Yiwah, the blog you quote from appears to be written by one person, someone who remains anonymous, by the looks of it. One person who also makes the erroneous assumption that those who don't say anything are "not questioning" the NIST report, perhaps even implying that they support it?
The blog lists sources for the numbers it lists. It points out that the people making claims about the veracity of the NIST theory have not presented alternatives.
1200 people (not even necessarily civil engineers or architects as far as I can see, not having any sources to describe the qualifications of these particular people) out of what was it again? 123,000 civil engineers and 80,000 architects? Colour me not particularly impressed by...oh gosh, what is it, my math is so rusty..... 0.05%? Oh wait, that's not accurate, because we don't actually know how many of the "1200" are even civil engineers or architects....perhaps some of them are mechanical engineers (120,000 members of ASME), or electical and electronics engineers (370,000 members of IEEE), or chemcal engineers (40,000 members of AIChE), or one of the 35,000 members of the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics)?
Why, that would make the "1200" what...0.016% of all those professionals who have spoken out?
Yes. Their deafening voice is...
Well okay so not so much.
What I've done here is attempt to highlight for you how your 'overwhelming and accepted truth' is neither overwhelming, nor accepted.
If you're so passionate about defending a theory that says it's normal for skyscrapers...
I'm going to stop you here, because what you are doing is mischaracterising my argument. I could care less about the NIST theory, or your 'theory' (if you can call a lack of alternatives a theory...I don't know, I'd have to ask someone with a science background). My focus is your lack of ability to answer questions, back up your claims, or do anything really except pretend you've proven something to the point where it is an accepted fact here on Babble, or anywhere else.
Or perhaps you're published somewhere? In a peer reviewed journal perhaps? If so, I offer my apologies, and request a link to your studies.
In any case, your particular approach is characteristic of the overall approach I am referring to in this thread. Thank you for continuing to provide a live example I can readily refer to.
When I say the offical theory is not supported by science, I mean it is not proven or even somewhat supported by any known principles of physics.
Many other sources dispute your claim*, using known principles of physics. Your claims (*that the official theory is not at all supported by known principles of physics) therefore are false.
You can argue with the science, and provide alternatives. That would be a nice change of pace, actually.
However, once again...making the claim that you have "THE OFFICIAL THEORY....IS NOT PROVEN OR EVEN SOMEWHAT SUPPORTED BY ANY KNOWN PRINCIPLES OF PHYSICS" is flat out wrong. Why? Because the physics is going to support the model used. There are different models being proposed. You might wish to propose one yourself. Some of the models might fit better than others. This does not, however, make your claim* true.