Well-built towers simply do not undergo straight down global collapse--

[spooked911]

PERIOD.

I defy anyone to build a model tower* similar to the WTC2 that, when damaged to a similar extent as WTC2, collapses in any way similar to the way the WTC2 tower collapsed on 9/11.

*Say a tower 1/400 the scale of the WTC2.

[LARED]

1. Thank you for settling this complex issue. (nt)

[spooked911]

2. Aren't you going to take up the challenge??

[pox americana]

3. Not so complex.

No matter what scale you built it at, and no matter how destructive you made the plane crash and fire, the most damage you would ever get is the top chunk tipping or sliding off. Period.

That's why the NIST report is a completley dishonest fairy tale.

[Informed Citizen]

4. SHAZAM!!!! (nt)

[LARED]

5. Not complex you say?

Does this mean you will be taking on the task of building a scaled replica?

You must be quite talented if you think it's not so complex. Getting all the correct inertial forces, the joist systems, the trusses, the core design and infrastructure, etc, scaled correctly is quite the challenge. Really, it is.

How would you replicate the jet crash forces, explosions, and subsequent fires? How would you replicate the initiating event for global collapse when it is not clear where or exactly how it occurred? Will you build multiple models?

Please enlighten me.

BTW building the type of model to get accurate data is an expensive undertaking. If you are planning build you will need financial support unless you have large sums of discretionary cash?


Thanks in advance.

[janedoe]

6. Complex is a statement of perspective. :-)

You said, "You must be quite talented if you think it's not so complex."

It's all a matter of perspective and abilities.

;-)

[LARED]

7. That's true, but you can tell much about

a persons knowledge was well.

Someone that believe creating a USEFUL model of the WTC to prove or disprove global collapse; and that it is "not so complex" is telling the world they really do not understand what they are talking about.

[Make7]

20. An example:

The Case for Controlled Demolition.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=48327&mesg_id=48389

[spooked911]

22. This is ridiculous. I can only assume you have NO IDEA of the concept

that this graph shows.

Pathetic.

Just pathetic.

[Make7]

24. I think that is a fine example...

... of what LARED was referring to in his post:

Someone that believes creating a USEFUL model of the WTC to prove or disprove global collapse; and that it is "not so complex" is telling the world they really do not understand what they are talking about.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=54482&mesg_id=54517

That graph is from a post purporting to prove that the towers had to be brought down by controlled demolition. What it shows is an over-simplified scenario as an explanation of how the tower should have fallen if it were a progressive collapse. It works like this: the top floor takes 0.8794 seconds in free-fall to fall to the one below it. Then that floor breaks free and takes 0.8794 seconds in free-fall, starting at rest with only the influence of the acceleration of gravity acting upon it, to fall onto the next floor. That floor breaks free and takes 0.8794 seconds to fall onto the next floor, etc. So what we have is:

    (1368ft/110floors * 2 / 32.16ft/sec²)^0.5 = 0.8794 seconds per floor
   0.8794 seconds x 110 floors = 96.734 seconds total

So we have a model that fails to take into account any of the other factors of the collapse. (i.e. the resistance of the buildings structure and/or the momentum transfered from the mass falling on the floors from above.) I think that is an acceptable example of what LARED was talking about.

Please correct me if my explanation or my math do not adequately explain the graph.
____________________

Something that I find interesting is that in the article you linked to (in the original post from the thread where the graph was posted) it says Jim Hoffman did a calculation for how long a progressive collapse would take. Let's look at the excerpt from the article:

Jim Hoffman, a professional scientist published in several peer-reviewed scientific journals, took a long look at all of this. He calculated that even if the structure itself offered no resistance - that is to say, even if the 110 floors of each tower were hovering in mid-air - the "pancake" theory would still have taken a minimum of 15.5 seconds to reach the ground. So, even if the building essentially didn't exist - if it provided no resistance at all to the collapse - just the floors hitting each other and causing each other to decelerate would've taken 15.5 seconds to reach the ground.

http://www.garlicandgrass.org/issue6/Dave_Heller.cfm

So in his calculations he also factors in the momentum transfer to the floors and he gets 15.5 seconds.

