Robert Walper - 22 October 2012 10:22 PM

psikeyhackr - 22 October 2012 06:14 PM

Less than 3 orders of magnitude difference in height.

Irrelevant, I was talking about mass. A three dimensional model that is scaled up by a factor of a thousand across all three axis has a mass a billion times greater.

Clearly you are ignorant on this subject, or I wouldn’t have to sit here explaining it to you.

I have explained the square cube law here many times.

That is why my model uses paper for supports. That is what enables me to make the supports

AS WEAK AS POSSIBLE

relative to the weights they support. A bigger heavier model would be better. It would also be much more expensive and even potentially dangerous. Anyone can duplicate my model for about $30. I could improve my model by doubling up on the washers. But obviously I would have to redesigne the bottom 16 paper loops to support the doubled weight. That is the thing about tall buildings. The top of the south tower should have fallen down the side, especially since it already had that tilt.

You are welcome to build a bigger one to PROVE I am wrong.

But until then all you have is talk. Put in heavier weights and the supports must be stronger. More energy will be required to crush them. So how can the weights have enough potential energy to do it? You are like the people on JREF screaming

STATIC, DYNAMIC, STATIC, DYNAMIC!

The supports must be strong enough to hold the static load no matter how great the weight and height. But the energy required to crush them comes from the kinetic energy built up from their potential energy through falling. So it is so curious that our experts do not insist on knowing the distributions of steel and concrete down the towers to accurately compute the potential energy and then compute the energy required to collapse each of the towers.

It takes 0.118 joules to flatten a single paper loop. I computed the potential energy of my drop and it was enough to flatten 8 loops. In the actual drop 9 loops were damaged but some were not completely flattened. Mathematics does not predict the randomness of reality perfectly. But I thought that was pretty close.

But our better engineering schools could have built bigger better models and tested them in 11 years. But what have they done? As far as I can tell most of them will not even discuss the subject. So you can TALK. I **am** impressed.

That is the problem with 9/11 after 11 years. If the experts are wrong then they have spent 11 years being LIARS. A good physical model would just demonstrate that. So why would they want to build a bigger, better model? But then we have all of this crap about STEM education and Critical Thinking. In a way the situation is hilarious. 7th and 8th graders should understand this simple physics.

[4061]

psik