Sorry, Cube...I'm not buying it. They're all in on their story. They have taken--and spent--tons of cash, based on that story!And that's the problem. No-one has been able to experimentally demonstrate -- even with a simple model -- what NIST failed to explain. Everything you say is "self evident" beyond the initiation of collapse is totally without experimental support, although there have been failed attempts to reproduce what you claim is obvious.
Not if all the variables as well as the model itself were made available for independent peer review, no.
That's what makes the NIST WTC7 model so unacceptable (besides its general inaccuracy, of course) and that's why I said at the start of the thread that femr2's approach was far more scientifically valid.
As far as admitting that they're wrong, simply because the evidence is right there? That boat sailed long ago.
It's a lovely thought...that they'd respect the science and the evidence...
but I think one would have to be pretty naive to believe it, given their history.