Cytuj:
I think we do know what the majority of engineers think about the controlled demolition v plane damage/fire/progressive collapse "controversy" in regard to the collapse of the WTC twin towers.
If controlled demolition really were considered to be a serious answer to the question of why the twin towers collapsed, there would be several articles in the relevant professional literature touting that hypothesis. Since there are not several articles in the relevant professional literature touting that hypothesis, we know that controlled demolition is no more considered by experts to be a serious answer to the question of why the WTC twin towers collapsed than intelligent design is considered by experts to be a serious answer to the question of how our species came to be.
Virtually everything published by relevant professional journals largely agrees with the main conclusions arrived at and stated in the NIST reports and, by proxy, in Bazant's paper on the towers' progressive collapse. The only real disagreement lies on the margins -- was the fire a bigger factor in the collapses than was the structural damage caused by the planes? how much of a factor was the displacement of fireproofing? that kind of thing.
At the same time, there are no NO articles in these journals touting the controlled demolition hypothesis (or the Jerry Falwell 'goddidit because he hates gays' hypothesis or the 'alien death ray beam' hypothesis or anything else of the sort).
According to the number of published articles in the professional literature this "debate" is about as one-sided as is the intelligent design vs. evolution debate.
So how is this absence of "controlled demolition" articles explained?
It's explained by the fact that hypothetical answers that are put forth to settle nonexistent controversies do not get published in professional journals. To do so would be a massive waste of time. If there were a real controversy among engineers on this subject, as say there is on some other engineering subjects, then articles would be published with engineers taking different sides of the controversy. Since there are no articles in those journals with engineers taking different sides of the controversy, no real controversy among the greater engineering community exists!
Any real controversy among engineers about this subject is a figment of conspiracy theorists' imagination.
Compare this with the Intelligent Design vs. Evolution non-controversy in science.
ID theories do not get published by professional science journals because the relevant experts in that field do not consider intelligent design to be a serious answer to the question of how our species came to be. There is no controversy among the relevant experts about the truth of evolution. Today the only real debate among experts about how our species came to be is about how evolution works, not whether it works.
Compare this to the ongoing battle that rages on the pages of professional journals concerning punctuated equilibrium vs. phyletic gradualism. This fight takes place in professional journals because p.e. v p.g. IS a serious debate, it takes place because expert opinion on the subject really is, to a degree, divided.
If this were the case for the controlled demolition theory of the WTC towers, it too would be touted on the pages of relevant professional journals. Since it's not, it ain't.
