It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by ugie1028
reply to post by Joey Canoli
how can nist's simulation show buildings sevens collapse like a cork screw, but in the countless videos out there, it fell straight down with no twisting cork screw action.
nist's model, and what we have seen in video are completely different.
Originally posted by bsbray11
Please show me NIST's computer simulations of WTC7's collapse that actually matched observations made in reality that day.
Originally posted by Joey Canoli
This?
www.youtube.com...
Originally posted by ugie1028
where is the rest of the collapse?
thats the just the beginning of it.
Originally posted by bsbray11
If you want an example of a discrepancy, watch the corners.
Originally posted by GenRadek
HOW DID THEY MANAGE TO DEMOLISH WTC7 WITHIN 2 HOURS, AS IT WAS BURNING, LEANING, AND COVERED IN SMOKE?
Originally posted by Joey Canoli
Ok.
Now, answer the 4 questions above.
Originally posted by Joey Canoli
Originally posted by ugie1028
where is the rest of the collapse?
thats the just the beginning of it.
Did they do any more than that?
Is it technically feasible?
Originally posted by bsbray11
It doesn't matter which one I post because they all suck just as much as the others!
Stop being so petty and post about something that's actually relevant to WTC7 either being demolished or coming down from fire.
Originally posted by bsbray11
What little they did model already didn't match basic observations, so there you have your answer as to why they were unable to accomplish a realistic simulation.
Originally posted by GenRadek
So if it is a stupid idea, then why the hell are you even suggesting they demoed it?
How did the pre-planted explosives and wiring manage to NOT degrade over time, NOT get discovered, NOT detonate when it was impacted by the falling debris, NOT detonate from the long burning fires over 6 hours, and then detonate silently and take 18 seconds to collapse?
Originally posted by bsbray11
it would be just as feasible
Originally posted by Joey Canoli
No, it matters when you ask questions about the wrong FEA analysis. Without you admitting that you've been looking at the wrong one, there's not much common ground to have any meanful discussion.
You've been looking at the wrong one.
Originally posted by Joey Canoli
As in when you recall that doing even this much took weeks, IIRC, of several computers working autonomously 24/7, would it be technically feasible to continue the animation?