The Loosers Have Found Their Messiah
Charlie Sheen will appear at their conspiracy conference this weekend.
No word on whether Denise Richards will be attending...
posted by James B. @ 11:50 AM
71 comments
As Seen in Vanity Fair's August 2006 Issue!
As Seen in US News & World Report's September 11 Fifth Anniversary Issue!
As Seen in Time Magazine's September 11, 2006 Issue!
As Seen in Phoenix New Times' August 9, 2007 Issue!
Thursday, June 22, 2006
No word on whether Denise Richards will be attending...
Previous Posts
- Lefty Blogger Sees Through Loose Change
- Open Mike Night at Screw Loose Change
- Loosers Losing It
- Lame Excuse O' the Day
- Dylan Discovers More "Evidence"
- If Dylan Had Done His "Fictional" Film
- More Eyewitness "Evidence"
- The Loosers In Their Own Words
- BlogCritics Reviews Loose Change
- More On the "Scholars" for 9/11 "Truth"
View My Stats
Allies:
71 Comments:
They're just excited because they think he's the Presidents son.
Holy shit, this story is so old. But anyway, here's another take on Charlie...
haha are you fucking serious? hmm what a suprise someone in hollywood is also a gullable moron who will believe what a lunatic CTer tells him.
Hummm... That's not unlike the gullible morons that accept the whole Bin Laden fabrication. Anyway, Sheen is an obvious straw man to later be struck down and discredit the whole movement. He’s a double edge sword.
Anyway, Sheen is an obvious straw man to later be struck down and discredit the whole movement.
I thought that was your job...
I am confused. Do you have a guide or something?
Hummm... That's not unlike the gullible morons that accept the whole Bin Laden fabrication.
I didn't realize the phrase "gullible morons" now meant "people living in the real world". Thanks for the heads up.
You know gullible morons, like the ones that get their news from The New York Times vs. reputable sources... like jewwatch.com.
I didn't realize the phrase "gullible morons" now meant "people living in the real world". Thanks for the heads up.
If the Jew fits.
New York Times vs. reputable
Those two should never be mentioned in the same sentence.
More heads up.
So jewwatch.com avoids the anti-zionist jews. How nice.
Just like the KKK avoids bugging those nice Negros that keep their mouths shut and know there place, eh?
Whoa! An insignificant minority of Jews are not Zionists!
(PS I already knew of them.)
Oh yeah, and that pro-Bush New York Times. It's practically the White House mouthpiece, eh?
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
God only knows how Charlie Sheen became such an authority on building collapses.
I know how.
Not exactly a good source.
Neither are yours.
So jewwatch.com avoids the anti-zionist jews. How nice.
Just like the KKK avoids bugging those nice Negros that keep their mouths shut and know there place, eh?
Out of the plethora of links and sources I use, funny (not) how you concentrate solely on Jew watch. Typical AND predictable.
Dude, it was the first one on the list of links. If you didn't want me to look at it, you shouldn't have pointed me to it.
Others included rumormill.blahbleddyblah and other non-newsworthy sources.
I have yet to see you denounce the jewwatch site.
Wait... you guys are now turning to the moron who fucked up a relationship with Denise Richards??
I'm gay and even I know that the guy that lands her does everything in his power to not fuck that up.
That would be like purposefully collapsing a building on top of 3.2 trillion dollars in gold bullion.
Falls under the category of Shit You Just Don't Do.
Dude, it was the first one on the list of links. If you didn't want me to look at it, you shouldn't have pointed me to it.
Others included rumormill.blahbleddyblah and other non-newsworthy sources.
I have yet to see you denounce the jewwatch site.
I posted that site on purpose to make the comment I made about the way you guys operate. I could have easily followed the links on jewwatch and you would have been oblivious as to where this kind of news has been filtering to. Basically, the jewwatch site takes the articles right from ADL and other Jewish sources they monitor. Now, did you follow where jewwatch got his info from? He sources his articles there same as all other "crazies" out there. These are all stories that are under reported and put on page 6 of the MAINSTREAM MEDIA that you guys love. Go ahead; debunk Silverstein's Zionist connections if you're not trusting what sites like Jewwatch to Anti-war.com are saying. Zionism is the poison that is leading this world to destruction. Wake up and realize that fact!
Structual engineers are a bad source..
Okay. Whatever buddy.
They are nothing without their grants if you are referring to the highly debunked NIST crew.
"I have yet to see you denounce the jewwatch site."
And he won't.
Correct!
please cite examples of this "debunking"
and there are many more structural engineers than those who contributed to the NIST report
Paid shill-ery does not count now matter how many degrees those clowns have. Again, the NIST fabrication has been highly debunked!
and there are many more structural engineers than those who contributed to the NIST report
Oh yeah, basically the same clique wrote all 3 conflicting "reports." Just how you give that any credibility is beyond comprehension.
evidence theyve been paid?
So who came up with the 20,000,000 to "fund" this investigation? You mean they all worked for free? Hahhaha.
Jack!
I'm glad you don't subscribe to jewwatch.
It's also very interesting that you are jumping to the defense of someone who posted it.
However, you weren't the one who cited it, so I don't give a flying crap if you denounce it.
I admit I did not look through to see where jewwatch got it's facts.
I would also be loathe to delve into a citing of the KKK, Neonazisareawesome.com or poniesarecute.com. Those are just goddamned weird websites.
Oh, I am not Not-Very-Funny Woman. That title has been assumed by someone else. I am Couldn't Give Two Shts About Your Opinion.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
So who came up with the 20,000,000 to "fund" this investigation? You mean they all worked for free? Hahhaha.
Man you have a hard-on for poisoning the well (logical fallacy! jack, you see that shit?). You can't just dismiss someone if they're paid by the government if their report USES CONCRETE FACT. So the laws of phsyics and structural engineering suddenly evaporate if people paid by the government use them in a report? How do you manage to dress yourself every day?
nesnyc,
so Sheen is a good source because...he's a celebrity?
Yeah man, who needs structural engineers when you've got actors?
Britney Spears thinks Arab terrorists did it.
I guess we need a tie-breaker now, huh?
What a joke.
Did you read the link I posted? Sheen is a useful idiot used to derail the movement.
Man you have a hard-on for poisoning the well (logical fallacy! jack, you see that shit?). You can't just dismiss someone if they're paid by the government if their report USES CONCRETE FACT. So the laws of phsyics and structural engineering suddenly evaporate if people paid by the government use them in a report? How do you manage to dress yourself every day?
Let's see now, when something blows away your "beliefs" its either a logical fallacy or circular logic, correct? Look, the "investigation" cost 20 million, the NIST report has been debunked as junk science designed to fool people such as yourself. You can equate it to the laws of physics all you want, the fact is, this report DOES NOT explain what happened on 9/11, it is a blatant lie, fabrication, scam... No matter how bad you want it not to be.
I admit I did not look through to see where jewwatch got it's facts.
Just more proof you people jump to hysterics and lack any real analytical skills. Here's an "official" accounting of the jewwatch story that corroborates what they are saying:
He (Silverstein) is acknowledged for his philanthropic endeavors, and contributes his time and resources in support of the United Jewish Appeal/Federation of Jewish Philanthropies of New York, for which he served as chairman. Mr. Silverstein is Chairman of the Realty Foundation, Treasurer of the National Jewish Medical and Research Center in Denver, Trustee of the NYU Medical Center and Health System, Trustee of the South Street Seaport Museum, and a Trustee of the Museum of Jewish Heritage.
Source.
Let's see now, when something blows away your "beliefs" its either a logical fallacy or circular logic, correct?
No, when you use a logical fallacy it's a logical fallacy. Your defense is laughable. I'm sorry you have absolutely no knowledge of logic.
NIST report has been debunked as junk science designed to fool people such as yourself.
No it hasn't. Stating something as if it were fact when you have not proven your case is a logical fallacy called arguing the consequent.
You can equate it to the laws of physics all you want, the fact is, this report DOES NOT explain what happened on 9/11, it is a blatant lie, fabrication, scam... No matter how bad you want it not to be.
You really do come from some Bizarro world where black is white and up is down.
It's not a fabrication, lie, or scam no matter how bad you want it to be.
He (Silverstein) is acknowledged for his philanthropic endeavors, and contributes his time and resources in support of the United Jewish Appeal/Federation of Jewish Philanthropies of New York, for which he served as chairman. Mr. Silverstein is Chairman of the Realty Foundation, Treasurer of the National Jewish Medical and Research Center in Denver, Trustee of the NYU Medical Center and Health System, Trustee of the South Street Seaport Museum, and a Trustee of the Museum of Jewish Heritage.
A Jew supporting Jewish causes? Well, I never!
For the moment I'll concede that the NIST and FEMA reports are junk science(even though they arent), but what of all the independant peer reviewed papers and journals written by hundreds of engineers who support the official version of events?? Are they all CIA shills too??
Hey, all the "peer" reviewed Catholic church doctrines got people executed during the inquisitions. Doesn't mean they were right. Do you even understand what a hierarchical structure these engineering organizations operate under? The Catholic church of Galileo’s day would be proud! But their scam is easy to understand where there are fools lined up and willing to accept what they say as fact.
Wow, that's quite possibly the falsest analogy I've come across in my life.
A Jew supporting Jewish causes? Well, I never!
What they omit is that the United Jewish Appeal is in fact a Zionist slush fund. Your tax dollars hard at work there, by way of deception.
What they omit is that the United Jewish Appeal is in fact a Zionist slush fund.
Do you ignore how overtly biased your Google searches are?
Yeah, it makes a lot of sense for a family of Hispanics to be "covertly Jewish" (which doesn't really make sense, Crypto-Jew is such a ridiculous term in and of itself).
You really do come from some Bizarro world where black is white and up is down.
It's not a fabrication, lie, or scam no matter how bad you want it to be.
The NIST report is self evidently a scam. They couldn't even get their scale (truss) models to fail like their computer generated "simulation" did. How is that fact? That’s the bizarro world you're living in. Face it, the wool has been pulled over your eyes and you happily accept it. If I were you, I wouldn't bend over anytime soon.
The NIST report is self evidently a scam. They couldn't even get their scale (truss) models to fail like their computer generated "simulation" did. How is that fact? That’s the bizarro world you're living in.
Even if I were to believe you (I don't believe anything you type, but I'll take your word for it for the sake of argument), you're going to say a report is a scam BECAUSE A MODEL DIDN'T WORK RIGHT?! God, you don't have a reasonable bone in your body. Oh shucks a small model which couldn't be hit by planes or be on fire didn't fall the same way! It's all a scam!
Yeah, it makes a lot of sense for a family of Hispanics to be "covertly Jewish" (which doesn't really make sense, Crypto-Jew is such a ridiculous term in and of itself).
If you had any historical sense, it makes plenty of sense for Jews not to be too obvious about their heritage in that they were persecuted throughout modern history!! Duh... That is just one of the reasons but they have also been caught doing it to corrupt religious and governmental organizations that when found out, lead to their expulsion from almost every country in Europe.
God, you don't have a reasonable bone in your body. Oh shucks a small model which couldn't be hit by planes or be on fire didn't fall the same way! It's all a scam!
No, they built a full scale model of a floor section complete with trusses and appropriate stresses. After 2 hours, they could not get fuel fires to collapse it like happened on 9/11 and is why this part of their "investigation" was not included in their final report like the software manipulated computer simulation.
Logically, if fire compromised the structure like the report claims, then certainly the real life model would have corroborated the end result in the given time frame. IT DID NOT. Debunked, junk science, lies...
If you had any historical sense, it makes plenty of sense for Jews not to be too obvious about their heritage in that they were persecuted throughout modern history!!
Yeah...that makes sense in medievel Europe. Thanks to that little thing called the Inquisition, there aren't too many Hispanic/Latino Jews. Oh yeah, Hollywood has zero "open" Jews, too.
That is just one of the reasons but they have also been caught doing it to corrupt religious and governmental organizations that when found out, lead to their expulsion from almost every country in Europe.
And here he tries to rationalize his anti-semitism.
Logically, if fire compromised the structure like the report claims, then certainly the real life model would have corroborated the end result in the given time frame. IT DID NOT. Debunked, junk science, lies...
Man, high school science failed you in the worst way. Your argument is like saying the Piltdown Man disproved evolution.
here's a far better analogy:
I build a scale model of the city of Hiroshima 1945. I also build a mini-bomb which will detonate in the same manner as an atom bomb. If I carry out my experiment and the nature of destruction isn't the same as what happened in reality then an atom bomb didn't destroy Hiroshima?
This is the argument you are making.
here's a far better analogy:
I build a scale model of the city of Hiroshima 1945. I also build a mini-bomb which will detonate in the same manner as an atom bomb. If I carry out my experiment and the nature of destruction isn't the same as what happened in reality then an atom bomb didn't destroy Hiroshima?
This is the argument you are making.
You're close, but not quite there. How would a computer simulation or a third accounting to show what happened factor in your analogy? However, you can possibly simulate in scale what happened in a nuke bomb blast and have it corroborated with a computer simulation. Ever saw one of those Tunguska simulations that showed a butterfly pattern just like happened in real life?
It escapes me were I saw this right now but I do recall someone building a scale model of the Tunguska area and detonating a mid air blast thereby creating the same butterfly pattern as documented in the actual Tunguska explosion. Why can't NIST get their models to work if it is successfully done elsewhere that the hypothesis is accurate as to the actual event?
No, they built a full scale model of a floor section complete with trusses and appropriate stresses. After 2 hours, they could not get fuel fires to collapse it like happened on 9/11 and is why this part of their "investigation" was not included in their final report like the software manipulated computer simulation.
Maybe you should actually read the report instead of depending on what others tell you:
The report is here:
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NISTNCSTAR1-6BDraft.pdf
The tests were ended before collapse on purpose. Ratings for the trusses were asessed from 3/4 hour to 2 hours The test was also fo a 17ft truss, rather than the 35-60 ft pieces actually used in the WTC (the fire chamber was only so big).
There is really nothing there that truly supports what nesync claims. He's cherry picking data (or rahter, one of his cult leaders is) from a test deigned to come as close, but not equal to the systems in place, and drawing a conclusion that the test was not designed to reach.
To further my previous post:
The test refered to are not modelling simulations of the collapse. They are testing to see if the truss structure and truss steel came up to the required standards. To have done a real test they would have needed to build multiple levels, as trusses and columns acting or failing in 'tandem' produce much differing forces than a single truss. Modeling multiple stories like this is not possible due to the lack of sufficiently large fire chambers. As it is the truss they tested was much smaller than those in the WTC.
Taking this test and declaring that NIST is null and void is like catching an Olympic Sprinter on his morning walk, timing his progress and demanding his medals be stripped since his speed did not match that of his 40 yard dash.
The comment was also made that as a result of this test NIST was forced to use computer modeling to simulate the collapse. This is incorrect.
Nobody 'forced' NIST to do such a thing. NIST, like almost all other failure & engineering agencies around the world, uses computer modeling extensively and in some matters, exclusively. Computer modelling has proven itself extremely reliable and effective and is a vast improvement over scale modelling used in the past in some fields. Aeronautics, for example, have found that computer modelling is much better than scale modeling, and much of structural engineering feels the same way. If you disagree with this, you should consider never entering a tall building constructred in the past 20 years.
Sheen's a government mole now, huh?
No, you're not getting the point. He may well believe in the 9/11 conspiracy but that doesn't take away from the fact that he's being used as a useful idiot to later be flogged in public as is not happening. If what he’s doing is intentional or not is beyond my ability to confirm or not, but the writer of that piece I posted is convinced this is so. I’m not making any conclusion about Sheen’s motives, only that he is promoted by the mainstream media and will later certainly take the fall and bring the movement along with him.
oh and Alex Jones is full of admiration for the "brave" Sheen.
So this means Jones is a.....what?
Since Jones organization seems to be a Zionist one and Jones never has really come out against Zionist, we can all put 2 + 2 together and draw our own conclusions.
Taking this test and declaring that NIST is null and void is like catching an Olympic Sprinter on his morning walk, timing his progress and demanding his medals be stripped since his speed did not match that of his 40 yard dash.
Excuses, excuses. Aren't you guys tired of making up excuses?
The tests were ended before collapse on purpose. Ratings for the trusses were asessed from 3/4 hour to 2 hours The test was also fo a 17ft truss, rather than the 35-60 ft pieces actually used in the WTC (the fire chamber was only so big).
I recall only a two inch distortion was achieved in the two hour test. Fine, now how did the rest of the building achieve symmetrical failure from that 2 inch buckling at the supposed site of the fires ONLY? Did you even read what you wrote? Making it fit isn’t good enough in this case. NIST nullified itself and then lied via their computer simulation to fool people such as yourself.
What we need is ANOTHER fruitcake in these forums, so we can watch him and insync accuse eachother of being paid government shills trying to discredit the movement.
Can you imagine the levels of insanity that could be reached? It'd be great!
I recall only a two inch distortion was achieved in the two hour test.
