Demand proof of X.
When proof of X is given, demand proof of Y.
Any delay of proof equals proof of conspiracy.
Any fast proof equals YOU being a part of the conspiracy, one of “them”.
Any fast rebuke equals YOU being a part of the conspiracy, one of “them”.
Baffling. And a lot of times, they believe contradictory conspiracies. PCTs who think Bin Laden been dead long before the WTC was hit are more likely to believe that he’s still alive, chilling in the Pentagon somewhere.
In CTs about weapon dispersion (e.g., chemtrails) do NOT be a military fellow who knows how weapons system works (bound the rebuke the hell out of them). If you are military, you are infinitely “one of them”, and they will disregard everything you say as if you are paid to rebuke them or something.
That is a list of supposedly scientific papers compiled by a JREFer, of all people.
I said “experiment”. Which one of those was an experiment?
Here is one paper from the list:
It says:
So it is based on an assumption and then gives a collapse time of up to 12 seconds.
“mass is a function of time”? What kind of assumption is that?
All you have to do is write a program with 109 equal masses floating in space 12 feet apart supported by nothing. Allow the top 14 to fall at one G. Compute new velocities based on the result of the Conservation of Momentum after each collision and continuing gravitational accelerations.
A tower of equal masses 1308 feet tall takes 11.9 seconds to come down just because of the Conservation of Momentum with no energy lost due to bending and breakage. That paper ASSUMES the towers could come down that fast without explaining how it could. In fact the word “conservation” is not in the paper.
It does not give a mass distribution for the building.
But the mass distribution changes the collapse time as my program will demonstrate. Put a 1500 ton mass at the top and make the rest 0.1 tons and the collapse time drops to 9.1 seconds or not much different from free fall. I can’t use 0 tons because then the program give a divide by zero error. But the small masses have little effect.
Another run with mass increasing from 1 ton at the top to 100 tons at the 55th floor and then 100 to 10,000 at the bottom give 19 seconds. But all of that with no bending and breakage. But a real skyscraper cannot possibly come down without bending and breakage which would require energy and slow things down.
So how scientific can any papers be without accurate mass distribution data on WTC1 and an explanation for the low collapse time? So where is that data in any paper?
It appears you would only be satisfied if someone built an exact replica of the WTC and crashed a plane into them. At least that’s the impression you’ve given in all the other threads about 9/11.
No I think that is an excuse people come up with for not doing any experiments. I do not consider a full size experiment to be necessary and have never suggested it.
I find it very amusing that before 9/11 scientists could do computer simulations of asteroid strikes
And yet with all of the improvements in computers since then we don’t have a good simulation of any supposed top down collapse of the north tower. But how could such a simulation be done without accurate steel and concrete data. LOL
Let’s say you succeed in convincing people that the official 9/11 story is false, what’s the next step? And the one after that? What do you see as the conclusion of your attempts at revealing that the official 9/11 story is false?
So you won’t accept the sum total of scientific and engineering knowledge and insist upon a new experiment which may or may not be relevant?
It makes me wonder if you ever took any college-level courses in mechanics, engineering, physics, or any scientific endeavor. If so, you will know that although some classes perform experiments, most teaching relies on millions of past experiments, observations, and explanations that have been found to be consistent. Experiments performed in class are the kind that confirm what is being learned, not the kind that would explore the unknown.
What you want is an experiment to confirm the existence and measurement of gravity. What you won’t accept is that this is not likely to fail and overturn all of physics.
So provide a link to something in this “sum total of scientific and engineering knowledge” that has a table specifying the tons of steel and tons of concrete on every level of the north tower. I downloaded and burned the NCSTAR1 report to DVD. I have searched it hundreds of times. It never specifies the total amount of concrete in the towers but does it for the steel. But there is no distribution specified for the steel or concrete though they admit in three places that they need the weight distribution to analyse the aircraft impact.
It is not my fault that you believe experts about what you apparently do not understand for yourself and are not bothered by so many experts that say NOTHING for 12 YEARS.
How is it that experts can physically model the Tacoma Narrows bridge but can’t do it for WTC1 in 12 YEARS with far better computers? Of course there was never any suspicion or conspiracy argument about that bridge.
