Mark O wrote:
"If he [Tim] accepts the report conditionally, then I would think, at the
very least this implies an openness to discuss the matter. But his
statements are more in line with someone who accept the N.I.S.T.
Since I also conditionally accept the report, let me clarify what I for one mean by that, and why the alleged inconsistency Mark complains about does not exist. I accept the report conclusions because they appear reasonable and consistent with the evidence regarding the impacts, fires, materials involved, witnesses, etc. The condition under which I would question the conclusions or want to discuss them further would be the presentation of convincing (or at least plausible) _counter evidence_ --not just speculations, innuendos, and suspicions from someone who admits that his views are not evidence based.