Posted: Jun 14, 2017 12:21 am
psikeyhackr wrote:
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 definition of trustworthy is not "conforms to my preconceptions" but rather it is "deserving of trust or confidence". I do (and you should) have confidence in data that produces a building that remained standing for decades and only fell down when it was struck by a huge jet aeroplane.
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.
Are these the engineers with similar qualifications and training to the engineers who have already evaluated and modelled the destruction of the towers? Because, if they are, then I am completely mystified as to how you trust one set and not the other.
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.
Well, they did ask (and answer) back in 2007 when the NIST report first came out. The rest of the world has moved on in the intervening decade though.
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
This is a complete non sequitur and is an example of a classic [url=http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Concern_troll]concern troll[/'url].