Reply #55: And again, you're judging Firmage's remarks in the "light" of your own ignorance

[William Seger]

> He could not know, without reading the reports, how reasonable is the assumption that the fires were sufficient to weaken the steel.

That is just absurd. Anyone actually familiar with steel construction would certainly know that fire can weaken columns to the point that they can't carry their load.

> Reading the reports shows that assumption to be highly questionable...

To whom, other than "truthers"? Apparently, is isn't "highly questionable" to the vast majority -- almost unanimous -- of experts.

> ... and thus reasonable only to someone who illogically refuses to consider alternative explanations for the destruction of the towers.

You have yet to explain what was "illogical" or unreasonable about Firmage's comments. And, you won't be able to, because they were perfectly logical and reasonable to anyone who actually knows something about the subject matter. You just want to keep repeating "he didn't read the report" over and over.