Merged Continuation - 9/11 CT subforum General Discussion Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
chrismohr said:
WARNING! No more pix of the steel crane and the red hot metal please and for that matter the color codes of temperatures of hot steel, from either side
Click to expand...
They were for your benefit.

Aluminum would be a liquid at the temperatures of the glob in the crab claw.
The molten metal in the crab claw is not aluminum.

The glass in the Trade Towers was blown outward and mixed with a million tons of outer debris.

Can you acknowledge that what Tully, Loizeaux, Dr. [FONT=&quot]Geyh, O'Toole. Fuchek and all the other witnesses described as molten steel, could have been molten steel?

[/FONT]
 
beachnut said:
You have no idea how much effort it takes to model the WTC, yet a simple model can be done on a napkin, and you would not comprehend the result. The results are in, some more complex than others, and you failed to find them and most likely will not understand them.

Computers don't model anything, people make the models. I have a model, and others have models, all of the rational work supports a gravity collapse, and you don't understand them. Guess you are not an engineer, which would help, but any lay person can understand the gravity collapse, save those in 911 truth?

911 truth arrived on 911, stillborn, the beginning and end all in one day. Failure confirms the fact 911 truth never made it past lies, hearsay, and failed opinions. Your efforts continue in the failure mode.
Click to expand...



If you'd be so kind as to post a link to your model I'd appreciate it.
 
Christopher7 said:
They were for your benefit.

...
Can you acknowledge that what Tully, Loizeaux, Dr. [FONT=&quot]Geyh, O'Toole. Fuchek and all the other witnesses described as molten steel, could have been molten steel?

[/FONT]
Click to expand...
Which would mean what? What does is mean, it means they were not next to melted steel because they did not get burned up. How close were they to melted steel? Where are the pools of melted steel? The photos?
 
Clayton Moore said:
If you'd be so kind as to post a link to your model I'd appreciate it.
Click to expand...
It is a simple momentum model, For a mass of 275,000,000 with 2,500,000 on each floor the building falls in 12.08 seconds.

Simple math and physics, makes 911 truth a big lie, should be 911 lies movement.

If you can't do my model yourself, any bright high school student in physics can complete it for you in minutes. Good luck checking things out before falling for the lies of 911 truth.
 
Any chance Clayton might jump aboard the moon landings were faked conspiracy theory? Then he'd have hit the trifecta of insanity! If he adds the U.S. let Pearl Harbor happen conspiracy and he'd be up to a quadfecta!
 
Clayton Moore said:
Your Noamy sig says volumes


Noam Chomsky on 9/11

"Who cares?" "What difference does it make?"
Click to expand...

Too bad that isn't my Noam Chomsky quote. He says that any truther science is equal to any intelligent design science.

how does it feel to be completely dismissed as crackpots by EVERYBODY? Even by people who usually embrace crackpots?
 
Clayton Moore said:
My entire PM which was in response to 2 unsolicited PMs.




The money? It was and still is unaccounted for.
Click to expand...
Your google fu sucks.
Over 90% was "recovered" in March of 2002.
http://www.911myths.com/index.php/Missing_Trillions

Try to read this. And you will see that 90% was "recovered" in March 2002. I read a different article that said it was up to 95%.... (I can't find the source though).

Of course if you had ever taken an accounting class you would realize that no money is "missing." It is called accounting issues with different accounting programs in different departments.

As for the 85 videos, they are no where to be seen.
Click to expand...

<facepalm> You have been given the links repeatedly, but you keep on spewing nonsense..
 
Clayton Moore said:
In 1969 the US, using computers thousands of times less powerful than today's average PC, man landed on the moon and safely made it back.

Today's powerful computers and state of the art software allow unlimited permutations to be programmed.


Yet
Yet
Yet no to scale computer model of any of the WTC buildings has been programmed to enable a logical replication/simulation of their alleged COLLAPSE.
Click to expand...

yawn. Do you know how many millions of different parts were in the wtc buildings? Do you know that it is impossible to fully replicate the collapse of a building with millions/billions of moving pieces.

you do know that right?

argument from ignorance and incredulity...
 
