One example of evidence that would falsify the theory: steelwork from the collapse zone exhibiting exposure to fire temperatures in the 600-1,000oC range. Then again, evidence that fire weakened the steelwork at all would do. Here’s what NIST found from their analysis of the steel: -
- “no conclusive evidence was found to indicate that pre-collapse fires were severe enough to have a significant effect on the microstructure that would have resulted in weakening of the steel structure.”
- “Most perimeter panels (157 of 160 locations mapped) saw no temperature T > 250 °C”
- “Paint analyses indicate both [core] columns < 250 °C”
That won't be necessary since, despite many posts where you implored me to take into account your entire argument and how no one piece of your evidence is really that convincing and everything must be looked at as a whole to truly see the strength of it, you subsequently turn around and provide examples that ignore your very same 'big picture'. What was the purpose of the discussion of the squibs then? I thought those best matched a demolition and I thought it was you who got all incredulous about how those appeared as the result of the collapse, so how does a fire-based collapse falsify that point or have anything to do with it? Why drag anyone through the tortured 'molten flow' argument, matching colors from a video to charts and pontificating about the effects of the destruction and fire in a room full of UPS units, again the cause of the actual collapse is irrelevant to that point? If we can falsify the demolition by providing evidence of a fire-based collapse then apparently the squibs and flow aren't that convincing of arguments after all, if they can be falsified by something that is orthogonal to your argument for either of those points. Way to weaken your own evidence.
Haven't you provided numerous quotes from experts about how they didn't expect that the plane crashes would be enough to cause the buildings to collapse, that the plotters needed a New Pearl Harbor and those buildings had to collapse so they planted demolitions to ensure that happened? How does any of that change if we were to find out after the fact that there is evidence of a fire-based collapse? Why wouldn't you be pointing out that it doesn't matter how it actually happened, it matters what the plotters thought? If we found whatever evidence you require of a fire-based collapse, well of course you'll find features of a fire-based collapse, you do understand what a covert demolition requires don't you, it's obviously not just going to be big booms, I hear they can do some sneaky things with well-placed thermite shielded with black-box material. Evidence of a fire-based collapse is 100% congruent with a covert demolition, this isn't just your average mom-and-pop demolition team setting this up.
Yea, you need to think a bit more on what really falsifies your argument because the above doesn't do it, I personally think you require a lot more. In the past you've gotten sensitive when I've stated what I thought your argument would be if some piece of evidence was produced, you may have even asked for a retraction I don't recall specifically, but it's pretty bad that the alternative is that I have to temporarily assume your point of view and use your own argument against you. You should be doing that.