World trade centre collapse, 9/11 conspiracy

So what? I was only off by a few digits.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturn_V_dynamic_test_vehicle

And when and where was the test involving the center of gravity of the tilted top of the South Tower? Oh yeah, that is an unmentionable and believers just make empty claims.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I am 100% behind your effort to build a mockup of the WTC, with the same weight and center of gravity, and then slam a fully fueled 767 into it at 590 mph. Let us know how it goes.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

There's enough conspiracy theorists out there that if the each chipped in $100 bucks or so, they'd have enough to build a tower and show us how real engineers would make it withstand meteor strikes and stuff.

 

As is plainly obvious, psikeyhackr's agenda has little to do with actually seeking and getting the answers they want, and more to do with simply blaming the world for not pandering to their ideas.

Just like I blame psikeyhackr for not pandering to my demand that he prove the Moon is not made of green cheese. That's on him. Coward.

 

That's not cowardice, just laziness. Spectroscopic analysis would have been sufficient, or even gravitational analysis to figure out the moon's density (unless it actually has the same density as green cheese, of course).

 

It's mockery.

Here's the context:

It's almost like you're saying we can do science to a conclusive degree of certainty without having to make a full-scale model of the Moon to test it.

That would be news to psikeyhackr.

 

When did I say or imply anything about a full scale model of the Twin Towers? I have said the minimum for a good physical model would be 13'7" and about 800 pounds. I do not recall if it was this site or somewhere else.

I have NEVER suggested a full scale model of one of the Towers.

Putting words in other people's mouths seems to be a standard debating technique for some people.

 

Go for it!

 

I didn't say you said that.

So, you acknowledge that there is a limit to how much analysis needs to be done. You acknowledge a full-scale model is overkill.

OK, so you just set your bar in a different place. Apparently, 13'7".


People here say we already have sufficient analysis to draw a conclusion with high confidence.

Someone out there will say your puny miniature scale model sim will be inadequate.
It has to be at least 136 feet.
Someone else will say 1362 feet.

And they be justified in calling you a "coward" for giving up too easy.

 

I said MINIMUM! The bigger the better, but the bigger, the more expensive and the more dangerous. I also said that the correct steel and concrete distribution data is necessary. Who else said that? How do you locate the center of gravity of the tilted top portion of the South Tower without that? Who has mentioned that center of gravity besides me?

For some strange reason NASA did pay attention to the center of gravity of the Saturn V.

If you take the trouble to search the NCSTAR1 report you will find that the NIST discussed the centers of gravity of the airliners.

 

Who are you that you know how much analysis is required?
The next guy with an opinion and an internet connection thinks it needs to be at least 1300 feet tall and to use real jets to satisfy him.

 

I won't be satisfied unless they make it taller than Burj Khalifa and show that even a paper plane could do the trick.

 

Or a hang glider at least.

 

All you can do is come up with excuses for doing nothing. I guess you cannot justify what you want to believe. A good physical model might prove me wrong. Wouldn't you like that?

 

I don't need excuses for doing nothing. It's solved. There's nothing to do.
If you don't think so, how is that anybody else's problem?

It's been justified. Show otherwise.

As soon as you prove to me the Moon isn't green cheese.

Look. This is dumb.
You have a belief, the onus is on you to back it up. Your entire contribution here is whining about what other people aren't doing to satisfy you. It's peurile and trollish.

 

But your fear of being proved wrong means you will never build that simple physical model. What kind of a coward is afraid to prove what they claim is true?

 

You keep trying to hand me psychological BS while not mentioning anything about what I said about steel and concrete distributions and center of gravity. It's all my fault that the NCSTAR1 report cannot even specify the total amount of concrete in the towers. Utterly feeble argument.

 

Nope. The only thing that's your fault is that you are too much of a coward to prove what you claim is true.

 

We're not making arguments here. This is not a debate.

If you have an argument, go out and get some data.
Till then, you're just talkin' through your hat.

You haven't added any content - in how many posts? - except for trolling for attention with insults.

Unless you have anything meaningful to add, this thread is dead.