TruthersLie said:
Too bad that isn't my Noam Chomsky quote. He says that any truther science is equal to any intelligent design science.

how does it feel to be completely dismissed as crackpots by EVERYBODY? Even by people who usually embrace crackpots?
Click to expand...

My point was that your hero, Noamy, said that about 9/11.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LoDqDvbgeXM&NR=1

"Who cares?" "What difference does it make?"
 
TruthersLie said:
yawn. Do you know how many millions of different parts were in the wtc buildings? Do you know that it is impossible to fully replicate the collapse of a building with millions/billions of moving pieces.

you do know that right?

argument from ignorance and incredulity...
Click to expand...

That's silly. If that was the case they wouldn't be able to use CAD/CAM type software to ensure structural reliability before and while building skyscrapers.
 
Björn Toulouse said:
That was your response to my first PM. You never responded to the second.




Here's what you originally said about it:




It was not only pointed out to you that not only had this so-called "missing" money been discussed in the media previous to 9/10/2001, that Rumsfeld himself had discussed it several times prior to that date and that an investigation had been done and made some accomplishments despite your repeating the lie that there had not been any.

You are incapable of seeing how ridiculous the claim is that Rumsfeld brought this up (again) the day before 9/11 "knowing" that his inside job would take care of the matter for good the next day. Why would he have needed to announce it to the public?

This is why I laugh at anyone pushing this particular bit of nonsense. It reminds me of the old "what were they hiding under the blue tarp" mystery. You got clearly beaten on that one by merely making the claim. By not admitting it, you will continue to deceive yourself.
Click to expand...

Yeah. you sent me two PMs. And then a third. Should I get that notarized?
 
Clayton Moore said:
My point was that your hero, Noamy, said that about 9/11.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LoDqDvbgeXM&NR=1

"Who cares?" "What difference does it make?"
Click to expand...

My hero? I detest Chomsky. I disagree with over half of what he says. But twoofs (like yourself) seem to love him. Having him slam da twoof is really the final nail in the coffin.

If you are going to try to say that my sig says something, at least get it right.
 
Clayton Moore said:
That's silly. If that was the case they wouldn't be able to use CAD/CAM type software to ensure structural reliability before and while building skyscrapers.
Click to expand...

argument from ignorance and incredulity noted.

The number of pieces that you are talking about rendering (as a full scale model) and then having the computers crunch is astronomical. It is beyond difficult to the almost impossible category. Especially since if just one piece falls the "wrong" way, you will not be able to see a collapse that is "similar" to the events of the day. And that really is the issue. You want some sort of computer simulation which looks EXACTLY like the collapses of the day. Unfortunately in a chaotic situation, it will NEVER happen. You can almost NEVER get a computer simulation to match up with reality when you are talking about billions of individual components. And then after the computer runs several hundred of these simulations, the twoof woudl say, see the simulations don't match. Or worse. There is one that is REALLY close to what we saw on 9/11, they would then say "you manipulated the simulation to get this one to match."

you really should LOOK UP WHAT IT TAKES to do what you're asking for. It isn't anywhere as easy as you think it should be. We are talking tens of thousands of man hours, and a super computer to be able to handle the processes.
 
Last edited:
TruthersLie said:
argument from ignorance and incredulity noted.

The number of pieces that you are talking about rendering (as a full scale model) and then having the computers crunch is astronomical. It is beyond difficult to the almost impossible category. Especially since if just one piece falls the "wrong" way, you will not be able to see a collapse that is "similar" to the events of the day. And that really is the issue. You want some sort of computer simulation which looks EXACTLY like the collapses of the day. Unfortunately in a chaotic situation, it will NEVER happen. You can almost NEVER get a computer simulation to match up with reality when you are talking about billions of individual components. And then after the computer runs several hundred of these simulations, the twoof woudl say, see the simulations don't match. Or worse. There is one that is REALLY close to what we saw on 9/11, they would then say "you manipulated the simulation to get this one to match."

you really should LOOK UP WHAT IT TAKES to do what you're asking for. It isn't anywhere as easy as you think it should be. We are talking tens of thousands of man hours, and a super computer to be able to handle the processes.
Click to expand...
Then there is a more fundamental problem. There is simply no way that the loading of each and every one of those members can be known, nor the damage caused by aircraft and fires nor the temperature conditions can be known for each element. So there is no way to accumulate the data to feed into the model.

