Conspiracy v. fact 9/11

[tomk52]

31. Again,

I don't know quite where to begin.

The fact that you think that Bazant invoked "pancake theory" in any of his collapse mechanisms convinces me that you fail to understand what he wrote. Bazant's collapse mechanisms are about as far from a pancake theory as one could possibly get.

The fact that you appear to believe that NIST ruled out "pancake theory" for anything other than the collapse initiation convinces me that you fail to understand NIST's conclusions, as well.

Do you believe that Bazant thinks that NIST got their analyses wrong?
If so, in what way.
Exactly, please.

Do you believe that NIST thinks that Bazant got his analyses wrong?
If so, in what way.
Exactly, please.

Just out of curiosity, please list for me the "several Bazant explanations" that have been debunked. By anyone.

After all this time & (I would guess) a substantial amount of effort on the part of some Duh-bunkers to explain it to you, your continued misconceptions are kinda sad.

I note, with some amusement, that your misunderstandings did not prevent you from employing simple, declarative sentences on the matter.

Ummmm, that should be "simple, declarative, wrong sentences."

Best regards,
Tom

PS. Attempting to Gallop away from a previous subject (at which time, you dressed up, took to dinner & then enthusiastically screwed the proverbial pooch) by bringing up a new subject and proceeding to inflict your affections upon a different, but equally innocent, canine, ain't such a good debating tactic. You may wish to reconsider.

PPS. I also note that you avoided addressing the previous issue: the relative expertise of Bazant vs. Bjorkman. Had any revelations on that matter?