Reply #137: And who decided to examine so little physical evidence so that [View All]

even when 0% of it supported NIST's collapse hypothesis and less than 1% came within even 350 C of supporting it, NIST could still attempt to excuse this fact by simply postulating that the physical sample size they specifically chose to examine must not have been representative?

The steel gathered WAS sufficient to test it for design parameters, which is all it was ever intended to do.

Why was this all "it was ever intended to do"? In your mind, is there really no connection between the actual physical evidence of a unique and historic phenomenon and the scientific explanation of the phenomenon?

It was NOT sufficient to exterpolate temperatures that other parts of the core structure might have been exposed to. That was done via the computer modelling, which was the only choice.

Wrong. All the physical evidence was there. As I said, it was just sitting on the ground. It had to be taken away one piece at a time, loaded onto trucks, moved elsewhere and finally get picked up by its buyers! Instead, NIST chose to cursorily examine just 0.25% to 0.5% of it, and when the samples they examined offered no support whatsoever for their collapse hypothesis, they simply chose to write this fact off, citing their own chosen lack of scientific rigor as their basis!

Rail all you like against the haste of the cleanup operation. But understand that the ruins of the WTC were a smoking pit of pollutants pouring its way into the atmosphere. The place had to be cleaned up as quickly as possible. Utilities had to be repaired. Life had to go on.

And the physical evidence simply had to be immediately removed from its NJ staging area, immediately sold to foreign countries on the other side of the globe and immediately smelted? Along with the transaction receipts, of course! Just how stupid do you think we all are to advance such a ridiculous argument?

But NIST didn't conduct the study you thought it should have, and therefore you feel the need to malign it as completely useless, when it is not. The NIST study accomplished the job it intended to do in the matter of the WTC towers collapse: develop a model of building performance under the ascertainable conditions of the 9/11 attacks and use that model to identify possible ways of improving building construction in the future.

So tell us, exactly what physical design specification changes concerning future skyscraper construction did NIST develop based on their computer models of the WTC towers' supposed collapse initiation sequences? What current construction efforts have been subject to higher material code standards due to NIST's computer models of WTC's collapse -- models that were not supported by even a shred physical evidence? Please tell us which structures are being redesigned and what building materials are subject to new, higher standards based on NIST's tenuous hypothesis of the WTC towers' collapses.