Tch Tch Tch
Jazz,
Your response regarding the evidential basis for any theory seems a little confused, and it may be helpful if I briefly return to basics.
In investigating any phenomenon, scientific or otherwise, the principles are well established. We assemble the evidence and analyse it to an appropriate level. We then test our hypetheses, or theories, against the evidence and select that explains and supports the evidence most comprehensively. You will also be aware of tests such as Occam's Razor.
What we do not do is start with a hypothesis and then cherry pick evidence to suit our predetermined starting point.
Now when we look at WTC, NIST identified a significant - many of us would say overwhelming - body of evidence which supports their findings. We know the planes hit, and we know that there was immediate damage to the loadbearing envelope. We know that there were severe fires. We know that the external structure buckled and failed, leading to collapse.
If we look at alternative hyptheses, we see nothing like this level of evidence. For example the only physical evidence of explosives is the photographs of the so-called squibs, however these in turn can be attributed to other (simpler) failure mechanisms. There are no remains of chargers. There is no evidence of placement of material. There is no evidence of the means of detonation.
Therefore this theory is not supported by the actual evidence and no amount of hand-waving and vague reference to qui bono will suffice to make it the most plausible explanation.
Now this basic scientific premise is neither new or unique; it underpins scientific and rational thought throughout the World, including higher education.
I therefore challenge you: if you have substantive evidence which will outweigh the highly detailed NIST findings then bring it forward in a comprehensive, measured manner which we can then discuss.
If you do not have such evidence then I have to ask how you arrived with such certainty at your conclusions?
Now, lets turn to Fire Engineering which you imply supports the accusations of nefarious Government wrong doing at WTC. For those unfamiliar with it, there are two relevant articles.
Copies of the first can be found at:
http://fe.pennnet.com/Articles/Arti...n=Display&PUBLICATION_ID=25&ARTICLE_ID=130026
Now if we read the article, we see that the complaint is actually over issues such as resourcing of firefighting in tall buildings, the risk posed by lightweight trusses, inadequately robust historic fireproofing, poor radio communication, and concerns over the "defend in place" strategy.
The second, and the one you show greatest interest in, states:
Rather, theory has it, the subsequent contents fires attacking the questionably fireproofed lightweight trusses and load-bearing columns directly caused the collapses in an alarmingly short time.
Most damingly, given your accusation that it is a smoking gun, the article then directly refers back to the very issues raised in the first article!
http://fe.pennnet.com/Articles/Arti...n=Display&PUBLICATION_ID=25&ARTICLE_ID=131225
Even if we do consider the Fire Engineering article to be relevent, we have to set it against the context of other relevant professional papers. I see no mention in you post of (for example) the Sheffield University paper. Or the Edinburgh University and OveArup alternative models. If you are serious about analysing evidence and arriving at informed view, you should already have these to hand. Do you?
I shall await your reply with interest.
