Posted: Oct 11, 2017 3:45 pm
Just A Theory wrote:So let me get this straight. In your hypothetical research on bridge failure modes, you'd examine bridges which haven't collapsed in order to get the most appropriate data set?
See, this is why the "truth" movement has made no progress in nearly 17 years.
My aren't you brilliant. That discussion is not about bridge failure modes, it is about bridge failure statistics. There is a significant difference. Part of why the debate goes on is people playing semantic BS games.
The majority of people who get accused of being in the so called 'Truth Movement' are more interested in conspiracies than physics.
If we are to apply physics to bridges then the starring case is the Tacoma Narrows Bridge. It only took 4 months to build a 1/200th scale, 50 foot model, and that had to be done in a wind tunnel. But the bridge only lasted 4 months. By the time they were ready to apply what they learned from the model there was no more bridge.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rB008RAluyg
So the curious thing is that the people who claim that an airliner could destroy the north tower can't come up with a physical or virtual model in 16.08 years. Of course they could not do virtual models in 1940. No electronic computers.
psik