User:AllxMxPx

Comment on "Collapse of the World Trade Center" I read both the Bezant and the MacQueen/Szamboti arguments and neither give conclusive proof. Bezant in "What Did and Did Not Collapse in WTC Twin Towers in New York" argues that TNT wasn't possible, but doesn't consider nano-termite and says evidence of it is "anecdotal." MacQueen/Szamboti argue that the impacted section of the WTC towers would have had to fall as a block and with a jolt would've caused the larger, undamaged portion of the building to collapse. But, analyzing video of the collapse of the North Tower, there was no sign of a jolt, which would've involved a deceleration of the fall. In this manner, Bezant's argument is refuted. Despite MacQueen and Szamboti's lack of credentials, their refutations are sound. Can someone produce evidence to the contrary? If not, then why are Bezant's arguments allowed so much weight? Despite Bezant's heavily mathematical arguments and credentials, he doesn't clearly demonstrate his point and is somewhat easily refuted. This Wikipedia article relies on him heavily and it appears that the NIST does as well. I think that this Wikipedia article should be rewritten so that it is clear that at t he present time, there is no clear proof or consensus. Doing less is biased and gives an incorrect impression to the millions of people who are reading and will read this article that the progressive collapse theory is sound. AllxMxPx (talk) 01:32, 12 January 2014 (UTC)AllxMxPx