Mostra notizie nelle discussioni
  • Avatar
    ☺
    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
    Sulla distruzione del WTC7
    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". Rotola dal ridere
    Nobody is more inferior than those who insist on being equal. - Nietzsche
<softv>

Pagina generata in 51 millisecondi

Utenti attivi: 9 nell'ultimo minuto, 24 negli ultimi cinque minuti, 46 negli ultimi 15 minuti