is the data/parameters that they used in the simulation not publicly available? thats what should ideally happen.
i see.. i dont know if a first occurrence is suspicious in itself, theres a first for everything right! (particularly a first with ‘first known’… i doubt other collapses would be as high profile). i notice the asce link is no longer working (it was the testimony of the american society of civil engineers before the commission). there is this though
edit: i believe the above is cited in the other papers i posted. so i guess reading them covers this one.
I agree with first known comment, but it was not first known till then, its still the only case till now. That report also says this The fires in WTC 7, which were uncontrolled but otherwise similar to fires experienced in other tall buildings, caused an extraordinary event”.
i cant pretend to know what is the difference between WTC/WTC7 and other buildings that caught fire. i dont know if more buildings that catch fire should collapse, or whether theres something distinctive about wtc's structure/jet fuel that made it more vulnerable. it certainly is extraordinary, but Im not qualified to comment beyond that.
what is suggestive is though that none of the academic papers I've come across to date have sniffed a rat in this extraordinary event. do you feel that such research is suppressed?
its also noticeable that conspiracy websites / documentaries may mention the government reports and may mention popular mechanics article (citing a connection with Cheney or something to discredit it) but never mention these peer reviewed journal publications. its a bit misleading, and leads me to think that its because they're not really qualified enough to rebut serious mathematical/engineering based analysis. which leads me to think they shouldnt be doing the analysis in the first place.
One obvious thing i have realized about google is that, google is a search engine and not a truth engine.
If you think "A is true" and search for proof you will find compelling arguments for "A is true", and if you have no other way of verifying the proof and if you already have an internal bias for "A is true", the search results will just reinforce you prior beliefs.
The same holds true for someone looking for proof of "A is not true."
A height of ignorance I would say.Have you ever traveled in a train moving faster than 180 KM constantly? Even if that train pass by a radar it never catches the signals. Further more for your explanation a mobile NEVER send an sms to the outbox in retry situation if it see no signal appearing. If some do then they retry after an interval set in the mobile and not when the mobile get the signal.
Explore before you shoot.
You are simply trying to write down something for the sake of saying something.There is no core in what you hahave posted.I would say pls have some general information about mobiles and coverage.
with the disaster of this size and nature, its kind of hard to believe any research at its face value, be it from govt or from conspiracy theorists.
but that was my point, there is also research by credible scientists at pretty good universities, which is peer reviewed by professionals/scientists at the journal. surely that is more credible than either.
History Channel did a brilliant job debunking all the 9/11 Conspiracy nonsense.
I never ever believed in the 9/11 Conspiracies. As soon as I saw the 2nd plane hit, I knew it was Osama bin Laden who did this.
I also knew that Muslims all over will be happy and cheering the attacks and then a few days later will start inventing conspiracy theories to shift the blame to their boogey men namely, Jews, CIA, Zionists, etc...
.....what is suggestive is though that none of the academic papers I've come across to date have sniffed a rat in this extraordinary event. do you feel that such research is suppressed?
I don't know much about engineering, but it is extremely difficult (impossible, really) to publish in 'reputed' journals in finance if your analysis goes against 'established' theories emanating from North American universities.
that is true to some extent, although in no way close to the extent people suggest. there are dozens of journals and conferences in a given field, and its hard to imagine they'll all suppress papers esp given that research in this area that would comprise 'established' research is about four or five papers.
History Channel did a brilliant job debunking all the 9/11 Conspiracy nonsense.
I never ever believed in the 9/11 Conspiracies. As soon as I saw the 2nd plane hit, I knew it was Osama bin Laden who did this.
I also knew that Muslims all over will be happy and cheering the attacks and then a few days later will start inventing conspiracy theories to shift the blame to their boogey men namely, Jews, CIA, Zionists, etc...
And like clock work, they did.
Amen brother! I was there that day (working across the street). When that second plane hit, our whole building shook, that's how strong the impact was. Our building was also damaged after the collapse due to all the flying debris. We all knew it was a terrorist act. Don't know why Muslims have such a hard time believing that the extremists wouldn't be behind it.
