Conspiracy v. fact 9/11

[tomk52]

13. Yup, ludicrous. But...

... the ludicrous part is your portrayal of the situation.

First off, the general (i.e., non structural engineer) debunker's opinion about detailed engineering esoterica is as amateur as any truther's opinion about the same.

The typical, non-engineer debunkers opinion that "we should listen to the consensus of demonstrated experts in the specific fields" turns out to be well-founded advice.

For example, you brought up Bazant's "crush down - crush up" theory. I'm curious to find out what you think about it. In engineering DETAIL. Your diffuse, generic disdain is obvious.

But so is your lack of knowledge about its detail. For example, in BLGB, the issue of "ejected material" is explicitly addressed.

Then you attribute the crush-down to "this splaying material".??
Yes, I agree 100%. That is absolutely ludicrous.

Just out of curiosity, estimates regarding "what percent fell into footprint & what percent fell outside footprint" have been available for quite some time. Are you familiar with them? Perhaps they may help you answer your own question.