Reply #143: OK I'll leave you over in your place

[AlienSpaceBat]

I think I'm banging my head on a wall with this one.

Arup's hypothesis isn't that the building necessarily collapsed by fire. It's that NISTs hypothesis can't be right, because if NIST had the right theory another factor would have intervened, collapsing the buildings through a different mechanism.

This seems plain enough to me.

One last try, by analogy.

A boat sinks on a lake. NIST investigate and say 'a hole in the bottom of the boat one foot square let water inside. It made the sides of the boat soggy and they collapsed'. I then say 'if there was a hole like that, the boat would have filled with water and sunk before the sides were affected'. I am not saying that this is what happened, but that NIST overlooked something. We all know the boat sank. Just because I make the argument given doesn't mean I agree that there was a hole, or that the boat actually filled with water.