The thesis of the book:

There is no fact-based technical account of the World Trade Center collapses. This is verifiably true beyond doubt. The true collapse modes of the Twin Towers are not accurately determined within any academic, professional or government literature.

There are many ways to rephrase the same basic statement to emphasize various facets of what is being witnessed. Here is another way, in which I challenge a commonly held system of beliefs:

the thesis deals with the curious situation in which there is no accurate technical history of the WTC collapses available but many people believe or assume one exists. They simply assume their written history is accurate. At the heart of such an argument is the question, "What is knowable and verifiable about the collapses?"

It is commonly believed that some process called "scientific examination" had taken place and groups of experts have concluded how the towers fell.

It is believed that experts have reached conclusions by taking the available evidence as far as it can go, verifying claims directly when possible, and some type of accurate professional and academic consensus had been reached about how and why the towers collapsed the way they did.

It is commonly believed that the result of this consensus currently represents our most complete and in depth knowledge on the collapses to date and that the information which comprises history as it is most currently portrayed is worthy of teaching future generations for their benefit.

Within this book the author proves, in a way that can be cross-checked and verified by the reader, that none of these beliefs are correct.

This is also stated in the introduction of the book.

These commonly stated beliefs assume that a valid analysis exists for the world trade center collapses.

Here is another way to state the thesis:

A key Achilles heel in study and discussion of these subjects over the last decade can be spotted simply by observing the different attitudes people have toward collections of observations and measurements.

If one does that, it can be seen the subtle ways many people have reverted to the study of physical systems by using their feelings or simply by believing what authority figures tell them.

A second key Achilles heel is this; when observations and measurements are discussed, each observation is treated as a separate fragment. There is rarely any effort to put these separate fragments of knowledge together to gain a wholistic understand of what one is observing.

This is how many technical discussions and published papers and reports seem to be constructed. They are broken up into small, highly idealized component parts. People substitute the highly divided, fragmented ideas for the highly complex objects under study without making the effort to see how each element fits into a larger whole.

Here is another way to state something similar:

Many people are pretending to know more than they actually do about the WTC collapses. Many people and organizations such as the NIST regularly demonstrate that they are very poor observers and quite vulnerable to being fooled by false technical information.

There is one thing many people have in common, truther and debunker alike. They have no real concept of either the visual or written record but argue as if they do. Based on that detachment from the subject matter, both take a very strong stand that they are right.

And here is another way:

From my own experience I have found that it is difficult to approach the claim in my thesis or the subject of the WTC collapses in an evidence-based way because of a fundamental Achilles heel found most everywhere one looks if they have the eyes to see it. People are largely detached from the visual record of the WTC attacks and collapse events and they are largely detached from the written record of those events which followed.

This fundamental Achilles heel explains most everything I witness concerning technical literature on the subject of these collapse events. If one is divorced from both the visual and written records they often feel free to say anything that pops into their head but have no capacity, instinct, or even interest to verify whether the claim is true.

It is a fundamental ignorance of the visual and written records that leads to the breakdown of skeptical thought and evidence-based understanding of this issue.

Here is a slightly different approach:

The collapse of the WTC towers and the various reactions to the collapses on a global level offers an excellent opportunity to study human gullibility. There is no doubt that Richard Gage is a living demonstration of how gullible and vulnerable people can be in a highly complex and politically charged technical issue.

But many comments by the other extreme pole, the debunkers, as represented in various forums demonstrate a similar gullibility. There are many instances of documented gullibility on both sides of the spectrum, and, unfortunately, the proverbial "average Joe" is stuck in the middle.

Each "side" sees the the other "side" as being dumb. They see the problem being the fact that the other "side" exists. Neither fixed "side" seems capable of understanding why the other "side" thinks the way they do.

According to my research, the proverbial "average Joe" is getting screwed by both ends of the spectrum. This problem is not going away and is destined to be passed onto the next generations, who will receive the same mess that this generation helped create.

Worded differently:

What I have found is that somebody like Richard Gage or Steven Jones does not understand what they are looking at. That didn't take long to figure out. But I could also see that many of the people who wrote papers that were published in ASCE journals didn't seem to understand what they were looking at either.

I could see that Ryan Mackey or Gravy also didn't understand what they were looking at. Many people, when put to the test, can be shown to not understand what they are looking at.

Both the conventional truth movement and the NIST are very poor at observing the actual behavior of each building. I have learned not to trust either group.

This comment also helps understand the thesis:

I do not see any admission within the academic community that they failed to produce a fact-based technical account of the collapses. If they try and fail, that is fine. If they admit to failure and uncertainty I have no problem with that.

I object to people making verifiably incorrect claims and presenting them as authoritative and certain.

Think of the information in the book as a warning to demonstrate how vulnerable the peer review process can be and how vulnerable authoritative certainty can be.

Think of the book as a warning to be wary of various claims being made by many truthers and debunkers.

