NISTPART1

No description available.

Category:

Entertainment

Tags:

• NIST
• 911
• 9-11
• 9/11
• simulation
• wtc
• world
• trade
• center
• truss
• sag
• animation
• fea
• finite
• element
• analysis

[roquefortfiles]

@DarkwingScooter thermite to cut just enough columns

I am telling you right now this thermite stuff? Stories? are complete nonsense. This stuff is laughably absurd. There is not a person in CD who would EVER use this as a material for a CD. It wouldn't happen.

This building does not even collapse in a manner of a CD. There is NOTHING controlled about it at all.

[DarkwingScooter]

@roquefortfiles None of the empirical experiments to try and replicate the initiation of the collapse by means of fire were remotely successful, and f.e.a.'s such as the one in this video suggest strongly that the mechanism proposed by NIST cannot succeed even theoretically.

So let's say for argument's sake you use thermite to cut just enough columns, no more than fire would have taken out in the OS. That explains all the characteristics of the event and nothing is left unexplained.

[roquefortfiles]

@DarkwingScooter Ok. So what's your point of view. I don't really follow you.

[DarkwingScooter]

@roquefortfiles The weight is there whether there are explosives or not. I have not argued that it was anything BUT the weight that caused the things you describe.

[roquefortfiles]

@DarkwingScooter . I know enough to know that explosives do not "Dustify" acre wide cement floors. The truck bomb in 93 had one of the largest AMFO bombs ever. Producing a blast over pressure of something like 150,000 PSI. Far far more than any shaped charge might.

The concrete in the parking garage was most certainly not converted to powder.

What does this? Massive WEIGHT.

Put a billiard ball in a 50 ton hydraulic press. You'll get the same results. POWDER.

[DarkwingScooter]

@roquefortfiles Again, your claim is that because a huge amount of explosives are required no explosives are required?

[roquefortfiles]

@DarkwingScooter I am citing because it illustrates the ridiculously silly amount of explosives that WOULD have been required.

The building only needs to be BROUGHT to failure point. After that there is NO QUESTION it would be more than capable of the destruction we saw.

Even small areas of bare steel without fire proofing can compromise the entire section. Columns found afterward were TELLY SAVALAS bald of fire proofing.

Peculiar? artifacts?

Such as?

[DarkwingScooter]

@roquefortfiles Why are you citing a paper you disagree with?

Your argument is that gravity alone turned the concrete into dust and flung the steel beams. I agree with you.

I don't agree that gravity (and fire) alone can account for the initiation, the specific attributes or the peculiar artifacts of the collapse.

[roquefortfiles]

@DarkwingScooter I have paper done by a Structural Engineer and a Demolition expert. Calculating the amount of explosives needed to produce the amount of destruction we saw.

650 tonnes of high grade explosives. And EVEN THEN!! explosives are a lousy agent to turn cement in to powder.

However there was more than enough dead weight in the structure to pulverize the floors.

Cement will be powder at like 1.5 Gigajoules of energy. the collapse produced 3.5.

[DarkwingScooter]

@roquefortfiles Again, you insist that a demolition must have been done by massively elaborate contraption, concluding from this that it wasn't done by any contraption at all?