Posted: Dec 03, 2010 7:37 am
..sorry I was not explicit. You have never answered the challenge to show why the weight distribution is relevant to the global collapse of WTC1 and WTC2. Is that explicit enough?
I wrote with my usual precision psik. To take it that one step further first get the correct context which is explaining the global collapses of WTC1 and WTC2. You have never shown why the distribution of weight is relevant to explaining those global collapses. Your usual responses in the past have been the same mix of unfocussed innuendo which you employ now.psikeyhackr wrote:....econ41 is often very suggestive in the way he says things but you can almost never accurately accuse him of lying.
I will not continue in a one sided discussion. I am prepared to answer any reasoned claim you put.
psikeyhackr wrote:...I have posted this on websites before:...
Yes you have and I have several times pointed out that your modelling addresses the immediate consequences of the aircraft impact. The buildings - both of them - survived that impact AND any relevance your model may have is only to that initial impact UNTIL YOU DEMONSTRATE RELEVANCE to the global collapse.
The remainder of the post consists of partial truths related to the initial impact written with the inference that those partial truths apply to the collapses. All those inferences are false.
Note the context folks. NIST is referring specifically to the initial impact NOT the collapse.psikeyhackr wrote:...On the matter of mass distribution of the towers the NIST says this:http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1-5D.pdf page 742.4.3 Single Impulse Excitations
Accurate estimation of the tower’s motion during the airplane impact required detailed knowledge of the geometry, weight distribution, and impact velocity of the aircraft, as well as detailed knowledge of the geometry, weight distribution, and structural strength of the tower. At the time of this test series (fall 2003), much of this information was unknown, and the impact motion could only be roughly estimated. To allow this estimate to be made quickly, many simplifying assumptions were made regarding the nature of the impact.
I don't understand why they couldn't have that info on the building by fall 2003 though and I certainly don't understand why we don't have it now, SEVEN YEARS of nonsense....
Look at the video folks. It is a good bit of modelling for some purposes. But clearly related to aircraft impact.
psikeyhackr wrote:...I demonstrated the effect of changing mass and its distribution years ago and posted it on the Dawkins site also.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z0kUICwO93Q
The questions are SO BORING but then the grade school physics of skyscrapers does not change. The Empire State Building was completed in 1931 and they didn't have electronic computers. So it appears that econ41 can just dismiss from his mind whatever he wants. Right econ211?