Reply #7: Can you supply any evidence for any of your dubious claims? [View All]

[mhatrw]

(1) The selection criteria involved many factors besides possible fire exposure. Samples representative of typical failure modes or aircraft impact damage were also sought.

Are you contending that metal recovered from the direct impact zone would be less likely to exhibit heating than randomly selected metal? Sorry, but that makes no sense.

(2) When there was forensic evidence that the heat exposure or mechanical damage could have been incurred in the rubble pile the samples were discounted. This leaves very few unambiguous samples. Much of the steel of the impact floors was crushed and buried deep under the steel and material of many floors above (tens of thousands of tons) and was exposed to very hot underground fires for many weeks.

Do you have any evidence for this ridiculous claim? Yes, one of the three external panels that showed paint cracking demonstrated signs of being heated post-collapse. But rather than being systematically excluded from the survey, it was instead included with this fact explicitly noted. What evidence do you have that any other recovered samples showing significant post-collapse heating were treated any differently?

(3) The paint cracking method only worked when there was enough paint remaining to perform the analysis. This was seldom the case. Most often there was no paint remaining at all. This skewed the results since the column areas exposed to the most extreme temperatures and to aircraft debris impacts weren't likely to have had as much paint remaining on them as other samples had.

Again, I have to ask you exactly what evidence you can supply that supports this wild theory of yours. For example, what perimeter columns were examined that had "no paint remaining at all"? The answer, of course, is none whatsoever.

(4) The sample size is much too small for the results to be statistically significant.

Would you care to demonstrate this dubious contention of yours for us mathematically?