Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through
Personally, I find nothing confusing about Frank Greening's engineering analysis; he simply starts from known data and reasons to a conclusion. So far, none of his conclusions have supported any inside job theory, but at times they've pointed to different detailed collapse mechanisms than those modelled by NIST. This would only be confusing to a strictly black-and-white thinker, who believes that either NIST is correct in every detail, or 9/11 was an inside job. I have no problem whatsoever with considering hypotheses that the WTC towers collapsed due to varying different degrees of fire and impact damage, but in a somewhat different way to NIST's conclusions.
The problem here is that truthers have so polarised the debate, by their wild claims that anyone questioning NIST implicitly supports an inside job theory, that debunkers can get a little over-defensive. NIST's results don't need to be exactly correct for controlled demolition theories to be invalid. Since the core of the controlled demolition argument is that the gross features of the towers' collapse could only have been caused by explosives, the existence of any physically reasonable collapse mechanism not involving explosives is a clear refutation, even if that mechanism is not the same in every detail as the actual collapse mechanism.
One reason that the original question may not be getting an answer, by the way, is that the rules here prohibit posting on behalf of a banned member; another is that I suspect Dr. Greening would prefer not to have JREF members claiming to represent his opinions.
Dave
just wanted to make it clear.