Quote:
Originally Posted by mojo
Whether or not those were demolitions explosions or simply stress fractures of structural supports will never be known more than it is today...
I disagree. I believe supercomputers will solve this problem in time. It might be a long time before normal people have access to such computers, as in not during our lives, but this isn't the kind of thing that can remain a secret forever. Once AI becomes more intelligent than humans, we're in a different world altogether.
Quote:
If the structure broke at the bottom, then it falls at free fall...
If it breaks throughout the entire building, not just at the bottom, then it falls at freefall. The bottom breaking simply allows the top part to fall at freefall until a not-broken part his the ground. At that point, resistance happens, and acceleration is delayed.
Quote:
The inertia of the falling building landing on and breaking already weakened supports that were failing soon, anyway is not going to be slowed much.
What about the inertia of the bulk of the building? At the beginning of the fall, the not-falling part of the building has a great deal more inertia than the falling part of the building.
Quote:
All I'm saying is that it's plausible the building was not demolished with explosives. Correct me if I'm wrong, but your argument is that it's not plausible, and therefore conspiracy. I've explained that it is plausible.
Well I'm not qualified to correct you. I can only express my opinion. Perhaps there is another viable explanation, but what you've said is not satisfying me at all. You are assuming the non-damaged part of the building has no inertia, which is ludicrous. It has massive inertia.
Quote:
How many civil engineers had to keep quiet and not shout from the rooftops that this was 100% not a plausible way those buildings could have collapsed?
I mean I seem to recall a lot of civil engineers saying exactly what I'm saying at the time... that this isn't possible given the explanation. I also recall firemen saying they heard a series of explosions as the building fell, consistent with controlled demolition. But that's speculative. The time the building took to fall is not speculative.
Quote:
You could create a series of scale models of the structure from the blueprints on file, and demolish them in various ways, finding the ways in which you demolished them that most accurately resemble the video recordings of the collapses, and drawing your conclusions based on the data you acquire. Then you publish the data so other scientists can look over your work, criticize it for faults, recreate it on their own, improving upon your methods if possible, and the cycle goes on until there is consensus.
This is great, but it's no more a thought experiment than my sheets of glass idea. I can't actually do this is the real world. I don't have the resources.
Quote:
IF those are the 2 options of conspiracy you see w.r.t. COVID-19, then I take back my criticism.
The thing with the outright hoax idea is that, at least as far as I'm concerned, there is a precedent for such a large conspiracy to take place... 9/11. Like you say, civil engineers and other science-based people have to accept what they're being told. But there are much more viable explanations in this case, such as lab virus or mere exploitation. With 9/11, no such alternative exists. Either what we're told is true, or lots of people supported the lie.
Quote:
It really is. The information is out there for you to observe. If you're choosing to ignore it exists and draw conclusions antithetical to that evidence... that is science denial, IMO.
Science denial for me isn't calling scientists liars. Science denial for me is to make claims that science can prove wrong, and still believing these claims. Show me were science actually proves the covid conspiracy claims are false, and I'll reconsider my position.
Quote:
You are making claims in denial of published, scientific findings.If that's not science denial, then what is?
There's a difference between consensus and proof. Denying consensus is no science denial, not in my book. Denying proof is.