The book is not written to flatter supporters of AE911T or the debunking community. There is an extreme similarity between the two poles and I want to capture that in written form.

Yet another simple approach similar to the thesis:

The underlying question can be phrased as:

Are the claims of ________________ concerning the WTC collapses consistent with the visual record of events? Are they consistent with the written history?

In the blank one can insert anything or anyone one wants.

This comparison gives a powerful method backed by a powerful set of tools to fact-check all claims made about the WTC collapses.

In relation to any technical exchange one could similarly ask:

Are the claims made by those who have participated consistent with the visual record of events? Are they consistent with the written history?

If not, then many of them are in an identical position. There isn't much difference between the 2 sides. Neither side seems to be able to observe very well.

Each side will misrepresent themselves as being more certain than they really are. Both "sides" will say things that are inconsistent with the visual record of events, essentially adopting a type of cartoon history. Such people can be expected to be confused and to fabricate a simplified history as a result.

Yet one more way to rephrase the thesis:

Technical studies of the WTC collapses can be taken as the 21st century poster boy of fragmented analysis. Technical information in this area seems to consist of scattered fragments with no clear, coherent concept of failure mechanism. Much of what is observed on the forum level is the inevitable result of highly fragmented bits of knowledge gathered from the highest levels of the technical hierarchy.

David Bohm on the weakness of the Western world view: "It focuses too much on analysis and tends to lead to fragmentation."

One can see the process of fragmenting analysis in a modern day historic event.

Definition of ANALYSIS

1: separation of a whole into its component parts

2
a : the identification or separation of ingredients of a substance
b : a statement of the constituents of a mixture

3
a : proof of a mathematical proposition by assuming the result and deducing a valid statement by a series of reversible steps
b (1) : a branch of mathematics concerned mainly with limits, continuity, and infinite series (2) : calculus 1b

4
a : an examination of a complex, its elements, and their relations
b : a statement of such an analysis

5
a : a method in philosophy of resolving complex expressions into simpler or more basic ones
b : clarification of an expression by an elucidation of its use in discourse

Consider what analysis is:

1: separation of a whole into its component parts

4a : an examination of a complex, its elements, and their relations

Note how in the case of the WTC towers different observers see different things. The NIST produces one set of observations and measurements. FEMA uses a different set. The visual record shows something different than both sets.

Each analysis separates the whole into a highly selective, highly fragmented list of parts. Each group of analysts seems to use their own highly subjective selections of observations and measurements and tends to ignore all phenomena outside of their own limited fields of perception.

In the complex WTC collapse events we see a selective approach to what matters.

Yes, highly selective, highly subjective sets of analysis. So the quote is another way to rephrase the thesis.

The NIST perceives one building. FEMA perceives another. Bazant perceives a third.

Tony Szamboti perceives yet another. Ryan Mackey perceives yet another. Richard Gage perceives yet another.

Each party is using highly fragmented, highly selective sets of observations and measurements to support their claims.

Each party, by using their own highly selective and fragmented sets of observations and measurements, is literally perceiving the building collapses differently than the others.

The visual record is how we visually perceive each collapse event. Observations and measurements show how any one party perceives the collapse events. It is clear that each party mentioned is perceiving a different version of each building collapse by how they each use highly selective and often outright incorrect sets of observations and measurements to defend their claims. It is by how they describe the collapse events that demonstrates they are clearly not perceiving the same version of events.

Occam rolls in his grave

Occam's razor. From the link, A common formulation:

"simpler explanations are, other things being equal, generally better than more complex ones"

"plurality should not be posited without necessity"

"entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity"

Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274) states that "it is superfluous to suppose that what can be accounted for by a few principles has been produced by many".

Ptolemy (c. AD 90 �" c. AD 168) stated, "We consider it a good principle to explain the phenomena by the simplest hypothesis possible."

Later formulations

Isaac Newton: "We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances. Therefore, to the same natural effects we must, so far as possible, assign the same causes."

Bertrand Russell offers a particular version of Occam's Razor: "Whenever possible, substitute constructions out of known entities for inferences to unknown entities."

In the case of the WTC collapses:

The NIST perceives one building. FEMA perceives another. Bazant perceives a third.

Tony Szamboti perceives yet another. Ryan Mackey perceives yet another. Richard Gage perceives yet another.

Each party is using highly fragmented, highly selective sets of observations and measurements to support their claims.

Each party, by using their own highly selective and fragmented sets of observations and measurements, is literally perceiving the building collapses differently than the others.

Consider the application of Occam's razor to a situation in which different observers are perceiving different versions of the same physical event. Their observations don't match. Their measurements don't match.

"simpler explanations are, other things being equal, generally better than more complex ones"

Other things cannot be equal in a situation in which different observers use their own fragmented, biased, and largely incorrect observations and measurements as their guiding perceptions.

br/>