Apparently, 9/11 conspiracies are back on the menu, boys, and surely this cannot be a cynical attention grab by an organization in need of grant money:
The study is the work of Steven Jones, former full professor of physics at Brigham Young University, Robert Korol, a professor emeritus of civil engineering at McMaster University in Ontario, Canada, Anthony Szamboti, a mechanical design engineer with over 25 years of structural design experience in the aerospace and communications industries, and Ted Walter, the director of strategy and development for Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth, a nonprofit organization that today represents more than 2,500 architects and engineers.
…They write: â€œThe total collapse of WTC 7 at 5:20 pm on 9/11, is remarkable because it exemplified all the signature features of an implosion: The building dropped in absolute free fall for the first 2.25 seconds of its descent over a distance of 32 meters or eight stories. Its transition from stasis to free fall was sudden, occurring in approximately one-half second. It fell symmetrically straight down. Its steel frame was almost entirely dismembered and deposited mostly inside the buildingâ€™s footprint, while most of its concrete was pulverized into tiny particles. Finally, the collapse was rapid, occurring in less than seven seconds. Given the nature of the collapse, any investigation adhering to the scientific method should have seriously considered the controlled demolition hypothesis, if not started with it. Instead, NIST (as well as the Federal Emergency Management Agency, which conducted a preliminary study prior to the NIST investigation) began with the predetermined conclusion that the collapse was caused by fires.â€
Given those qualifications, it is unlikely that these guys are wrong. But what if it is a GIGO situation?
When scientists reconstruct an event, they work from wreckage, and get much of their data — their initial assumptions — from blueprints and old news reports and official statistics, many of which are self-reported.
If we apply Occam’s Razor to the 9/11 event, we see that some buildings fall down after a terrorist attack. Barring everything else, what might a sensible initial position be?
We might use the same position we use any other time a building falls down unexpectedly: shoddy construction or bad math in the design.
Another factor is the quality of steel that is claimed to be used, versus what was actually in there. or any other building material.
It is hard to say what went down on September 11, 2001, but we may not need to look very far for an explanation. Corners were cut, union labor was used, and just like in the third world, our buildings fall down.