marc, the BBC video is an hour long. Would you care to point me at where the "very large" fires were in the video? Very large compared to what? Very large compared to a 47-story steel-framed building? Very large compared to high-rise fires in Caracas, Beijing, Shanghai. Dubai. Grozny and Moscow? Or "very large" compared to no fires at all?
You do know, don't you, that NIST tells us that fires persisted on only 6 floors, and that the impression of smoke billowing out of every south side window on WTC7 was just an illusion?
Yes, the peedunkers tell me that there's no point in asking for new investigations, because if the ones we had were dishonest then the new ones would likely be just as dishonest. The difference is that in the new investigations we would have thousands of architects and engineers poised to call any bullshit.
It is not necessary that we have a real political chance of getting a new investigation. It is sufficient to to make the demand in order to raise public awareness, and to put the issue in history. There will be new investigations. That's what historians do. There will be new computer models, as the computer modeling power available to NIST in 2005 becomes available to every engineering school in the world by 2018.
"We" means the people who are calling for new investigations. If you are not among us, I'm sorry for you.
The signatories to the AE911truth petition (last time I checked) included 119 structural engineers, 40 highrise architects, 40 PhD engineers, 10 Stanford engineers, 3 PhD structural engineers, and 11 Fellows of the American Institute of Architects.
Obviously the airplane impacts did not bring the towers down, because they stood for up to 102 minutes after. NIST said it wasn't the impacts and it wasn't the fires--it was the damage to the fireproofing that brought the towers down. Of course the damage to fireproofing in WTC7 was negligible.