That Peer-Review Process Over At Journal of Nine-Eleven Studies
Doesn't seem to be working (what a shock!). Dr Frank Legge submits an incredibly weak paper purporting to prove that WTC 7 came down by controlled demolition. It's short (five pages including a page of footnotes), spurious and contains almost no factual material. But even the Troofers found boneheaded mistakes:
The statement that the fires did not break windows on the north side of WTC7 is wrong, as can be clearly seen in this video. Hoffman and Griffin get this wrong too.
If the professor is aware of the fact that no plane hit Building 7, why would he use jet fuel in his arguement (sic)? It's a crossover quote from WTC 1 & 2 research, not the result of independent study.
The secondary fuel load in WTC 7 has been attributed to DIESEL fuel that was in a ConEd back up generator storage tank housed in the building.
This isn't dis-info, but it's weak research. Better clean this paper up if you plan on going anywhere with it. We don't need any built-in Straw Men.
I haven't read the whole thing to the end yet, but from what I have read one gets the impression that defenders of the official theory resort to a "fire alone" argument. Of course, NIST is likely to postulate both structural damage from falling debris and fire as the cause.
Heck of a job you're doing there, Jonesy!