"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself — and you are the easiest person to fool." — Richard P. Feynman
READER LENS¶
SUBJECT: FORENSIC ENGNEERING AUDIT // WTC COMPLEX
This dossier is written as an engineering audit, not a narrative contest. The reader is asked to evaluate competing explanations by how they perform under constraint accounting: whether they can satisfy the dossier's high-specificity requirements (energy/comminution, impulse–momentum partition, bounded geometry, and material selectivity) while also producing the collateral signatures their mechanism class should entail. Where a claim is disputed, the burden is not discharged by dismissal alone; it shifts to provenance, metrology, and specificity—showing why the claim does not hold at audit grade.
Accordingly, the dossier treats "one explanation" not as a slogan but as a scoring rule: the preferred hypothesis is the one that closes the full constraint stack with the fewest compensating exceptions and the fewest missing collateral signatures. The reader's task is therefore twofold: decide whether the constraint stack is valid, and then decide which hypothesis class closes it cleanly under the stated assumptions.
THE PROCESS AND ITS ORIGINS¶
This investigation did not begin with a radical hypothesis. It began as a curiosity-driven audit of unresolved anomalies—a "cold case" review revisited through a strictly physical lens.
The intent was to see if the standard account (Model A) could close the books. It could not. When the evidence chain was subjected to strict constraint accounting, the deficits in energy, momentum, and thermal diffusion did not resolve; they compounded. The anomalies were not evidence of "exotic" physics—they were evidence of known physics operating under a different mechanism class than the one conventionally applied.
As the audit deepened, the hypothesis did not precede the evidence; it emerged from it. The geometric constraints, the material selectivity, and the missing collateral signatures ceased to be "gaps" and became consistent data points describing a coherent, alternative coupling regime. We did not arrange the data to fit a theory; we allowed the arranged data points to define the physical architecture they were actually describing. This dossier is the result of that deduction: a reconstruction forced by the failure of the standard model to satisfy its own boundary conditions.
Finally, this dossier does not claim completeness; it claims constraint satisfaction. It is treated as a living forensic instrument, subject to revision wherever higher-specificity data becomes available. We acknowledge that in any reconstruction of this scale, the implementation details are hypotheses that must earn their credibility. Errors of calibration or interpretation, if found, are opportunities to refine the constraint stack, not to abandon the thermodynamic obligations it enforces.