-preservation mechanism that blocks his brain’s logic centers—on this issue. He’s experienced a related genre of autonomous protection mechanisms.

An unwitting fool (sorry to say) was sort of supporting me (I am “X”). Eugine Nier wrote:

You his[Winter’s] lies are so clearly ridiculous its possible to destroy them without too much work. Unlike X where you actually have to know something about material science.

Let’s accept Nier’s challenge and review the government’s best material science and structural engineering rebuttal of the controlled demolition theory. Remember NIST offers no model whatsoever of the twin towers’ collapse (and their collapse model for WTC7 is a completely impossible “1-in-a-quadrillion” possibility for those who know chaos theory and the doubly-hinged pendulum experiment).

In What Did and Did Not Cause Collapse of World Trade Center Twin Towers in New York? the authors wrote:

Although NIST did not analyze the overall process of dynamic progressive collapse below the fire zone

That means NIST never offered a complete collapse model. No one can produce such a coherent collapse model because it is absolutely impossible for the collapse to have been caused from carbon-based office materials and jet fuel fires. If they did attempt such as model, we can point out the egregious flaws, as we have done for the ridiculously implausible WTC7 collapse model. I will provide you the simpleton reader a little taste of the implausibility without delving too detailed.

To explain the collapse, it was proposed
on September 13, 2001
Bažant 2001; Bažant and Zhou 2002 that viscoplastic buckling of heated and overloaded columns caused the top part of tower to fall through the height of at least one story, and then showed that the kinetic energy of the impact on the lower part must have exceeded the energy absorption capacity of the lower part by an order of magnitude.

Before I explain why that quoted theory is nonsense, let’s refute it another way which is much easier for n00bs to understand.

How the fuck did the huge pit of rubble under the site of the WTC collapse remain at—which the USGS officially reported satellite imagery and aerial flyover spectrometry analysis estimates of— temperatures exceeding (archived and archived) 1020 Kelvin (1360 F) for 5 days after 9/11! WTF?! Can’t be plausible with only carbon-based office and jet fueled fires as the cause of the collapse (which is the basis of the above quoted research paper). Even NIST admits the fires were not that hot (and certainly not sustained, even they admit the jet fuel burned off after “a few” minutes at most)— evidenced also by the dark color of the smoke. Besides there would be no oxygen deep in the pit for the fires to continue to burn that hot. Fires can’t burn without oxygen and certainly there was nothing in the pit from the towers that could burn that hot for days (was there a coal factory in the WTC?). Such temperatures are only plausible in the pit if there’s molten metal. Period.

From a structural engineering analysis, the pancake collapse theory is totally absurd. They claim the entire upper portion collapsed initially as a contiguous body for one floor. Any model which didn’t ignore entropy would find the implausible odds of that monolithically interconnected mass ending up uniformly disintegrating into its footprint (i.e. no uncertainty/chaos present).

For example, NIST’s WTC7 (not twin tower) collapse model completely ignored entropy with “cherry picked” series of precisely chosen alleged events (e.g. floor bolts of a certain beam sheared off first, causing a specific domino series of events) as if all the possibilities (i.e. uncertainty = entropy) for chaos would flow exactly in only one possible series of discrete events. Nature is a continuum of uncertainty— not discrete. Butterfly effect ignored. The NIST WTC7 model never rolls the dice; they just put snake eyes on the table, pretend they’re God and cheat. The WTC7 collapse model doesn’t even resemble the video of the collapse. We’re supposed to believe this implausibility occurred three fucking times without controlled demolitions! Only a retarded person could possibly believe that. No true genius could possibly accept those official “(his)stories” theories after reading my comment and studying the models. This is an IQ test and I dare anyone to prove me wrong. I’m waiting…

Let’s delve into a bit more technical detail on refuting the cited nonsense research paper. The scientists in support of the pancake collapse hypothesis claim they refuted a technical rebuttal. First I respond to a tangential point:

This shell and the core were balanced, which means that the same effective amount of steel was present in the core.