What, you mean simulations like the one NatGeo did four years ago? Or the one by PBS Nova? Or the examinations that went into the NIST report?
Also, what evidence do you have for your hypothesis? Your argument right now seems to be “there’s not enough evidence for the official hypothesis”. Which is a fair thing to say, as long as you make clear what would be required to change your mind, and that is not completely unreasonable (for example, requiring the exact status of all building materials within WTC1 and WTC2 - a completely unrealistic standard of evidence). Honestly, I feel like this demand for a simulation is ultimately a waste of everyone’s time. Why? Because the data needed to make such a simulation accurately is impossible to get, and because the evidence amassed that the towers collapsed as a result of the fires and the way the building was constructed is absolutely overwhelming.
But more to the point, it’s not enough to say “there isn’t enough evidence” - especially when there really is. In order to dislodge the hypothesis without any fact that runs contrary to it, you need an alternative with similar explanatory power. So what is yours, and what evidence is there for it? Oh right. Controlled Demolition, and fuck all.
No. We know that it can be done, but that it would be an enormous waste of time and money. NIST identified the causes of the collapse, (using, in several cases, computer simulations), and once those causes had been identified, playing games to show the result would have been nothing but fluff to satisfy CT loons, (who would have simply gone on to ignore the evidence and make up something else about which to complain).
Reasonable people who examined the evidence (unless you want to claim that large swathes of academia were “in on it”, which is about as tenable as claiming that we actually have a permanent base of operations on Mars) by and large came to the conclusion that the “official” story was correct. Indeed, this was confirmed by an independent commission, the NIST, Popular Mechanics, PBS, National Geographic, and I’m sure if you looked further you could find more. So at this point, there are only two types of people who aren’t in the know:
The underinformed. This can be remedied with existing evidence.
The unreasonable. No amount of evidence is ever going to help these guys.
So basically, yeah. Complete and utter waste of time and money. You want a simulation? Take the data from the numerous reports on the subject and make one. And stop wasting everyone’s time. Because most of the people you criticize for doing “nothing” for the last 12 years? They saw the existing research, thought, “Yep, that’s convincing”, and put the “9/11 was a controlled demolition” idea in the dustbin of history along with “the moon landing was fake” and “JFK was shot from a grassy knoll”.
They said “global collapse was inevitable” they have never explained how the north tower came down so fast. Did they ever mention the Conservation of Momentum?
Yes, and the collapse of the Tacoma Narrows bridge was, based on the more limited understanding of the time, kind of a mystery. It’s study was in fact revolutionary for engineering and physics. It offered a lot of new insight we hadn’t had before into how such things work, and nobody quite understood it at the time of collapse. It made sense to make such a model in that case, to help understand it. Such a physical model was also infinitely easier to build, seeing as we’re talking about a suspension bridge and not a 95-story skyscraper, and seeing as the most relevant part of the model can be replicated without a whole lot of information on the tensile strength of the bridge beyond eyeballing it. The contrast to the 9/11 towers could hardly be greater, in terms of both scale and kind. I mean, seriously, dude. Look at the evidence. It makes perfect sense that the building would fall the way it did.
Actually, they did. How did you not know this? What’s more, this seems more an argument from incredulity than anything else. Yeah, the north tower came down fast - faster than one might expect from a skyscraper. So what? We know why it did, and we know that our assumptions about such things are just not good.
This thread is providing a very instructive case for what prompted the OP.
I have already noted that it is unlikely that every CT proponent suffers a mental or psychological disability, (while acknowledging that some folks who suffer such disabilities may manifest them through participation in CT nonsense). However, when the average layman looks at the enormous effort that many CT proponents expend avoiding reality in order to maintain their delusions, it is difficult for that psychological layman to regard such monomaniacal devotion to CTs as anything other than an illness of some sort.
And once again, this all ties back to how conspiracy theorists think. For some reason, the evidence which was enough to convince the vast majority of acaedmia is simply not enough for these guys. However, when it comes to actually finding evidence, they have this astounding lack to miss things non-CTers pick up on quite quickly. Huh.
