so by your line of thinking, every time we have a plane crash, or an arson, then another plane should be crashed, another building burned, in order to make sure the first ones occured as we suspect?
ideally yes, but in reality the sensationalist methods you describe above are
not feasible. if it cannot be achieved through such sensationalist methods then some kind of experimentation can and should be devised. but not all arsons or plane crashes are
nearly as controversial or mysterious as 911 and so do not merit the whole nine yards. because 911 was such a historical precedent i believe that every effort should be taken to test and prove the offical hypothesis.
Modeling disasters in real world, with full or even partial models is just insane. It does not happen. When a fire occurs, and arson investigator assesses the scene, collects evidence, and reaches a conclusion. When a plane crashes, investigators are on scene, they investigate, collect data, analyze, and reach conclusions
so modelling disasters with full or even partial models IS INSANE...that means the crowd at NIST and underwriters labratory are a bunch of nuts - can you imagine they even reconstructed scale models of a floor, its trusses with fireproofing etc and exposed them to a kerosene fire?? the outrage, these scientists experimenting with partial models trying to prove their hypothesis and understand the disaster of 911 should all be in staright-jackets!!
as you wisely point out while an
investigator will "assess the scene, collect evidence and data, analyse it and reach a conclusion" it is the
scientist who takes that conclusion or working hypothesis and proves it through experimentation.
NIST went beyond this and did perform some testing on building assemblies. They created gigantic and complex computer models. They performed numerous tests, and all of these things led them to their conclusions....
were those building assemblies full or EVEN PARTIAL MODELS?? congratualtions you just
contradicted yourself.
look i have no problem with computer models but as i explained in a previous post the results will be influenced by the values we punch into the computer. consequently dr.greenings computer model will have an entirely different outcome to dr ross's computer model.
if you are so confident with computer models how would you feel if the scholars for 911 truth were responsible for it. this is exactly how i feel when government sponsored NIST are incharge of the computer modelling.
yes they perfomred numerous tests i welcome that but as you well know they did not test or prove progressive collapse. their investigation stopped at the point of initial collapse. so i want to see more tests to prove their own hypothesis of how progressive collapse was
inevitable. if it is inevitable it should be reproducable and demonstratable through observation of something other than a computer model.
furthermore i have not heard of any experiments proving the fireball hypothesis. that jet fuel can travel down 90+floors and explode in the basement B2 -B3 level and do it again in the south tower despite the plane impacting lower and the jet fuel had subsequently a shorter distance to travel down and aerate.
it is not beyond the realms of possibility to construct
just an identical elevator shaft to the height of the south tower below impact zone (50-60 floors high). and drop the jet fuel with an ignition intentionally placed at the b2-3 level. if the official hypothesis is true it will explode and deflagalate at least once in a 100 trials.
we can determine also through a simple experiment how the jet fuel can pass an elevator in an airtight shaft fairly easily. and given that fireballs were witnessed in b4 level below the freight elevator and 6 and 7. then we must conclude that jet fuel can pass the elevator - so lets find out how through experimentation.
the seismic recordings of exploding 28kg can be compared with the ones we already have. we can build an eight storey building with identical features as the twin towers - if you consider the amount of money spent of making a nuclear bomb or missile i feel that allocating the money from one weapon of mass destruction and redistributing it in pursuit of the truth behind 911 is well worth it. dont you?
Once again, the idea of modeling the collapses in anything but a computer are absolutely ridiculous
once again you are contradicting yourself my firend. if testing partial or full models is insane then NIST and underwriters are insane for doing precisely that. if it is ridiculous to model the collapse other than through computers then NIST are behaving ridiculous becuase that is precisely what they have been doing - in addition to - computer simulation.
it is important to note that computer modelling
is not the only way to experiment or prove a theory...i am not even sure if it qualifies as an experiment because it does not occur and is not observed in the REAL world. scientists do not experiment on yeast cells, fruit flies and lab rats through computer modelling and simulations that would be absurd. bombs are tested by exploding them in the REAL world not through computer simulation.
again like chillzero we have another person with a cronic shortage of
imagination. can you seriously not imagine a way as to prove, test, verify, or falsify your own hypothesis? if thats what your telling me then your belief that the offical hypothesis is true is within the realm of flying pigs and lepracons.
i agree and welcome that NIST and underwriters have many disparate tests upon the structural steel and fireproofing...i merely want to see
more tests...i do not understand the resistence to
more testing in this forum, the defeatist attitude that says it cannot be done, or if it can be done then it should not be done.
if you want to know the truth, if you want to prove your hypothesis then you should support experimentation to prove your hypothesis. if you do not beleive we can or should prove your hypothesis then how can you expect me or anyone esle to believe it is true? more to the point why do you beleive it is true if the scientfic method has not be applied to every aspect of the offical hypothesis, namely - the progressive collapse and the fireball theory etc