So just adding that in, we go from 96.7 seconds to 15.5 seconds?

That is why I think the graph does not sufficiently demonstrate the complexity of the collapse dynamics. (And it is claiming to disprove the "pancake" theory.)

-Make7

[LARED]

26. Do you?

The concept of the graph is that each floor fell only under the influence of gravity. The implication is that the floor above it transfered zero energy to the floor below it and the floor under it did not start to fall until the floor above it came to a complete stop.

I would categorize the graph as strictly ornamental as it is sort of nice looking, but has no value, is not useful in anyway I can see.

So tell me spooked911, what sort of useful information does the graph provide?

[Make7]

31. Maybe you could explain it to me. ( n/t )

[Make7]

32. How will I learn if you won't help me? Please explain it to me. ( n/t )

[spooked911]

33. Two questions:

1) what exactly don't you understand about the graph or what exactly do you think is amateurish about the graph?

2) do you REALLY want to know the answer?

[Make7]

34. 1) I already gave a detailed answer explaining the graph.

See Post #24.

I was waiting for you to explain why I "have NO IDEA of the concept that this graph shows." That is what you said, isn't it? (Post #22)

I was just assuming you would be willing to point out my lack of understanding to help me learn the complex concepts involved, unless of course you are just making false assumptions about my capabilities to interpret pretty pictures.

2) I would enjoy hearing whatever you think the answer might be.

-Make7

[spooked911]

36. I assumed you had no idea what the graph meant because you dismissed

it as some silly or trivial analysis-- when it is not (IMHO).

I still don't know what you think is wrong with the graph. Sorry, I don't feel like searching old threads to find your critique of it. Perhaps you could find it for me or re-explain.

If you tell me again what is wrong with the analysis from jane doe, perhaps then we could discuss that.

At least you are persistent, I see!

[Make7]

37. Your assumption was incorrect. I object because I do understand it.

I did not say it was silly or trivial - I posted it as an example of what LARED was talking about in Post #7 of this thread:

"Someone that believes creating a USEFUL model of the WTC to prove or disprove global collapse; and that it is "not so complex" is telling the world they really do not understand what they are talking about."

To which you replied in Post #22 of this thread:

spooked911 wrote:
This is ridiculous. I can only assume you have NO IDEA of the concept that this graph shows.

Pathetic.

Just pathetic.

Then I replied in Post #24 of this thread:

I wrote:
I think that is a fine example of what LARED was referring to in his post:

Someone that believes creating a USEFUL model of the WTC to prove or disprove global collapse; and that it is "not so complex" is telling the world they really do not understand what they are talking about.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=54482&mesg_id=54517

That graph is from a post purporting to prove that the towers had to be brought down by controlled demolition. What it shows is an over-simplified scenario as an explanation of how the tower should have fallen if it were a progressive collapse. It works like this: the top floor takes 0.8794 seconds in free-fall to fall to the one below it. Then that floor breaks free and takes 0.8794 seconds in free-fall, starting at rest with only the influence of the acceleration of gravity acting upon it, to fall onto the next floor. That floor breaks free and takes 0.8794 seconds to fall onto the next floor, etc. So what we have is:

   (1368ft/110floors * 2 / 32.16ft/sec2)0.5 = 0.8794 seconds per floor
   0.8794 seconds x 110 floors = 96.734 seconds total

So we have a model that fails to take into account any of the other factors of the collapse. (i.e. the resistance of the buildings structure and/or the momentum transfered from the mass falling on the floors from above.) I think that is an acceptable example of what LARED was talking about.

