Posted: Oct 12, 2017 12:44 am
psikeyhackr wrote: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.
Pot, kettle, black.
The majority of people who get accused of being in the so called 'Truth Movement' are more interested in conspiracies than physics.
I'd say that's an apt description. You certainly don't seem interested in the physics.
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
If only there was a government report, comprehensively researched and produced within a few years of the towers collapsing. I'm sure that if there was such a report then we could all look at that to understand how it is that the towers collapsed.
Ah well, I guess we'll just have to argue on the internet instead.