Data About 9/11 I'd really like to see...

Originally posted by thedman
Also what experience do you have in fire science or structural engineering
to make such a conclusion?

Speak for yourself. Structural engineers aren't even the relevant experts for what you're asking.

But it's true WTC7's fires were not amongst the worst skyscraper fires by any means. It was a bunch of isolated pockets of fire, and there aren't even many photos showing much flame in the building. It was mostly just smoking and smoldering. And most of the smoke behind WTC7 was coming from WTC4, 5, and 6, too, not all from WTC7 like some people try to put on.

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by jthomas
No, you are going to tell us why it should be

No, first you are going to admit this data isn't there.

Then we can talk about whether or not it "should be."

That makes no sense whatsoever. You claim it's not there. I am asking you to demonstrate why it should be there and, if so, does it invalidate the conclusions by not being there.

You won't tell us.

reply to post by jthomas


No, I will gladly tell you why it should be there, but you are such a weasel, I know you will just start claiming I haven't demonstrated it isn't there.

So, you said you've read parts of the WTC7 report. Show me where this conservation of energy analysis I'm talking about is. Or admit it isn't there. Very simple.

You are proving why the NIST WTC7 report is a joke, and those who try to defend it, can't do it seriously.

Originally posted by bsbray11
reply to post by jthomas

 

No, I will gladly tell you why it should be there,....

I'm all ears. Proceed.

Originally posted by jthomas

Originally posted by bsbray11
No, I will gladly tell you why it should be there,....

I'm all ears. Proceed.

Please read the rest of my post.

Thanks.