Reply #124: Now you're being rather dishonest

[anigbrowl]

"All I am saying and have been saying is that, in theory, one could use the manner in which debris came off the towers as a "data mine" for learning about the forces involved. If everything behaved as expected (no, not a model but an observation of the movement of actual visible debris and calculations based on it.)

Not a model, no and yes, I do understand complexities are involved, especially depending on what questions are asked specifically about what object. But to throw out the approach as impossible and then try to pass an offhand denial as the absolute end all of scientific opinion is weak..."

Nobody has thrown out the approach as impossible. It's just been pointed out to you repeatedly that there is massive complexity involved. So massive, in fact, that I think modeling is a better approach.

"You reveal yourself when instead of saying, "that sounds like an interesting angle. I wonder if work has been done on the subject.". You make a knee-jerk response that no possible data could be gained from "modelling" the fall. It was a strawman and a closed minded thing to do. Period. Full stop."

I said no such thing. Anywhere. In fact, I think modeling such things is the best way of studying them, and will be far more fruitful than trying to reverse-engineer the path of individual bits of debris. Perhaps you are mixing me up with someone else, or you (badly) misunderstood something I said.

I am beginning to think you do not understand the difference between modeling and analysis.