Science without math is garbage, NIST.

reply to post by Joey Canoli


The entire body of work has not been released, therefore it is unambiguously impossible for you to have read it.

I already asked the specific question.

Originally posted by jprophet420

I already asked the specific question.

No.

You did not.

You are asking for the entirety of all the published studies to be incorporated into one.

And I already informed you that there isn't a single study that does that I'm aware of.

Some deal with the plane impacts only. or fire only. or high temp creep only. or catenary action of the trusses only. or the energetics of the collapse propafation only. ad infinitum.

Pick something.

Man up and confront your error in judgement.

Originally posted by Joey Canoli

Originally posted by jprophet420

I already asked the specific question.

No.

You did not.

You are asking for the entirety of all the published studies to be incorporated into one.

And I already informed you that there isn't a single study that does that I'm aware of.

Some deal with the plane impacts only. or fire only. or high temp creep only. or catenary action of the trusses only. or the energetics of the collapse propafation only. ad infinitum.

Pick something.

Man up and confront your error in judgement.

So what I want to know to the supporters, is how do you trust a report on a complex physics problem that doesn't show the work?

100% proof that you are wrong good sir. I asked it in the very first post of the thread.