So far, so good.
Now consider this, from a NOVA broadcast on explosive demolition and an interview with Stacey Loizeaux of Controlled Demolotions, Inc:
Quote
Depending on the height of the structure, well work on a couple different floors usually anywhere from two to six. The taller the building the higher we work. We only really need to work on the first two floors, because you can make the building come down that way.
Now consider the contract assignment given by the NIST to ARA:
Quote
Tthe government has retained ARA to "create detailed floor analyses to determine likely modes of failure for Floors 8 to 46 due to failure of one or more supporting columns (at one or more locations) in World Trade Center Building Seven."
If the NIST is truly going to consider explosive events, why did they leave out floors 1-6 where, according to an expert on demolitions, explosive charges would have been placed?
Isn't this like searching the attic and then claiming there is no monster in the basement?
The NIST claims to be examining the possibilites of explosive events - is there anyone left who will still believes they are looking at all possibilites? If you do not create a model initiated in floors 1-6 then it seems they have already ruled out any possibility of controlled demolition - if you don't look for it you won't find it - therefore, any claim by the NIST that controlled demolition could not have caused the collapse must be viewed as political doublespeak - a biased assumption made before examining all the facts.