Please show me who I specifically accused of being a shill? I'm dancing the shill dance though, and you don't seem to like it. You confuse me a bit.
You have basicly accused everyone who does not buy the 9/11T twaddle of being a shill. That makes about seven of us who still post here with any frequency.
Playing the innocent victim, Fraud? Now you'll start whimpering about how you were 'hacked' and never made this post, huh?
You don't have to prove anything to me, Psi. I already know your model is bunk. I know why your model is bunk. I know how your model is bunk. This exercise is for your own benefit. Aren't you the least bit interested in testing your hypothesis? Not even for the millions of Americans that you think are being lied to? You never know, Psi. You might have something groundbreaking here. This might be your chance to make your mark on history. Answer my question. Why can't you model the behavior of your model? If your premise is correct, you should be able to create a smaller model of your model. If your, "weak as possible" test is good enough to model the behavior of the WTC, why isn't the same test good enough to model your model? If paper can stand in for steel, why can't something else stand in for paper? You can't think of anything weaker than paper? Was that one of the questions on your MIT interview? Why is that even a problem for you? You didn't think it was an issue with scaling the strength of the WTC, did you?
You should explain to the lurkers why it's dumb to make a smaller scale model and expect the behavior to be the same. They might not get it.
But wouldn't a smaller scale model be lighter? So to be as "weak as possible" wouldn't the supports have to be weaker than in the existing model? So wouldn't I have to use something weaker than paper? So why don't you tell me what would be weaker than paper and ask why I didn't use it at the top of my existing model? DUH! I already said this without so much verbosity. Astound us further with your brilliance. psik
Why would your cluster**** of a model need to be as 'weak as possible ' in the first place?....It's NOT going to behave like the WTC towers
Material is not the only factor involved in the strength of a structure. There are lots of things that are "weaker than paper" Paper, in fact, can be very strong. You're right on the cusp of beginning to understand what I'm talking about. If you could get around your attitude you might actually learn something. You really should try to test your hypothesis in the manner I suggested. http://www-materials.eng.cam.ac.uk/mpsite/interactive_charts/spec-spec/NS6Chart.html
So build a model of something weaker than paper but can still support a static load many times its own weight. Show us that it can collapse. All you do is talk and claim to be right. My model must be wrong because it does now do what you say. LOL psik
Pasta. It breaks cleanly when over-loaded, as compared to the toothpicks or match sticks that you used in some of your videos. Find out the static load that the floor can support and the failure weight. Load the floors accordingly. Don't use washers, though. Slabs of plaster would be better, and would better simulate what happens when you have floor slabs falling in different orientations. The advantage of using pasta is that you can get an accurate model of the collapse mode by simulating one side of the core with any kind of rigid material, even soft wood, maybe even do the perimeter columns the same way. Just glue on brackets to support the pasta floors.
Your saying so does not make it so. Compared to some of the models I have seen psik use elsewhere, i think it is far closer to the reality of the situation.
well I will bow out. From what I could tell his models demonstrated what he intended to show people. I believe it was conservation of energy or something to that effect. You found out the hard way all too many times that my saying did make it so LOL He can explain it to you, I just wants to get my 2cents in there. That you would suggest such nonsense however is hilarious.
So build a model out of whatever you want. Let's see you make it completely collapse due to the fall of its top 15% or less by height and weight while damaging the supports below in the process. I already built one and it arrested. You people are just coming up with silly complaints about it. So build one yourselves and demonstrate that you are not just talking BS. I already suggested using a 3D printer to make a bigger, better and heavier model with tube-in-tube construction but I am not going to try it. What engineering school has done any model in almost 12 years? But then most engineering schools have not officially said anything about 9/11. psik
You can say whatever you want and claim it is the truth all you want. Where is your model made of whatever you want that can hold itself up for three days and then be completely collapsed by its top 15% or less? And provide complete data so anyone can duplicate it for themselves. Until you do that then you can claim hot air is the truth ad infinitum. Maybe you can get some dummies to believe you. Anyone that cares to can test my model for themselves and try to modify it to create a complete collapse. It is called experimentation. Don't scientists do that? psik
I'm not claiming any model...YOU are,one that has NOTHING to do with the way the WTC was constructed You might as well make your model out of jenga blocks they're about as relevant. Besides,the WTC wasn't a 'complete' collapse
