Merged Continuation - 9/11 CT subforum General Discussion Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
DGM said:
Wow.......that's a new record for stretch. Congratulations.


:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Ok so I take it you believe the money is well spent, that computer simulations can predict complex phenomenon and that the only issue in the WTC collapse is the missing initial conditions. Right?
 
Justin39640 said:
In the context of this thread... could you use a slide rule to engineer a model of the Saturn failing catastrophically, destroying itself, the orbiter, etc, etc right up until the last pieces stop smoldering? Probably, but it would take an army of engineers and years upon years, if not decades to get it right. I think you're missing the point about efficiency and the limitations in modeling such a complex and random situation.
Click to expand...

It would certainly have taken an army of engineers to do that simulation back then. But the simulation is needed today, with today's technology. Which is considerably better than that back then.
 
Java Man said:
Ok so I take it you believe the money is well spent, that computer simulations can predict complex phenomenon and that the only issue in the WTC collapse is the missing initial conditions. Right?
Click to expand...

Only the exterior was observable. That leaves a 95% chance you're going to get it wrong.
 
Java Man said:
It would certainly have taken an army of engineers to do that simulation back then. But the simulation is needed today, with today's technology. Which is considerably better than that back then.
Click to expand...

And most likely it would take hundreds or thousands of runs, changing minute details to get it exactly as observed.
 
Java Man said:
Ok so I take it you believe the money is well spent, that computer simulations can predict complex phenomenon and that the only issue in the WTC collapse is the missing initial conditions. Right?
Click to expand...
Are you adding this twist to bolster your world record BS?

The point is, Yes it could (conceivably) be modeled with todays computers. The question would be, why?

You know, if you came up with an alternative theory, maybe someone might think the effort was worth it.

:rolleyes:
 
Justin39640 said:
Only the exterior was observable. That leaves a 95% chance you're going to get it wrong.
Click to expand...

Does that mean there's 95% chance NIST got it wrong too? I mean, NISTs report pretty much adds up to said simulations initial conditions. Just punch them in and run it. According to you there shouldn't be much fine tuning after that.
 
DGM said:
The point is, Yes it could (conceivably) be modeled with todays computers. The question would be, why?

:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Conspiracy aside, to know how buildings collapse under extreme fires and predict danger to adjacent property and people. Quite obvious to anyone.
 
Java Man said:
Does that mean there's 95% chance NIST got it wrong too? I mean, NISTs report pretty much adds up to said simulations initial conditions. Just punch them in and run it. According to you there shouldn't be much fine tuning after that.
Click to expand...

How many years did it take them? What was the purpose of those simulations and understanding what led to collapse? Here's a hint.. not to defend the government's level of involvement.

I don't think it would be impossible. There's just no reason to.
 
NoahFence said:
C7.

WHAT
DOES
IT
PROVE?

Either I'm on ignore, or you're incapable of answering it. Which tells me you have no idea what it proves.
Click to expand...
Take care - asking "WHAT DOES IT PROVE?" runs the risk - however slight - that discussion may get back on the topic.

The goal of a truther-troll is to keep the discussion circling indefinitely and ensuring zero progress. Whether or not the specific t-t is capable of answering or has no idea is totally irrelevant. The only room for variance is that some t-t's can make the game amusing because everyone knows it is a game.

Hence it does not need to prove anything and it is better if it doesn't...
..as long as the original question and the reason for taking the first side track and the second and the third.....etc is lost sight of.
 
Justin39640 said:
I don't think it would be impossible. There's just no reason to.
Click to expand...

I think there is a good reason. To know how the building will collapse. Will it collapse fully? Will it stop midway? Will it topple over? I think these are important questions for WTC and other buildings of such great heights.
 
Java Man said:
I think there is a good reason. To know how the building will collapse. Will it collapse fully? Will it stop midway? Will it topple over? I think these are important questions for WTC and other buildings of such great heights.
Click to expand...
[bold is your problem]
So pay for a simulation. What makes what you think worth all this effort?
 
DGM said:
Are you adding this twist to bolster your world record BS?

The point is, Yes it could (conceivably) be modeled with todays computers. The question would be, why?

You know, if you came up with an alternative theory, maybe someone might think the effort was worth it.

:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

He does not seem to realize that until he comes up with an alternative theory he is wasting his time here. We are all to intelligent to be converted to trutherism.
 
Java Man said:
Conspiracy aside, to know how buildings collapse under extreme fires and predict danger to adjacent property and people. Quite obvious to anyone.
Click to expand...

Where did you study the subject and what are your qualifications?
 
DGM said:
[bold is your problem]
So pay for a simulation. What makes what you think worth all this effort?
Click to expand...

Oh so the problem is money. NIST couldn't afford the simulation for this event? Such a terrible attack on America and NIST doesn't even have the equivalent of one or two Tomahawk missiles to pay for this simulation. Supposing that it really costs that much given present day technology.

Personally I think such a simulation would reveal faults in NIST's report and that is the real cause for the lack of the simulations. The simulation would not fit with what was observed given the initial conditions provided by NIST.
 
Java Man said:
I think there is a good reason. To know how the building will collapse. Will it collapse fully? Will it stop midway? Will it topple over? I think these are important questions for WTC and other buildings of such great heights.
Click to expand...

Take an engineering course and find out for yourself. That's what the real engineers here did.
 
dafydd said:
Where did you study the subject and what are your qualifications?
Click to expand...

That's the best part of it. I haven't even gotten so much into the matter to require any qualifications. Just common sense questions are raising all sorts of issues. Why do you want qualifications if you still can't answer the easy questions?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom