Merged New video! Architects and Engineers - Solving the Mystery of Building 7

[Grizzly Bear]

I'd like to suggest it's the education. People inclined to believe in conspiracies who get exposed to the things Gage et al claim will consider their knowledge to be the rule, not the exception. One of the reasons I asked MM to focus some more on the "first in history" line of argument. There's a huge difference between the way Gage and his supporters think and get educated, versus academia and real life experience in the field, and that's the boundary line which defines the difference between how competent professionals think versus someone who got his or knowledge from an unskilled professional. It's less of an "official story vs 9/11 truth" thing, it drives me bat **** when professionals who should know better don't; they have responsibilities in their job descriptions with far broader impacts than just ink on paper yet they are too busy spreading that crap to their followers

 

[Miragememories]

Sigh another long academic lecture poorly disguised as a response to my post.

Preen much?

I'll reply to what I can find in your verbose reply that holds any relevance to my post.

"You tend to go on about things not argued as if this makes a case for what happened.

I have no argument with; progressive collapse, being a legal definition in the professional environment.

But just because the definition exists, does not mean it applies to WTC7.

Likewise, the occurrence of a first time event does not immediately qualify it as proof of the impossible.

Unless, the event is known to be extremely difficult to induce through natural un-aided processes, and the technical explanation for the event is totally lacking in credibility."

"It's the things that you aren't arguing which are the most important, and need to be made clear. You've never asked anything about whether the causes of collapse can be linked to issues of design or current practice, you've skipped it entirely despite acknowledging such issues can influence the results. I'm very thorough about these things for good reason, there's no way around it."

The things that I am not arguing?

Or to state it differently, the things you would rather digress about to avoid the unpleasantness that would come if you focused on the real issues.

I have not addressed the issues of WTC7's design, because I felt that it never departed from other modern concrete and steel NYC office towers enough to suggest that it was a reasonable candidate for the kind of bizarre collapse hypothesized by the NIST.

"The evidence doesn't care about statistics or probability; It doesn't discriminate conclusions based on spontaneous similarities. It either happened or it didn't. If your case indeed proved that there was a controlled demolition it wouldn't be proven because most collapses you've seen on television were engineered, it'd be because the evidence proved it beyond a reasonable doubt. You give plenty of attention to the latter (red), but almost none to the former (blue).

You related my lengthy academic explanations to a bible thumper talking with an atheist, but it's been more like talking technical with someone who knows very little about the topic or hasn't placed any effort into thinking about the issues relevant to it. A good example of this is the use of precedents showing longer burning fires in buildings that didn't collapse, where the designs and accompanying circumstances were entirely dissimilar to those of the WTC."

Okay, you have made it abundantly clear that you have little or no appreciation for statistical improbability.

So rather than argue with you from my incredulity about the NIST's collapse hypothesis for WTC7, I'll stick with the physical flaws in their report.

"The NIST themselves struggled to find a credible way of denying the obvious. You may argue they didn't spend 7 years on the report, but that would not be completely true. They did release a lengthy preliminary report on WTC7 in 2004, so clearly they had been dealing with the subject since 9/11.

The 2004 report was quite interesting, given that the NIST, in the Final Report altered some of their original critical findings (thermal images and shear studs for example) to favor their final collapse hypothesis.

And that is all it is and ever will be, nothing more than a poorly constructed hypothesis.

As an example;

NIST 2004 WTC7 PRELIMINARY REPORT
"Most of the beams and girders were made composite with the slabs through the use of shear studs."

"Typically, the shear studs were 0.75 in. in diameter by 5 in. long, spaced 1 ft to 2 ft on center [apart]."

"Studs were not indicated on the design drawings for many of the core girders."


The NIST, in their 2008 WTC 7 FINAL REPORT, incorporating their previous report's original language where ever possible, chose to make a couple of "edits" to the original 2004 text.

"Most of the beams --- ------- were made composite with the slabs through the use of shear studs."

"Typically, the shear studs were 0.75 in. in diameter by 5 in. long, spaced - -- -- 2 ft on center [apart]."

"Studs were not indicated on the design drawings for ---- -- the core girders."

These are a serious omissions.

All the more so because it clearly establishes that original report material (2004),
was altered without any appendix explanation.

We end up with two critically different translations.


The 2004 original wording undermines the NIST Official Story.

The 2008 edited wording, supports the NIST Official Story.


In effect, we have the NIST saying in 2004, that most of the girders were made composite with the slabs through the use of shear studs. That typically, the shear studs were spaced 1-2 feet apart. And that many of the 'core' girders did not show shear studs in the design drawings.

In 2008, we have the NIST in effect saying, most of the beams, but not most of the girders, were made composite with the slabs through the use of shear studs. That typically, the shear studs were spaced 2 feet apart. And that none of the 'core girders' showed shear studs in the design drawings."

"Changes between the progress release and the final report are hardly surprising. The progress is by it's very nature incomplete and essentially more like a rough draft. The final report needs to reflect clarifications based on the information they were able to obtain, verify, and complete. Pushing nefarious intentions solely on the basis of differences between a draft release and a final release is - to say the least - not enough to prove anything."

Context Grizzly Bear.

The NIST did not re-write, but copied, large portions of the 2004 Preliminary Report, making small but important tweeks where reported fact conflicted with their final hypothesis.

And you are ignoring the fact when the NIST did make changes, they normally noted these alterations as appendix explanations.

In one particularly critical example that I noted, the NIST used the almost identical text from the 2004 Report when referring to the use of shear studs in the design and construction of WTC7.

Shear studs and their relationship to girders was critical to the NIST's hypothesis that thermal expansion was the culprit responsible for the collapse of WTC7.

The subject may sound dull to most readers I'm sure, but I can assure them, it most certainly is not.

In their June 2004 report (and in the actual shop drawings), NIST referred to the use of shear studs in World Trade Center 7. Shear studs are used to keep steel floor beams and girders in place; they impart stability and strength to buildings.

Since you ignored its true significance in your reply to my post, I'll break it down for you.

From the NIST 2004 WTC7 PRELIMINARY REPORT;

"Most of the beams and girders were made composite with the slabs through the use of shear studs." "Studs were not indicated on the design drawings for many of the core girders." Inherent in this statement is: There were studs on all the floor girders.

From the NIST 2008 WTC7 FINAL REPORT;

"Most of the beams and girders were made composite with the slabs through the use of shear studs."

From the NIST 2004 WTC7 PRELIMINARY REPORT;

"Typically, the shear studs were 0.75 in. in diameter by 5 in. long, spaced 1 ft to 2 ft on center [apart]."

From the NIST 2008 WTC7 FINAL REPORT;

"Typically, the shear studs were 0.75 in. in diameter by 5 in. long, spaced 1 ft to2 ft on center [apart]."

From the NIST 2004 WTC7 PRELIMINARY REPORT;

"Studs were not indicated on the design drawings for many of the core girders."

From the NIST 2008 WTC7 FINAL REPORT;

"Studs were not indicated on the design drawings for many of the core girders."


So from the documentation that the NIST already had in their possession for the 2004 Preliminary Report on the Collapse of WTC7, the NIST observed that most of the beams and girders were made composite with the slabs through the use of shear studs. That typically, the shear studs were spaced 1-2 feet apart. And that many of the 'core' girders [but not all], did not show shear studs in the design drawings and that there were studs on all the floor girders.

Though they matched the text of the original Preliminary Report for the most part, in the NIST 2008 FINAL Report on the Collapse of WTC7, the NIST 'deletes' to the original text critically altered the original report to effectively say; that most of the beams but not the girders were made composite with the slabs through the use of shear studs. That typically, the shear studs were spaced the wider 2 feet apart. And that none of the 'core' or 'floor' girders had shear studs in the design drawings.

I contend that the real reason for this deliberate omission lies in the conclusions presented in the NIST WTC7 Final Report;

From NIST_NCSTAR_1-9_vol2_for_public_comment
"Additional factors that contributed to the failure of the critical north-south girder were (1) the absence of shear studs that would have provided lateral restraint."

"Of particular concern are the effects of thermal expansion in buildings with one or more of the following features:
(4) shear studs that could fail due to differential thermal expansion in composite floor systems, and (5) lack of shear studs on girders."

I don't distrust the NIST completely. The majority of the NIST staff, I'm sure are honest, hard working people
whose integrity is not in doubt. Of the hundreds of people associated with the actual investigation into the collapse of WTC7, only a few would be involved in the final document's critical wording.

Those in the NIST administration overseeing this politically sensitive report, would have the final say in how the findings were presented and interpreted.

To be continued.

MM

 

[Grizzly Bear]

The things that I am not arguing?

Or to state it differently, the things you would rather digress about to avoid the unpleasantness that would come if you focused on the real issues.

I have not addressed the issues of WTC7's design, because I felt that it never departed from other modern concrete and steel NYC office towers enough to suggest that it was a reasonable candidate for the kind of bizarre collapse hypothesized by the NIST.

Like it or not a lot of the materials you consider irrelevant are quite the contrary; The issues they involve are very real.

Context Grizzly Bear.

The NIST did not re-write, but copied, large portions of the 2004 Preliminary Report, making small but important tweeks where reported fact conflicted with their final hypothesis.

And you are ignoring the fact when the NIST did make changes, they normally noted these alterations as appendix explanations.

I'm reading your breakdown again and I'm still not seeing a significant enough change to raise concern. In particular, these:

From the NIST 2004 WTC7 PRELIMINARY REPORT;

"Most of the beams and girders were made composite with the slabs through the use of shear studs." "Studs were not indicated on the design drawings for many of the core girders." Inherent in this statement is: There were studs on all the floor girders.

...

"Most of the beams and girders were made composite with the slabs through the use of shear studs."

As you pointed out context is everything and you are dealing with the draft report versus the final. As available information changes, conclusions will change and so will the wording to conform. What's imperative if you're drawing a comparison between the two is whether or not the information taken from the design drawings is accurate as represented by the report, most especially in the final.

From the NIST 2004 WTC7 PRELIMINARY REPORT;

"Typically, the shear studs were 0.75 in. in diameter by 5 in. long, spaced 1 ft to 2 ft on center [apart]."

From the NIST 2008 WTC7 FINAL REPORT;

"Typically, the shear studs were 0.75 in. in diameter by 5 in. long, spaced 1 ft to2 ft on center [apart]."

They made a statement of what a typical structural condition would look like, and changed it to what the as-builts showed. Accuracy requires looking at the building documentation; it's pretty clear to me what they did here. There's a few different standard configurations that can be used in stud framing, and I dealt with this sort of thing while building my university's steel-frame house for a competition. Many contractors, including the NIST have a general idea of what a typical large building uses, but the drawings allow them to state it categorically.

From the NIST 2004 WTC7 PRELIMINARY REPORT;

"Studs were not indicated on the design drawings for many of the core girders."

From the NIST 2008 WTC7 FINAL REPORT;

"Studs were not indicated on the design drawings for many of the core girders."

Proof-reading and confirmed information from the building documentation. You do this kind of editing in virtually every academic paper you write. I didn't stop editing my masters project after I ironed out all the research kinks. I spent hours proof-reading and changing any wording that either didn't satisfy me, or proved unneeded to get my point across. I see nothing different out of this excerpt.

Again as you pointed out context is everything. Professional reports are expected to be concise and letter perfect. The NIST report is no exception, it's publishing information to a professional community and it needs to communicate extremely well.

I contend that the real reason for this deliberate omission lies in the conclusions presented in the NIST WTC7 Final Report;

From NIST_NCSTAR_1-9_vol2_for_public_comment
"Additional factors that contributed to the failure of the critical north-south girder were (1) the absence of shear studs that would have provided lateral restraint."

"Of particular concern are the effects of thermal expansion in buildings with one or more of the following features:
(4) shear studs that could fail due to differential thermal expansion in composite floor systems, and (5) lack of shear studs on girders.

With everything said already, your best bet for levying criticism against the accuracy of the report is to look at the information they based their changes on. You'd need to get a copy of the design drawings to cross check. Honestly I'm not sure how you get them short of asking a professional consultant or firm if they can look into it. As far as what I've read and can interpret, the changes you highlight related to differences between understanding what details are typical of a building constructed similarly, versus the as-built. They can be two completely different things.

I'll await your continuation.

 

[grandmastershek]

When truthers present arguments like these it only illustrates their total unfamiliarity with research & the corresponding writing. Anyone who has ever written a study in any field knows that there will be small & large changes, things will be reworded, emphasized, and de-emphasized. Just another unwitting demonstration of ignorance.

 

[Miragememories]

"Yes, you are right that "it was the first time in history that planes were used as an instrument of a suicide attack on a large skyscraper", but that is irrelevant to WTC7, as is your digression about the WTC Twin Towers.

It is significant that you pay so little attention to the fire behavior in WTC7, especially since the NIST hypothesis is dependent on that behavior.

Another example of the NIST misrepresentation is shown in this set of images. The thermal display on the left is an accurate representation of the critical floor 12 fire at 2:00 p.m. as seen in the middle photo. The thermal image on the right is what the NIST depicted as an accurate representation for the same time and location.

