Posted: Nov 30, 2010 3:49 pm
by econ41
psikeyhackr wrote:
econ41 wrote:
hotshoe wrote:And another note for relatively new members to this thread - ie those who only joined since ratskep forum was set up OR in the last few months of RDNet. psikeyhackr was a long term poster on RDNet 9/11 topic and you can take it as given that he has been informed of all the relevant arguments many times. He has made some quite good models to illustrate aspects of the Twin Towers collapses. Sadly all of them off target as to what really happened. But commendable effort just the same.

So it doesn't take more energy to bend a 2 inch column than a 1 inch column or more energy to bend a 4 inch column than a 2 inch.

It seems on this issue some people assume they can talk other people into believing anything. So where has anyone built a self supporting model that can be crushed by the top 15% of its own weight? Physics does not give a damn about talk.


Boring psik. The same false claims by inference as you made years ago and were corrected on at the time in multiple repeated explanations.

The facts remain the same and simple:
1 The global collapse of the WTC towers did not crush the columns;
2 The insults directed at "some people" when it is the physics of your claims which is wrong;
3 The truism that physics "does not give a damn" attached to the false inference that others - in this case I - have the physics wrong.

And who gives a damn about building "...a self supporting model that can be crushed by the top 15% of its own weight?" The real world had two full scale models where a small top section "caused the collapse" of the lower section. Those real examples were WTC1 and WTC2 and the top bit did not "crush" the bottom bit as you are fully aware. So your analogy by inference is false.