Originally posted by psikeyhackr
A self supporting structure means that every horizontal slice of the structure must be strong enough to support the combined weights of all segments of equal height above it. So for the top 15% to fall and destroy everything presents a physical problem.
So you're saying that your model IS a model of the towers, in the sense that it is modeling the elementary model of a self-supporting collapse. Well, I've got news for you. Two different self supporting structures have different strengths against falling masses. Your "self-supporting structure" is held together by a broom handle and zero space in-between washers and paper loops. It also means that the air in the paper loops has nowhere to escape, unlike the towers, which were able to blow out windows as an escape for air, as well as blow air down and up.
If it can happen then why haven't any engineering schools built a model to demonstrate it by now? They have had ten years? A complete collapse means the mass below must be accelerated to come down within triple free fall time and it means supports strong enough to support the static load must dislocated, bent or broken.
It has been modeled by engineering schools. You, however, seem to think that the modern method of computer modeling (even though it's way more accurate, because it does not have the problem of square law) is bad. You want a physical model, and that's just retarded.
The top of the structure should not have enough potential energy to do that in its free fall distance.
Of course people who just BELIEVE it don't need to wonder about it.
Of course if it is impossible then the Physics Profession has a problem for letting this crap go on for ten years. But we are supposed to get all excited about the Higgs Boson and robots to Mars.
psikedit on 20-7-2012 by psikeyhackr because: (no reason given)
You claim this, but then you go on about how you don't even have accurate data, so how can you even make that claim? You make NO sense.