NIST doesnt release their computer models (now they've done it!)

NBachmann said:
A mathematical model is not a mathematical proof. They are entirely different concepts.
Click to expand...

I think you know he didn't mean "A" mathematical proof, but rather, proof of a mathematical nature...nitpicking.

TAM:)
 
Hourglassmemory said:
Stop thinking and believe? Nonononono. You probably didn't understand what I was trying to say. I was talking about the conspiracy theorists. They just think too much. They speculate and try to find things that fit their speculation. They'll somehow distort the way the simulation should be interpreted and get their stupid conclusions
Click to expand...

Sorry dude, it's seem you don't notice that the official theory is speculation too.... And I hope they think before writing it.
 
Anti-sophist said:
That's called science. You should learn how it works.
Click to expand...

I agree up to a point with you AS, that what we currently have is the best available.

I don't know of any artefact that has been taken straight from a model to final use without pilot testing.

I recall reading that a university here in the UK is looking for a building to use to test the NIST findings to destruction.
 
here is another one then...

The CTers are the most intelligent, kind, considerate group of people in the world.

ROFLMAO

TAM:)
 
T.A.M. said:
Interesting link for you tabuere, found on google...

Take a look

http://www.uwgb.edu/DutchS/PSEUDOSC/911NutPhysics1.HTM

TAM:)
Click to expand...


Do I say wtc was vaporized?

I say the big part of it weight was concrete, this web site say it's was about 80% of the weight of the WTC but I think he's wrong. A mass of 2400 kg/m3 is too heavy. But it don't contradict me, it's show what i'm talking about.

Image127.jpg


The concrete was blown in powder and small "rock". Powder, small rock and steel beam falling don't bring down a building completly.
 
Last edited:
tabouere said:
Sorry dude, it's seem you don't notice that the official theory is speculation too.... And I hope they think before writing it.
Click to expand...

Let’s, for the sake of argument, say I accept that’s true. Let’s say the official theory has been subjected to zero testing and that it’s just pure speculation. Well, with regards our final conclusion at least, what would follow from that? Given that the official story is seemingly by far and away the most parsimonious (due to the fact it requires no further entities to explain the phenomena than those we know exited), presumably, it’s still the one we should favour. Don’t you think?
 
touchy are we not. I merely pointed you to it.

lol

So, tab, what do you think caused the "powdering" of the concrete?

TAM:)

oh, and by the way, the top portion of the buildings, above the impact zones, did not turn to "powder and steel beams" as you say, until the building was well into the actual collapse. You make it sound like 18 storeys of cement mix and steel beams came down on the rest of the building, which is not true.

TAM:)
 
Last edited:
Par said:
Let’s, for the sake of argument, say I accept that’s true. Let’s say the official theory has been subjected to zero testing and that it’s just pure speculation. Well, with regards our final conclusion at least, what would follow from that? Given that the official story is seemingly by far and away the most parsimonious (due to the fact it requires no further entities to explain the phenomena than those we know exited), presumably, it’s still the one we should favour. Don’t you think?
Click to expand...

There's was testing made, I don't say that. But there was no real simulation with a scaled copy of the wtc, probably they've done that with a computer model, but a computer model depend of the math behind it and the data you provide to the model.

And i'm sure none of em take in consideration that most of the concrete will be blown in dust and small rock. The momentum of this debris falling is really different then the momentum of 10 floors falling in one solid block.
 
T.A.M. said:
touchy are we not. I merely pointed you to it.

lol

So, tab, what do you think caused the "powdering" of the concrete?

TAM:)

oh, and by the way, the top portion of the buildings, above the impact zones, did not turn to "powder and steel beams" as you say, until the building was well into the actual collapse. You make it sound like 18 storeys of cement mix and steel beams came down on the rest of the building, which is not true.

TAM:)
Click to expand...

Don't forget one thing, every time an upper part hit a lower part, if the lower part broke, the upper part will do so.

What caused the powdering of the concrete?

Falling debris with some help ;)
 
Last edited:
tabouere said:
There's was testing made, I don't say that. But there was no real simulation with a scaled copy of the wtc, probably they've done that with a computer model, but a computer model depend of the math behind it and the data you provide to the model.
Click to expand...

Well, that doesn’t answer my question, but I’ll rephrase it. Let’s, for the sake of argument, say I accept that the official theory has only been subjected to inappropriate and inconclusive computer modelling. Well, with regards our final conclusion at least, what would follow from that? Given that the official story is seemingly by far and away the most parsimonious (due to the fact it requires no further entities to explain the phenomena than those we know exited), presumably, it’s still the one we should favour. Don’t you think?
 
tabouere said:
Don't forget one thing, every time an upper part it a lower part, if the lower part broke, the upper part will do so.
Click to expand...

not quite so. For ever action there is an equal and opposite reaction, but to assume equal damage to both bodies, you are assuming they are identical in mass, form, density, surface area, and make up. If a piece of glass hits a piece of metal, the forces will be equal and opposite, but the effect they have on the two objects will be different. You are also not taking into account momentum.

In other words, when the top section hits the remainder, the bottom starts to collapse, but that does not mean that AN EQUAL ammount of the top section must also "collapse" or turn to dust...it is not that simple.

TAM:)
 
Par said:
Well, that doesn’t answer my question, but I’ll rephrase it. Let’s, for the sake of argument, say I accept that the official theory has only been subjected to inappropriate and inconclusive computer modelling. Well, with regards our final conclusion at least, what would follow from that? Given that the official story is seemingly by far and away the most parsimonious (due to the fact it requires no further entities to explain the phenomena than those we know exited), presumably, it’s still the one we should favour. Don’t you think?
Click to expand...

Yeah, If you want, but it must past the test, and for me, there's many leak in the theory and NIST play with the word to make sure we will accept their version.
 
T.A.M. said:
not quite so. For ever action there is an equal and opposite reaction, but to assume equal damage to both bodies, you are assuming they are identical in mass, form, density, surface area, and make up. If a piece of glass hits a piece of metal, the forces will be equal and opposite, but the effect they have on the two objects will be different. You are also not taking into account momentum.

In other words, when the top section hits the remainder, the bottom starts to collapse, but that does not mean that AN EQUAL ammount of the top section must also "collapse" or turn to dust...it is not that simple.

TAM:)
Click to expand...

It's a concrete floor versus a concrete floor.

Take a look at the rubbles, where's the upper floors?
 
tab:

I suspect that the majority of the "powder" you see while the tower is collapsing, is from the gypsum wallboard. I suspect that while, obviously there was some pulversizing of the concrete during the early stages of collapse, most of the "pulverization", occured near the end of the collapse, from the concrete hitting the ground.

TAM:)
 
tabouere said:
It's a concrete floor versus a concrete floor.

Take a look at the rubbles, where's the upper floors?
Click to expand...

Once any of it hit the ground, it would have broken into "little rocks" as you have called it.

TAM:)
 
T.A.M. said:
tab:

I suspect that the majority of the "powder" you see while the tower is collapsing, is from the gypsum wallboard. I suspect that while, obviously there was some pulversizing of the concrete during the early stages of collapse, most of the "pulverization", occured near the end of the collapse, from the concrete hitting the ground.

TAM:)
Click to expand...

The ground is below, not on top of the rubbles. ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom