In article ,
TRUTH wrote:


Perhaps to learn clues to prevent a complete, freefall "fire induced"
collapse from happening again, especially since:

It never happened before, but on 9/11 it happened three times. An
executive in the WTC Management said in his opinion the Towers could
withstand multiple 707 impacts, and compared it to a pencil puncturing a
screen netting. Firefighters made it up to the impact area of the South
Tower and suggested nothing major.

And -- White Star proclaimed the Titanic to be "unsinkable", too.


Also, are you aware that NIST literally "changed" the data in their
computer simulation to get the Towers to collapse? And now they refuse to
show the simulations to leading fire engineers who call for them.

That is what you do when analysing any kind of system failure or test.
When you perform a test or failure analysis, you build a computer model,
as best you can, and then change paramaters until you duplicate the
observed phenomena. Of course, you would change the data (weaken or
remove structural members from the simulation, etc.) until you get an
understanding of what actually failed.

I doubt that fire engineers would understand the dynamics of structural
failure -- they are interested (and trained) in fireproofing,
firefighting and fire prevention -- not how a building came down when
hit by the equivalent of a 1KT weapon.