Seems that Gage's "2200 architects and engineers" are having a tough time with that.
Grainger says the fires "would not have been hot enough to sufficiently soften the steel or damage the steel to result in a total collapse of the building." What does that have to do with NIST's expansion hypothesis? Grainger doesn't go beyond his straw-man argument to even attempt to explain what's wrong with that hypothesis; he just declares it impossible.
Grainger claims that "fires have burned longer in similar structures without any collapse." First, name one "similar structure" that sustained a 7-hour unfought fire. And since the NIST "probable cause" hypothesis depends completely on the exact details of the WTC7 structure, don't waste bandwidth with "kinda similar" structures. There are details in that structure that explain how the collapse of column 79 could lead to total collapse, and many of Grainger's colleagues seem to be quite capable of explaining it rather well, yet Grainger seems to be baffled by the very concept. But maybe Grainger just didn't have time in this video to present all the analysis he did to arrive at his flat declaration that it was "impossible," but he's working on a paper to submit to a technical journal? Dream on.
Grainger claims it "doesn't make sense" and "the logic tells you that if you have a single failure at some random point in a building, that the entire building is not going to collapse." What "logic" is that, please? (Hint: "argument from incredulity."
My logic tells me that the NIST hypothesis is perfectly plausible; why can't Grainger's logic tell me where I went wrong? At this point, my logic tells me that Grainger is a first-class bullshitter, but hey, maybe his technical paper will change my mind, huh.
Grainger says we need an "independent" investigation, completely free of any government influence. It's a damn shame, ain't it, that all of Richard Gage's half-million-a-year donations are devoted to raising more money and sending Gage to preach the gospel unto all the lands (well, the nicer ones anyway). Of course, Gage's approach to an "independent investigation" would probably be, "Sentence first -- verdict afterwards," but one might expect some minimal effort toward actually doing something about that petition he keeps asking people to sign. But it is a shame that all of Gage's "experts" are apparently too busy to do an independent investigation of the technical details in the well-established venues, which happens to be reputable technical journals and conferences, not YouTube videos. Or maybe they're just too shy to accept all the fame and fortune that would come from proving their extraordinary claims?
Edit history
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
= new reply since forum marked as read