You are the one talking about so scaling you explain it.
Been there, done that. You even helped by pointing out reducing the dimensions of a structure along one axis reduces its mass by a factor of a thousand, even though you haven’t reduced total (all three) dimensions by a thousand yet.
Provide a link to where I claimed the model was scaled.
Except my point all along is that your model is not properly scaled and therefore utterly invalid in making determinations about larger structure collapses. Glad to see you’re finally admitting it!
Your concept of winning is accusing me of saying what I never said and then making a hash of the square cubed law. It is because of the square cubed law that I did not even try to make a scale model. I knew it would not work. If I could make one it would be even less likely to collapse than the model I built which did not collapse anyway.
Yes, a model that is not properly scaled will not behave like an original model upon which it is based. Simply physics dictates you cannot scale the mass properly, and here you are admitting it. So now you have literally admitted you did not make a scale model, didn’t even try and also know it wouldn’t work to boot. So what was the point of your model in the first place then?
It is you people who claim the airliner impact and fire could cause the collapse who have to prove it. Build a model that can collapse. I want to see.
We did already, full scale models. They’re called the WTC towers, and we have plenty of footage of them collapsing. Check out YouTube, you’ll find countless video examples of it happening. We don’t make smaller physical models of the WTF for the following reason:
“It is because of the square cubed law that I did not even try to make a scale model. I knew it would not work. If I could make one it would be even less likely to collapse than the model I built which did not collapse anyway.”
That’s why we use computer models, because they can simulate a model with the correct properties of scaling while a model in the real physical world cannot unless you build it to actual scale.
However, I’m glad you freely admit that your model is not scaled properly, you didn’t even try to and claimed to know it won’t work because of that. So with you freely and publicly admitting how completely flawed and inaccurate your model is, this should mean we won’t be hearing you appeal to your model anymore as proving anything other than your model itself didn’t collapse. Because as you yourself just finished saying, it’s not scaled properly and the cube root function of mass scaling makes even the most complex and detailed effort for a smaller model invalid. If you disagree with that, then answer my previous question:
Explain how increasing/decreasing a model’s dimensions by three orders of magnitude and it’s mass by nine orders of magnitude is supposed to yield two models with identical properties and behaviors with regards to something like structural collapse?