GrahamH wrote:Yes, come on psikey, admit it. This building is a self supporting structure that collapses to the ground due to gravity when the smaller top section drops onto the larger lower section. That is what you proclaimed to be impossible.
This building is the model you said could not be built.
This building does what you claim is a contradiction of the laws of physics.
It is obvious from the video that the glass was removed from the building.
You have no way of knowing if the walls were weakened in any way.
Was 15% of the structure dropped the height of ONE LEVEL onto an INTACT STRUCTURE DESIGNED TO SUPPORT IT?
16 stories would have been 14.5% of the north tower.
1 story would have been less than 1%.
93 stories would have been 84.5%.
14 stories would have been 12.7%
You can't even tell how many stories there were to the building in that video.
Guessing that the building in the video was 16 stories.
3 stories were dropped a height of 2 stories onto 11 stories.
3 stories would have been 18.75% of the building collapse video.
2 story would have been than 12.5%.
11 stories would have been 69%.
With my model I dropped 12% but due to how I distributed the washers it was 10% by weight. What were the distributions for the north tower and what were they for the building in that video? Oops! NO DATA! So why don't we have it for the WTC after TEN YEARS and why isn't everyone that claims to know physics demanding it? If the collapse was possible then having correct data would only support that conclusion. But because my model was SO WEAK we know the loops at the bottom were three times as strong as the ones at the top. What do you know about the relative strength in that video?
Kat Dorman already provided a graphic indicating that the DISTRIBUTION OF MASS of a 110 story would have been very different from that of a building 20 stories or less. So you are trying to say that PHYSICS IS IRRELEVANT because you can use the word BUILDING? Well whoop de doo!
Have I ever said anything about needing to know the TONS of STEEL and TONS of CONCRETE that were on every level of the towers? Oh yeah, KD is trying to ridicule me for that. Have I written a computer program for collapse time based on the conservation of momentum? This is not just about collapse it is about the TIME of the supposed collapse. Without supports to be destroyed it takes about 12 seconds. So the mass affects the time because of the conservation of momentum. So comparing to a short building is nonsense. But then we don't have accurate data after TEN YEARS but people talking about 1000 m/s will dismiss what they want and accuse me of lying about what they can't even know even if I was lying and is too trivial to lie about anyway. At least with a model I can work with knowable data and duplicate the experiment as much as I want.
And anyone else around the world can duplicate it also.
So if the towers could collapse why can't anyone build a model that can collapse completely.
Oh yeah! We never get to see what was left of that building so we don't know if it collapsed completely. We don't even really know how many stories there were. Emotional propaganda physics. So all you can do is talk and show irrelevant videos.
And Noam Chomsky can talk about the silliness of Bush conspiracies while not mentioning the physics of skyscrapers.
psik