Creative Speculation

Ace Acme

(1,464 posts)

40. As I said, it implies that the actual collapse was too orderly for the models to recreate.

Reply to AZCat (Reply #39)

Sun Dec 8, 2013, 04:54 PM

Dec 2013

What can you not understand about that?

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

64 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

North Tower Exploding... [View all] wildbilln864 Dec 2011 OP

"Explosive event" = "explosion" = "controlled demolition" William Seger Dec 2011 #1

NIST doesn't explain what he's talking about. Ace Acme Dec 2013 #6

Chandler doesn't explain what he's talking about, either William Seger Dec 2013 #7

Chandler does not need to explain them. He's just engaging in observation, Ace Acme Dec 2013 #8

He's engaging in sloppy, agenda-driven observation William Seger Dec 2013 #9

Your explanation of the squibs is contrary to the gas laws. Ace Acme Dec 2013 #10

What was the pressure rating of the ductwork in the towers? AZCat Dec 2013 #11

I don't know and you don't know. Maybe we should ask NIST for an investigation that tells us. Ace Acme Dec 2013 #13

Oh, I don't? AZCat Dec 2013 #15

I need an official energy budget so I can evaluate whether the claims Ace Acme Dec 2013 #16

No, you don't. AZCat Dec 2013 #17

Who are you to say I'm not relevant? Ace Acme Dec 2013 #18

Your inability to digest the information in the NIST report dictates your irrelevancy. AZCat Dec 2013 #19

Digesting the information in the report is not the problem. Ace Acme Dec 2013 #20

The NIST reports also didn't include an explanation of basic math. AZCat Dec 2013 #24

The NIST reports also didn't include a lot of things. Ace Acme Dec 2013 #25

I think you're confusing the behavior... AZCat Dec 2013 #26

What's chaotic? Ace Acme Dec 2013 #27

I think you have a problem with your logic. AZCat Dec 2013 #28

You have a problem with yours. Ace Acme Dec 2013 #29

Why would any model not converge? AZCat Dec 2013 #30

"Models", Mr. McGoo, not "model". Ace Acme Dec 2013 #31

So that'd be a "I don't know what it means" answer... AZCat Dec 2013 #34

The models did not converge on a single solution. Ace Acme Dec 2013 #38

What does THAT mean? AZCat Dec 2013 #39

As I said, it implies that the actual collapse was too orderly for the models to recreate. Ace Acme Dec 2013 #40

Aaaaand... AZCat Dec 2013 #41

Same thing as with WTC7. The collapse was more orderly than the models. Ace Acme Dec 2013 #43

Whatever. AZCat Dec 2013 #44

Oh I see. The failure of the models to converge is my fault Ace Acme Dec 2013 #45

The failure to understand why a model might not converge is your fault. AZCat Dec 2013 #47

I already told you the meaning of the failure to converge. Ace Acme Dec 2013 #49

Yeah, and it was wrong. AZCat Dec 2013 #50

Says the anonymous internet poster who's so ignorant of the issues Ace Acme Dec 2013 #51

I didn't create the science or terminology of modeling. AZCat Dec 2013 #52

You're just squirting stinky smoke. nt Ace Acme Dec 2013 #54

Is this your response to being called out for your lack of knowledge? AZCat Dec 2013 #55

Some people wave Big Fat Books to give the illusion of support for their empty claims. Ace Acme Dec 2013 #59

I don't need to wave a "Big Fat Book". AZCat Dec 2013 #60

Right, you don't need no stinking badges. Empty claims is all you need. nt Ace Acme Dec 2013 #63

Empty? Says who? AZCat Dec 2013 #64

By the way - you seem to have a bad habit of editing your posts (usually multiple times). AZCat Dec 2013 #53

Writing is rewriting. Only bots with libraries of canned responses get it right the 1st time nt Ace Acme Dec 2013 #56

Really? Most of the rest of us don't seem to have that problem. AZCat Dec 2013 #57

I'm not most of y'all, thank God. nt Ace Acme Dec 2013 #58

Too bad. AZCat Dec 2013 #61

Post removed Post removed Dec 2013 #62

"Handwaving" William Seger Dec 2013 #12

I ignore the evidence-free handwaving of anonymous internet posters Ace Acme Dec 2013 #14

Ah, so you judge reaoning by who presents it rather than validity? William Seger Dec 2013 #21

You're forgetting that NIST doesn't give me any arguments to ignore. Ace Acme Dec 2013 #22

If you can say, "NIST doesn't give me any arguments to ignore," you've ignored a lot William Seger Dec 2013 #32

You must have a secretary to type your blather. Ace Acme Dec 2013 #33

Aw... William Seger Dec 2013 #35

I don't need to demonstrate that it's nonsence after YOU'VE demonstrated that. Ace Acme Dec 2013 #36

You keep getting more and more wrong. nt greyl Dec 2013 #37

It's obvious A.A. is out of his element. AZCat Dec 2013 #42

I'm very much in my element. Slapping down bullshitters. nt Ace Acme Dec 2013 #46

Look inward, dear A.A. AZCat Dec 2013 #48

You have a heavy responsibility now, Bill jberryhill Dec 2011 #2

The video makes the Bush Administration's "investigation" of 9-11 appear crooked. K&R (nt) T S Justly Dec 2011 #3

Certainly it makes the report look incomplete. Ace Acme Dec 2013 #23

Excellent video - thanks for posting CrawlingChaos Dec 2011 #4

You're back supporting massive, silent explosions cpwm17 Dec 2011 #5