On Dec 14, 2:27*am, riverman wrote:
I hear you, Joe. I'm not sure where the boundary is between 'rational
hypothesis' and 'conspiracy science"

I'll take a stand and say it's somewhere between accepting the
possibility that explosives on site for other purposes may have
contributed to the collapse of WTC7..and..believing that it came down
as a result of explosives placed there for that purpose.

That said, and acknowledging my total lack of knowledge about spook
stuff, I have serious reservations that any fail safe detonation would
be of sufficient power or fortuitous placement to cause catastrophic
failure of a structure like WTC7. Absent conclusive evidence to the
contrary, I suppose it must remain in the set of possible outcomes,
but color me very skeptical.


My last point: you state that "The FEMA report presents a "probable"
failure mechanism that is substantiated by myriad known facts and
evidence" and I counter that FEMA itself says it is far from
substantiated.

The facts to which I referred were the known structural design of the
building, the severity and locations of the fires, the the effects of
fire on structural steel, the known damage to the structure, and the
known failure scenarios given various initiating events.

Think about that last sentence: they don't know. There's no other
conclusion possible, other than that they know and cannot (or will
not) tell.

There are more than one plausible scenario based on science and
engineering. I can't jump on the CT bandwagon just because we don't
know which one is correct. The probability of either specific
hypothesis may be low, but the probability that it's among the group
of hypotheses presented is considerably better.

Joe F.