Posted by: Anonymous Coward
on September 16, 2006 10:13 PM
I don't really get it. Appart from the abuse of bolding, what is wrong with the first post? Was it meant to be a character attack on Richard by pointing out that he is willing to consider all possibilities and also knows the limits of his ability to pass judgment on a piece?
If so, I don't get it. That's a complement, right? Or are we now living in a land of sacred cows? I, having stumbled across that particular article about the WTC colapse a couple of months ago, and not being able to say ya or nay as I also am not a structural engineer, would like to hear some more as well. At the time of the colapse, I remember being quite amazed they fell (after having stood for so long after being hit) and that they fell so cleanly into their footprint.
I find it disturbing that there are apparently experts who are also amazed. And, yes, if the 9/11 investigation did not seriously consider everthing, then it is also my opinion that it (the investigation) is bogus. Personally, being heavily involved in computational mathematics, I am not at all pleased to hear they apparently had to seriously muck their model in order to get the results they wanted.
What is the point of an inquiry where the outcome is determined a prior?
Learn about Linux
Download Linux
Get Linux help
Re:Hi Richard;
Posted by: Anonymous Coward on September 16, 2006 10:13 PMIf so, I don't get it. That's a complement, right? Or are we now living in a land of sacred cows? I, having stumbled across that particular article about the WTC colapse a couple of months ago, and not being able to say ya or nay as I also am not a structural engineer, would like to hear some more as well. At the time of the colapse, I remember being quite amazed they fell (after having stood for so long after being hit) and that they fell so cleanly into their footprint.
I find it disturbing that there are apparently experts who are also amazed. And, yes, if the 9/11 investigation did not seriously consider everthing, then it is also my opinion that it (the investigation) is bogus. Personally, being heavily involved in computational mathematics, I am not at all pleased to hear they apparently had to seriously muck their model in order to get the results they wanted.
What is the point of an inquiry where the outcome is determined a prior?
#