Can the NIST report withstand a peer review?

reply to post by Alfie1


So, I can't bring up the fact that you agree that NIST can simulate one collapse but can't simulate another, but it's ok for you guys to bring up holograms in every thread? Gotcha.

Going by what you say here Alfie1, can NIST simulate a collapse or not?

Originally posted by Alfie1
As a layman, I don't readily see how you can model that collapse when you can't see what is happening internally and you can't see much externally because of falling debris and dust.

If not, as YOU state, then how can they simulate WTC 7 and be taken seriously?

reply to post by Cassius666


Well I have talked to " educated people " about cd of the Towers but the trouble is that they have just looked at me as though I have just given birth to a frog. Can you not name some others I could contact, thanks ?

Originally posted by Cassius666
The floors were designed to hold up everything above them. They should have offered some resistance, yet they did not.

edit on 20-12-2010 by Cassius666 because: (no reason given)

Thats why I specifically mentioned that the floor is "the part you walk on". The floors were definitely not designed to hold up everything. Thats what the columns were for. But this seems to be a concept that is very hard to explain, and it seems to be the cause of the idea that that the resistance is to great for the collapse to progress.

Originally posted by Nutter
reply to post by Alfie1

 

So, I can't bring up the fact that you agree that NIST can simulate one collapse but can't simulate another, but it's ok for you guys to bring up holograms in every thread? Gotcha.

edit on 20-12-2010 by Nutter because: (no reason given)

Your post is ludicrous. I have made no reference to a NIST WTC 7 simulation or holograms. I have posed the question whether it is possible for NIST to model collapses for WTC 1 & 2 given that everything was obscured by debris and dust.

I am still interested in a sensible qualified answer, but not from you obviously.

reply to post by -PLB-


By floor I meant the whole thing, not just the ground. Okay so the support columns on each floor should have held up anything above them and the central column shouldnt have desintegrated either. Also there is no video that shows the floors of the WTC pancaking unto each other. That never happened. So the point of the whole discussion is moot.

Originally posted by Alfie1
I have posed the question whether it is possible for NIST to model collapses for WTC 1 & 2 given that everything was obscured by debris and dust.

And my question is whether it is possible for NIST to model collapse for WTC 7 given that everything was obscured.

I am still interested in a sensible qualified answer, but not from you obviously.

Nice dig.

Can you answer my question first? Then we might get somewhere.

reply to post by Cassius666


I must say that English is not my primary language, but I am pretty sure that pavement is something totally different. As far as I know it is the term used for the outdoor walkways where pedestrians walk. Although I must admit the term floor is rather ambiguous, but that is why I specified it.

Edit: I see you changed your post. The top section did not fall on the columns, it fell on the floors (area you walk). It would be highly improbable if the footprint of the top columns would fall exactly on the footprint of the lower columns. And it is highly probable that the top columns would hit the lower floors instead.

reply to post by -PLB-


Well it isnt mine either. At any rate one floor pancaking on the other never happened, so I dont see the point of this discussion. If you think you have a video showing one floor pancaking atop the other feel free to link me to it.

Here you can hear the sequence of explosions that take down the south tower.

www.youtube.com...

It sounds as if the mic was overwhelmed by the noise, I wonder who loud it was life.

Originally posted by Alfie1

Originally posted by Nutter
but it's ok for you guys to bring up holograms in every thread?

I have made no reference to a NIST WTC 7 simulation or holograms.

Since when does "you guys" equate to "you"?

reply to post by Cassius666


If the floors did not "pancake" (in other words, drop on each other), then what did the floors drop on? It seems to me the only thing a higher floor can drop on is a lower floor. There is nothing else there except air. Even if controlled demolition was used, the only thing a higher floor could drop on is still a lower floor.

Originally posted by Nutter

Originally posted by Alfie1

Originally posted by Nutter
but it's ok for you guys to bring up holograms in every thread?

I have made no reference to a NIST WTC 7 simulation or holograms.

Since when does "you guys" equate to "you"?

edit on 20-12-2010 by Nutter because: (no reason given)

What a devastating distinction . I feel so ashamed !

reply to post by Alfie1


Why not answer the question?

This question:

And my question is whether it is possible for NIST to model collapse for WTC 7 given that everything was obscured.

reply to post by -PLB-


I dont know what you see and hear, but I see a sequence of explosions tearing each floor apart, the concrete turns into find dust, while the beams fall down some bent into a horseshoe shape. Think of it, what was left of the WTC? The last one 2 floors, there have even been survivors there. Shouldnt they have been squashed by the above floors? The floors exploded and what was not turned into dust or hurled away by the blast fell straight down, so we did not have whole sections pancaking on top of each other, but rahter single bodies that once where part of the tower falling down or being hurled away.

reply to post by Cassius666


So you theory is not controlled demolition, where strategically placed explosive charges take out essential structural supports, but total annihilation blasts that completely destroyed all the floors? Well it sounds like an interesting theory, but it seems a bit far off from reality.

reply to post by -PLB-


Well its still controlled demolition, maybe with a different approach than what was employed to bring down WTC 7.

It seems a bit far from reality? Please elaborate. How else do you explain the total annihilation that we whitness, not to mention the defeaning sound that is inconsistent with any footage of a controlled demolition. I havent seen footage of buildings impacting the ground making that kind of noise.

I think the videos we saw over and over speak for themselves. None showed floors pancaking into each other.

Like I said, the use of explosives is a far more rational explanation than the fantastic scenario presented in the NIST report. I take it you stand by the version presented in the NIST report and the pancaking floors theory although no video I am aware of shows floors pancaking unto each other.

I think you do not fully grasp what you put your faith in, if you trust into the NIST report. Believing that the events unfolded as depicted in the NIST report is an act of faith in the truest sense of the word.

Also evidence of both explosives and thermite has been found. It has even been peer reviewed. What else do you want?

Originally posted by Cassius666How else do you explain the total annihilation that we whitness

The potential energy equivalent to 100 ton of TNT being released?

reply to post by -PLB-


Triggered by what? You argue that that kind of energy was stored in the WTC towers, however the tower cant be both the trigger and the source of the released energy. The towers held all that potential energy in place nicely forming a somewhat straight tower, didnt they?

reply to post by Cassius666


Once the collapse is in motion, this energy is being released. So all the destruction you see during the collapse is as result of potential energy being released.

The initiation is a different subject all together. Most people think that a plane crash and the subsequent fires initiated it.

reply to post by -PLB-


You would have to take out the first floor first for that to happen, then all the stored energy would be set in motion and transformed into energy (minus the first floor of course). It does not work that way if you drop the upper floors on the lower floors. The energy is consumed at some point. Thats the main fault with the piledriver theory. Not to mention that no video shows the floors pancaking atop each other. Not to mention that still does not explain what happened to the central column. Even in that nice animation the central column was shown standing.

To sum it up that particular theory of yours has been debunked by people who did the math and we do not see any of it on the videos we all saw over and over again either. And I am not aware that a building is demolished by taking out the last floor to have it smash on the subsequent floors, in an "irreversible process". So I dont really get what you are basing your opinion on other than faith, or maybe you need to ask the right people.