-Well I think the disclaimer at the bottom of their article says it all ...."because these portable field seismographs were not physically installed and manned on the ground zero site, we do not feel it appropriate, nor scientifically possible, to categorically state that data from these monitors alone can specifically prove or disprove the existence of an explosive catalyst."
-"absent any evidence of explosive use...".....hello what about the presence of thermite which they ignore and claim that it "might" have come in contact with steel some time after during clean up. Also ignored are the several pictures showing vertical girders still standing but cut off at 45 degrees amongst the collapse wreckage even though they reiterate there was no evidence of cutting found among demolition crews.
-Their disclaim of excavators finding pockets of molten metal and reasons set forth why this is not plausible was obviously aimed at those with a lower iq suggesting machine failure would have resulted....wow really clutching at straws there for any scientific reasoning.
-They use one unnamed witness to say explosives were not heard.....real hard evidence there up against fire fighters who told their story live at the scene claiming a series of explosions throughout the buildings was heard by all.
Building 7 brought down by extensive damage on just one face although they themselves state the pictures with all "the dense smoke made it hard to make an exact assessment"...but yet that's what they are doing...you know providing a "critical analysis". If the damage was so localised why did the building fall evenly?..... But moving along their unnamed "experts"
state it was really the "large stockpile of diesel" inside the building that caused the collapse. lol diesel fire melts steel girders in a world first! Omg
Ive only highlighted a few, over coffee on a Sunday morning, but really there are that many holes in this so called "critical analysis" that its truly laughable they could even contemplate passing it off as such.
Paid for, unpaid for it doesn't matter but to spend this much time on something with glaringly obvious mistakes and misconceptions and omissions one has to wonder what exactly was the motivation for attempting to cherry pick through just a handful of points surrounding the events of 911.
