World trade centre collapse, 9/11 conspiracy

Status
Not open for further replies.
billvon said:
You posted several links to that data previously. Look it up!
Click to expand...

That is false. Gregory Urich claimed to have produced the data but his spreadsheet does not have a height column even though he put in a potential energy column.

Won't work. The square/cubed law makes any such model effectively useless.
Click to expand...

Engineers were making models for decades before electronic computers existed. The Tacoma Narrows bridge model is an example. You are just throwing out excuses.
 
psikeyhackr said:
That is false. Gregory Urich claimed to have produced the data but his spreadsheet does not have a height column even though he put in a potential energy column.
Click to expand...
Ah, so you lied. OK.
Engineers were making models for decades before electronic computers existed. The Tacoma Narrows bridge model is an example. You are just throwing out excuses.
Click to expand...
So engineers modeled the Tacoma Narrows bridge and realized it would collapse before it was built? And they built it anyway? A surprising claim.
 
billvon said:
So engineers modeled the Tacoma Narrows bridge and realized it would collapse before it was built? And they built it anyway? A surprising claim.
Click to expand...

No one realized the bridge was going to collapse. I never said they did. The objective of the model was was to analyze the oscillations to figure out what to do to stop it. The wind got too strong and the bridge oscillated out of control and collapsed before any solutions could be implemented.

My point was to demonstrate scale modeling of physical phenomenon was possible. No electronic computer simulation possible in 1940.
 
DaveC426913 said:
Note that some types of simulations scale well, while others do not.

Air flow simulations are an example of a property that scales well. Weight is an example of a property that scales poorly.
Click to expand...

Complicated does not mean impossible. Only a dog was killed in the bridge collapse. Are you saying the Twin Tower are not important enough to resolve with finality?
 
psikeyhackr said:
Are you saying the Twin Tower are not important enough to resolve with finality?
Click to expand...
It is resolved with finality.

Just like the Moon landing and the spherical Earth are.


I am simply pointing out that your comparison to the Tacoma Narrows sim is faulty.
 
psikeyhackr said:
No one realized the bridge was going to collapse. I never said they did. The objective of the model was was to analyze the oscillations to figure out what to do to stop it.
Click to expand...
Ah, so after they realized they had a problem they built a model and futzed around with it until it showed similar behavior. Yes, that's trivial. Likewise, it would be trivial to build models of the WTC and futz around with them until they collapsed in a similar manner.
Are you saying the Twin Tower are not important enough to resolve with finality?
Click to expand...
The collapse WAS resolved with finality.

If you want to run more simulations, knock yourself out. If you don't care enough to do so, or are too lazy, or don't understand how - then don't blame others for your failures.
 
billvon said:
Ah, so after they realized they had a problem they built a model and futzed around with it until it showed similar behavior. Yes, that's trivial.
Click to expand...

All you can come up with is B.S. and innuendo. Not worth reading or responding to. You are on ignore.
 
DaveC426913 said:
It is resolved with finality.
Click to expand...

You have simply chosen to BELIEVE. If it is actually true why should you have a problem with modeling?

Just like the Moon landing and the spherical Earth are.
Click to expand...

Maybe in you head. How many moon landing simulators are there?
https://sservi.nasa.gov/articles/nasas-moon-simulator/
https://phet.colorado.edu/en/simulation/lunar-lander
http://eaglelander3d.com/

[/QUOTE]I am simply pointing out that your comparison to the Tacoma Narrows sim is faulty.[/QUOTE]
In your opinion which you need to maintain your BELIEF. But now there are also computer simulations which did not exist in 1940.

So the Twin Towers Affair cannot be finalized until the physics is demonstrably settled.

https://canada.constructconnect.com...estruction-controlled-demolition-fact-fiction

So why don't BELIEVERS want models and simulations to prove their point?
 
psikeyhackr said:
You have simply chosen to BELIEVE. If it is actually true why should you have a problem with modeling?
Click to expand...
I don't have a problem with modeling. Knock yourself out.

psikeyhackr said:
So the Twin Towers Affair cannot be finalized until the physics is demonstrably settled.
Click to expand...
That's your belief. And you're welcome to it.

psikeyhackr said:
So why don't BELIEVERS want models and simulations to prove their point?
Click to expand...
This is a non-issue. You're the 0nly one who is unsatisfied with the answer.

It seems like you expect someone else to make your case for you. Like the world has an obligation to you because you have an idea.

This is vacuous. You are tilting at a windmill here.

Nothing's stopping you from going out and proving your idea.
 
Last edited:
psikeyhackr said:
So why don't BELIEVERS want models and simulations to prove their point?
Click to expand...

Because they don't need them. The party's over and everyone has gone home. Years ago.

(The only people who "want models", to judge by this thread, are the tiny handful of obsessional nutcase conspiracy theorists, for whom exchanging silly ideas about it it has become a sort of self-referential cottage industry.)
 
psikeyhackr said:
All you can come up with is B.S. and innuendo. Not worth reading or responding to. You are on ignore.
Click to expand...
Excellent! You can't take the criticism, so rather than deal with it, you ignore it! A time-tested strategy for conspiracy nuts throughout time.

But I still get to see your posts, which are great entertainment!
 
psikeyhackr said:
You have simply chosen to BELIEVE. If it is actually true why should you have a problem with modeling?
Click to expand...
No problem at all! Go for it.
Maybe in you head. How many moon landing simulators are there?
Click to expand...
A million. Now, how many actually prepare you to land a 1960's era LEM? Would you want a pilot who had trained on a web based video game running on a laptop?
So the Twin Towers Affair cannot be finalized until the physics is demonstrably settled.
Click to expand...
It's finalized and settled.
So why don't BELIEVERS want models and simulations to prove their point?
Click to expand...
9/11 conspiracy believers are the only people who want models and simulations to prove their point. To them I say - go for it!
 
9/11 conspiracy believers
Click to expand...

Physics is not something to be believed in. Conspiracies are irrelevant. What kind of cowards are afraid to prove what they claim is true?
 
psikeyhackr said:
What kind of cowards are afraid to prove what they claim is true?
Click to expand...
You are making the claim.. If you have a counter-argument, the onus is on you to support it.

What is all this silliness about other people having to do your homework? Knock yourself out.

"Hey, I want something, and it's my God given right for someone to have to fetch it for me!" Are you a Millennial?
 
psikeyhackr said:
Are you saying the Twin Tower are not important enough to resolve with finality?
Click to expand...
It has been resolved with full finality. The same as the "faked Moon" landing nonsensical fiasco, the same as the most recent coronovirus conspiracy nonsense now doing the rounds....
Come on in suckers!!!!:D
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top