Harry
As it is no-doubt obvious to all, I have no expertise in the specialized area of disaster analysis or hi-rise engineering, and have only witnessed demolitions on TV, therefore, I can only pass-on what I have read and studied. Sure, I have a high level of interest and have read extensively on this - but have fully disounted 95% of the "conspriracy theories" as being absolute bunko - not even worthy of comment -- and yet there remains a big gap in what we should know. I have tried to evaluate the gap which remains and the conflicting arguments based on everything else I have learned over the years; but will quickly defer to an expert finding from the lab. It is much easier to spot certain "red flags" and lapses of illogic - high-level meddling or the hints of political interference - from a mile away. That is precisely what I am seeing here, and why I am so adamant that we need trustworthy lab results from an independent, non-political source - not misleading "computer simulations" from bureaucrats "under orders"- and obviously trying to cover their collective arses. That reliance on the lab is primarily why I support both LENR and the hydrino - since the results are lab-based and replicated; ergo even when results go against theory - "results rule" and theory must be eventually changed to accommodate results. That is also why I believe there is a connection between LENR and the hydrino - but that is another unrelated story. I say "unrelated" - even if jokingly with Nick - it was agreed that there does seem to be a source of "additional" energy here. But again, lab results rule; and Dr Steven Jones has done rigorous and complete testing of samples in his very sophisticated lab. NIST has done nada, zip, zero to counter his argument. Why not? SJ found thermite as the extra energy source, and probably lots of it. He also found evidence that it was so-called "nano-thermite" which is probably the real reason that NIST does not to touch this subject. It may surprise many of us, that at the top echelon of NIST there are a few scientists who did not participate in this study at all ! and yet are considered to be the top experts in the world on "nano-thermite" -- which is apparently a highly controlled explosive, and is usually only available through military sources. But let's don't even go there. Yet. > Metal fatigue can cause an airplane to crash but this wasn't fully appreciated by the aircraft industry until the Comet disaster. Yes. That is true, but metal fatigue was quickly discovered and rectified 50 years ago for airploanes - and moreover is a problem with some aluminum alloy, but not the same kind of factor with steel. > Is it so inconceivable that thermal expansion in conjunction with the design of tower 7 caused the collapse? Not at all. It is highly conceivable - and in fact it could be the most logical explanation - and most of us would accept it as accurate - had not there been a steady history of hi-rise fires over the years which did not fail - and had there not been the UL evaluation of this particular steel, for this exact same kind of scenario, and certified it as being capable of surviving a much hotter fire than what jet fuel could produce. Which evidence -- by the way, when presented to NIST resulted in a politically motivated illegal firing, which itsefl should be rectified by the judicial system some day. Please look at the similar hi-rise fire in Madrid in 2005 which burned out-of-control for 24 hours but did not fail, or another fire in a Venezuelan skyskraper which did not fail. Not steel hi-rise has ever failed due to fire, in fact. http://www.infowars.com/articles/world/madrid_towering_inferno.htm and dozens of other reports.... These cannot be ignored. Jones
