The feeling is mutual. What does that have do with your "scant" reference? Physics and mathematics are not an inexact science, it's the standard by which all experts who use it operate. One expert can prove an another expert's hypothesis to be incorrect using physics and mathematics (as well as other appropriate sciences). Unqualified and irrelevant opinion that has nothing to do with the hypotheses/conclusions of the 4 major engineering studies and especially Hulsey's proofs. Benthamitemetric??? Anonymous, unqualified and irrelevant. Did you not read it? If you dispute the claim please provide a link to any expert study that challenges Hulsey's study. You have yet to do so. Johnnyplectrum??? Seriously now, is that a joke? Mick West again? What are his qualifications and what paper has he written? Right, unqualified and irrelevant, that's all you ever come up with. Thanks. As usual, nothing to see here. When and IF you provide a link to an expert, qualified study that challenges Hulsey's findings I will certainly review it in detail. Unless and until Hulsey's findings are challenged by qualified experts, Hulsey's conclusions remain the de facto standard for the WTC7 study. As well, the work of Arup/Nordenson, Weidlinger and the Request for Correction endorsed by about 90 qualified structural engineers and architects also invalidate NIST's study (which is to this day still the official party line).