Posted: Dec 02, 2010 5:46 am
by psikeyhackr
byofrcs wrote:Well did you get the NIST SAP 2000 data ? It googles easily.

Anyway maybe you didn't notice but the WTC 1/2 actually withstood the impact of the planes. It was only after an hour or so of an uncontrolled fire that they failed. I didn't notice you burning your model in your Youtube.

Oh sure, everybody keeps claiming information is out there.

The core columns were not configured in an even rectangular array. But have you ever seen the layout of the horizontal beams in the array? What was the weight of those beams? Oh, it's not there. How many different weights of exterior wall panels were there and how many of each type? Oh, that isn't there either.

Why can't Lon Waters put that info on his site if it is available?

There had to be enough steel on the 81st level of the south tower to support another 29 stories. But supposedly that much steel could weaken in ONE HOUR. But our experts don't ask and don't tell in NINE YEARS. Interesting!

No it looks like people who have decided to BELIEVE this nonsense don't want accurate data. They just prefer to believe their chosen conclusion and don't demand the info form the experts they TRUST. AUTHORITY said it so it must be true

My model doesn't need to be set on fire. The top of the north tower was not raised the height of the entire building the way I lifted the top portion of my model. Presumably it was the fire which made the collapse possible.

So what is stopping you from building a self supporting model that can collapse? What is stopping any engineering school in the world from doing it by the way?