/sci/ - Science & Math

>>12409050
nah

>>12024985
We went over this in the last thread: The oversimplified pancake collapse model in the Commission Report got debunked in the NIST reports - the collapse sequences were much more complicated.

The rest is on point though - without any massive deflecting force there's no reason the towers should have toppled over like fucking timber the way the truthers keep suggesting they should have.

>>12017764
>>12021089
>>12021131
>>12021142
>>12021388
>>12022315
>>12022954
>pancakes pancakes pancakes
You guys are aware that the NIST investigation threw out the 9/11 Commission's oversimplified pancake collapse model, right?

The collapses of towers 1, 2, and 7 were MUCH more complex, progressive collapses caused when damaged and weakened support structures near plane/debris impact sites failed and cascaded through the surrounding support structure.
>Interesting side note - the NIST simulation of the Building 7 collapse is, to date, the only collapse simulation to accurately reproduce the premature collapse of the penthouse structures.

>>11701236
>The commission report is famously wrong.
>How?
I imagine he's referring to the commission report determined the cause of the collapses to be the result of a 'pancake effect' of each collapsing and mostly intact floor slamming into the one below. Which wasn't what happened.

The NIST report on the collapses revised this to be a much more complex collapse process in all three buildings where thermal weakening and distortion of the supports, struts, and grid structures exacerbated jet/debris impact damage and progressively weakened surrounding sections

>>7099881
It sounds like you're asking us to simplify the collapse of a complex structure to high school kinematics and getting pissed off at us when we tell you that's not really possible and that any attempt to model it that way would be highly inaccurate and lose tons of information about the system.

You may as well complain about us not coming up with an algebraic model of Maxwell's Laws or the Navier Stokes equation.


Don't get pissy at physics for not making itself easier for you and don't get pissy at /sci/ just because the answers we provide to your questions aren't the ones you wanted to hear. If all you're looking for is an echo chamber to confirm your own assumptions I suggest you try /pol/ or /x/.