This, in my opnion, is a slam dunk.
Someone posting as "benthamitemetric" on several forums compiled a massive list of scientific writings (refereed papers, sworn affidavits, reports, ...) that all cite the NIST reports about the WTC7 collapse, and support NIST's conclusions or/and methodology. Some are, of course, critical of some details, such as recommendations, but the point is: There exists a very strong body of scientific literature, written by a large number of eminent experts, that basically says "Yes, NIST validly showed that fires most likely brought Building 7 down"; whereas the published works supporting CD are ... few.
Here is the link:
http://ift.tt/1DvemLk
Scan it, enjoy, bookmark it, and use it often!
Someone posting as "benthamitemetric" on several forums compiled a massive list of scientific writings (refereed papers, sworn affidavits, reports, ...) that all cite the NIST reports about the WTC7 collapse, and support NIST's conclusions or/and methodology. Some are, of course, critical of some details, such as recommendations, but the point is: There exists a very strong body of scientific literature, written by a large number of eminent experts, that basically says "Yes, NIST validly showed that fires most likely brought Building 7 down"; whereas the published works supporting CD are ... few.
Here is the link:
http://ift.tt/1DvemLk
Scan it, enjoy, bookmark it, and use it often!
via International Skeptics Forum http://ift.tt/1Ao8ncN
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire