So, psikey, after 10 years, what is your alternative theory? What made the buildings collapse?
I have told you before I don’t have a THEORY and don’t give a damn who did it or why. It is called eliminating a negative. Do you have a problem with explaining the phenomenon based on KNOWN DATA? Oh, but you don’t care about having accurate data.
You seem to be asking for more complete, and more precise data. Being so passionate about the topic could you maybe contact the people who analyzed the collapse or designed the buildings for those details? Asking us is just rhetorical. If you don’t care about physics, and you truly want the physical data, then I’m puzzled.
I have told you before I don’t have a THEORY and don’t give a damn who did it or why.
It is common in science to stick to a theory unless a better one is available. Darron’s question is legitimate. Yelling and do-it-your-self constructs like yours do not help to establish a new theory.
Yes GbB, the current theory is like a baseline. We’ve gotta’ start somewhere! From there we refine the idea with better and better data/theory. The world has started with the engineered theory, now who has better data/theory? Until then the current theory is sound enough, I say.
I don’t think that a paper model accurately models a steel and concrete tower, paper crumples without even ripping, the real materials are different.
I just saw a TV broadcast the other day, Stuck with Hackett: builds a dirt boat and foundry. The show is about him assembling junk from a junk yard into a piece-of-junk machine that sort-of functions. In the episode he wanted to go land sailing, he builds a “dirt boat” (three wheels, a seat, and a sail). He wants to forge the connection between the mast and the chassis out of aluminum, so in that episode he builds a foundry. He managed to get the aluminum melted, it flowed like water, he used a computer fan to fan the flame, and dripped oil onto the fire as fuel, and it melted the aluminum in steel cauldron, in a kiln with a lid.
When fire burns, we know it has an oxygen supply. The fire in the Twin Towers did burn for hours, so it had oxygen. Since the smoke escaped, we know it found its own way to exhaust some of the air, the videos of the Twin Towers show lots of smoke billowing out of the holes that the airplanes made in the walls. Therefore we’ve got some air flow, we’ve got fire, we know that metal can melt, why couldn’t the metal have softened? Is there some proof that the fire could not reach a temperature to soften the metal? If not then why is there any doubt?
See what happens when you heat metal without melting it, then give it a good push? Now that’s evidence. Just like modelling clay, it is forged. And when metal is hotter, it flows like water. [00:51, 04:16, 05:05]