We can speculate about the 28 pages.
We can be sidetracked into pointless discussions about whether it was a jam tart or a plane that hit the pentagon.
But THIS is evidence that will stand up in a court of law. Superb interview, and a great summation of the REAL evidence that has potential to gain purchase beyond that which the idle speculation re the pentagon etc has any potential whatsoever to do. Now that we have ARUP's FEA analysis, and ae911 has their own analysis in the offing we have a battering ram. It's a potential door opener that we should be battering NIST hard with.
Meanwhile, those who should really know better continue to pointlessly run at the door that is the official story with a toothpick of idle speculation re the pentagon, having entirely ignored the huge battering ram that has been presented to them in the form of this evidence.
Thank you Tony for having the tenacity, determination and common sense to uncover this evidence and present it so clearly. The more we examine these details, the clearer the deception becomes re the initiating event for the collapse of WTC7, and the more ludicrous NIST's assertion that fire alone can bring down a highrise steel frame becomes.
NIST's recent announcement of a real life study of expansion in composite floor systems and connections, which they cite ARUP evidence re 911 as a motivating factor for undertaking, should indicate to anyone who is paying proper attention to the issue just how rattled NIST are about this. They're on the ropes here.

I think you both are over the top with your comments to Kawika.

He did what he thought was right in just posting the Nordenson issue and the pertinent information from that report. I am sure you both have heard of the KISS principle (keep it simple and straightforward).

I think you can probably count the people on one hand here who would actually be interested in reading through the entire collection of the ARUP reports, or even the thread on Metabunk.org about Nordenson's error.

If you think there is additional information that is pertinent, and that others might want to see, you should just post it without trying to reprimand somebody for not putting enough on for your taste.

You're entitled to those thoughts Tony.
The fact however remains that the evidence from which the vast majority of your presentation (which I must restate my respect and admiration for) was spawned and discovered by the small research group of which I am a part, to which you lent your expertise, ably taking that evidence to the "next level" if you like.
The need for more sets of expert eyes such as your own on these reports is very clearly illustrated by the way that you have developed this evidence and indeed, in the case of the stiffness issue, found crucial fundamental errors (K=1) which in effect debunk the whole progressive collapse claim for WTC7.
I have said it in private, and I will repeat it here publicly. I will have no part of any group that is not entirely open about the evidence that they uncover, especially expert reports etc. It is irresponsible and morally indefensible to any extent, to in any way mirror the unwillingness to share, and the officious nature of those at NIST etc who oppose us in our actions. We must guard carefully against those who would have us mimic the actions of those who oppose us in our struggle for truth and justice.
There are times for playing your cards close to your chest, and there's a time to be open and transparent. Now is the latter. If you find that "over the top", then so be it.
What is "over the top" here is the retention of evidence in these reports that should have so many more sets of expert eyes on it. Who knows what else would be found. There is no justification for it, and as you know I feel strongly enough about it to walk away with my head held high. Let's hope we all can.