Add on top of that the total lack of any need for a model. The demand only comes from truthers who would simply shift goalposts even if the modelling was possible.

Dealing with the essentially dishonest group of leaders in the truth movement and the same dishonesty OR gullibility of the followers there is only so far that a responsible community and its government should go.

Witness a simple small scale example when NIST expanded its WTC7 explanation to explain a period of free fall. Free fall of parts of any of these structures in the collapses which occurred is a not unexpected feature yet the 'truth movement' creates this dishonest myth that free fall mist equal explosive demolition. No matter how much they are fed they will simply shift the lies to another target.
 
TruthersLie said:
argument from ignorance and incredulity noted.

The number of pieces that you are talking about rendering (as a full scale model) and then having the computers crunch is astronomical. It is beyond difficult to the almost impossible category. Especially since if just one piece falls the "wrong" way, you will not be able to see a collapse that is "similar" to the events of the day. And that really is the issue. You want some sort of computer simulation which looks EXACTLY like the collapses of the day. Unfortunately in a chaotic situation, it will NEVER happen. You can almost NEVER get a computer simulation to match up with reality when you are talking about billions of individual components. And then after the computer runs several hundred of these simulations, the twoof woudl say, see the simulations don't match. Or worse. There is one that is REALLY close to what we saw on 9/11, they would then say "you manipulated the simulation to get this one to match."

you really should LOOK UP WHAT IT TAKES to do what you're asking for. It isn't anywhere as easy as you think it should be. We are talking tens of thousands of man hours, and a super computer to be able to handle the processes.
Click to expand...

So you're saying engineers don't 'build' large structures down to the last bolt on a computer using CAD/CAM software before construction is started?
 
Clayton Moore said:
...
Yet no to scale computer model of any of the WTC buildings has been programmed to enable a logical replication/simulation of their alleged COLLAPSE.
Click to expand...

If you understood the first thing about such dynamic modelling, you'd know that a full-scale simulation is futile when the initial configuration isn't known very precisely. Hint: chaos-theory.

Re "alleged collapse": Do you doubt that the towers collapsed?? :confused:
 
Clayton Moore said:
That's silly. If that was the case they wouldn't be able to use CAD/CAM type software to ensure structural reliability before and while building skyscrapers.
Click to expand...

You mix up the very well defined static loads and design dynamic loads of an intact structure, where the relevent parameters of each element and node are well known and defined, with the chaotic situation of a dynamic failure where thousands of parameters cannot be known with sufficient precision,

In other words, you understand nothing about finite element analysis or other such methods of strcutural modelling.

That's why another poster called you on your pure argument from ignorance.
 
Clayton Moore said:
So you're saying engineers don't 'build' large structures down to the last bolt on a computer using CAD/CAM software before construction is started?
Click to expand...

<facepalm>

No you hayseed.

i'm saying that they can outline the building, and even put in the building plans, floor by floor.

you are talking apples and oranges.

CAD (not cam for building purposes as they are for making things much smaller than a building) allows you to do the plans. CAD programs are not capable of running full simulations of collapse mechanics.

Why is that sooooooo difficult to figure out? have you even bothered to educate yourself on the issue, or will you just keep on spewing arguments from incredulity and ignorance?
 
Clayton Moore said:
Yeah. you sent me two PMs. And then a third. Should I get that notarized?
Click to expand...


I stand corrected. It was not until now that I see that my initial PM was delivered verbatim to your box twice within 3 minutes thus making it technically two PM's, and I did send a follow-up re: your response, making that a third. I have no idea how that happened.

See how easy it is to own up to a mistake?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom