New: theory of conspiracy theories:

Originally posted by Duchess64
For many reasons, Operation Sea Lion was completely unrealistic. ...

I thought it was unrealistic for just one reason; it required complete or almost complete air superiority over England first.
If they only had managed to crush the RAF, I assume operation sea lion would have gone ahead on schedule and then Britain would have been in a frightful position (and I might have never have been born because I am a half-caste and I don't think they would have allowed that )

Originally posted by joe shmo
"I am an engineer and you are vastly overestimating the ability of state-of-the-art knowledge if you think structural engineers are able to predict accurately and in detail what happens to a structure during catastrophic and/or unusual circumstances. Just doesn't work that way"

If that were the case the CTBUH wouldn't have stated in their paper directly ...[text shortened]... ou didn't know). Here is a link to his page ( I'm guessing he must have wrote his own one too).

I'm sure their models are "sophisticated" but there is no way they can simulate every aspect and detail of a building being damaged, catching fire and collapsing. Just to give you a comparison: computing numerically exactly the time dynamics of (quantum) particles which interact with each other can be done up to several dozen particles at most - in one-dimensional motion.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
I'm sure their models are "sophisticated" but there is no way they can simulate every aspect and detail of a building being damaged, catching fire and collapsing. Just to give you a comparison: computing numerically exactly the time dynamics of (quantum) particles which interact with each other can be done up to several dozen particles at most - in one-dimensional motion.

"I'm sure their models are "sophisticated" but..."

That's not what you implied when you made the statement below:

"Consider for instance the paper you linked, where a one-dimensional idealization is presented and solved analytically. How one-dimensional are buildings again?"

What you seem to be missing is that while it is true that the physics field attracts people of the highest intelligence, it does not attract EVERY person of the highest intelligence. So, there are people that are among the highest scientific intellect in the world in the field of structural engineering (and any other scientific field for that matter). What do you think they do all day, sit and play angry birds? No...they advance their respective fields to the utmost level possible (based on available/develop-able resources) of technical sophistication. However, your multiple comments on the simplicity of the 1D model ( and your earlier comment: Ohh, a "generalized solution to the 1D mechanics of progressive collapse." You got me now, no way I can debunk fancy mathematics." ) confirms to me your belief of their underdeveloped techniques; when all it really does is show they have the sense to realize that it is unnecessary to swat a fly with a wrecking ball.

Originally posted by joe shmo
"I'm sure their models are "sophisticated" but..."

That's not what you implied when you made the statement below:

"Consider for instance the paper you linked, where a one-dimensional idealization is presented and solved analytically. How one-dimensional are buildings again?"

What you seem to be missing is that while it is true that the physics fiel ...[text shortened]... s show they have the sense to realize that it is unnecessary to swat a fly with a wrecking ball.

The bottom line is we just don't believe there was this vast conspiracy. We still think a large jet filled with fuel is enough to bring down the towers with no help needed by explosives.

Originally posted by sonhouse
The bottom line is we just don't believe there was this vast conspiracy. We still think a large jet filled with fuel is enough to bring down the towers with no help needed by explosives.

More importantly, so do structural engineers. That the collapse of WTC7 merited closer investigation of course does not imply that structural engineers think the Bilderberg group was behind it. It just means that we don't have perfect engineering skills and/or knowledge.

Originally posted by sonhouse
The bottom line is we just don't believe there was this vast conspiracy. We still think a large jet filled with fuel is enough to bring down the towers with no help needed by explosives.

WTC 7 does not fit that description, but that's fine, believe what you want. I on the other hand will maintain my suspicion.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
More importantly, so do structural engineers. That the collapse of WTC7 merited closer investigation of course does not imply that structural engineers think the Bilderberg group was behind it. It just means that we don't have perfect engineering skills and/or knowledge.

...and there are structural engineers who don't. I would really like for you to point out to me where I ever stated anything even remotely close to the "Bilderberg group" was responsible? Quit trying to paint me as a prototypical conspiracy theorist.

The post that was quoted here has been removed

I may have a finite volume, but I am un-paintable.

Originally posted by joe shmo
...and there are structural engineers who don't. I would really like for you to point out to me where I ever stated anything even remotely close to the "Bilderberg group" was responsible? Quit trying to paint me as a prototypical conspiracy theorist.

My bad. Of course it was the NWO/UN/Illuminati/Obama/Bush/chemtrails/moon landing/fill in the blank.

The post that was quoted here has been removed

Wow...If i weren't married I'd ask you out on a date...are you having these feelings too? 😲

Originally posted by joe shmo
Wow...If i weren't married I'd ask you out on a date...are you having these feelings too? 😲

Meanwhile, back at the conspiracy.....