And vertical structures over 200 meters can just be thrown together like puzzle pieces. No need for accurate data on the distributions of wrought iron, steel or concrete.
Still operating under the false belief that a static load is the same as a dynamic load? Looks like MIT made the right choice.
And still maintaining your lying delusions. I demonstrated static vs dynamic. So where is your quote from the NIST about the quantity of concrete? Where is your model that can support itself but then completely collapse when the top 15% is be dropped on the rest?
Your post is a lot more concerned with defending the 9/11 Commission and their phony investigation and subsequent phony report and vilifying those who question/challenge it. That's because what I posted in response to your post has nothing to do with an inside job. So why are you inserting a red herring into this discussion? That's exactly what most posters who believe and defend the official 9/11 conspiracy theory do, thanks for agreeing. You do realize that most of those in law enforcement and the intelligence and legal communities are educated in and make a living out of conspiracy theories and that there are numerous federal and state statutes that reference conspiracies. So are you saying that the above is true about these people? Thanks for your personal opinion but I was pointing out something entirely different and much more important than your extremely narrow point of view. So in your opinion all investigations should avoid having eyewitnesses testify if the investigators believe they have nothing to say of relevance prior to their testimony despite that they claim they have a lot to say? All these people testified, some for hours, yet all their testimonies were omitted from the 9/11 Commission Report. There were many whistleblowers who did publicly testify regardless and others that the 9/11 Commission avoided altogether despite that they were given their names. There were others who would have testified but the 9/11 Commission refused to grant them any immunity. There is an entire thread in this section of the forum devoted to whistleblowers. Exactly, who knows because much of what we do know has been suppressed by the US government. But we do know a lot of it is simply false, including that we do know a lot of it is scientifically impossible. Of course you are free to believe anything you like. However, there's a lot more evidence that points to an inside job than evidence that says otherwise. There's quite a bit that has been posted in this section of the forum. 9/11 was not a moon landing. Conflating the 2 events is yet another red herring. That's exactly what the official 9/11 conspiracy theory is, complete with manufactured evidence, lack of evidence and most importantly, impossibilities.
Can you show me how you scaled gravity and young's modulus to your physical model? Might be why the NASA guy used a mathematical model. Or do you believe a 5" thick ring of paper with a radius of 104 feet could hold itself up, let alone a 100 story building? Not even sure where you'd find 100' wide tree to attach it to.
You demonstrate my point for me. I deliberately made my model as weak as possible but still support the static load. The weak supports sustained damage but ultimately arrested the dynamic load long before complete destruction. And I had to make the supports stronger toward the bottom because of the increased static load. What did the NASA "guy" say about that? Where did he do the math for the greater energy required to destroy stronger supports further down? Oh yeah, the NIST does not provide data on the distribution of steel down the towers like can be seen in the iron down the Eiffel Tower.
And I keep explaining to you that your model is not an analog to the actual building. If you drop a 1 foot square cube of iron from 1 foot does it have one tenth the momentum of a 10 foot square cube of iron from 10 feet? Nope. Does a 1 inch sheet of .004 paper on edge have a tenth of the buckling resistance of a 10 inch sheet of .04 paper? Nope. Your model is nonsense because scaling down your model produces less force and more rigidity. Especially when most of the rigidity comes from a comical wooden dowel.
You don't explain squat. You just think that you can convince people that they are more stupid than you are and browbeat them. My model is a PHYSICS DEMONSTRATION! I put up a picture of the Eiffel Tower to show that progressively more material had to be in place toward the bottom to support the weight above. But the Eiffel Tower did not have to support more than its own weight in concrete. You keep spewing out mathematical bullshit to show us how smart you are but where is the data to put into the equations? There were horizontal beams in the core at each level to keep the 47 columns from buckling. What was the weight of those beams? Did they vary in thickness down the building? Lon Waters PhD used to have a website showing the cross section of the columns in the core all of the way up the towers. He admitted that he could not find anything on the horizontal beams. This is not about conspiracy. This is about scientific travesty in analyzing the collapses and people like you just going along with the bullshit.
Actually NIST admitted they never analyzed the "collapses" of the twin towers. They merely stated without any supporting evidence that "global collapse ensued" in their report. That's not science, it's blatant fraud (or bullshit as you put it). And since we're on the subject of the 9/11 Commission Scam in this thread, the Commission never bothered with investigating the destruction of the twin towers and never even mentioned WTC7 anywhere in their report.
An ant can resist pressures over 5000 times it's own weight. Double its size and that figure is cut to a quarter. If you keep growing the ant you'll reach a size that it can't withstand it's own weight and it will collapse. Why is that psy?
1 cubic foot of iron versus 1000 cubic feet of iron. Why bother calculating the difference in velocity? You must blind yourself with your perceived brilliance every time you wake up.
What traitor told you about the Square-Cube Law that Galileo figured out a few centuries ago. It's complexity had obviously given you brain damage. https://www.dinosaurtheory.com/scaling.html
How does something weigh more than it's own weight? Are you still under the impression that the concrete floor slabs got thicker toward the bottom? Why would that be? Man. You've had so much time to figure this out. What's taking you so long?
So what happens to your model when it's 1000 feet tall and 208 feet wide? Same thing as your paper model? Nope.
Do you think that deliberately being obtuse makes you seem intelligent? The Eiffel Tower is 10,000 tons of wrought iron according to most sources. Some say 7,300 tons plus 2.5 million rivets. No mention of concrete. Since the NIST says a total of 200,000 tons of steel for the towers we can presume 100,000 tons per tower, though the North Tower was 6 feet taller than the south. Never seen an explanation for that. Now the NIST never specifies the total amount of concrete in the towers, but sources before 9/11 that agree on the steel say 425,000 cubic yards, so 212,500 per tower. That comes to 286,875 tons for the concrete at 100 lb per cubic foot. Of course that is wrong since the NIST says that the two types of concrete in the towers were 110 lb and 150 lb. But since the NIST nor anyone else tells us how much of each we cannot come up with a truly correct answer anyway. So my point was that the wrought iron which just about makes up all of the Eiffel Tower does not have to support concrete equivalent to or greater than its own weight. Whereas the steel in the Twin Towers had to support around three times it's own weight in concrete, plus glass, plumbing, elevators and related equipment, etc., etc. And the glorious NIST cannot tell us the distribution of steel down the towers in 21 years. So we will just have to wonder why the Eiffel Tower is so funny looking. It's French! What do they know about gravity?
[momentum of a 10 foot square cube of iron from 10 feet?] 10 foot square cube. Let's see: 10 ft wide, 10 ft long, 10 ft tall 10*10*10 That is 1000 at the grade school I attended. Even the nitwit nuns could figure it out. What number did you come up with in the problem YOU presented?