Although the mass of steel might be equivalent in the outer shell and inner core, mass isn’t directly correlated to certain measures of structural strength. Note how much more load a truss can carry with the same mass of steel as compared to a solid tube. Or how much more difficult it is to bend a hollow pipe of the same mass as a solid one. That’s not a flaw in the above technical rebuttal. Rather I want to point out that the core was the significantly more indestructible structural load bearing component of the twin towers, not the outer shell/fascia. The outer shell mainly supported the concrete floors and added torsional strength.

As a separate argument from the aforementioned chaos argument, this structural asymmetry is another critical reason that any story of fire induced total collapse of the center core is entirely bullshit. There’s no mechanical, entropic plausibility that the kinetic force of the collapsing floors could be significantly enough transferred to the center core’s massive 47 vertical beams to totally collapse the center core. The much weaker horizontal beams (and hinges/bolts/welds at the joins) supporting the floor would shear stress break away (most especially nearer to the bottom where the strength of the core was impregnably strong with steel beams thicker than redwood trees). Thus couldn’t transfer to those vertical beams but a small fraction of the kinetic energy/forces of the toppling mass. Thus even with collapse, it’s entropically and mechanically implausible that some of the center core isn’t still intact either standing or more monolithically toppled instead of cut neatly into small lengths. AFAIK, NIST never addressed—and no one else ever made—this technical argument. Total disintegration of the center core into capped sized cut beams is only plausible by controlled demolition.

Combining my chaos theory and asymmetry arguments, the official story is totally absurd, implausible. The cited technical rebuttal delves a bit towards my point, and is why nobody could ever produce an entropic finite-element simulation of the twin tower collapses:

One could argue that during plastic collapse, and especially near the minimum vertical resistance point, the column section will be severely deformed and its capacity may be lower than assumed here. This may as well be true, but then the walls of the column will be folding, one onto another, thereby compensating for that decrease of resistance. Admittedly, this point is of a speculative nature. A better insight can only be gained by either a physical test or finite-element simulation of an extensive squashing process.

[…]

In other words, the paper assumes that Part C of each tower is treated as a rigid block while it crushes down through and destroys the lower structure. Although this assumption may have had the intended effect of simplifying the paper’s collapse analysis, it also rendered the collapse analysis at odds with the reality of the physics at work during the collapse.

The pancake collapse scientists’ rebuttal:

Yet, contrary to the discusser’s claim, they may be treated in calculations as rigid because their elastic deformations are about 1,000 times smaller than the deformations at the crushing front.

The rebuttal ignores chaos and they say nothing about the shearing off of the horizontal beams attached to the center core except to use “fracturing” only in support for collapse but without explaining how the massive total kinetic energy of their argument could be transferred to the center core vertical beams given the shear stress fracturing at hinges due to such high kinetic forces. Hinges are designed to bear only some multiple of the load of the single, stationary floor supported— not the massive total kinetic energy of a pancake collapse of all floors, nor kinetic force sufficient to buckle and break massive (oak tree thickness) vertical beams. Hinges would sheer off at a fraction of the total kinetic forces; thus the total kinetic forces can’t be transferred to the center core vertical beams such they entirely disintegrate into small cut sections of the observed uniform collapse. It’s erroneous and disingenuous to cite the massive kinetic energy of the entire collapsing mass without acknowledging that the joins break at some small fraction of that force. NIST will never deal with that information because they will lose the debate. No one will ever produce a model of fire-induced collapse of the twin towers, because the official story is complete and utter bullshit.

When these waves hit discontinuities such as joints, local energy-absorbing plastic strains and fractures will be created, and what will be reflected and diffracted will be weakened elastic waves.

