I'm really finding your behavior hard to understand,
Miragememories.
For what it's worth, I answered your
"fuel momentum vs. core column" question (a simple case of you conflating two arguments) in
this post, as part of a three week project where I argued you to a standstill on NIST.
Well when I get time I'll take a look at how you explain your belief that the unspent fuel had sufficient kinetic energy to wreak havoc on core columns.
Currently I'm interested in the more important issue of how NIST tweaks model parameters to achieve predetermined results ie. collapse initiation.
In their WTC2 simulation, as I've previously stated, NIST simulated the South Tower plane impact and achieved a collapse initiation. In spite of the Boeing 767-200 only hitting the corner, the core columns being heavier and stronger at the lower 80th floor, and the core only being partially impacted unlike the dead center impact of WTC1. NIST decided WTC2 had
10 columns severed and WTC1 had only 6 columns severed, even though the WTC1 columns at the 95th floor were lighter and weaker.
The supposed justification for this disparity is because in the computer modeled severe case simulation, NIST gave the 767-200 a speed of
570 mph which gave it greater momentum and kinetic energy. They also said they tweaked their models but stayed within reality.
If NIST is being so honest and scientifically realistic in the numbers they use, how can you condone their extreme, and I do mean
extreme use of aircraft speed to create the necessary damage to make their collapse initiation hypothesis work?
A few facts which I'm sure you are well aware of;
The Boeing 767-200 is rated for a cruising speed of 530 mph and maximum speed of
568 mph (at 35,000 ft.).
Eduardo Kausel, Professor of Civil & Environmental Engineering Massachusetts Institute of Technology, states; "The speed of the plane that crashed onto the South Tower can be determined with greater confidence than that of the North Tower. This is because there are several videos taken from different angles available which show the last few seconds prior to the collision.
...we conclude that a best estimate for the speed of approach is 225 m/s (i.e. 810 km/hr, or
503 mph).
This speed is in excellent agreement with information from air traffic controllers, who reported
that “Flight 175 had screamed south over the Hudson Valley at about 500 miles per hour, more
than double the legal speed”.
web.mit.edu/civenv/wtc/PDFfiles/Chapter%20III%20Aircraft%20speed.pdf
503 mph is a significantly lower speed than
570 mph.
In their less severe case NIST used 521 mph and in their baseline they used 546 mph. NIST was still using numbers that exceeded the careful analysis of MIT's Professor Kausel. Unfortunately for NIST, those numbers failed to create a collapse initiation so they tweaked the speed upwards until they found a number that would achieve their desired expectations. The magic number turned out to be 570 mph to achieve collapse initiation success.
NIST says this was within reality, even though their computer model now is being made to simulate a 767 at 1,000 ft in heavy air, tweaked to fly 12 mph faster than the 767-200's maximum speed at 35,000 feet where air is extremely thin and offers little air speed resistance.
Care to comment?
MM
