col. Flagg --
OK, I looked at it. Many of the points (if not all) raised by Mr. King (not a PhD) have already been answered in my papers and that of qualified engineers and scientists -- in peer-reviewed articles in the Journal of 9/11 Studies.
Mr. King begins correctly:
On the official side there are three key reports:
1. FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency)
2. NIST (National Institute of Science and Technology)
3. 9/11 Commission
Let's take a look at these quickly, more in the Journal:
1. FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency)
In their analysis of the Towers, came up with the "pancaking" theory -- which was REJECTED by NIST in their report.
In their analysis of the WTC7 collapse, they admit "Our best hypothesis has only a LOW probability of occurrence."
2. NIST (National Institute of Science and Technology)
I and a group of engineers and others challenged crucial aspects of the NIST report. We filed a "Request for Correction" which you can read in the Journal.
On September 27, 2007, NIST finally replied to us (late), stating:
"We are unable to provide a full explanation of the total collapse". -- NIST
NIST's long-promised explanation for the collapse of WTC 7 has been delayed again (just about a week ago) -- still no NIST final report on WTC 7!
Note that Mr. King relies on NIST and FEMA, yet they do not provide "full explanations" -- even to this late date!
3. 9/11 Commission
The 911 commission relies on FEMA and NIST (see above) for the Towers -- and they FAIL TO EVEN MENTION the collapse of WTC 7!
Very weak indeed to appeal to the work of FEMA, NIST and the 9/11 Commission.
Another example quickly as I'm working late tonight:
Mr. King says:
2.13 NIST's Failure to Show Visualizations
Jones may have a valid criticism here, but equally he may not. To ‘show’ visualisations is precisely what NIST have done in their report, by including numerous diagrams generated by the modelling software.
NO! A "visualization" for a finite element model (done by NIST) is MUCH more than "numerous diagrams"!
A quick google search on this yielded the following explanation (Note that "GRIZ" is the name of a software program to provide proper visualizations -- see what this really entails):
Griz provides modern 3-D visualization techniques such as isocontours and isosurfaces, cutting planes, vector field display, and particle traces. Griz also incorporates the ability to animate all representations over time.
That's what we're talking about -- generating isocontours, vector field displays, etc. This is common practice for finite element modeling, and the software exists to do the work. BUT NIST REFUSED to provide Visualizations (as explained with quotes, in my paper) -- OK, I'll quote from my paper in the Journalof911Studies.com
13. NIST's Failure to Show Visualizations
An article in the journal New Civil Engineering (NCE) lends support to concerns about the NIST analysis of the WTC collapses. It states:
World Trade Center disaster investigators [at NIST] are refusing to show computer visualizations of the collapse of the Twin Towers despite calls from leading structural and fire engineers, NCE has learned. Visualisations of collapse mechanisms are routinely used to validate the type of finite element analysis model used by the [NIST] investigators. The collapse mechanism and the role played by the hat truss at the top of the tower has been the focus of debate since the US National Institute of Standards & Technology (NIST) published its findings….
University of Manchester [U.K.] professor of structural engineering Colin Bailey said there was a lot to be gained from visualising the structural response. “NIST should really show the visualisations; otherwise the opportunity to correlate them back to the video evidence and identify any errors in the modeling will be lost,” he said….
A leading US structural engineer said NIST had obviously devoted enormous resources to the development of the impact and fire models. “By comparison the global structural model is not as sophisticated,” he said. “The software used [by NIST] has been pushed to new limits, and there have been a lot of simplifications, extrapolations and judgment calls.” (Parker, 2005; emphasis added.)
Here we have serious concerns about the NIST WTC collapse report raised by structural and fire engineers, augmenting the arguments raised here by a physicist.
Again, the answers are essentially all in the Journalof911Studies.com
along with searching for the meaning of technical terms like "visualization" in this context.
See also "Debunking 9/11 Debunkers" by Prof. David Griffin.
Hope that helps.