Arguments standing on the basis of their merits assumes those doing the evaluations have the brains to comprehend the merits.
Quite true, but you’re the exception and not the rule, so everyone else here is understanding just fine.
Here is some scale for you.
So a guy makes a short video with a scaled model of the WTC and a scale airplane model on a stick, and what does he do? Just asserts that a two hundred ton plane cannot destroy a half million ton building. No actual math, demonstration or argument other than his arbitrary hand waving assertion.
What is amusing though is he’s technically correct: the planes didn’t destroy the towers. Gravity did. The planes just compromised the structural strength necessary to resist gravity.
Furthermore, I’ve repeatedly told you that even a perfectly scaled building built exactly like the WTC design would still utterly fail as a physics model because of how scaling of size affects strength of a model.
Does that scale model actually contain 110 floors? It might. Do those floors have trusses? Extremely doubtful.
But it could be made of painted wood, which is likely, or it could be aluminum. Maybe less likely but entirely possible. But that could change the weight considerably even with the exact same scale. The material matters A LOT.
Only in terms of total mass and load bearing capacity. Material is irrelevant with regards to scaling an object and how this affects its strength to mass ratios.
But that model is just about looks it is not for doing physics experiments which may destroy it.
That model in all likelihood could withstand me hitting it with my hand or foot, while sustaining only minor damage and not collapsing. However, if my hand were scaled up to the same relative size to a full scale structure and impacted it at the same relative velocity, the building would be obliterated.
This is due to the fact of how much more massive such a hand would be at that scale and the impact energy would be orders of magnitude greater against a building with strength orders of magnitude weaker relative to its mass.
One of those concepts you’re obviously oblivious to.
The towers were 6 1/2 times as tall as they were wide. My collapse model is 12 times as tall as it is wide. It is not to scale. My impact model is 16 times as tall as it is wide. One has 33 levels and the other 21. They are not to scale. They were never intended to be, I never claimed them to be, so all of your talk about SCALE is just idiotic blather that has little to do my models.
I’ve said your model is not scaled correctly, and even if its dimensions were scaled properly, the model would still be useless for any physics test. This is because your model is so much smaller, and therefore vastly stronger. Ergo its failure to collapse is not surprising and proves nothing about full scale structures.
Repeatedly admitting your model isn’t scaled correctly does not help your position, all you’re doing is confirming one of the major problems of your model I’ve pointed out.
But material has everything to do with scale if physics experiments are actually being done and not just playing pseudo-intellectual games with mathematics.
Wrong. The type of material and strength of a material has zero bearing on the fact your model gets weaker as it gets larger. Material type only determines total mass and load bearing capacity, which do not scale equally. As proven with basic mathematics you do not understand and try to dismiss as ‘games’.
A cubic kilometer of balsa wood scales perfectly with a meter of balsa wood if they are floating in intergalactic space a few hundred thousand light years from any galaxy. Gravity has no effect. The compressive strength of the material would be irrelevant. But on the surface of a planet with a 5 G gravitational field there would be a problem. Could a cubic meter of balsa wood support the weight of 4,995 cubic meters of balsa wood? Not too likely. It would be a problem on the Earth’s surface supporting the weight of 999 cubic meters.
That is what the square cube law is all about and why the material matters when scaling down a large object to make a physical model to DEMONSTRATE PHYSCIS and not trying to make a scale model that merely LOOKS LIKE the original object. That is why I have paper instead of steel and anyone can duplicate it and test their own paper to make it AS WEAK AS POSSIBLE relative to the weight that has to be supported. Of course that is still not to scale because skyscrapers are not designed to be AS WEAK AS POSSIBLE. That is why it is relevant that my model still does not collapse even though the dropped weight is lifted nearly the height of the entire model. The top of the WTC did not fall nearly as much in proportion to my weak model which still did not come close to complete collapse.
And the ratio of the load bearing capacity of structural steel and your paper supports is what again? Oh wait, you answered this already:
I have not done anything to research the compressive strength of steel
And we already know that the strength of any structure will plummet as you scale a structure bigger, never mind the actual load bearing capacity of any particular material.
Get back to us when you actually compare the load bearing capacity of your paper supports relative to their cross section footprint, compare that to the load bearing capacity of the structural steel and their cross section footprint and then compare the ratio of strength between both models. Until you do so, any claims on your part on which model is weaker is simply lies and laziness. Your inability to understand how scaling affects this unavoidable engineering issue is both amazing and sad.
So anyone with a functioning brain can figure out the obvious but I am sure you will come up with some response. Maybe I will take a week to read it. We will see. But I can already find a famous response.
“Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens.”
I am sure you will find some way to accuse me of “whining” about your brilliance again. Ego games are so much more intelligent than physics where the strength and weight of real materials affect the results. But “scaling” with just math is so impressive.
You fail simple reading comprehension as well. At no point have I touted my brilliance or intelligence, only your stupidity, although I’d freely confess you make anyone look brilliant in comparison.
You have to remember only one of us thinks their intellect and understanding of physics surpasses the sum of the world’s best engineers and physicists, and that person isn’t me.
And as usual, you have demonstrated a complete inability to refute the simple fact that your model is smaller than a full scale structure, and thus would be vastly stronger no matter what is it made of. This is the case whether both are built of the same material and designed identically, or built of different materials and designed completely differently. In the latter case, you’d have to do a comparison of load bearing capacity of both material types and cross section sizes, then compare those ratios. You obviously didn’t, since you seemingly proudly admit you do not have such data on hand and didn’t even bother trying to acquire it.