"

"Does the former (AE911's) take into consideration more than just externally visible flames? Do they disclose this information? I'm not demanding that they provide proprietary information from the original model, but I am curious to know what variables they included information on. For example the NIST report indicates incorporating a combination of estimated fuel loads, enclosure conditions and photographic information from the exterior. I can only make a judgement on the validity based on a complete understanding about the information they accounted for when making the model conform to the photographs. Photography of external visible flames after all doesn't provide all of the information that dictates what we can't view directly."

The NIST repeatedly stated that they frequently relied on observed fire to determine data. Throughout the report, they will state fire conditions and show photographs to substantiate their observations.

Of all their photographs, the photograph above shows the most intense fire activity.

Yet in their thermographic display for that location and time, it would appear that the fire was non-existent. That is quite serious given the NIST's reliance on an accurate computer model.

Using thermographic evidence to make a case when the empiric visual evidence only shows the thermography to be dead wrong, seriously discredits the basis for the NIST's fire-based conclusions.

Looking at your casual dismissal of Dr. Greening's criticism of the NIST's fuel loading estimates, it is evident that you are going to continually fall back on a 'faith-based' argument regardless of how damning any presented proofs are.

I'm talking about this kind of nonsense;

"I'm only marginally familiar with Greening's comments. But I will say that there are several institutions which have have critiques the report in a similar manner to Greening's objection to the fuel loads.

That doesn't necessarily mean NIST's conclusions are wrong, but that as a result of the over-estimations, they overlooked an alternative problem that leads to the same causes.

These have more of an effect of code recommendations delivered from the conclusions of the report more than anything else.

At the moment, I'm not informed enough on the existing building codes to offer a worthwhile comment on their implications."

George W. Bush couldn't have stumbled through a meaningless response any better.

MM

 

[triforcharity]

You mean that Chris Sarns (the carpenter) knows more about people who study fire science and have advanced degrees? Seriously? You're putting your faith in a carpenter over a fire protection engineer........

I bet you'll be ok with a plumber doing cardiovascular surgery too eh?

 

[Miragememories]

You mean that Chris Sarns (the carpenter) knows more about people who study fire science and have advanced degrees? Seriously? You're putting your faith in a carpenter over a fire protection engineer........

I bet you'll be ok with a plumber doing cardiovascular surgery too eh?

Are you attacking the person or the argument?

MM

 

[leftysergeant]

Are you attacking the person or the argument?

It is utterly valid to point out that Sarns is nuts and untrained in any applicable field of science that would warrant taking his word over that of, say, your typical FDNY hose dragger in re what to expect when a steel-framed building catches fire.

 

[Miragememories]

"Are you attacking the person or the argument?"

It is utterly valid to point out that Sarns is nuts and untrained in any applicable field of science that would warrant taking his word over that of, say, your typical FDNY hose dragger in re what to expect when a steel-framed building catches fire.

<SNIP>

Edited by kmortis: 

Removed personal comment

My feeling is that if a person presents a rational argument bolstered by undeniable evidence, then it does not matter if the subject is one they are not schooled in.

You appear to have no qualms expressing your strong opinions on many subjects for which I'm sure you lack professional qualifications, leftysergeant.

Or is hypocrisy something you have no problem with?

MM

 

[leftysergeant]

My feeling is that if a person presents a rational argument bolstered by undeniable evidence, then it does not matter if the subject is one they are not schooled in.

So when can we expect Sarns to start?

You appear to have no qualms expressing your strong opinions on many subjects for which I'm sure you lack professional qualifications, leftysergeant.

I have professional qualifications to address fire investigations and aircraft crashes, and some experience in construction work.

I also know quite a bit more about military science than most of the 9/11 whactards. I also know more about domestic terrorism and the organizations that tie seemingly disparrate groups together. The twoof movemnt stinks to high heaven of the Organization. Look where the the known racists on this forum fall in regarding 9/11. Given historical precedent, can we expect accurate science out of any of them?

Even chucklenuts Jones has cozied up to known Nazi liars to get his message out.

 

[OCaptain]

No the actor is a long time active in the 911truth organisation.

But i dont like those little critical points, just i like said to the others, why you dont have those little critical points when nist came with their reports.

Because NIST was a scientific effort that did not enlist celebrities and emotional music designed to sway public opinion.

AE9/11Truth did, however.

 

[beachnut]

Over 1500 nuts who can't do engineering, do moronic videos. Definition of eternal sleep ... asking 911 truth followers to wake you up when A&E get a Pulitzer for this video.

The video says thermite; no thermite found. Not a single piece of evidence with thermite product on it. There was no melted steel, yet the video claims they have evidence of melted steel and they SHOW a corroded piece of steel; the corrosion done well below the melting point of steel.
Kevin Ryan says thermite made the fires burn for months. An insane claim. AE have a video which proves they are morons, and will not be exposing a great conspiracy, only AE are idiots on 911 issues.

Over 1500 nuts, less then 0.1 percent of engineers and architects.

When all else fails, use Ed Asner and expose his failure to realize Gage is a fraud. Poor Ed, I did not know he was an idiot when it comes to science. Where do they find actors that stupid? Is there a Stupid Actor Guild?

When most of 911 truth is in reruns, is someone trying to beat Gage at spreading new moronic nonsense? Gage, has simple failed chemistry, and hides behind hearsay, the failed thermite delusion. If Gage is not crazy enough, step up to fantasy physics... http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=222025

 

[Grizzly Bear]

The NIST repeatedly stated that they frequently relied on observed fire to determine data. Throughout the report, they will state fire conditions and show photographs to substantiate their observations.

Never downplayed the need for photographic documentation; it's valuable information. I stated that any simulation model generated requires more than just photographs. Computer generated models require more input than that. I'm asking, did AE911 use solely photographs or did they supplement photographic evidence with other data to get a more realistic fire model?

Yet in their thermographic display for that location and time, it would appear that the fire was non-existent. That is quite serious given the NIST's reliance on an accurate computer model.

Using thermographic evidence to make a case when the empiric visual evidence only shows the thermography to be dead wrong, seriously discredits the basis for the NIST's fire-based conclusions.

If AE911 used only photographic input to model their simulations, I'd have more serious doubts about their integrity than I would about NIST's. NIST repeatedly notes in their report that photographs provide only visual data on fires near the exterior, in other words it's not complete data. This is a factual statement, photographs DO NOT show the progress of fires inside the building. They need to model how the fires are expected to behave on the interior as well which requires model inputs on estimated fuel loads to more accurately measure the effects of the fires on the structure. Estimations result in errors; combining estimations still results in divergences but renders them more accurately when trying to measure the impact on a structure.

If all AE911 used is photography, and only photography as I suspect then they got a pretty model that tries to debunk NIST by omitting other inputs. If you're going to talk with anyone on the evil's of omission I hope you're prepared to tackle that matter with your own sources.

Looking at your casual dismissal of Dr. Greening's criticism of the NIST's fuel loading estimates

I didn't dismiss him. I stated quite clearly that his opinions can carry weight by opening an alternative hypothesis for the collapse initiation. But as far I'm concerned, his critique on the fuel loads does little to sway me into believing that the ultimate conclusion his critiques needs to be controlled demolition. In fact, even if I took his critique at face value, the evidence suggesting the conclusion you want to advance are non-existent. I'd be more interested if his critiques ultimately lead to another weakness in the WTC 7 construction that the NIST overlooked.

it is evident that you are going to continually fall back on a 'faith-based' argument regardless of how damning any presented proofs are.

You're damning proofs so far have been tiny edits fully expected to take place between a draft and a final report. Your other damning "proof" thus far has been an over simplification of the engineering mechanics of the collapse, a completely unrealistic view of what modeling can or cannot accomplish, and a general ignorance of design based practices.

I'm talking about that kind of nonsense. I have to weigh in on inherent flaws with the "official" report versus the people who are critiquing it. I'm willing to accept an alternative idea for the collapse but controlled demolition is categorically not supported among those alternatives because it's been show for years to be based on the nonsense I highlighted both above and in every lengthy post I've responded to you with.

My feeling is that if a person presents a rational argument bolstered by undeniable evidence, then it does not matter if the subject is one they are not schooled in.
MM

I agree. It's the reason I focus on the quality of AE911 member's research, demonstration of knowledge, and claims rather than the pieces of paper or text on a screen that tell me what college they've graduated from. Chris Sarns neither has the evidence nor the independent study in the relevant topics to qualify as an authority. And I place AE911truth in the same category.

 

[tfk]

Are you attacking the person or the argument?

MM

I'll attack the argument.

Why don't you address the fact that Sarns pulled 99% of his graph right out of his keister.

He knows 1 thing: photos of fire at the windows, i.e., at the outer extremity of visible sides of the building. A thin strip of data.

