☺
Scritto da
Nazi Heidi
Wakkus Horribilis
il 2017-10-21 22:22:17.0 alle 2017-10-21 22:22:17.0
Trollate totali: 4162
e sulle simulazioni del NIST
https://www.europhysicsnews.org/articles/epn/pdf/2...
The total collapse of WTC 7 at 5:20 PM on 9/11, shown
in Fig. 2, is remarkable because it exemplified all the signature
features of an implosion: The building dropped
in absolute free fall for the first 2.25 seconds of its descent
over a distance of 32 meters or eight stories [3]. Its
transition from stasis to free fall was sudden, occurring
in approximately one-half second. It fell symmetrically
straight down. Its steel frame was almost entirely dismembered
and deposited mostly inside the building’s
footprint, while most of its concrete was pulverized into
tiny particles. Finally, the collapse was rapid, occurring
in less than seven seconds.
Given the nature of the collapse, any investigation
adhering to the scientific method should have seriously
considered the controlled demolition hypothesis, if not
started with it. Instead, NIST (as well as the Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA), which conducted a
preliminary study prior to the NIST investigation) began
with the predetermined conclusion that the collapse was
caused by fires.
Trying to prove this predetermined conclusion was
apparently difficult. FEMA’s nine-month study concluded
by saying, “The specifics of the fires in WTC 7 and how
they caused the building to collapse remain unknown at
this time. Although the total diesel fuel on the premises
contained massive potential energy, the best hypothesis
has only a low probability of occurrence.” NIST, meanwhile,
had to postpone the release of its WTC 7 report
from mid-2005 to November 2008. As late as March 2006,
NIST’s lead investigator, Dr. Shyam Sunder, was quoted as
saying, “Truthfully, I don’t really know. We’ve had trouble
getting a handle on building No. 7.”
All the while, NIST was steadfast in ignoring evidence
that conflicted with its predetermined conclusion.
The most notable example was its attempt to deny that
WTC 7 underwent free fall. When pressed about that
matter during a technical briefing, Dr. Sunder dismissed
it by saying, “[A] free-fall time would be an object that
has no structural components below it.” But in the case
of WTC 7, he claimed, “there was structural resistance
that was provided.” Only after being challenged by high
school physics teacher David Chandler and by physics
professor Steven Jones (one of the authors of this article),
who had measured the fall on video, did NIST acknowledge
a 2.25-second period of free fall in its final report. Yet
NIST’s computer model shows no such period of free fall,
nor did NIST attempt to explain how WTC 7 could have
had “no structural components below it” for eight stories.
Instead, NIST’s final report provides an elaborate scenario
involving an unprecedented failure mechanism: the
thermal expansion of floor beams pushing an adjoining
girder off its seat. The alleged walk-off of this girder
then supposedly caused an eight-floor cascade of floor
failures, which, combined with the failure of two other
girder connections—also due to thermal expansion—left
a key column unsupported over nine stories, causing it to
buckle. This single column failure allegedly precipitated
the collapse of the entire interior structure, leaving the
exterior unsupported as a hollow shell. The exterior columns
then allegedly buckled over a two-second period
and the entire exterior fell simultaneously as a unit [3].
NIST was able to arrive at this scenario only by omitting
or misrepresenting critical structural features in its
computer modelling.[4] Correcting just one of these
errors renders NIST’s collapse initiation indisputably
impossible. Yet even with errors that were favorable to
its predetermined conclusion, NIST’s computer model
(see Fig. 3) fails to replicate the observed collapse, instead
showing large deformations to the exterior that are not
observed in the videos and showing no period of free
fall. Also, the model terminates, without explanation,
less than two seconds into the seven-second collapse.
Unfortunately, NIST’s computer modelling cannot be
independently verified because NIST has refused to release
a large portion of its modelling data on the basis
that doing so “might jeopardize public safety.
Insomma, il rapporto nel NIST sul WTC7 è pieno di falle... al punto che un professore di fisica delle superiori è riuscito con una sola osservazione a mettere in crisi l'intera loro simulazione. Non solo, ma il NIST si è pure rifiutato di condividere il modello della simulazione con la comunità scientifica perché "think of the children".
https://www.europhysicsnews.org/articles/epn/pdf/2...
