[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but if they want to add something to the discussion, why not deal in facts and science.

[/ QUOTE ]

see this article by prof. David Griffin for a scientic, factual analysis of the collapses, and of the theories of collapse from the NIST, FEMA an 9/11 comission reports.

I warn you it's long, but if you want to see facts and science you shouldnt be bothered by that.

[/ QUOTE ]
Read the article. I really wouldn't call it factual or scientific. He obviously has an agenda and does a lot of A to B to Z logic to fit his claims. I'll give you one example where he talks about a sampling of 1% of the core and 3% of the perimeter steel beams showing low temp. fire damage. He then concludes that there was insufficient damage to the steel to cause the collapse. Hardly a proper scientific sampling to draw conclusions from on many levels. Found the article quite entertaining.

[/ QUOTE ]

EDIT: the following quote is from the article

"NIST (2005) says that it “did not generalize these results, since the examined columns represented only 3 percent of the perimeter columns and 1 percent of the core columns from the fire floors”. That only such a tiny percent of the columns was available was due, of course, to the fact that government officials had most of the steel immediately sold and shipped off. In any case, NIST’s findings on the basis of this tiny percent of the columns are not irrelevant: They mean that any speculations that some of the core columns reached much higher temperatures would be just that---pure speculation not backed up by any empirical evidence."

Funny. It seems like the author and you agree on not drawing conclusions on too small sample sizes.

I would still be interested to hear from you, from your fire-prevention expertise, how the fire in building 7 caused it to implode in the way it did.

Marnix

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't understand what your problem is with Build. 7 collapsing. Do you not think that damage done by debris and a fire that was burning all day was enough to bring it down? The author of that article refers a lot to eyewitness testimony. Anything that supports his calims is the truth and anything that doesn't, he dismisses with someone else's account. I.E the extent of damge to the strucure and the size of the fire inside. Was it one floor, ten floors etc. A timeline of the eyewitnesse accounts could help shed some light on the discrepencies.
As for the steel beam samples, like in real estate, its location, location, location. Where were the samples taken from? You can have extensive, catastophic damage in one area but not another.