Huge list of peer reviewed literature supporting the NIST methods and conclusions on WTC 7 (and the Twin Towers). This will be my last response to you. https://www.reddit.com/r/skeptic/comments/294k95/compilation_of_scientific_literature_that/

I don’t think that’s entirely fair GS and surely this ‘god of gaps’ concept could just as easily be applied to your approach?

Your article correctly established that a peer-reviewed scientific journal had NOT concluded ‘controlled demolition’ and that the ‘conclusions’ in the article are ‘speculation’.

But you then asserted that the ‘evidence’ these authors presented has been thoroughly debunked and provide a link to a blog article in support of this claim.

Given that you’d just admonished EPS for publishing a ‘pseudoscientific article of previously debunked 9/11 tropes’, I was a bit surprised by the quality of the citation you provided in support of such a grandiose claim.

The anonymous authors of your blog didn’t address the building 7 collapse. which is why I asked you, in good faith, to signpost me to a peer reviewed source that proved how it fell (thus disproving controlled demolition).

You signposted me to another independent blog which again neither proved or debunked anything. Third time round you point to wikipedia citations which essentially rely on the NIST report and, having read a significant amount about it over the past week, I’m satisfied that there are major issues with their findings.

To name just three, they couldn’t repeat their hypothesis in laboratory conditions, their computer model of the WTC7 collapse looks nothing like the video evidence and, bizarrely, their models have never been adequately peer reviewed because it might ‘jepordise public safety’ to release the data!

I accept that where there is insufficient information to prove a proposition be either true or false it makes more sense to look for more information rather than claim something is true simply because it hasn’t been proven false. Do You?

To be honest GS, I’m beginning to think that the strength of your assertion on this subject has been corrupted by circular reasoning.

In all fairness, collapse due to fire is not to be expected and is in fact entirely unprecedented.

So is two passenger planes being purposely flown into high rise buildings, but I’ll assume we are just talking specifically about WTC7 from here on.

I acknowledge that I haven’t read every citation but have yet to find a secondary or neutral source that backs up the NIST report which seems to be the main basis for the office fire theory. I had hoped you were basing this on more than that. The fact that they wouldn’t let anyone independently peer review their finding strikes me as extremely dubious so if we’re saying that ockham’s razor applies then office fires still seems to be the less likley explanation.

How is fire, plus structural damage a ‘less likely’ explanation? We know both a fire and structural damage took place. We have clear evidence for this. We don’t have evidence for any alternative. We also know that those conditions are sufficient to cause a collapse. I’m not sure where you’re getting ‘less likely’ from.

I know you said you don’t want to come accross as a kook, but it feels like you’re now playing ‘God Of The Gaps’ here:-) To recap, first you wanted info to debunk a controlled demolition narrative. This was provided, then you wanted an explanation as to how WTC7 fell, this was provided – now it’s ‘secondary neutral sources’. Are you sure you just don’t want something else to be true?

Thanks. If it’s incredulity, then I guess it has more to do with inability rather than unwillingness….. I want to believe the offical version but would suggest that ockham’s razor is entirely the problem.

In all fairness, collapse due to fire is not to be expected and is in fact entirely unprecedented. I’ve just read the wiki page and it actually discounts the significance of structual damage and jet fuel etc…?

I acknowledge that I haven’t read every citation but have yet to find a secondary or neutral source that backs up the NIST report which seems to be the main basis for the office fire theory. I had hoped you were basing this on more than that. The fact that they wouldn’t let anyone independently peer review their finding strikes me as extremely dubious so if we’re saying that ockham’s razor applies then office fires still seems to be the less likley explanation.

Yes. Official reports. Prolonged fires caused by debris brought the building down. See the wiki page for World Trade Center 7 and follow the citations. Ockham’s razor essential here. Never understood the interest in building 7. We have perfectly logical and plausible explanations.

Seems incredulity is your issue here. When fires rage in buildings to this degree (combined with the energy of an impact and large amounts of jet fuel), collapse is to be expected.

The site you linked to doesn’t particularly strike me as peer reviewed standard but even so, what little info it does offer actually seems to undermine the suggestion that a coordinated collapse has been disproven: http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc7_damage.html

Given the evidence of significant damage in the south west corner you would think that this might have lead to a partial collapse on one side, at least to begin with. I appreciate that a lot of focus has been put on the unlikely physics of various events but for me the mathematics seem at least as significant. The probability of two damaged buildings collapsing as symmetrically and as quickly as they did are pretty astronomical but three…?

Don’t want to sound like a kook but surely you’re basing your belief on more than what that site has to offer?

What about the collapse are you struggling with?