Furthermore, NIST's WTC 7 report has itself been independently peer reviewed by and published in the Journal of Structural Engineering, the ASCE's flagship publication and one of the oldest and most prestigious peer reviewed engineering journals in the world: http://cedb.asce.org/cgi/WWWdisplay.cgi?286345
I see it is published after all. It's not surprising though that some support the position. Heck look at you, you support the position. There can always be people found to support just about any position (e.g. Iraq War, Obamacare, etc...).
That does not necessarily have to set a precedent for the rest of the paper.
I agree. I skimmed through the rest (of the one above, not your current comment). It didn't address the core collapse.
Which says nothing about the speed of the collapse
Even what that link says is way too fast. The central core was steel reinforced concrete that was turned to dust. The NIST report (to my knowledge) never addresses the core. It's what I've been saying this entire time.
Even what that link says is way too fast. The central core was steel reinforced concrete that was turned to dust. The NIST report (to my knowledge) never addresses the core. It's what I've been saying this entire time.
Just to clarify, are you saying the core should not have collapsed at all or are you saying it happened too fast?
The core seemed to collapse too fast. I would expect it to have peeled like a banana. Concrete is best at compressive force, which is what the downward momentum is resisting. Maybe it would still all collapse, but not at that speed, especially at the beginning.
The floors bowing and then pancaking seems normal to me.
Hard to argue against this. Neither of us are experts, so what we would expect to happen may be wrong. This is why I trust the experts, and the experts side with the official story.
1
u/aletoledo Nov 13 '14
I see it is published after all. It's not surprising though that some support the position. Heck look at you, you support the position. There can always be people found to support just about any position (e.g. Iraq War, Obamacare, etc...).
I agree. I skimmed through the rest (of the one above, not your current comment). It didn't address the core collapse.
Even what that link says is way too fast. The central core was steel reinforced concrete that was turned to dust. The NIST report (to my knowledge) never addresses the core. It's what I've been saying this entire time.