Please correct me if my explanation or my math do not adequately explain the graph.
____________________

Something that I find interesting is that in the article you linked to (in the original post from the thread where the graph was posted) it says Jim Hoffman did a calculation for how long a progressive collapse would take. Let's look at the excerpt from the article:

Jim Hoffman, a professional scientist published in several peer-reviewed scientific journals, took a long look at all of this. He calculated that even if the structure itself offered no resistance - that is to say, even if the 110 floors of each tower were hovering in mid-air - the "pancake" theory would still have taken a minimum of 15.5 seconds to reach the ground. So, even if the building essentially didn't exist - if it provided no resistance at all to the collapse - just the floors hitting each other and causing each other to decelerate would've taken 15.5 seconds to reach the ground.

http://www.garlicandgrass.org/issue6/Dave_Heller.cfm

So in his calculations he also factors in the momentum transfer to the floors and he gets 15.5 seconds.

So just adding that in, we go from 96.7 seconds to 15.5 seconds?

That is why I think the graph does not sufficiently demonstrate the complexity of the collapse dynamics. (And it is claiming to disprove the "pancake" theory.)

-Make7

You did not reply, but later in this thread after I asked you to explain it to me, you responded with Post #33 in this thread:

spooked911 wrote:
Two questions:

1. what exactly don't you understand about the graph or what exactly do you think is amateurish about the graph?
   
   
2. do you REALLY want to know the answer?

And I responded with Post #34 in this thread:

I wrote:
1) I already gave a detailed answer explaining the graph. See Post #24.

I was waiting for you to explain why I "have NO IDEA of the concept that this graph shows." That is what you said, isn't it? (Post #22)

I was just assuming you would be willing to point out my lack of understanding to help me learn the complex concepts involved, unless of course you are just making false assumptions about my capabilities to interpret pretty pictures.

2) I would enjoy hearing whatever you think the answer might be.

-Make7

To help you out I even gave you a link right to my previous explanation. (Hint: when it says Post #xx and is underlined that is a link.) Which brings us to your latest - Post #36 in this thread:

spooked911 wrote:
I assumed you had no idea what the graph meant because you dismissed it as some silly or trivial analysis-- when it is not (IMHO).

I still don't know what you think is wrong with the graph. Sorry, I don't feel like searching old threads to find your critique of it. Perhaps you could find it for me or re-explain.

If you tell me again what is wrong with the analysis from jane doe, perhaps then we could discuss that.

At least you are persistent, I see!

I did not dismiss it as some silly or trivial analysis. I dismiss it because it is an gross over-simplification of what it is claiming to explain.

I don't know why you find it so difficult to find the explanation I posted in reply to your implication that I had NO IDEA of the concept that the graph shows. I even gave a link to it when you asked a second time. And now you can't be bothered to search other threads to find my critique of it? Are you not reading my replies in this thread? I'll assume you are not, so if you are at least reading this, I'll copy my reply from Post #24, of this thread, yet again:

I wrote:
I think that is a fine example of what LARED was referring to in his post:

Someone that believes creating a USEFUL model of the WTC to prove or disprove global collapse; and that it is "not so complex" is telling the world they really do not understand what they are talking about.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=54482&mesg_id=54517

That graph is from a post purporting to prove that the towers had to be brought down by controlled demolition. What it shows is an over-simplified scenario as an explanation of how the tower should have fallen if it were a progressive collapse. It works like this: the top floor takes 0.8794 seconds in free-fall to fall to the one below it. Then that floor breaks free and takes 0.8794 seconds in free-fall, starting at rest with only the influence of the acceleration of gravity acting upon it, to fall onto the next floor. That floor breaks free and takes 0.8794 seconds to fall onto the next floor, etc. So what we have is:

   (1368ft/110floors * 2 / 32.16ft/sec2)0.5 = 0.8794 seconds per floor
   0.8794 seconds x 110 floors = 96.734 seconds total

So we have a model that fails to take into account any of the other factors of the collapse. (i.e. the resistance of the buildings structure and/or the momentum transfered from the mass falling on the floors from above.) I think that is an acceptable example of what LARED was talking about.

