It took me an afternoon to understand that the WTC7 report is a load of pseudo-scientific crap (it's not based on any physical evidence), and i'm not even an engineer, just someone trained to read scientific reports. There's really not much more to do for those people than to point out this fact, which has already been done numerous times. If, given all the psychological hurdles, this results in a "conversion" rate that meets what you as a layman think it should be is quite irrelevant.
But even as a layman I can do the following: ask an engineer whether the WTC7 report is based on any physical evidence.
And the engineer can tell me the parts of the WTC7 report that are based on physical evidence, the sampled steel. And I can go look at the report and see that yes, that's true, some steel was sampled.
And the engineer can tell me about the recorded evidence, images and sounds, that were used in the report. (Whether that would officially qualify as physical evidence, or documentary evidence, would be a question for an epistemologist or a glossary writer; the important thing is that the recordings are of physical phenomena, movements and sounds, that occurred). Such as, the photo and video records of the fire propagation, and the videos of the collapse. And I can go look at the report and see that yes, that's true, recorded evidence was used.
And the engineer can tell me about the modeling, which is just calculations based on physical laws, as valid in principle as determining the gas milage of a car by dividing one number by another since no single instrument by itself can measure gas milage directly. And I can go read the report and see that, yes, models based on physical laws were developed and run, using what information was available, as imperfect as it necessarily was, as input.
So I now have more to go by than just the fact that engineering firms, engineering organizations, university engineering departments, and engineering journals are not convinced of your claim that the reports are not based on any physical evidence. I also have a very strong hypothesis of
why they are not convinced of that claim:
because the claim is obviously, patently, ridiculously untrue!
What could -- what
should -- possibly sway my opinion the other way, after that point? I'll answer that question momentarily.
You haven't even noticed that the work is done and pretend to wait for some "engineering work" which wouldn't convince you anyway.
The work I'm waiting for (and you're apparently waiting for, since nothing much will happen without it and you do seem to want something to happen) is not for someone to show that the WTC7 report has some flaw or another. I know it's not perfect, and couldn't on this earth possibly be perfect. I can't imagine a true argument that's less useful for any purpose whatsoever than asserting something that is both already obvious, already allowed for, and inevitably true in all possible cases. Especially when it is asserted as if it were supposed to be a worldview-altering revelation. Doing so, reminds me of the schoolchild joke of pointing out that some particular person is naked under their clothes. At best you can expect a moment of startlement, followed by "oh, right, so what?"
The work that would matter is showing better reasoning, better consistency with all the evidence of all types that is available, a better case overall, in support of some different scenario.
And that's the answer to the question I left open above, of what would convince me otherwise. It would be a person or group making a case for a competing scenario, while demonstrating excellent reasoning, scrupulous intellectual honesty (fully acknowledging the weaknesses or uncertainties of any line of evidence including contrary evidence, the logical import of each claim, and any possible source of bias), extensive knowledge of the subject matter, and diligent work using the best possible practices.
It's not done. It has not been attempted. What has been offered instead, for example in the papers of JONES, is sloppy work full of mistakes, full of political ranting that clearly reflects bias, blatant refusal to acknowledge the logical imports of claims, complete omission of contrary evidence, extremely limited use of quantitative methods (with evident mistakes when quantitative methods are attempted), and refusal to correct earlier mistakes in the same line of argument.
And again, I not only can see that that is the case, but I also have a very strong explanatory hypothesis for
why that is the case: because the consensual theory is in fact correct; so therefore honest, thorough, competent investigation leads to the same or substantially similar conclusions; so therefore for an argument to lead to a different conclusion it cannot be thorough, competent, and honest.
Even my imaginary "inside job" sign on the moon wouldn't stop you from spouting your misplaced and ignorant sarcasm. Because you're a believer.
Yeah, here's the thing: what makes you think I, or anyone,
could or should be convinced of anything by
a sign written on the moon? Or really, by anything in the world that a sign written on the moon could be a reasonable metaphor of? A sign on the moon would be
advertising. It would be
vandalism. It would be, maybe, gods or aliens or some James Bond villain ******* around with us. Metaphorically, it could maybe be a dictator's decree or something chanted by a drunk angry mob. Whatever it is,
it's in no way anything close to a reasonable basis for concluding that something is true. And my powers of imagination fail me in even beginning to understand why you or anyone would think otherwise.
When you tell me a sign written on the moon wouldn't get me to believe something, that's a
compliment. (So, thanks!) It's like telling me I wouldn't jump off a cliff even if the message in my fortune cookie told me to. It's like telling me I wouldn't try to eat a tractor even if I'd seen it happen in a dream. It's telling me I'm not completely insane or completely idiotic.
So, thanks again, but maybe you should stop pressing that point. Just a suggestion.
Respectfully,
Myriad
. So?
