@Tim: I know you as a honest guy. Why dont you watch first 20' of the video I posted and see if an Nobel prize winner and couple other scientist together with some other people who witnessed the situation life can provide you with proper credible support?
Five minutes in. Could have skipped this far.
Aftermath of 9/11 has had catastrophic consequences on the world. Accepted.
Violent death=bad. Accepted.
Experts can be found to support most anything. Accepted.
Section one...collapse of WTC 7.
The video refers to the 9/11 Commission Report as if that were the source of "cover up" style explanations. The NIST report is where detailed failure analysis is found. Analysis that has been accepted by the vast majority of architects and engineers despite the several hundred dissenters in the "must be something" movement. No amount of "I watched a video and it looks like a controlled demolition" is going to outweigh actual analysis.
The detailed listing of factors that made the situation at WTC different from any other high rise structure fire are more than sufficient to account for the different result, in my opinion. 99% plus of architects and engineers agree.
Section two...destruction of evidence.
At least now they get around to mentioning that the information they are trying to contradict is the NIST report. Their basic foundation is "the wreckage got treated in an unconventional manner." No kidding. Yes, when the back deck balcony collapses off an apartment building during a party every scrap of wreckage is, by law, collected and analyzed. Yes, crashed planes are reconstructed piece by piece. No, I do not find it conclusive, or even incriminating, that a forty square mile facility was not constructed so these buildings could be painstakingly reconstructed within and analyzed in the typical fashion. This section is basically nonsense dressed up in sensationalism.
Section three...more "lost evidence."
I'm losing patience with the whole thing here Mech. Again, accepted without contest that in some cases testing for explosives residue is called for, and in this case it was not done. However, testing millions of tons of material for residue when explanations are readily available was not warranted, other than to preempt this sort of sensationalized nonsense. The cost of such testing for so dubious a purpose (since no doubt it would have merely reduced the nonsense without really preventing it anyway) wasn't remotely warranted.
I give up. We are back to "there have been similar or worse fires in similar buildings." No. As already discussed, there have not. The fire was very different, as it had multiple points of origin. The combating of the fire was very different, as the resources available were very different, particularly in terms of water use that typically cools things down, even if the fire continues to burn unabated. The building was very different, in that the length of horizontal spans, corresponding directly to the amount of horizontal expansion, was longer than in other buildings exposed to fires. These differences are explained in the NIST report, and ignored, repeatedly rather than disputed. Yet the false claims that this event was "just like" prior events continues to be droned over and over.
So I only made it twelve minutes in, but they are already circling back through the same tired inaccuracies. I appreciate your confidence that I would provide an honest critique, and I apologize for not hanging in the full twenty minutes, but if they had anything new the should have led with it.