Read the corrupt gatekeeper Wikipedia’s entry:

Jones, Dane Niels H. Harrit and seven other authors published a paper […] they had found evidence of nano-thermite in samples of the dust […] NIST responded that there was no "clear chain of custody" to prove that the four samples of dust came from the WTC site. Jones invited NIST to conduct its own studies using its own known "chain of custody" dust, but NIST did not investigate.

[…]

On September 22, 2005, Jones gave a seminar on his hypotheses to a group of his colleagues from the Department of Physics and Astronomy at BYU. According to Jones, all but one of his colleagues agreed after the seminar that an investigation was in order and the lone dissenter came to agreement with Jones' suggestions the next day.

[…]

Thomas stated that in order to cut through a vertical steel beam, special high-temperature containment must be added to prevent the molten iron from dropping down, and that the thermite reaction is too slow for it to be practically used in building demolition. Thomas pointed out that when Jesse Ventura hired New Mexico Tech to conduct a demonstration showing nanothermite slicing through a large steel beam, the nanothermite produced copious flame and smoke but no damage to the beam, even though it was in a horizontal, and therefore optimal position.

We already have the video which shows steel beams the size of those at the WTC being cut with a mixture of thermite and sulfur (named thermate). It’s that mixture that accomplishes it. Whereas, those who are disingenuous continue to focus on the “nano-thermite” term.

Explosions (thus presumably cutting of steel beams) were ongoing for the hour before the collapse as reported by many credible eye witnesses.

To exemplify how disingenuous Wikipedia is, let’s quote directly from Jones’ paper:

Thermite contains its own supply of oxygen and so the reaction cannot be smothered, even with water. Use of sulfur in conjunction with the thermite, for example in thermate, will accelerate the destructive effect on steel, and sulfidation of structural steel was indeed observed in some of the few recovered members from the WTC rubble, as reported in Appendix C of the FEMA report. (FEMA, 2002

[…]

The official FEMA 9-11 report admits a striking anomaly regarding the North Tower collapse:

Review of videotape recordings of the collapse taken from various angles indicates that the transmission tower on top of the structure began to move downward and laterally slightly before movement was evident at the exterior wall. This suggests that collapse began with one or more failures in the central core area of the building. (FEMA, 2002, chapter 2; emphasis added.)

Yes, we can see for ourselves that the antenna drops first from videos of the North Tower collapse.

[…]

The NIST team fairly admits that their report “does not actually include the structural behavior of the tower after the conditions for collapse initiation were reached.” (NIST, 2005, p. 80, fn. 12; emphasis added.) Quite a confession, since much of the external evidence for explosive demolition typically comes after collapse initiation, as seen in cases of acknowledged controlled demolition. (Harris, 2000.) The NIST report could be called the official “pre-collapse theory.”

[…]

Bazant & Zhou do not explain how “more than half of the columns in the critical floor [can] suffer buckling” at the same time to precipitate the complete and nearly symmetrical collapse observed. There were 47 huge steel core columns in each Tower, and 24 such support columns in WTC 7 (NIST 2005; NISTb, 2005).

[…]

What happens to the block and its angular momentum?

We observe that approximately 30 upper floors begin to rotate as a block, to the south and east. They begin to topple over, not fall straight down. The torque due to gravity on this block is enormous, as is its angular momentum. But then—and this I’m still puzzling over—this block turned mostly to powder in mid-air! How can we understand this strange behavior, without explosives? Remarkable, amazing — and demanding scrutiny since the US government-funded reports failed to analyze this phenomenon. But, of course, the Final NIST 9-11 report “does not actually include the structural behavior of the tower after the conditions for collapse initiation were reached.” (NIST, 2005, p. 80, fn. 12; emphasis added.)

From 1:34 forward to the end of the following linked video for multiple angles of what professor Jones is describing:

A refutation of the claim that the molten debris pouring of the WTC was jet fuel on fire:

The absence of dark smoke trailing behind the falling liquid material indicated it was not fuel-soaked debris