Dr. George O. Bizzigotti wrote:
[snip]
A major beef that structural
engineers have with Jones is his reliance on a single equation for
movement due to gravitational acceleration in a vacuum, apparently
ignoring tools that the engineers have developed to analyze the
complexities of failure in a large structure. Much of Jones' argument
boils down to "it fell too fast" without any consideration of "how
fast would it be expected to fall?"

Exactly. My original critique of that piece took no issue with
Dr. Jones' credentials. I've personally made calculations based upon
several assumptions. All of them lead to similar conclusions, which
is that regardless of the underlying assumptions, you'd never be
able to tell the difference between a building that collapsed
intentionally
from one which collapsed "accidentally".

It is only when the good doctors credentials are floated as a
criticism of my analysis that I point out that his don't actually match
mine, and in fact his analysis suggests some lack of any
applicable expertise.