9/11 EXPOSED
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 2 Votes - 4.5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
24-04-2016, 11:49 PM
RE: 9/11 EXPOSED
(24-04-2016 11:44 PM)morondog Wrote:  
(24-04-2016 07:22 PM)psikeyhackr Wrote:  Can you provide links to 3 of these computer simulations?

There were about 2800 perimeter wall panels on each tower from the 9th floor to the top of each tower. These wall panels have been nicknamed "wheat chex". Would you care to provide some data on how many different weights and quantities of each weight there were? And links to the source of your data?

How could decent computer simulations be made without that information?

[63,162]
psik

How do you continue posting with your head so far up your rectum?

I'd say Speech to Text but still, that'd be kind of muffled.

"If you keep trying to better yourself that's enough for me. We don't decide which hand we are dealt in life, but we make the decision to play it or fold it" - Nishi Karano Kaze
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like JDog554's post
25-04-2016, 03:02 AM
RE: 9/11 EXPOSED
http://mfile.akamai.com/16062/rm/natlins...sponse.ram
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-04-2016, 03:28 AM (This post was last modified: 25-04-2016 03:33 AM by adey67.)
RE: 9/11 EXPOSED
http://news.uns.purdue.edu/mov/2007/HoffmannWTC.mov
There's shed loads more out there I'm not sure why I bothered as whatever anyone posts its never enough never sufficient unless it comports to preconceived ideas. Btw you don't get to choose the parameters of anyone else's simulations, obviously only the person doing it does, hint hint.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-04-2016, 06:21 AM
RE: 9/11 EXPOSED
(25-04-2016 03:28 AM)adey67 Wrote:  There's shed loads more out there I'm not sure why I bothered as whatever anyone posts its never enough never sufficient unless it comports to preconceived ideas.
Also, keep in mind that the person asking for all these parameters for a decent computer sim seems to think that a few weights on top of clumped paper on a stick is somehow an accurate model, but yet doubts any computer sim that doesn't have 100% of the exact data of the towers' construction.

[Image: fdyq20.jpg]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-04-2016, 07:44 AM
RE: 9/11 EXPOSED
(25-04-2016 03:28 AM)adey67 Wrote:  http://news.uns.purdue.edu/mov/2007/HoffmannWTC.mov
There's shed loads more out there I'm not sure why I bothered as whatever anyone posts its never enough never sufficient unless it comports to preconceived ideas. Btw you don't get to choose the parameters of anyone else's simulations, obviously only the person doing it does, hint hint.

Didn't I talk about this already? First of all that is not a "collapse" simulation.

If you read the description it is only the top 20 stories. The NIST provided data on the south tower impact proving that the south tower moved horizontally 12 inches 11 stories below where the plane hit. The Purdue simulation does not even simulate the north tower 6 stories below their impact simulation.

That simulation is pretty but it is grossly inaccurate. 80% of the building ain't there.

Now talk about head up ass.

psik

Physics is Phutile
Fiziks is Fundamental
Since 9/11 Fiziks has been History
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-04-2016, 07:46 AM
RE: 9/11 EXPOSED
You're still here?

Get a life.

NOTE: Member, Tomasia uses this site to slander other individuals. He then later proclaims it a joke, but not in public.
I will call him a liar and a dog here and now.
Banjo.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Banjo's post
25-04-2016, 08:57 AM (This post was last modified: 25-04-2016 09:13 AM by adey67.)
RE: 9/11 EXPOSED
(25-04-2016 07:44 AM)psikeyhackr Wrote:  
(25-04-2016 03:28 AM)adey67 Wrote:  http://news.uns.purdue.edu/mov/2007/HoffmannWTC.mov
There's shed loads more out there I'm not sure why I bothered as whatever anyone posts its never enough never sufficient unless it comports to preconceived ideas. Btw you don't get to choose the parameters of anyone else's simulations, obviously only the person doing it does, hint hint.

