Speaking of quibbling
why shouldn’t the following be seen as a completely reasonable, believable explanation?
NIST Video: Why the Building (WTC7) Fell
The criticisms of this video in the YouTube comments it has attracted are largely apposite (for once).
0.30 A “comprehensive” investigation. But not comprehensive enough to examine any of the available physical evidence, particularly not the steel examined by FEMA in 2002 which had been subjected to a “mysterious” eutectic attack, or follow the court-approved forensic fire investigation codes which naturally demand testing for residue of accelerants as a matter of course in the event of high order damage (which in this case resembled a controlled demolition).
0.45 “A new kind of progressive collapse that we have discovered here.” Remarkable—but this is not the kind of discovery that independent experts are allowed to examine.
0.51 “We have shown for the first time that fire can induce a progressive collapse.” Meaning: we have produced an independently unverifiable computer animation of something that has never happened before and are presenting it as fact.
1.00 “The most complex computer simulation of a structure collapse ever made.” Unverifiable computer simulations, however complex, are not acceptable as evidence in court. The computer animation NIST produced does not represent the whole of the collapse event—and fails to model the key features of the collapse that make it reminiscent of a controlled demolition, such as the horizontal descent of the roofline, and the period of the freefall acceleration. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XujahQ9yNiM
1.27 “The NIST computer model was validated” ...by no independent expert authority and was not subject to peer review.
1.40 “Column 79 is going to buckle” ...in an unvalidated computer animation only, and only if critical structural elements are left out of the analysis. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sz7v8EgCzJM
2.07 “The NIST team found no evidence of explosives.” The NIST team did not look for evidence of explosives. That could have something to do with not finding any. Is this good forensic science?
2.29 “...that sound was not picked up.” NIST imagines that a sufficient exploration of alternative hypotheses is to suppose that high explosive was used to take out the very same column it says buckled, ignoring the fact that this buckling does not in fact produce a sequence of events that accurately models the video evidence of the collapse of the building, however it is said to fail.
On the sole basis that the imaginary high explosive used to do this would make a loud explosion, it rules out the possibility of any accelerants being involved and looks no further.
Of course there were explosions http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ERhoNYj9_fg and of course the leading alternative hypothesis does not involve high explosives. In any case, is it good forensic science to rule out accelerants on the basis that you can’t find audio evidence of explosions after seven years have passed, given that the visual aspect of the video evidence we do have is strongly reminiscent of controlled demolition?
2.48 “A very rare event.” In fact an event that has never happened before or since, despite many fires in steel-framed high-rise buildings that have, of course, not induced total collapse in a manner that resembles a controlled demolition.
All very reasonable and believable? Do you think Occam is on your side here?