Reply #70: You don't understand.

[hack89]

I am looking for an engineering analysis from the 9/11 research community. Don't you think that after four and a half years we can move beyond amateur analysis and google engineering and look at analysis by real engineers? Surely there must be something you can give me besides your opinion?

There have been numerous collapse mechanism suggested by different people and organizations - the comments to the NIST report is a good place to start. You do understand how science works don't you - theories are devised and experiments are conducted. The results are peer reviewed and issues are raised. The theories are revised to reconcile the differences and new experiments are conducted. The NIST report you keep harping on is the just the beginning of the process - it is way premature to say that NIST is wrong or that someone else is right. There's a couple of years of science ahead of us.

The point to take away is that none of the organizations participating in the process disagree that the impact of the planes plus the fires were sufficient to cause the collapse. So on one hand I have the opinion of professional engineers and scientists. On the other I have your lay opinion. Don't you find it puzzling that there is a lack of such analysis from the 9/11 research community?