Discussion in 'Conspiracies' started by someguy1, Nov 4, 2017.
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
Come back with some actual analysis instead of your paranoid crap and you might have something. 'Till then, you're just another scout pissing in the wind.
I'm only interested in the trigonometry. The delusions I'll leave in your capable hands.
Already did this. You dismissed it by insisting that the truss etc. at the top of the building dramatically alters the COG. It does not.
Skyscrapers having to have more steel toward the bottom to hold themselves up and wondering about the center of gravity of 25+ story segments of skyscrapers tilted at 22 degrees is "paranoid crap". Maybe that is all physics is. LOL
Is paranoid crap more serious than "intellectual dishonesty"? Whatever that is!
How do you know? What does it weigh? I have not seen that data. But there are also maintenance floors at the top of the building.
David C seemed to be having a problem with the trigonometry. I was addressing that to him.
I was talking about it here:
but he seemed to to have a problem with it.
No. Trying to use physics you don't quite understand to push bizarre conspiracy theories is, though.
Mmm... watching you attempt your "physics" is somewhat like watching my 9 month old attempt to walk... the main difference being, of course, my son is getting better at it with each attempt, whereas you simply spout the same tired crap over and over again, despite having been explained and shown why you are wrong multiple times.
Doing the same thing over and over again yet expecting a different result... sounds like insanity to me.
You can come up with insults and psychological BS but you can't come up with a physical or virtual collapse model. SEVENTEEN YEARS!
A professor at the university of Washington only took 4 months to model the oscillation of the Tacoma Narrows bridge. Keep up the insults they are great intellectual demonstrations.
Face it, folks, thermodynamics is hard work. Thermodumbnamics, on the other hand, is easy.
Just because you don't like the data that has been collected and the conclusions it has resulted in doesn't mean a whole lot.
Take some time to do actual research - it'll save you from looking like a fool. If you don't like the models, then do your own - however, be prepared to have people with a very wide breadth of knowledge critique it, including materials sciences, physics, construction, etc.
Nah - quite frankly, you are hardly worth the time. It's only fun to watch you squirm for so long - after a while, it just gets boring seeing the same song and dance over and over.
Perhaps you need some new material? Tap dancing might be a good option.
Intellectual dishonesty is pretending you can out-physics the physicists. Paranoid crap is duct-taping a conspiracy on top of that.
He didn't model the collapse, just the oscillations.
Likewise, plenty of people have modeled the WTC's reactions to wind (hint - it oscillates too) earthquake and even airplane impacts.
I didn't say he modeled the collapse. The model was built before the collapse. The intent was to figure out how to stop the oscillations. My point is that they only took 4 months to make a model duplicating the physical phenomenon they were interested in.
So now 17 years have gone by with neither physical nor virtual models of the Twin Tower collapses but people object to even having accurate data on the buildings. LOL
Can't make models without accurate data. But everyone is supposed to BELIEVE!!! Duh, what happened to the Conservation of Momentum?
They do have models. They used them to design the building. But you don't even have a clue about them, do you. LOL! LOL!
Nothing. Still there, as always.
That's the classic "argument from incredulity." Psikeyhackr: "I don't understand Conservation of Momentum, therefore everything people say about 9/11 is LIES LIES LIES!"
It's fairly apparent that you haven't a clue when it comes to either reality nor physics, so I don't really know why anyone should give you the time of day? Looking over this thread, it's readily apparent you've been fixated on the same tired "argument", despite being given the answer time and time again.
Really, is there any reason to keep this circular discussion alive? Anyone? Bueller?
Amusement? Reminder that people like him do in fact exist? Ability to educate other people who believe in conspiracy theories*?
(I know that that seems impossible sometimes. But I once had an exchange with a 9/11 "truther" and at the end he said "thanks, that makes more sense than what I heard." So it is actually possible to convince some people of reality.)
If it's possible to shed some light on folks that believe this, then it's worth the effort
Yeah, you can come up with what you regard as insults but apparently neither you nor anyone else can come up with physical or virtual models accounting for the collapses. Keep up your insults since you can't even try to come up with good excuses. SEVENTEEN YEARS and counting.
Yeah, nothing really worth reading and responding to in two weeks. LOL
Separate names with a comma.