posted on Aug, 25 2008 @ 02:52 PM
Originally posted by ULTIMA11. NIST original computer model stated neither the plane impacts or fires casued the collapse of the
towers.
Incorrect, NIST originally had
3 models, including one that closely approximated the building's behaviour.
2. NIST's own reports state they failed to recover steel for testing from building 7.
How can we take NIST reports serious if they contain contridictinos and missing tests?
Nobody recovered steel from WTC7, does this mean all reports on it will be inconclusive, that nobody can prove one theory or another?
edit: I just re-read this post and it does give a slightly wrong impression. NIST of course only had one model of the way the towers were constructed,
but they 'ran' this model 3 distinct times with parameter variations appropriate to their error margins. As a result there is no 'original' model
to compare and contradict, only a model with slightly lower values for aircraft speed etc. These differences in values are
within the margin for
error. That is the point of doing three different analyses, you take the measured values, a lower bound and an upper bound.
[edit on 25-8-2008 by exponent]