Quite possible, yes. But his paper on the subject has never been submitted to a peer-reviewed journal as far as I know, and the copies available on the web are not much more impressive than what's in the presentation.
dpt, i think u are making a lot of unprovable assumptions but i appreciate your efforts to debate the events while not trowing insults left and right. u surely show a lot more intelligence than many here. here's a link i told u about, prof jones also partecipated in this study. it is pretty comprehensive if u ask me. http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/nist/index.html#vacuous
well, right. but now consider we are ten minutes after the second attack and you have all information about the construction that you have now, would you forecast a footprint collapse of the towers within an hour and seven hours later the same with 7? i guess you would give it maybe a 50:50. my point is that this adds up to only 12.5% for all three. and this is the only case i am trying to make: there is good reason for "the public" to think about it and therefore an open debate with people of three sides, the official, the conspiracists and some independent like yourself should be broadcasted live on all stations interested (which would be ... some, i'd guess). for a non-expert like myself it is impossible to validate the claims, and the expertise of the claimers does not help either, if there are well-trained academics on both sides.
dpt, ignore previous link...read this, it's more recent, with more analysis: http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/nist/index.html#vacuous
this is an assumption of yours. those building were very very tough. infact strong enough to withstand continuous hurricane winds, earthquakes and multiple boeing 707 crashes. and i think u are wrong to say the core was not enough in itself to support the building...infact the core is much more stronger than nits make it up to be...those 47 massive steel columns were not free standing as nist stated but connected by trusses and they should have survived the fall. that's what should be left of the towers after the collapse anyways as shown in one of the models designed by nist itself. there's also no reason to believe the fire alone was hot, strong and widespread enough to weaken half the core or the columns...infact evidence suggests there were only a couple of fires that firemen thought were easy to extinguish with just a couple of lines. again, there's no evidence insulation was not adequate. the crash was not what cause the collapse according to nist/fema..infact it was not even partly responsible for it. even if that was the case, and according to firemen it was just a couple of pockets of fire small enough to be controlled by a couple of lines, heat couldn't be concentrated since steel disperses heat and the construction and design of the column facilitated the process. agreed, problem is tho that not only melted steel was found but also evaporated steel and massive amount of sulfur which presence was deemed weird and unexplainable by nist....and we know in what cases steel evaporates; certainly not due to fire. yes and it is much easier to explain it out by the use of explosives. infact it is perfectly fitting. hmm...would not be hard? dont think it is a straight case as u make it up to be. that's another assumption. as i said the towers were built to withstand multiple jet airliners crashes and continuous battering of hurricane winds. not sure my self about fire and heat, but we have an example with madrid bldg that survived intact a fierce fire spreading throughout the whole structure/floors and lasting for an entire day...maybe even more. the impact damage has nothing to do with the weakening of the towers and subsequent collapse according to nist. the problem here is the nature of the collapse; sudden and sharing all the element of a controlled demolition. what int boils down to is that it can be very easily explained by cutter charges and other explosives present in the building and extremely difficult if not impossible to attribute it to a simple fire.
Excellent analysis Bitstream. Together with man's very legit questioning of the coincidence of all 3 buildings going down, in almost the same way, I think Occam's razor is slowly reducing the question to that of motive alone; that something fishy was going on is almost a fact. As man repeatedly stated, it is now a question of the openly answering the general public about some very nagging questions. The fact that these questions are not answered after 5 years already is in itself almost proof of a cover-up. Of course, if it was a false-flag op it will backfire eventually. But trying to cover up the simplest of issues could backfire much sooner and much harder. I think the US will not be healthy and energetic again untill these issues are solved and answered for. Ursa..
while i doubt a public hearing will shut down all critics it least shows open minds on side of the government towards public concern, which by itself will be inspiring. i mean i for myself would probably make my decision what to think during such a hearing. and so would majority of current doubters ... IMO
and BTW a second investigation will not solve the issue at all, just transfer it. this is now about real public debate, live with no back door ... like a courtroom. and if you think this is nonsense you say that the whole legal system is ... since it works in exactly this way.
Again - simple fire? Want to read the firemen's opinion of the fires in 7? "The most important operational decision to be made that afternoon was the collapse (Of the WTC towers) had damaged 7 World Trade Center, which is about a 50 story building, at Vesey between West Broadway and Washington Street. It had very heavy fire on many floors and I ordered the evacuation of an area sufficient around to protect our members, so we had to give up some rescue operations that were going on at the time and back the people away far enough so that if 7 World Trade did collapse, we [wouldn't] lose any more people. We continued to operate on what we could from that distance and approximately an hour and a half after that order was [given], at 5:30 in the afternoon, World Trade Center collapsed completely" - Daniel Nigro, Chief of Department That's just one man. There's lots more.... http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm