Is your alleged participation in this discussion nothing more than a ruse?
No, I'm seriously pointing out that the changes you allege to be done as a convenience to the reports' conclusions are in fact normal for a report that requires extensive research.
I assumed while writing my response that you had some sort of experience writing a dissertation but that appears to have been a misconception on my part. You apparently must not. My experience writing a thesis project is that research is ongoing and if information changes or the accuracy of the information requires me to correct assumptions made before. My conclusions by consequence change because I did the research, not because I was trying to fit it to a prebuilt framework.
I specifically told you that the accuracy of the information in the final report is the important part; it's an engineering investigation. It requires as-built documentation to reflect accurately, this isn't guaranteed in a draft report because that research is ongoing.
You tell me; how simplified does the explanation need to be for you to understand the basic concept?
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 you can show that the accuracy of the information reflected in the changes contradicts whats actually on the
as-built drawings of the building, we'll have a solid conversation. But if you're definition of fraud appears to be nothing more than a few proof-reading changes, and to boot you have repeatedly failed to back up your accusations to show they were made with malign intent. I told you how you could back them up if your assertions hold weight, try going through the effort.
More of your stating the obvious (of course photographs provide visual data).
Read: anything happening out of view, for example behind a wall, or deeper inside the building is not seen. It's incomplete 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.
Models incorporate both real and estimated data to achieve results that aren't visually or experimentally measurable. Photographs help improve the accuracy, but the models themselves will not replicate reality. Anyone who tries to force fit it by relying only on
one input - in this case photographs - for the model simulation, is carelessly throwing out 95% of viable accuracy.
Models are as much affected by the accuracy of their inputs as they are by the lack of inputs considered. You're condoning sub-standard modeling, and have no familiarity with the practical applications of it in the first place.
In other words, you stand by the NIST hypothesis regardless of how damning any contrary evidence might be.
I'll stand by the theory which can back up its evidence with competent research. As I've pointed out throughout the length of our exchange controlled demolition is supported by nothing more than appeals to authority, spontaneous similarity, and the pseudo scientific practices which you accuse your critics of practicing. It's difficult to communicate this to a proponent of controlled demolition for reasons
I outlined here.
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.
So this all boils down to name and reputation huh? If Gage is putting his name and reputation on the line you can care less if his claims are credible? That sounds a lot like the "faith" you were discussing earlier. I suppose if you define your use of the term "bible thumper" against me as placing accuracy, credibility, demonstrated knowledge, professionalism, and established evidence ahead of religion I'll take your use of the term as a complement.
