9/11 Link To Saudi Arabia Is Topic Of 28 Redacted Pages In Government Report; Congressmen Push For R

[Ace Acme]

143. A PhD structural engineer can not refute criticisms of his report and must resort

to ad hominem attack instead, and you find that admirable? Is "I am not a psychologist" an engineering argument? Is "ROFL" good science?

In the technical briefing on the draft WTC7 report in August, 2008, Dr. Sunder denied that any freefall collapse had taken place. And he explained why it could NOT take place. He said: “Free-fall time would be an object that has no structural components below it…. There was structural resistance that was provided in this particular case. And you had a sequence of structural failures that had to take place and everything was not instantaneous.”

In the final report NIST was forced to admit that 2.25 seconds of the collapse was in freefall. They also removed from the final report every instance of the draft's claim that their analysis was "consistent with physical principles". (I sure would have liked to have been a fly on the wall for the discussion about that!)

Regarding the report on the towers, NIST only did half the job. The objective was to explain why and how the towers collapsed. But they claim they did not analyze the collapses! They cut off their analysis at the moment the collapse began, and thus they dodged ALL of the mysteries of the collapses. Is that "the best science"? Is such a dereliction of duty acceptable for a democracy?

There are 78 structural engineers, 40 PhD engineers, and 38 high rise architects among the architects and engineers for truth. They are not paid by the Department of Commerce, as NIST is. Perhaps you should consider that before you assume that they don't know what they're talking about.