North Tower Exploding...

[Ace Acme]

8. Chandler does not need to explain them. He's just engaging in observation,

Last edited Tue Dec 3, 2013, 02:02 PM - Edit history (1)

... the first stage of an honest scientific process. Implicitly he's pointing out that these phenomena we observe have not been explained by the government investigations.

NIST's handwaving little essay on "pneumatic effects" has no author ascribed to it, cites no actual evidence or studies, is not part of the report, and contradicts the gas laws. The squibs are seen exiting from isolated windows many stories below the collapse zone. NIST does not explain how a piston action many stories above can cause ejections in isolated windows. Piston pressure is exerted in all directions, like the air in a tire.

Your challenge to achieve the pulverization of the concrete by explosives is a red herring. The mystery is that the energy requirement for the pulverization does not appreciably slow down the collapses, nor has that energy requirement been quantified. Certainly there's a plausible explanation for the perps explosively rocketing steel components 200 yards: to further the terrorist effect of the collapses, and to make plausible the notion that WTC7 was brought down by debris damage.

Right, you don't need NIST to explain anything--because you can just make up all the answers need. Some of us prefer to eschew sophomoric solipsism and demand thorough, honest, and complete official investigations. Democracy permits no less a standard.