"A vast number of experts are listed here:
www.debunking911.com/paper.htm"Like I said you made an attempt but that's all you did. You didn't actually list one single contributor to the "debunking" site like I asked. All the people listed on that website are not direct contributors, they probably don't even know that website exists. They may have been cited by those responsible for the website but they certainly are not contributors.
The difference is that all the people I provided links to are either DIRECT CONTRIBUTORS or SIGNATORIES (meaning they specifically endorse the contents of those websites).
But despite your failed attempt, I will indulge you with the people mentioned at the "debunking" website.
The first link you posted leads to an article called
"How the Loss of One Column May Have Led to the Collapse of WTC 7" by Ramon Gilsanz, P.E., S.E., and Willa Ng. It mostly posits that a single column failure may have led to the collapse of WTC7 (as the title says). So in other words, all it does is parrot NIST's theory regarding column 79. That was already meticulously proven in the 4 videos I posted links to as a theory based on FRAUD.
"Dr Keith Seffen's paper is on it"Actually to be more accurate there is a link to an article that mentions Seffen, so that's not true at all. Much of the piece that references Seffen is interspersed with the opinion of the person who wrote that piece. And the article says
"the damaged parts of the tower were bound to fall down, but it was not clear why the undamaged building should have offered little resistance to these falling parts." In other words, Seffen has a theory that might explain the collapse of the towers but can't explain why there was little resistance. So that's worth virtually nothing since his is still only a theory, not fact and it is missing a huge piece (RESISTANCE).
Walter P. Murphy says "The likely scenario of failure may be explained as follows ...". In other words he also has a theory but doesn't have any facts, he is merely speculating just as most experts do.
Zdenek P Bazant and Zhou's paper are addressed here:
The Missing Jolt: A Simple Refutation of the NIST-Bazant Collapse Hypothesis - Prof. Graeme MacQueen and Tony Szamboti, January 2009:
www.journalof911studies.com/volume/2008/TheMissingJolt7.pdfand here:
Open Letter to Dr Brian Moran, Chair Dept of Civil and Environmental Engineeringwww.ae911truth.org/en/news-section/41-articles/237-open-letter-to-dr-brian-moran-chair-dept-of-civil-and-environmental-engineering.html"And many other genuine experts are listed who do not support the BARMY CD gibberish of A&E911'truth'."Well that's easy to say and it's easy for a habitual liar such as yourself to denigrate a detailed piece of work by multiple named credentialed experts (as "BARMY CD gibberish") but such as who in particular? Where is that list of "genuine experts"? And are they "genuine experts" to you only because you agree with them and all other experts who you disagree with "so called experts" who are inclined to produce "gibberish"? Or is this just something else you're making up as you go?
Now the rest of the people listed in the "debunking" site:
Following the Bazant reference, there is a list of people that includes an editor, members of an editorial board and members of the Engineering Mechanics Division Executive Committee. But there is nothing about the purpose of the people listed.
Then there is a link to another Bazant paper and the rest of the links either require some sort of user id and password or they don't work at all.
So, did you even bother to check out any of this or you just blindly posted this to pretend you have something to talk about in reference to "experts"?