Search results

Not enough weight, try a ton of bricks vs. a ton of gravel. Remember, we know the weight alone was enough to break the floor, the impact is all bonus.

How many dominoes can you chain up? Is there a limit?

Are there 3 million tall buildings in the world? ;-)

No. It's sufficient. It's not the minimum. And it includes the damage from the aircraft.

Hollow tube design.

this would be worth more if I didn't expect you to pivot back to "designed to be vulnerable" (omitting the "designed to be vulnerable by magic") forthwith what happens to a real building in dreamland is not interesting to me NIST's experiment is interesting because it shows that the mechanical...

it is when you don't understand how US foreign policy contributes to its creation

Because it means these events are controllable, and not seemingly random.

All-domain Anomaly Resolution Office "Anomalous" vs. "Anomaly". Surprisingly, Robson had the same typo as that Twitter guy. (entirely avoidable by quoting sources, as per metabunk rules) Official Twitter:

The jet fuel sharply shortened the time to involvement of all accessible combustible surfaces and, thus, the time to the peak HRR [heat release rate]. Note also that the windows being blown out provided ventilation to the fire; it would have been air-limited, had that not happened. NIST set up...

Yes. But that's the only thing that came up when I did a web search for that office, so I don't believe you when you assert it exists.

I understand NIST to disagree with you. NCSTAR 1-5 explicitly addressed the question, "Could an extreme but conventional fire, occurring without the aircraft impact, have led to the collapse of a WTC tower?" Their answer was, first, that a conventional fire would have less heat output than 9/11...

they don't, the same way they don't design buildings to be vulnerable to fire it happens naturally, and they have to design against it

I don't believe it.

NIST said no. See NIST NCSTAR 1-5, section 6.15.

Are you sure of this?

That's not true at all, and we have talked about this.

Then this will surprise you: Source: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=y97rBdSYbkg Any child setting off a domino chain reaction is not incredulous about it, why were you? No, @econ41 simply hasn't posted since then.

ONE designer. And he erred, understandably. Because nobody "competent and experienced in their field" could have performed such an analysis at that time. (Consider how long it took NIST 30 years later, and what additional data they needed, even ex post facto.)

They didn't have the tools to do it. And they were not required to do it. Enough reason for dedicated, smart, competent people not to.