Quote from beginning of article: (emphasis mine to show my point)

"as they attempted to curb still-rampant speculation that explosives or fuel fires were responsible for the building’s collapse of Sept. 11, 2001."

Who has "rampant speculation that fuel fires were responsible"?

They already said that the fuel played no part, which is what many of us already said before them.

I just found that odd.

And what about this quote?: "It is the first skyscraper in modern times to collapse primarily as a result of a fire."

And this quote:

“Our take-home message today is the reason for the collapse of World Trade Center 7 is no longer a mystery,” Dr. Sunder said. “It did not collapse from explosives or fuel oil fires.”

They ARBITRARILY ruled out explosives to start with and didn't even look into the possibility.

btw --- that Shyam Sunder scientist guy is the one who is going to burn --- in HELL

... the following post was the Editor's Choice:

* * * * *

To any conspiracy theorists that doubt planes were used: I was on the street in lower Manhattan on 9/11. I missed seeing the first explosion, and saw the second one from an angle where I couldn't see the plane, just fire bursting from the side of the building. Naturally, seeing just an explosion I assumed it was a bomb for a few minutes. But many other horrified witnesses, some crying, had seen the plane and were telling the other watchers what had happened. Either the many thousands of people in lower Manhattan were all government agents, or you can believe them, and the many video recordings from many individual sources that show a plane hit the building. If you're going to imagine a government conspiracy please make it one that doesn't paint thousands upon thousands of New Yorkers as liars.

Second, some people on the ground suspected the buildings were going to fall. After ten minutes of stunned staring people began debating if the buildings were going to collapse. One man in front of me gave me the impression he was an architect, telling his friend that a fire like that could weaken steel beams and might collapse the building. Everyone began to retreat north, a smart move because the people that left then weren't coated in ash. If a bunch of random people on the ground can predict the obvious I'm not surprised the BBC can.

Third, regarding WTC 7. What was accomplished by destroying a much smaller, not famous, empty evacuated building after the Twin Towers had been destroyed? Arguing that 9/11 is an elaborate plot to destroy the small building next to the World Trade Center is like claiming John Wilkes Booth was actually hoping to damage the armrest of Lincoln's chair.

http://community.nytimes.com/article/comments/2008/08/22/nyregion/22wtcc...

...scroll to the bottom of the comments page and then,

"Log In to Post a Comment "

http://www.nytimes.com/auth/login?URI=http://community.nytimes.com/artic...

Of course, you will have to create an account with the old whore if you don't have one already.

--
"But truthfully, I [still] don't really know. We've had trouble getting a handle on Building No. 7."
~Dr. Shyam Sunder - Acting Dir. Bldg. & Fire Research Lab. (NIST)
"We are [still] unable to provide a full explanation of the total collapse." (NIST)