You recall?! I gave you the link. Give me the quote. Not the it matters, you still misunderstand the purpose of this testing
Fine, now how did the rest of the building achieve symmetrical failure from that 2 inch buckling at the supposed site of the fires ONLY? Did you even read what you wrote? Making it fit isn’t good enough in this case. NIST nullified itself and then lied via their computer simulation to fool people such as yourself.
You again assume too much of what the test was for. The test was a baseline test, hence all the references to the ASCE 119 which is a baseline test that has been in effect for alomst 100 years!
Any deviation in these particular tests was irrelevant to the causes of collapse. The tests were set to determine if the steel, the baseline, fireproofing, and flooring system came up to the required specs before any damage was done.
The fact that these tests were done with all the advantages going to the structure ( structure intact, composite flooring intact, fireproofing in place) should have given you a good hint! Oh wait, you didn't read it.
Excuses, excuses. Aren't you guys tired of making up excuses
Pointing out that you are making a massive mistake is not an excuse.
Any deviation in these particular tests was irrelevant to the causes of collapse.
How many fingers am I holding up, Winston?
like someone else said your just picking data you want, and when everyone else proves you wrong with facts something you know nothing about
Isn't that what this whole blog is about? How come it's okay for you guys to do the same and then wrong for the rest of us? Not that we're wrong, but just for argument sake? We know NIST pulled a well orchestrated fraud, plain and simple. Stop fighting the truth.
How many fingers am I holding up, Winston?
When you have a point, make it. Otherwise stop acting like a spoiled child.
We know NIST pulled a well orchestrated fraud, plain and simple. Stop fighting the truth.
On the contrary, WE know nothing of the sort. WE, unlike you, are capable of reading test reports properly, consult the proper experts, and can see a unanimous consensus of relevant experts around the world.
Meanwhile, YOU, who dares put the word 'truth' in his comment, cannot write about NIST without lying about it!
When you have a point, make it. Otherwise stop acting like a spoiled child.
Point was made. You have successfully conned yourself to believe the official propaganda.
Meanwhile, YOU, who dares put the word 'truth' in his comment, cannot write about NIST without lying about it!
How does the NIST report contain any truth? Why was omission their M.O. and not inclusion? It maybe accurate for what they did include, even though that's purely suggestive, but the fact so much is omitted shoots a hole right through it. Too bad you and yours can't figure that out.
Point was made. You have successfully conned yourself to believe the official propaganda.
'Official Propaganda' that just happens to be supported by every relevant expert in the world, including nations not friendly to the US. That's inconvenient for you, isn't it?
Meanwhile, you can't talk about NIST without lying about it. Its just your nature I guess.
How does the NIST report contain any truth?
Very easily.
Why was omission their M.O. and not inclusion?
If by 'omission' they did not consider the crackpot ideas that there is absolutely no evidence for, too bad. The modeling supports that the towers fell from the fire & damage. Experts around the world agree, and crank theories are not pursued just because some psychotic anti-semites cry foul.
It maybe accurate for what they did include, even though that's purely suggestive, but the fact so much is omitted shoots a hole right through it. Too bad you and yours can't figure that out.
If there are so many holes, perhaps you can point them out? So far all you've done is parrot some wbesite that you claim debunks NIST. It does not, and the figures you 'quote' to support your assertions (especially that '2 inches' figure) are laughable and easily disproven.
And again, relevant experts around the world do not disagree with its method or conclusions, at least not in any signifigant way.
I don't understand the logic behind his claims in the first place. Let's think this through:
"They" want to con us all into beleiveing "the official story"
So "they" set up a test to simulate a building being brought down by fire.
And the test fails!
Now let's think about this for a second. These "eeeeevil masterminds" manage to (supposedly) kill 3,000 people and bring down three massive structures without most people realizing what really happened....and you're telling me that they can't properly fake a test???
What's going on here?!?!
Assuming that NIST really WAS attempting to collapse their mockup (which they weren't, but regaurdless), the fact that it didn't collapse should be an indication that they're honest. Certainly if it HAD collapsed, the CTers would be screaming that the test was faked. Shouldn't the opposite hold true as well?
So even the most basic premise being made here is flawed. Not only did they totaly misunderstand the NIST report, but even if we were to take up the CT mindset and ignore the facts, their argument STILL makes no sense. If you're an evil government shill looking to back "the official story", wouldn't you make damn sure that your evidence backed the statements of your masters? So the only thing that makes sense is that those Evil Zionist Overlords are not just evil, but incompetent as well. But only incompetent enough to give themselves away to those who are smart and clever enough to "see the truth".
I can see how such a mindset could be addictive. In the absence of a beleif in a higher being, or a higher purpose, or pride in personal achievemnt, it MUST be tempting to simply ignore your own weaknesses and failiures and instead pretend that you're one of the few people in the world who understand what's really going on. Plus, in your own mind at least, you can never really be proven wrong because you can always come up with a modification for your theory. It REALLY IS like a religion for some people. They can't afford to give up their conspiracy theory. It's the only thing giving their lives any meaning.
Why was omission their M.O. and not inclusion?
Excluding moronic non-points isn't wrong to do. Just because someone believes something that's totally insane and outside the realm of possibility doesn't mean the government should check it "just to make sure".
We know NIST pulled a well orchestrated fraud, plain and simple.
Actually, nobody knows that because it isn't true. You, and others, have deluded yourselves into believing in some fantasy.
Excluding moronic non-points isn't wrong to do.
Well let's see, molten metal in the basement of all 3 "collapses" was not addressed in any of the "reports" so that is just one massive glaring omission. How is that moronic? I guess since it doesn't fit the official fiction then that makes it so? LOL!!
You're too easy.
So "they" set up a test to simulate a building being brought down by fire.
And the test fails!
Now let's think about this for a second. These "eeeeevil masterminds" manage to (supposedly) kill 3,000 people and bring down three massive structures without most people realizing what really happened....and you're telling me that they can't properly fake a test???
Well, all I keep hearing from you people is that you can't fake physics. The floor model test was simply to figure out if a catastrophic distortion would occur subjected under the known conditions at the time in the building. But what ended up happening is that very little damage occurred. They tried to hide these results for quite sometime so you know "someone" was pulling the shots here. I honestly believe a few of these researchers actually believed that fire alone bought down the towers but when they couldn't simulate this in the lab, that part of the investigation was shut down and omitted. Those in control then had to resort to the computer simulation to prove their hypothesis and make it fit.
They could not fake this part of the test because anyone running a similar test could logically deduce that it was fabricated. So if they fabricated the physical test then the whole report is in question. It's a bit harder to prove the figures were fudged on the computer model they used without knowing how the source code was manipulated. You guys see the results and then conclude the test is valid without knowing that a key part of the test could never work in the physical world.
If by 'omission' they did not consider the crackpot ideas that there is absolutely no evidence for, too bad.
You mean like this "crackpot" idea? Oh yeah, no evidence here.
You mean like this "crackpot" idea? Oh yeah, no evidence here.
FIRES IN RUBBLE?! STOP THE PRESSES!
FIRES IN RUBBLE?! STOP THE PRESSES!
No, molten metal (on fire?) found weeks after the event. Temperatures in excess of any fossil fuel fire, how do you explain that? NIST didn't even try, that IS an omission and pretty much invalidates anything else they cleverly fabricated.
No, molten metal (on fire?) found weeks after the event.
You do realize molten aluminum is a possibilty?
I'm sure that picture of concrete and rebar was molten steel though, right?
The floor model test was simply to figure out if a catastrophic distortion would occur subjected under the known conditions at the time in the building.
No, it wasnt, read the NIST report and you'll realize that. But regaurdless, let's carry on.
They could not fake this part of the test because anyone running a similar test could logically deduce that it was fabricated.
Bull. Who's going to have the resources to run a similar test? You? By that logic, they couldn't have used demolition charges either, because they should have known that anyone crashing an airliner into a building in the future would invalidate their story. If you're saying they were willing to fake all this evidence, they certainly could and would have faked the collapse of a model.
So if they fabricated the physical test then the whole report is in question.
You're questioning it anyway.
It's a bit harder to prove the figures were fudged on the computer model they used without knowing how the source code was manipulated.
Bull. It's much easier to look at a computer simulation and see where the errors lie because you've got all the physical data sitting right in front of you, and you can even experiment with changing certain factors in order to see how they affect the overall model. Hell, if I had all the pertinent figures, I could MAKE you a computer model to simulate the crash. The hard part isn't making the damn model, it's properly measuring/calculating all the forces at work in the strikes, the fires, and the collapse. If there was an error in the model, it wouldn't be in the programming, it would be in the data.
Post a Comment
<< Home