Miragememories
Registered Member
Maybe this more detailed examination of the NIST's insulation removal hypothesis will satisfy you?Actually, you have taken the opposite view to me. I suggest you review the evidence before you assume that NIST doesn't know what it's talking about. It's amazing that all the airplane's energy was used up just on the perimeter, especially when parts of it burst out the other side of the buildings. Or maybe that was an exploding Mac.
From a presentation by Kevin Ryan
" Fireproofing widely dislodged?
The idea that fireproofing was removed from most of the structural steel surfaces of the impact zones is essential to NIST's theory. NIST sought to "prove" that the plane crashes could do this by shooting shotguns at surfaces coated with spray-on foam insulation. Contrary to the popular notion that the jolts of the plane crashes could have knocked off large amounts of spray-on insulation from steel not directly in the line of fire, the tests showed that it took being sprayed with shotgun pellets to remove the insulation. In addition to the fact that there is no evidence that a crashing Boeing 757 could have been transformed into the equivalent of the thousands of shotgun blasts it would take to blast the 6,000 square meters of surface area of structural steel in the fire areas, Ryan makes another argument based on the available energy.
NIST says 2500 MJ of kinetic energy from plane that hit WTC1
** Calculations show that all this energy was consumed in crushing aircraft and breaking columns and floors *
* Shotgun tests found that 1 MJ per sq meter was needed to dislodge fireproofing
* For the areas in question, intact floors and columns had 6000 sq meters of surface area
**Calculations by Tomasz Wierzbicki of MIT"
MM