yes, a model based on all the force coming from above and an intact structure below the collapse will never work.Oh, you admit that a "complete collapse" would never work?
yes, a model based on all the force coming from above and an intact structure below the collapse will never work.Oh, you admit that a "complete collapse" would never work?
I have no idea what the BBC reported. But the video's assertion that the guy won his case (much less why) is simply a lie. I like the second comment here:"No" what? They (BBC) didn't report it 20 min. early? Yes, they did.
I have no idea what the BBC reported.
...the video's assertion that the guy won his case (much less why) is simply a lie. I like the second comment here:
http://www.activistpost.com/2013/04/uk-man-wins-court-victory-over-bbc-for.html
leopold, my advice at this point - leave psikeyhackr to wallow in his own paranoia... he won't listen to reason or fact, so no point conversing with him any longer.
FACT:
A 1/200th scale model of the Tacoma Narrows Bridge was constructed in 4 months in 1940 which duplicated the oscillating behavior of the real bridge.
FACT:
THIRTEEN YEARS have gone by since the special events of 9/11 and no one has built a model coming anywhere near duplicating the collapse of the north tower. In fact I am not aware of any engineering school even hinting that they would try.
Listening to "reason" from people who pretend that the distribution of mass down 1000+ foot skyscrapers is of no importance. LOL
The 9/11 Affair is so bizarre. There is a psychological problem involved alright. Computers can supposedly simulate millions of cubic miles of atmosphere and ocean to predict the climate a century in advance but we can't do a skyscraper collapse that took less than a minute. But it is all down to me being paranoid.
ROFL
psik
If it's so fracking simple to build the model, do it your gorram self or stop crowing about it.
Please, for the Lord's sake, remember you have claimed to be a Christian.
A 1/200th scale model of the Tacoma Narrows Bridge was constructed in 4 months in 1940 which duplicated the oscillating behavior of the real bridge.
THIRTEEN YEARS have gone by since the special events of 9/11 and no one has built a model coming anywhere near duplicating the collapse of the north tower.
The 9/11 Affair is so bizarre. There is a psychological problem involved alright. Computers can supposedly simulate millions of cubic miles of atmosphere and ocean to predict the climate a century in advance but we can't do a skyscraper collapse that took less than a minute. But it is all down to me being paranoid.
THIRTEEN YEARS have gone by since the special events of 9/11 and no one has built a model coming anywhere near duplicating the collapse of the north tower. In fact I am not aware of any engineering school even hinting that they would try.
But if I inflict just a little damage to it, it collapses all the way down. These are four screenshots of the collapse superimposed. It doesn't stop there either. It collapses to a pile of rubble.
I'm not claiming this proves anything about 9/11. It does show that it is possible to make a model which seems strong enough to stand on its own, but can also collapse on itself when damaged.
Don't real skyscrapers have to be designed that way.
Already been explained to you, multiple times... it depends on the type of building design. In the case of the WTC, no, the lower levels were not any stronger. Each level distributed its weight to the supporting pillars - these pillars then distributed the weight into the ground. Each floor, literally, only held its own weight up. Adding the weight of another floor or two on top of it was sufficient to overload the connections to the supporting pillars and bam, collapse.
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/arch/core.htmlLike the perimeter columns -- and like steel columns in all tall buildings -- the thickness of the steel in the core columns tapered from bottom to top. Near the bottoms of the towers the steel was four inches thick, whereas near the tops it may have been as little as 1/4th inch thick. The top figure in the illustration to the right is a cross-section of one of the smaller core columns from about half-way up a tower, where the steel was about two inches thick. The bottom figure shows the base of one of the larger core columns, where the steel was five inches thick. The bases of the columns also had slabs of steel running through their centers, making them almost solid.
I have not bee saying much about FLOORS, I keep saying LEVELS. By LEVEL I mean a height from the surface of one floor to the surface of the next but including the core and perimeter columns between those two planes.
You are lying about the lower LEVELS not being stronger.
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/arch/core.html
How much weight did the 1st LEVEL of the north tower have to support compared to what the 105th LEVEL had to support? You are spewing nonsense.
The bottom 5 paper loops in the stack of my model had to be stronger then those at the top otherwise they would have been crushed.
psik