Reply #14: Not good enough

[Kevin Fenton]

It is not enough to merely post links, it is necessary to understand and be able to discuss the content of the links. The studies you cite are all contradictory (for example they can't agree on how many columns were severed in which core); therefore, they cannot all be right - NIST itself modeled three cases; in two of them the towers did not collapse - why should anyone believe that the case in which the towers collapsed was the right one, especially when its input variables were demonstrably inaccurate?

As for the collapse mechanisms proposed by engineers, for example:
(1) Eagar's angle clips theory has been publicly repudiated by other engineers. If other engineers think it's no good, then why should I pay any attention to it?
(2) Greening doesn't even know how much the towers weigh or that they had a hat truss (or even which way round the South Tower's core was). If he doesn't know the first thing about the towers, why should I pay any attention to him?

"Many engineers have shown several collapse mechanisms"
Yes, that's because they can't agree. The reason they can't agree is that there isn't a "right" answer - if there was, they would have found it by now. If the entire engineering community doesn't have a problem with it, then why isn't there anything like a consensus on the failure mode?

"All you are left with is an unproven conspiracy of massive proportions to quite the entire world's engineering community."
You appear to be expressing the belief that the WTC collapse is relevant to all engineers throughout the world and that they are all acquainted with the various theories. Please quantify the percentage of engineers who, in your opinion, work on high-rise buildings and for whom the NIST report is relevant.

"Massive weight and gravity"
Please quantify. The adjective "massive" is insufficient.

If you don't know how much impact damage there was, then how can you know it was adequate to cause the collapse?