Christopher7
Philosopher
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2006
- Messages
- 6,538
No, no. List the names please.
ETA: Quintiere
"Little did I realize that the NIST heart was not in it, and its efforts would not be proactive, but reclusive. While NIST had public hearings during the course of discharging their findings, they were limited to 5-minute presentations by the public, and no response to submitted questions or comments. There was no transparency of their effort, and even their Advisory Board did not know when they would finally release conclusions until October of 2004.
In October of 2004 their conclusions on the cause of the building collapse was a surprise to me. While I can find issues with their investigation of the event in assembling information through the lack of calling witnesses, issuing subpoenas, and applying normal proactive legal processes, I will primarily focus on the issues related to the fire and the collapse of WTC 1 & 2.
Specifically I will demonstrate why I believe the NIST conclusion is deficient and I will offer an alternative conclusion. The significance of these two conclusions is significant, as it bears on the responsibility for the collapse of the towers. The NIST conclusion essentially puts the primary cause on the impact of the aircraft, while the alternative conclusion lays it at the feet of fire safety design. The correct answer bears on the practice of fire safety.
The NIST investigation was done in virtual secrecy with periodic hearings to give progress. It was not until October in 2004 did NIST present a conclusion. Up until that time, it was not clear what they would conclude. NIST has not responded to written questions
"What is lacking from NIST is a clear account of the logic they used in explaining the collapse mechanisms. It is one thing to state the cause and imply their computation by computer codes; it is another to clearly illustrate the physics behind the collapse mechanisms."
"The stripping of the core column insulation is critical to the NIST conclusion, and without it they cannot get the buildings to collapse. No scientific justification was give for the stripping except that it was in the path of the aircraft.
Total lack of respect for and adherence to Rule 12 noted.
That is an erroneous interpretation of the data that only the fanatically faithful on this forum support.
Real engineers give their real names and credentials. You are just an anonomous poster and not an engineer - except in your own mind.
Last edited:
(their acceleration might simply be reduced but with no reduction in velocity). Apart from that, where have I stated otherwise? If it's easier to smash the building below then that's what will happen. Like a brick dropped from 3' will smash through a greenhouse roof whereas a piece of gravel dropped from 3" might well bounce off.
