Scientists simulate jet colliding with World Trade Center

Whatever dude

No, actually, you can't.
You still don't get it do you.?

NASTRAN actually calculates every square inch of material. First by gravity, then by EVERY factor that affects a material on earth, THEN by the event that is happening to it, in exquisite detail.

SO, you can't model the building to made out of anything that could not hold it's position in REAL LIFE.

SO, you can't model a Cardboard skyscraper, it would not hold up, and NASTRAN would stop the simulation, WAAAY before animation.

Pardonéz mois, ohh you all knowing merlin, I am unworthy!

Actually I don't give a shit, you can simulate your ass off all night long with your mighty simulation. It's not the fact that it can't simulate the environment (which I am sure it can do very accurately). If the simulation is very accurate, so you can model the building to be made of (among others) a weaker material than it actually was made of. So the question still is: did you model the building to be weaker than it actually was?

No, actually, it would have collapsed too, even if NOT hit by a plane.

Granite, despite your fantasies, cannot be built into a block as high as the WTC, it's own internal stresses would have caused it to collapse as they did at the Bent Pyramid in Egypt.

The NASTRAN FEA model would have picked this up, as it has to calculate the environment before simulating any impact in the environment.

Do you understand this now, rabbit?

NASTRAN simulates the environment VERY accurately.

search "scalar 9 11"

@Merlin5x5
So, if I didn't get you wrong, you mean, that a big solid block of granite would have collapsed too, if hit by a plane? Well, this might very well be so. I mean, what do I know about granite and stuff? But the point still stands. The simulation's model is likely to have lots of parameters which allow to tweak the outcomes in many ways. So the important thing still is: does the model of the shown simulation reflect the real world in an adequate way?

rambling...aren't we

how convenient that the PTB, can not locate that now...for what would that do the the official HYPOTHESIS, if they do?

why don't YOU tell me what new codes in building construction were implemented BECAUSE of 9-11

I'll give you a hint...

nothing, nada, null, nought, nil, nichts, zilch, zip, zippo, diddly, squat, diddly squat

total global collapse of 110 stories at near free fall speed..after 56 min from moving spot fire

and NO code changes

NIST develops those codes.

WE are talking about the WTC, and Skillings claim that it can absorb a gigantic fire.

Where is THAT code, plan, infrastructure, or ANYTHING that supposedly copes with a steel frame fire.?

WITHOUT firemen?

who designs "for fire"?

that's what codes are for

there are things that a hundred years of fire prevention in office buildings has taught us....like the 2-3 hr rating on the fireproofing...that's not to get the building evacuated, but the above average time it takes for an office fire to consume and move on...

I think sprinklers were put in after the 1975 fire that burned for over 3 hours, engulfing 70% the 11th floor,,,including the entire core....no building collapse...go figure

Hey, Boob, I can't help if if you are drool on your keyboard stupid.
I am just trying to lead you to ACTUAL history and knowledge.

For instance, if they designed for a fire, where is it?
You know, the design?

It's not in the white paper, that Scholars for 9/11 Flatulence quote, it's not in the public plans available online, and they didn't even put FIRE SPRINKLERS in the building till 2001, the same year as the attacks.

SO, where is that fire disaster plan again?
.