But that is not what I am doing. I am asking you (or anyone else on this forum) what you understand the actual substance of NIST's excuse for not following NFPA921 to be, and how this justifies failing to apply the scientific method as defined in the code in this case.To suggest that unless one comes to the same conclusions as you one is not 'thinking for themselves' is arrogant.
Why? The publicly-available explanation for not following NFPA921 in the FAQ aimed at the public which paid for the investigation is apparently meaningless.It is reasonable to defer to authority in this case.
So in other words, he's as credible a witness as the others who said they heard an explosion. Are there any credible witnesses to the attack?I'm not disregarding what this guy has to say, or calling him a liar. But what he has to say isn't nearly so 'smoking-gun' as you imply. He describes hearing a sound, likely elevators on a fast descent, he describes an explosion afterward that wrecked the lobby.
I agree with this, particularly the scatological burblings immediately above. However, I feel my point that Chief Nigro would have reasonably expected NIST to apply the scientific method as specified in NFPA921 when making his statement is not completely off topic. I would like to re-iterate my challenge to anyone defending the NIST report to explain what they think the substance of its published excuse for ignoring NFPA921 actually amounts to. To me, its claim to have followed the scientific method while ignoring the requirements of NFPA921 is a meaningless contradiction.It appears that from post https://www.metabunk.org/threads/fdny-chief-daniel-nigros-statement-on-wtc7.2366/page-3#post-66836 on, this thread has absolutely no content in line with the title. Would it not be wise to move the remaining content, (and perhaps some other non relevant posts), to another thread?
That's an absurd metaphor: NIST's "reasoning" for abandoning the NFPA921 code in the case of WTC7 is rendered in plain (if meaningless) English, and plain expression rather than shaky metaphor is the medium of rational discussion.
In this presentation Noam Chomsky sensitively spanks his students at M.I.T for a variety of criticisms of science and rationalism which he regards as misguided. Anyhow, whatever of the rights and wrongs of their views - or his - he touches on this very aspect, above, here:Absurd huh? Yokay. I must have been insane to even think it had a parallel.