Begins: "Never before or after 9/11 have steel framed buildings
collapsed due to fire".
NIST report page xxxv: "This was the first known instance of the total collapse of a tall building primarily due to fires."
in certain ways, having re-read a lot of this for the first time in years, I'm inclined to side with the official explanation more than I used to be. but if one is going to do that, it is dirty pool to argue against what the report itself says in plain English at the same time. NIST engineers did/do consider what happened at WTC7 to be unusual.
& again, a lot appears to be riding on the word "total."
NIST report, also page xxxv, also contradicting a fair amount of what some here have said:
"Since
WTC 7 was not doused with thousands of gallons of jet fuel, large areas
of any floor were not ignited simultaneously. Instead, the fires in
WTC 7 were similar to those that have occurred in several tall buildings
where the automatic sprinklers did not function or were not present. These other buildings did not collapse, while WTC 7 succumbed to its fires."
if you want me to accept the NIST report, you can't ask us to accept facts/reasoning based on one person's reasoning, when the NIST report itself explicitly does not accept those facts or reasoning.
- z