9/11 Free Fall 7/18/13: Dr. deHaven-Smith and "conspiracy theory"

[William Seger]

111. But you've posted 53 times in this thread alone

... so apparently the "game here" IS worth a lot of typing, eh?

So much typing; so little thinking -- perhaps that's why you're not doing very well in the "game here."

The mat of debris certainly is material to explaining why one of Gourley's "Third Law" arguments is simply wrong, and I think I've posted Bazant's explanation why enough times now that you may well be the last person on the board who still doesn't understand it. I've certainly posted it enough to prove that you have no intention of responding to it, so that issue is settled by your default concession.

However, as I've said several times now and you persist in ignoring, the whole "crush down/crush up" thing is NOT germane to Bazant's central thesis, which is simply that the structure could not absorb the energy that was unleashed, and if it could not be absorbed, then the structure could not stop the collapse. When you call that "spam sauce" you are confessing that you are absolutely clueless about Bazant's analysis, and now you admit that it's just too much effort for you to even think about it?

As amusing as this is, it really is getting to be like hearing the same joke over and over.