This is an explosion…
There are no intact floors above the advancing collapse line. The concrete and debris are immediately pulverized and ejected sideways along with other parts of the structure including heavy beams that go on to destroy neighboring buildings.
There is no ‘pile-driver’ effect as is evidenced by this photo and further confirmed by the arrested angular momentum of the upper floors in the south tower.
The collapse proceeds through the strongest part of the building, the center structural core, at nearly free-fall acceleration. As you might suspect, this can only mean the center structural support was taken out prior to this collapse.
I can’t think of any way this could happen without an internal detonation, perhaps carefully timed to be masked by the crash of the plane.
There is no reason for what we see here and what we witnessed in the next 15 seconds. None is given. NIST gave up. Maybe you can fill us in :).
Keep it simple.
I propose a series of vignettes, like this one above, which describe simple anomalies and remind people of the essential incongruities of 9/11. It’s been done in several ways but these could go on cards, for example, that could be used to initiate 9/11 discussions. It’s a little thing, but, keeping these vignettes separate could make a difference. I know A&E have cards of bulleted evidence but I haven’t had much success with those. It’s a bit overwhelming. I thought breaking it up might help. We have to get beyond the prejudgment that our interpretation is biased. We do that by letting them arrive at the interpretation.
I think, in truth, even simple vignettes will be too much to take in. There’s a big filter for most people. They have built up a filter over 10 years while we've absorbed the obvious evidence. You can’t make people engage if they don’t want to. Eventually, it will spur discussion.
Any one of these ‘anomalies’ should be enough to raise doubt in even the most hardened psyche. But they must be air-tight, carefully worded, simple to understand.
It’s hard for people to understand complex and unfamiliar systems comprehensively. Technical jargon doesn't help. And, you can’t dumb it down and have the same effect. There’s a balance that has to be achieved.
The vignette above could be supplemented with additional information. We can describe how concrete is a great absorber of energy. That it take a tremendous amount of energy to break up or crumble concrete. Referencing what we know about concrete everyday can help. We walk on it. We work on it with pneumatic tools so we have a visceral sense of what it takes to break it up. We can describe pulverization as taking an order of magnitude more force or energy than that.
What we witness here (and in this picture) is concrete being pulverized in mid-air and thrust outwards with other debris resulting in horrific waves that then blanket Manhattan. How did that happen?
Now I don’t go on to describe every concept in this vignette. I just mention it… angular momentum, pile-driver, pulverization, ejected debris, intact floors. I credit the reader with some intelligence while keeping the wording as simple as I can. The simple wording is to hook their attention. I assume they can figure out that gravity wouldn't do this.
Then there’s the concept of support and angular momentum. This should be relatively easy to convey but still it has to be done with reference to mundane experience and not to technical jargon. The logic here is, we've covered the technical jargon so let’s now frame it in everyday words. (another vignette perhaps)
This vignette also points out that NIST never came up with an explanation. Many people are unaware of that. Let’s make it clear. We’re winging our way through the 21st century without an explanation for the most horrific stateside event we've ever experienced… the collapses of the twin towers. Perhaps these simple vignettes can help others confront the fracturing of the status-quo thinking about these events.
Another vignette might be titled “What do we know?”. That can be mostly empty but with a simple explanation that NIST (nor any other official organization) ever came up with an explanation for the global collapses of towers 1 and 2. I think people need to be confronted with these facts. People assume there’s an explanation. There isn't. Let them absorb that fact. (“Well if we don’t have an explanation why don’t we listen to these people?”)
Our overall objective with this particular vignette is to destroy the ‘pile-driver’ idea (a silly notion to begin with, well countered by Chandler). And then, without a pile-driver, why did the towers collapse? You want them to feel that emptiness that everyone feels when confronting this dilemma for the first time. Acceptance follows.
Let’s come up with 52, very carefully prepared vignettes. Then we can send them out, once a week to all our friends. We could all send out the same carefully prepared vignette each week. We’ll see them come up on discussion sites, etc. And when they do let’s keep the discussion respectful. We've done the debate. It’s over. Let’s let them discover however rocky the road. Do not engage, respect and proceed. I always complement any comment however disdainful. I don’t meet disrespect in kind.
However, to be effective, these sorts of vignettes have to be carefully worded and vetted; to be accurate and clear enough to be quickly understood. They should be advanced enough to credit the listener. And, as always, we should be completely open to criticism and acknowledge the doubts and fears of others as well as their arguments. The debate is over. We don’t need to debate anymore. We just have to present the arguments and allow others to see what we've known for years. Confronted with a debate, I encourage it. I encourage their thoughts. Only by accepting their thoughts do you encourage them to objectively look at what should be obvious.
It's a little (or a lot) like dealing with children. You don't directly criticize their thinking. You encourage them to study further.