Didn't I talk about this already? First of all that is not a "collapse" simulation.

If you read the description it is only the top 20 stories. The NIST provided data on the south tower impact proving that the south tower moved horizontally 12 inches 11 stories below where the plane hit. The Purdue simulation does not even simulate the north tower 6 stories below their impact simulation.

That simulation is pretty but it is grossly inaccurate. 80% of the building ain't there.

Now talk about head up ass.

psik
Hey I didn't mention head up ass that was someone else so don't put that on me fella, I'm trying to be as respectful as possible considering how much we disagree, And didn't I predict this shit would happen ? I must be a fucking psychic ! Also do a decent computer simulation with good incontrovertible evidence and people here will change their minds that's what critical thinking is all about. You are asking us to accept your view so its up to you to prove it irrevocably otherwise you are asking us to take you on faith which is NOT what we do.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-04-2016, 09:17 AM (This post was last modified: 25-04-2016 09:23 AM by adey67.)
RE: 9/11 EXPOSED
(25-04-2016 06:21 AM)LostLocke Wrote:  
(25-04-2016 03:28 AM)adey67 Wrote:  There's shed loads more out there I'm not sure why I bothered as whatever anyone posts its never enough never sufficient unless it comports to preconceived ideas.
Also, keep in mind that the person asking for all these parameters for a decent computer sim seems to think that a few weights on top of clumped paper on a stick is somehow an accurate model, but yet doubts any computer sim that doesn't have 100% of the exact data of the towers' construction.

Yes I did kinda touch on that earlier but its always good to have it confirmed and also improved upon thanks for the support mate much appreciated. Thumbsup
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-04-2016, 10:23 AM
RE: 9/11 EXPOSED
(25-04-2016 06:21 AM)LostLocke Wrote:  
(25-04-2016 03:28 AM)adey67 Wrote:  There's shed loads more out there I'm not sure why I bothered as whatever anyone posts its never enough never sufficient unless it comports to preconceived ideas.
Also, keep in mind that the person asking for all these parameters for a decent computer sim seems to think that a few weights on top of clumped paper on a stick is somehow an accurate model, but yet doubts any computer sim that doesn't have 100% of the exact data of the towers' construction.

How can it be an "accurate model" if the paper loops are describe as being "as weak possible"? They were tested relative to the weight of the washers. Is that how skyscrapers are designed,"as weak as possible"? It is a physics demonstration. How many times have I said an accurate model requires accurate data on the real building which we do not have?

I am so intimidated by arguments that do not even correspond to what I have said but it certainly explains why so many people cannot resolve the 9/11 Affair.

psik

Physics is Phutile
Fiziks is Fundamental
Since 9/11 Fiziks has been History
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-04-2016, 10:34 AM
RE: 9/11 EXPOSED
(27-04-2016 10:23 AM)psikeyhackr Wrote:  
(25-04-2016 06:21 AM)LostLocke Wrote:  Also, keep in mind that the person asking for all these parameters for a decent computer sim seems to think that a few weights on top of clumped paper on a stick is somehow an accurate model, but yet doubts any computer sim that doesn't have 100% of the exact data of the towers' construction.

How can it be an "accurate model" if the paper loops are describe as being "as weak possible"? They were tested relative to the weight of the washers. Is that how skyscrapers are designed,"as weak as possible"? It is a physics demonstration. How many times have I said an accurate model requires accurate data on the real building which we do not have?

I am so intimidated by arguments that do not even correspond to what I have said but it certainly explains why so many people cannot resolve the 9/11 Affair.

psik

A lot of structures are build to a state of as weak as possible, often otherwise thought of as efficient or as cheap as possible. A way to get the job done and make it designed to be done at the layers just over what is required to work.

Our psychology is very heavily inundated to still keep doing that as our biological existence is basically predicated on that formula of being good enough to pass... so a model of highlighting those elements to buildings isn't a far cry from reconstructions.

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: