Posted: May 05, 2010 2:26 pm
econ41 wrote:PJG wrote:
My evidence:
"The challenge was to determine if a fire-induced floor system failure could occur in WTC7 under an ordinary building contents fire".
NIST NCSTAR 1-9:331
That is why I claim NIST had a predetermined conclusion into which they had to shoehorn evidence - my evidence is there in black and white in the NIST report. Are you going to claim this indicates anything other than a predetermined outcome or are you going to apologise for this:.....
Context.
Context.
Context.
You persist in taking key elements out of the context of the sequence of analysis PJG. Get the sequence and context correct:
Analysis steps 1 to n shows clearly that there was no demolition ( and no evidence of unexpected fires to cover your recent several weeks side tracking.) Status: dozens of interlocking and mutually supporting items of evidence - versus BTW your possible one element of anomalous evidence.
Analysis step n+1...since the evidence says no demolition the collapse must have been by fire induced structural mechanisms but we ain't clear what it was.
Analysis Step n+2...since lots of people are interested in why - across the spectrum from genuinely interested professionals to outright dishonest truthers and all shades between - so "...The challenge was to determine if a fire-induced floor system failure could occur in WTC7 under an ordinary building contents fire".
So your falsely based question fails..."Are you going to claim this indicates anything other than a predetermined outcome..." because, read properly in context, it does not indicate a predetermined outcome in the sense you mean rather that the "no demolition" outcome had been reached legitimately before the structural details were known. The "no demolition" case does not rest on the detailed mechanism.
So your implied insult also fails: "...or are you going to apologise for this:....."
Quote mining at its worst anyone?
You are kidding, right?