Most people debating on the Internet know nothing about steel, explosives or the official report. Yet they somehow have very well defined opinions.

Yes, I'm looking at you, sifters.

I have BS degrees in electrical engineering and pure math. I'm finishing my Ph.D. in electrical engineering. However, I know very little about steel, explosives and I haven't read the NIST report. Next to an expert, my opinion is as good as a high school dropout's.

But if this video is accurate and NIST didn't explain convincingly how the steel melted, then their report is disturbingly incomplete. And by convincingly, I mean experimentally -- NOT with handwaiving and computer models based on guesswork.

During my career as a practicing engineer and a researcher, I've seen way too many computer simulations designed to "prove" something which is in fact false. Many of the papers I reject have some kind of bullshit assumption or simulation. By using the wrong model, it's possible to show pretty much anything, and in the end, nothing can replace real-world experiments, especially if you're trying to overcome skepticism and confusion.

I suppose I should read the NIST report and stop taking other people's word for it. Because if the quotes from this video are correct, then he's right and NIST's work is unconvincing at best.

I see now that my closing remark could be interpreted as a personal attack. My hope is that you do not hold that against me, accept my apology if you interpreted it that way, and that you seriously consider my other observations.

1) "I have also found it difficult to find any peer reviewed articles that can be traced to his name"

2) "he is currently not practicing Engineering and is a Family Physician."

3) "There also appears to be no evidence that he has any expertise in Civil, Structual, Fire Protection, or Metallurgical Engineering or Physics"

4) "According to Ref. 1, it appears that a considerable amount of research from a multitude of distinguished scientists has been put into investigating the World Trade Center.[1,2] I could not confirm the $600,000 amount stated. I found a statement on Ref. 3, which said that 16 Million was granted to NIST to investigate the WTC.[3]"

I am open to your ideas. In my heart I am a scientist, and with rigorous proof I will believe anything. Unfortunately, in science the burden of proof is on the believer. Hence, it is necessary that you test your theory with sufficiently rigorous experiment and simulations to prove your opinions true and then show them to people like me, the skeptic. In my opinion, a video of a seemingly unaccredited (and I could be wrong about this) source is not sufficient. After reading the report form NIST and attending a lecture on the simulations and analysis of the data, I believe that the majority of the evidence present suggests that the towers were hit by two planes. This is conditional though, if I could be shown equally rigorous explanations to the contrary I would believe them as well.

Lastly,

"If you think that two buildings can fall as fast as those fell without some sort of demolitions, fine."

Although, for some reason I cannot find a specific number, I seem to remember that from the time of impact to collapse being a number measured in minutes, implying to me that the time was not remarkably short.[1]

However, these issues do not address my primary concern that Jeff King may not be a credible source, and that the amount spent on the investigation of 9/11 was signifactly more than $600,000. These points I ask to be addressed.

I would deeply regret it if either of us would resort to personal attacks, or name calling, which I feel would demean our discussion.

Thank you for considering my arguments.

MH

[1] http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html?page=5

PS. If you would prefer a profile reply instead please let me know.

With all due respect Rougy, I submit my following observations for your comment and rebuttal.

I cannot over emphasize how important it is to verify the credentials of people who claim to be scientists.

I have found nothing to confirm that Jeff King graduated from MIT. After an extensive literature search, I have also found it difficult to find any peer reviewed articles that can be traced to his name, which calls into question his claim that he is a research scientist at MIT or any other university/institution. If his website to be believed, he is currently not practicing Engineering and is a Family Physician. There also appears to be no evidence that he has any expertise in Civil, Structual, Fire Protection, or Metallurgical Engineering or Physics. A weaker point because things change, but I think I should also note that although his claim is that he studied electro-mechanical engineering there is no department at MIT, which grants such a diploma.

According to Ref. 1, it appears that a considerable amount of research from a multitude of distinguished scientists has been put into investigating the World Trade Center.[1,2] I could not confirm the $600,000 amount stated. I found a statement on Ref. 3, which said that 16 Million was granted to NIST to investigate the WTC.[3]

I am reminded of a quote.

“How often have I said to you that when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth?”

Unfotunately, for select few the impossible is that two planes hit two buildings.

[1]http://wtc.nist.gov/
[2]http://www.enfp.umd.edu/faculty-profiles/baum.html
[3]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7_World_Trade_Center#_note-20

Sincerely,

MH