At this point -- 10 years on -- the evidence presented by the various experts the movement has collected should be unimpeachable. Thank you, Frank, for your uncompromising dedication to this simple idea. There's no reason to 'reach'.

Let us also bear in mind that the WTC give us new phenomena. The origin of pyroclastic goes back about 130 years for a documented phenomenon, as taken from the Greek - pyro and clastic,, or "fire" (not volcanic) and "broken into pieces"., intended in the late 1800s to refer to the sediment and stone material available to a volcanic eruption. There may also be the matter of staying on top of these emerging phenomena, and entitling them correctly. Note the coining of the term by the Columbia Earth Institute, and at bottom, the phrasing, which I would be curious to see a dictionary history of... "...especially those associated with explosive volcanic eruptions"

Columbia Earth Institute: Damage to Buildings Near World Trade Center Towers Caused by Falling Debris and Air Pressure Wave, Not by Ground Shaking, Columbia Seismologists Report in November 20 issue of Eos
http://www.earthinstitute.columbia.edu/news/story11_16_01.html
..." The authors also noted that as seen in television images, the fall of the towers was similar to that of a pyroclastic flow down a volcano, where hot dust and chunks of material move in a dust/mud matrix down the volcano’s slope. The collapse of the WTC generated such a flow, though without the high temperatures common in volcanic flows. "...

Jeff King, Doctor / Scientist, MIT, says about the clouds, and the flows...
http://www.naderlibrary.com/911.blueprintfortruthae3.htm
" One of the most significant things to my thinking that indicates that this could not have been the sort of collapse that we are told it was is the presence of the dust clouds. And, as you've seen in the pictures, and I'm sure all of us have seen probably more than we would like, there were very very large clouds of very thick dust that enveloped the area, that crossed the river, that made it almost all the way to New Jersey from the pictures that I've seen. This type of flow is something we are familiar with in physics. It occurs in only two situations that we know of, naturally. One is in volcanic eruptions, where a large amount of material is suddenly exploded into the air, and basically forms small particles. The other situation is something called turbidity currents. These occur along the edges of the continental shelves where mud or sediment will slump and become suspended in water. And the common thread is you have large amounts of a dense material that is suspended very quickly in a fluid, thereby creating another denser fluid, which is in effect the dust cloud. And that fluid can achieve considerable velocities. "...

Pyro:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/pyro
Origin: < Greek pyro-, combining form of pŷr fire

Clastic:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/clastic
Origin: 1870–75; < Greek klastós broken in pieces (klas- variant stem of klân to break + -tos verbal adjective suffix) + -ic

Pyroclastic:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/pyroclastic
World English Dictionary
pyroclastic (ˌpaɪrəʊˈklæstɪk)
—adj (of rocks) formed from the solid fragments ejected during a volcanic eruption
Science Dictionary
pyroclastic (pī'rō-klās'tĭk) Composed chiefly of rock fragments of explosive origin, especially those associated with explosive volcanic eruptions. Volcanic ash, obsidian, and pumice are examples of pyroclastic materials.

" At 3:46 the speaker uses the word "vaporized" which should be avoided. There is no evidence that steel was vaporized. What we observe in the steel with "swiss cheese" holes could be achieved by quickly melting some metal and blowing the molten metal away, as could happen with an explosive. "

This term is used in cases where explosives, such as in the military and in demolitions, where something is liquified and blown away. I've heard the term used in a particular application where I worked - it was for the result of a large explosion which would do this.

----------------------------------------------
" At 8:03 the speaker refers to "equal upward and outward force" to describe the movement of material. I have looked at a lot of videos and do not see proof of "equal upward...". I see outward projection of solids and I see the dust projected outward. As the cloud expands some may go upward and some downward, but what is need for proof of an upward thrust is documentation of a piece of steel moving upward. I notice that David Chandler, who is meticulous, avoids saying the steel is projected upwards. "

There is an upward and outward movement of material. Sight of upward movement of steel - perhaps not. When putting the words "equal upward and outward" I would agree that the phrase is not correct. Someone would have to measure it better than it seems at all possible to say "equal".

-------------------------------------------------
" At 30:40 there is reference to USGS reporting 6% iron microspheres in the dust. I thought is was RJ Lee who put a figure on it, and I thought it was more like 5%. Also their samples were from inside the Deutche Bank building, which may have received an unrepresentative proportion of the very dense iron portion. It is not wise to publicly suggest that the dust contained this concentration of iron. It would obviously be a false claim as it implies hundreds of tons of thermite were involved. "

Statements of percentages in samples would sound properly phrased to me. "x% in sample y" - that sort of thing, or, "x% average in the samples taken" .

-----------------------------------------------------
" In short, when so much hard work has gone into a production like this, it is disappointing to find it has not had the kind of scientific peer review that we claim our work is based on. "

I think a lot of folks can and do get buried in pedantry (I know I have) such as when embroiled in arguments with Internet trolls, or those with the juvenile mentalities to simple go looking for ways to endlessly goad people. Putting this topic into perspective, I feel inclined to add that there is, as I see it, a mountain of compelling evidence in support of demolitions and of the OCT being totally bunk. Perhaps these facts can help to put matters into perspective.

I hope no one gets too lost or wastes too many hours chasing after matters such as would lead into arguments on semantics, in the face of such overt and compelling evidence. I hope we all work to spend our time well, too. The inspiration is there among those who give the hours and I hope those efforts touch as many good people as they can.

Cheers,
Mark