Reply #1: Is there a reason MacQueen mixes collapse accounts of the towers and 7 in the appendices?

[Bolo Boffin]

I thought the paper was about 7.

ETA: Also, this guy said best what I was struggling with.

The collapse of WTC1 & 2 can be excluded as a reasonable precedent for the collapse of WTC7, because the collapse of WTC1 & 2 was itself suspicious. Therefore, suspicion concerning the collapse of WTC7, which is presented as the "smoking gun" which casts suspicion on the collapses of WTC1 & 2, is itself conditional on that latter suspicion already having been established, despite the fact that even a covert controlled demolition of WTC1 & 2 would establish a strong presumption in the minds of the FDNY that collapse of WTC7 was a possibility. The entire paper is therefore founded on a line of argument that is both circular, and a non-sequitur.

What a GREAT paper. Got any more?