Originally posted by PhotonEffect
With all due respect man, all you've ever done it seems is moan about not having the actual hard numbers for the weight distributions of the steel and
concrete for the upper and lower portions of the towers. Seemingly, you're argument has never wavered in all the years you've been yelling about this,
across every forum on the net.. And this also seems to be your proof that some other force must've caused the towers to completely collapse...
I have to give you credit for staying the course..
What does respect have to do with PHYSICS.
I provided a link to a Python program simulation of a magical collapse based solely on the conservation of momentum showing that with constant mass
down the structure that collapse would take 12 seconds. So if the mass increased down the structure it would have to take longer. But Dr. Sunder of
the NIST said the north tower came down in 11 seconds. Some estimates are less than 10 seconds. But my simulation is based on NO SUPPORTS HAVING TO
Are we trying to solve a problem so everyone can understand the solution or are we talking forever for the sake of ENTERTAINMENT?
I THINK 9/11 IS SO SIMPLE IT IS BORING. I said it should have been solved in 2002, at least in determining if airliners could do it, and that the
United States should be laughed at for the next 1000 years.
It is Newtonian Physics and the physics profession should have been talking about the distribution of mass in very tall structures in 2002. Look at
the CN Tower in Canada which does not contain much empty space. But instead I have had clowns asking me to explain short buildings where the upper
portion is wider than the lower portion and accusing me of having no comprehension of physics.
So the fact that this issue has gone on for TEN YEARS means there has to be a lot of stupid people talking about it. Now I am sure someone here will
use that in their rhetorical games to accuse me of being one of them.
But that does not change the fact that the lower portion of all skyscrapers must support the mass above and therefore require greater strength which
means more steel and therefore greater weight.
So that brings in the conservation of momentum for any supposed collapse.
I get complaints when I show my model but where is the physical model that can collapse completely while damaging the support components? Grade
school Newtonian Physics is never going to change and will never go away so 9/11 won't either until the physics profession admits that normal
airliners could not do it.
It is not my fault that all of the websites put this into conspiracy rubbish instead of physics. And then the websites claiming to be scientifically
oriented do not demand accurate data either and none of them have built a model that can completely collapse. I was banned by The Naked Scientist
Website also. So it appears that science has gone out of the window since 9/11. Scientists must be paid salaries also. But most of them just say
Then they want to talk about STEM education in the United States.
I guess science can be turned on and off depending on which way the political winds are blowing.
Physicists should stop talking about Galileo. They might be accused of hypocrisy.
Or is it hypocracy, Rule by Hypocrits.
PS - I concluded in two weeks that airliners could not do it without accurate data but the reasoning was based on what skyscrapers had to do to hold
themselves up against gravity and the wind. So I find it really curious that EXPERTS prefer to ignore that information including Richard Gage and his
buddies. They are supposed to be BELIEVED just because they are EXPERTS. IBM did the same crap. All of their computers were von Neumann machines
and hired him in 1952 but I never heard the term all of the while I was there. Experts need to keep other people ignorant to maintain their aura of
edit on 29-1-2012 by psikeyhackr because: (no reason given)