Rather telling wording. They basically are saying they are already convinced of these things, and they just want to convince other people. This is not the way science works. They should be trying to determine if the NIST hypothesis is plausible or not, and not setting out with the assumption that it is not.
Agreed - all five points you make Mick.
From numerous observations of T Szamboti's reasoning - and several direct interactions with him - I suggest the situation is:
1) AE911 is using T Szamboti's expertise as the technical foundation for their claims;
2) T Sz's reasoning is flawed at several levels including technical and "bigger picture" logical;
3) His technical focus is on the girder walk-off hypothesis for "initiation". He claims it couldn't happen - then claims that since the single detail is wrong the whole of NIST's explanation is wrong;
4) His arguments have been countered and arguably falsified at detail level on other forums. By engineers (mostly) working within the limited context T Sz assumes. viz - Temperature affects only the girder and directly involved beams and assumes that thee remainder of the structure remains in pristine condition - specifically that the gap between columns does not alter due to heat effects. IMO a "bold" assumption in a fire ravaged building. Whether that context is legit or not engineers have allegedly falsified his claims within his own context. (Too far back in memory for me to be more certain - I was confident they were right at the time but cannot be so assured at this time - hence my professional conservatism.)
5) I and a few supporters have challenged the assumption of "pristine" conditions - I took the purist path of arguing that, since he has not proved his assumption, his claim is not made out.
6) I have made T Sz aware of that criticism and he resorted to PA insults. But has not addressed the criticism.
7) If we move to the "bigger picture" issues the Szamboti claim - and the same claim echoed by the Pepper letter and presumably underpinning this latest AE911 initiative - he assumes wrongly that all of the NIST explanation fails if the detail of the initiation by "girder walk-off" fails. Not so. Even if "girder walk-off" is wrong the remainder - most - of the NIST explanation holds. There can be little doubt that EPH fell>>so col 79 an surrounding structures fell. The "girder walk-off" suggestion is plausible. As also is Jeffrey Orling's Transfer Truss Failing hypothesis. I do not assert TTF as strongly as Jeffrey but his concept is plausible.
Bottom line is that most of NIST's explanation is robust AND does not depend on the specific detail of initiation.
So what does this mean for the AE911 initiative to do more modelling?
If they intend physical models of girder walk-off - modelling only the girder and adjacent structures to support the T Sz hypothesis:
A) The technical context is wrong; AND
B) If they correct the false context assumed by Szamboti it will not be practical to physically model more of WTC7 - IMO not even plausible to build a physical model
Much the same for computer models. If they replicate the Szamboti limited context model - their results and method can be easily falsified.
If they attempt to computer model the whole scenario they will face the massive resourcing challenges that NIST faced. And leaving aside any malicious/mendacious intent - it is one very big job. I doubt they can do it. Even if they could how could it "prove" NIST was wrong? Other than in a detail of dubious significance?
Still, it would be interesting to see if they actually come up with anything.
Agreed. Especially if they come up with something a grade or two better than recycling T Szamboti's tired hypothesis.