Every other detail of his "fire map" was concocted in his imagination.


tk

 

[grandmastershek]

Are you attacking the person or the argument?

MM

This is the reason why we have the peer review process, so anyone can submit research and no one can argue credentials and no can hide behind them. Meanwhile you can subscribe to the ramblings of someone because its on the internet.

 

[triforcharity]

Are you attacking the person or the argument?

MM

His junk science.

 

[MetalPig]

"Your kind" = Truthers.

I used the 'your kind' line once and the truther went on a derail about evolution

 

[kmortis]

Keep it civil and on topic. The topic is not ever the other posters.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: kmortis

 

[Miragememories]

"Changes between the progress release and the final report are hardly surprising. The progress is by it's very nature incomplete and essentially more like a rough draft. The final report needs to reflect clarifications based on the information they were able to obtain, verify, and complete. Pushing nefarious intentions solely on the basis of differences between a draft release and a final release is - to say the least - not enough to prove anything."

Is your alleged participation in this discussion nothing more than a ruse?

If so, please forgive my naiveté in trusting you to be honest and sincere.

You've already dismissed the importance of the NIST removing critical text from a previously proofread report (2004) by suggesting it (the 2008 report) did so as part of a final proofreading, and that you couldn't see the seriousness in the changes anyway.

Changes that conveniently removed obstacles from the NIST final hypothesis.

If I stop replying to you it will be because you are too disingenuous to bother with.

"Another example of the NIST misrepresentation is shown in this set of images. The thermal display on the left is an accurate representation of the critical floor 12 fire at 2:00 p.m. as seen in the middle photo. The thermal image on the right is what the NIST depicted as an accurate representation for the same time and location.

"

"The NIST repeatedly stated that they frequently relied on observed fire to determine data. Throughout the report, they will state fire conditions and show photographs to substantiate their observations.

Of all their photographs, the photograph above shows the most intense fire activity."

"Never downplayed the need for photographic documentation; it's valuable information. I stated that any simulation model generated requires more than just photographs. Computer generated models require more input than that. I'm asking, did AE911 use solely photographs or did they supplement photographic evidence with other data to get a more realistic fire model?"

Do you wish to recite from your textbook or engage in the discussion?

The image I provided above is a dramatic example of the NIST's failure to back up their computer modeled fire scenario with empiric evidence. In this case, the empiric evidence (photograph of the same time and location) totally contradicts the NIST model.

This is not a case of the model requiring additional data. The model bears absolutely no resemblance to reality.

"Yet in their thermographic display for that location and time, it would appear that the fire was non-existent. That is quite serious given the NIST's reliance on an accurate computer model.

Using thermographic evidence to make a case when the empiric visual evidence only shows the thermography to be dead wrong, seriously discredits the basis for the NIST's fire-based conclusions."

"...NIST repeatedly notes in their report that photographs provide only visual data on fires near the exterior, in other words it's not complete data. This is a factual statement, photographs DO NOT show the progress of fires inside the building...."

More of your stating the obvious (of course photographs provide visual data).

What you've ignored, is that the photograph does show the state of the fires at the east side exterior of WTC7 on the critical 12th floor.

You've also ignored the fact, that the NIST's fire model shows absolutely no fire activity occurring at that location at that time.

"Looking at your casual dismissal of Dr. Greening's criticism of the NIST's fuel loading estimates, it is evident that you are going to continually fall back on a 'faith-based' argument regardless of how damning any presented proofs are.

"...as far I'm concerned, his critique on the fuel loads does little to sway me into believing that the ultimate conclusion his critiques needs to be controlled demolition....I'd be more interested if his critiques ultimately lead to another weakness in the WTC 7 construction that the NIST overlooked."

In other words, you stand by the NIST hypothesis regardless of how damning any contrary evidence might be.

When the evidence proves you and the NIST to be wrong, then your answer is that there must be yet-to-be-uncovered evidence that proves you right.

"...Chris Sarns neither has the evidence nor the independent study in the relevant topics to qualify as an authority. And I place AE911truth in the same category."

In effect, you place your opinions and obedience to the NIST hypothesis, above those of the over 1,600 architects and engineers who endorse AE911Truth with their real names and real reputations.

You are not even attempting to have a discussion, you are bible thumping.

MM

 

[leftysergeant]

It doesn't matter how many times you re-post that whacktard's version of what the fires were doing. He knows bugger-all about fire science.