Results 1 to 13 of 396
09-27-2012, 01:10 PM #9
Sorry, that these "youtube" experts, who, by the way, choose to say that the NIST report was not valid science (actually it was, published and with peer review) then choose to make a youtube video (not peer reviewed, not scientifically arrived at) is somewhat laughable.
Pot meet kettle?
Here's what the peer reviewed science white papers say. By the way, it was indeed an implosion. It is onlty the cockamayme conclusions derived from that which indicates a problem.
Your "experts" don't even understand the science of fire, much less other more esoteric considerations. Laughably, they seem to confuse temperature with heat! A quick review of simple combustion science would have cleared that right up, but hey, we don't want to confuse things by USING SCIENTIFIC BASICS now would we? None of them know the difference bewteen a jet burner, a pre-mixed flame, and a diffuse flame!
Here's one with pretty pictures for you youtube scientists; be sure to read the part "buildings DON'T tumble!"
The science of progressive collapse (note that such is MANDATED in building design).
Progressive collapse and the WTC;
Of course, I don't particularly expect much. As I said, all been done before.
Though I would urge you to get your science from actual peer reviewed science white papers. Not youtube. As you can see (if you read... as I said not expected, tried this already), most of the conclusions from the "expert" testimony on youtube is pretty far off the mark.
Last edited by scrogdog; 09-27-2012 at 01:36 PM."Social networking" is an oxymoron.