The total collapse of WTC 7 at 5:20 PM on 9/11, shown
in Fig. 2, is remarkable because it exemplified all the signature
features of an implosion: The building dropped
in absolute free fall for the first 2.25 seconds of its descent
over a distance of 32 meters or eight stories [3]. Its
transition from stasis to free fall was sudden, occurring
in approximately one-half second. It fell symmetrically
straight down. Its steel frame was almost entirely dismembered
and deposited mostly inside the building’s
footprint, while most of its concrete was pulverized into
tiny particles. Finally, the collapse was rapid, occurring
in less than seven seconds.
Given the nature of the collapse, any investigation
adhering to the scientific method should have seriously
considered the controlled demolition hypothesis, if not
started with it. Instead, NIST (as well as the Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA), which conducted a
preliminary study prior to the NIST investigation) began
with the predetermined conclusion that the collapse was
caused by fires.
Trying to prove this predetermined conclusion was
apparently difficult. FEMA’s nine-month study concluded
by saying, “The specifics of the fires in WTC 7 and how
they caused the building to collapse remain unknown at
this time. Although the total diesel fuel on the premises
contained massive potential energy, the best hypothesis
has only a low probability of occurrence.” NIST, meanwhile,
had to postpone the release of its WTC 7 report
from mid-2005 to November 2008. As late as March 2006,
NIST’s lead investigator, Dr. Shyam Sunder, was quoted as
saying, “Truthfully, I don’t really know. We’ve had trouble
getting a handle on building No. 7.”
All the while, NIST was steadfast in ignoring evidence
that conflicted with its predetermined conclusion.
The most notable example was its attempt to deny that
WTC 7 underwent free fall. When pressed about that
matter during a technical briefing, Dr. Sunder dismissed
it by saying, “[A] free-fall time would be an object that
has no structural components below it.” But in the case
of WTC 7, he claimed, “there was structural resistance
that was provided.” Only after being challenged by high
school physics teacher David Chandler and by physics
professor Steven Jones (one of the authors of this article),
who had measured the fall on video, did NIST acknowledge
a 2.25-second period of free fall in its final report. Yet
NIST’s computer model shows no such period of free fall,
nor did NIST attempt to explain how WTC 7 could have
had “no structural components below it” for eight stories.
Instead, NIST’s final report provides an elaborate scenario
involving an unprecedented failure mechanism: the
thermal expansion of floor beams pushing an adjoining
girder off its seat. The alleged walk-off of this girder
then supposedly caused an eight-floor cascade of floor
failures, which, combined with the failure of two other
girder connections—also due to thermal expansion—left
a key column unsupported over nine stories, causing it to
buckle. This single column failure allegedly precipitated
the collapse of the entire interior structure, leaving the
exterior unsupported as a hollow shell. The exterior columns
then allegedly buckled over a two-second period
and the entire exterior fell simultaneously as a unit [3].
NIST was able to arrive at this scenario only by omitting
or misrepresenting critical structural features in its
computer modelling.[4] Correcting just one of these
errors renders NIST’s collapse initiation indisputably
impossible. Yet even with errors that were favorable to
its predetermined conclusion, NIST’s computer model
(see Fig. 3) fails to replicate the observed collapse, instead
showing large deformations to the exterior that are not
observed in the videos and showing no period of free
fall. Also, the model terminates, without explanation,
less than two seconds into the seven-second collapse.
Unfortunately, NIST’s computer modelling cannot be
independently verified because NIST has refused to release
a large portion of its modelling data on the basis
that doing so “might jeopardize public safety.
Insomma, il rapporto nel NIST sul WTC7 è pieno di falle... al punto che un professore di fisica delle superiori è riuscito con una sola osservazione a mettere in crisi l'intera loro simulazione. Non solo, ma il NIST si è pure rifiutato di condividere il modello della simulazione con la comunità scientifica perché "think of the children".
Nobody is more inferior than those who insist on being equal. - Nietzsche
-
Sulla distruzione del WTC7 @ 2017-10-21 22:22:17.0 di Nazi Heidi