OK then. Just the facts. 9-11

[cbrer]

14. I need to start using the sarcasm emoticon

STFU was joke.

Not throwing around degrees either. I was addressing the fact that analyses have been performed by some credible (to me) sources. I DO respect learning, and the fact that you're educated raises your credibility. I am going to research the Reliable fire too. Do you disagreee with the notion that a time factor is involved with steel melting, and that various stages of strength are reached during that process? Not challenging. Asking.

Even with weakened steel, educated sources claim that collapse should have been arrested under the claimed series of events/failures. Citing design specifications and (again) failure analysis. Have you visited the link I suggested? Can you give a link with a comprehensive analysis that fits the description provided by NIST?

I hope that I can somehow convince you that

A: Lots of conflicting information by credible sources exists.
B: My role in this is "seeking information before closing mind".

I'm not arguing, rebutting, or diminishing your words in any way. I appreciate your answers. If I throw up a canard, please feel free to blast the shit out of it. Believe me, my feelings are disconnected from this, having run up against these reactions before. However, that doesn't mean I don't have questions, and feel that questions are not wrong. Especially from a source seeking learning, and currently (partially) ignorant.