1. econ41

    econ41 Active Member

    Without doubt it is a good model and goes a long way to demonstrating the key feature of the WTC "Twins" progression stage collapse. But the issue of objective or purpose remains implicit.

    And your criticism of NIST does not follow. There are two main issues of relevance:
    1) NIST made a choice to not detail the mechanism of the inevitable global collapse. From a professional engineering point of view that was a legitimate option. The contention only arises in the setting of conspiracy based criticism of NIST. A topic I am willing to discuss in a more appropriate thread. The bottom line is "how far should a public funded investigation go to guess and forestall false claims from conspiracy theorists?" There could well be a valid public policy choice to go further - but discussion is not the topic of this thread.

    2) What is the purpose of the model? Read the two (?) year history about choice of goal or objective. The reality is that most parties with a legitimate interest in understanding the mechanism ALREADY understood the actual mechanism it was modelling. So the model adds little if anything to understanding of the mechanism.

    Wrong - the "loaded emotive" term "didn't care". NIST chose not to and read their brief as permitting that choice. NIST was statutorily obligated to the US Government which has NOT asked NIST to go further. NIST has no statutory obligation to predict and forestall false clams based on conspiracy. There could be a valid argument for "better PR" BUT it is hindsight. It could well be that any future such brief extends beyond technical minimal scope and ventures some distance into PR. Again - a topic for another thread if you want to explore it.

    Why not drop the innuendo of the last sentence and state what you mean explicitly. Preferably in a different thread.
    Last edited: Oct 9, 2016
    • Like Like x 3
  2. Hierophant

    Hierophant Member

    Even if making it a 3D model is more work, you could simulate "squibs" by placing some flour or powdered cement on the floor boards? Maybe also demonstrate how powdered cement is created by smashing it with a hammer.
  3. Nada Truther

    Nada Truther Active Member

    I would think "squibs" can easily be created by stacking cardboard boxes with some sort of powder, like flour, inside each. Make some weak points to serve as simulation for the weaker windows that would blow out upon the crushing of each box (floor); then crush the boxes. I think most rational people can predict what will happen. My prediction would be that as the boxes are crushed and air pressure is increased inside each box, the weak points will give, sending the powder out the weaker points in a jet, or "squib"-like fashion. If someone wants to actually create this, be my guest. [...] I do not have either the time or desire to do it myself. Nor, do I want to waste one cardboard box or grain of flour to do it. In my opinion, the cardboard and flour are more valuable than the need to "prove" this one.
    Last edited by a moderator: Jan 23, 2017