Haven't been on for a few weeks due to work,holidays etc had a quick look at some posts I have missed but will do some reading to catch up.
This is a quick post to psikeyhackr and ANOK re physical models and computer models.
First psikeyhackr do you think your model video you link to is a good match fot the WTC physics ? I dont its far to simplistic. It dosent take into
account everything required and MATERIAL strengths dont scale the way you think!
ANOK as for computer models being wrong, they run tried and tested formulas that engineers use EVERYDAY but at a greatly accelerated speed THATS
Computer models are used in all branches of science so who is wrong YOU or all the scientists that use them.
Its right to say that a computer model could never get the positions of all components in exactly the right place say after the impact or explosion of
the planes and fuel, but they run using what we know regarding physical properties of materials, forces etc and how they interact with each other.
There is also one simple fact YOU guys have ignored since this event happened YOU AND I dont know exactly what damage was caused buy the impact,
explosion and the fires! its that simple so what you cant know and dont know effects the outcome.
I mean if we just have a look at the exaggerated claims made by people that believe the same as you for instance.
"The concrete was all turned into dust you see it in the collapse"
Now the IDIOTS that think that seem to have forgot about all the sheetrock thousands of m sq in the building that WOULD have turned to dust and that
was seen in the collapse but they dont mention that!
Also if you look at pictures posted earlier in the thread large sections of lower steelwork survived still bolted together it didn't help the
building but those sections survived the collapse.
I still think a major problem with the design was the floors, they could fall internally within the structure as they were bolted to the inside of
Will read through the pages I have missed and will post back later.