Just a quick demo of buckling, nothing more. Certainly not a model with out a hole in it, not on fire and with an intact upper block made out of cardboard
This one doesnt really say anything anyway, doesnt give any examples of what a demolition like feature is, claims there was an intact upper block and claims NIST didnt realease any computer modelling
“NIST has provided no justification whatsoever for allowing its computer simulations to heat the steel to temperatures well above 600°C when its own physical tests reveal that little, if any, of the steel inside the WTC ever reached 600°C.” Do you disagree with this statement? And if so, why?
And NISTs response (denying request) if anyone is interested. One of the requests NIST refers to the "Scholars" and no family members claims as circular logic http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/2007/NISTresponseToRequestForCorrectionGourleyEtal2.pdf I will copy and paste parts of the rejection if needed. But the request was nonsense in the first place
Once again: “NIST has provided no justification whatsoever for allowing its computer simulations to heat the steel to temperatures well above 600°C when its own physical tests reveal that little, if any, of the steel inside the WTC ever reached 600°C.” Do you disagree with this statement? And if so, why? __________________________________________________________________________________________ You didn't answer the question. You simply asked a meaningless question. So do you agree with the statement?
I'm sure there will be others in the coming years who will sign up to HF, post in this thread, straight into "oh but it fell near freefall into its own footprint" And I will be like, oh yeah, now I wonder where you got that phrase from, come up with it all by yourself did you?
Do you have the full request letter? The copy that appears on their website has been cropped. Its not signed by anyone
You sound like you're on to something. In the meantime: Technical Statement: The NIST report claims that the collapse of WTC 1 was initiated by the south exterior wall buckling. The report claims that this was due to “inward bowing” and buckling of the exterior columns — alleged to be caused by sagging of the floor trusses. However, the NIST computer model did not show this to occur with natural inputs and sagging floor trusses. To actually cause the perimeter column failure, an artificial lateral load of 5,000 lbs. had to be applied to each perimeter column from the outside of the building. In reality, there was of course no such force available. NIST claims, in a circular argument, that this artificial lateral load was applied to the exterior columns in an attempt to match the observed inward bowing, even though their model could not produce it naturally with their theory of sagging trusses causing it . . . References: • NCSTAR 1-6D, pp. 180, 181, Chapter 5, and Appendix A
Technical Statement: NIST hired Underwriter Laboratories to perform testing of the Twin Tower floor assemblies per ASTM E119 in a two-hour, 2,000° F fire test. During the tests, the main trusses did not fail — and sagged only 4” after 60 minutes and 6” after 100 minutes, which were the approximate durations of the fires in WTC 2 and WTC 1, respectively. NIST was clearly not using these test results as their basis when they showed the main trusses sagging more than 40” in their models. References: • NCSTAR 1-6B, Chapters 4 and 5 NCSTAR 1-6C
And now we are back to straight out lying If you are going to reference something, what you have copied and pasted has to come from the link or reference you provide
So you are claiming the reference you have given says"NIST was clearly not using these test results as" None of that is true. Lame, patheric, sad attempt of straight out lies