Posted: Jun 13, 2017 5:54 pm
Thommo wrote:Sorry, what's your point? If the numbers aren't impressive what's the point of a link that does nothing other than compute those numbers and get them wrong?
And regardless of that, how is getting them right not an improvement on getting them wrong? Isn't this guy part of a movement that literally named itself after "truth"?
I really only provided that link for the pictures about distribution of mass. I have been saying for years that we do not have trustworthy data on the mass distributions in steel and concrete of the towers but they had to be bottom heavy. The last time I checked 50 skyscrapers over 1000 ft tall have been constructed since 2011. It is not like engineers do not know how to design such structures.
But I do not hear many scientists or engineers asking about the mass distribution data on the towers so the "science" of the supposed collapses is complete crap.
The building had to get stronger toward the bottom so more energy should be required to destroy it progressively downward. But using up energy would slow the falling portion reducing its kinetic energy. So how did the structure come down so fast? Just providing an impressive number for the amount of Potential Energy does not solve the problem when you really can't even prove the number is correct if you don't know the mass of steel and concrete on every level.
psik