Please correct me if my explanation or my math do not adequately explain the graph.
____________________

Something that I find interesting is that in the article you linked to (in the original post from the thread where the graph was posted) it says Jim Hoffman did a calculation for how long a progressive collapse would take. Let's look at the excerpt from the article:

Jim Hoffman, a professional scientist published in several peer-reviewed scientific journals, took a long look at all of this. He calculated that even if the structure itself offered no resistance - that is to say, even if the 110 floors of each tower were hovering in mid-air - the "pancake" theory would still have taken a minimum of 15.5 seconds to reach the ground. So, even if the building essentially didn't exist - if it provided no resistance at all to the collapse - just the floors hitting each other and causing each other to decelerate would've taken 15.5 seconds to reach the ground.

http://www.garlicandgrass.org/issue6/Dave_Heller.cfm

So in his calculations he also factors in the momentum transfer to the floors and he gets 15.5 seconds.

So just adding that in, we go from 96.7 seconds to 15.5 seconds?

That is why I think the graph does not sufficiently demonstrate the complexity of the collapse dynamics. (And it is claiming to disprove the "pancake" theory.)

-Make7

Are you able to find my explanation now? Sorry I required you to do all that searching for it.

-Make7

[spooked911]

38. You seem to have a lot more time on your hands than me and I'm sorry

I misunderstood you.

What I can say is that I would like to see Hoffman's calculations, as that would be a very complex calculation to make-- calculating in the momentum transfer.

As far as the model, all models simplify by their very nature. Did janedoe over-simplify things? Perhaps, but I don't think she was claiming that it was a realistic model. More that it explained a certain concept-- that it gave a minimum time the floors could fall by gravity alone.

Of course these sorts of time of fall arguments leave out how much energy is required to break the intact lower structure. So any model that merely has the time for floors knocking into each other and falling by gravity is going to tremendously underestimate the actual time a global pancake collapse should have taken. Not to mention these models neglect time for air resistance.

[Make7]

39. The problem is she claims her model disproves the "pancake" theory.

Since it is an simplified model, unless she shows that certain factors that have been left out will not affect the overall outcome, it cannot be said to effectively demonstrate anything.

It is physically impossible for a collapse to occur as she suggests in her chart. As an self-proclaimed engineering professor, one would think she would realize that. Maybe she does and presented it anyway because it appeared to make her point.

-Make7

[spooked911]

40. She has shown other models as well-- the key point is that

the floors take time to fall by themselves, not to mention the time it takes to crush the structure.

I think her model strongly argues against the pancake theory. Yes, you are right she doesn't take into account the momentum, but that is why she has other model with times for every ten floors collapsing.

I'm not really sure what your game here is anyway.

What are you trying to prove? That the official story is right or that a simple model of a pancake collapse isn't realistic?

If the former, why don't you explain how the tower fell straight down at near free fall speed?

[Make7]

41. I'm not really sure what YOUR game here is anyway.

spooked911 wrote:
I think her model strongly argues against the pancake theory. Yes, you are right she doesn't take into account the momentum, but that is why she has other model with times for every ten floors collapsing.

How does that factor in momentum?

Odd how right after she presents that "model" she says, "Now, let’s consider another scenario, considering momentum." (From her post: I think the minimum time would be longer.) She then proceeds with her momentum example, where she seems to reach the conclusion that "the total collapse time must be more than 10 seconds." Here, I agree with her - the collapse time must be, and in fact was, more than 10 seconds.

spooked911 wrote:
I'm not really sure what your game here is anyway.

What are you trying to prove? That the official story is right or that a simple model of a pancake collapse isn't realistic?

I've been biding my time here, waiting to be presented with the opportunity to win one million dollars. :) It has finally arrived...

I was trying to prove that using an over-simplified "model" of the collapse to "prove" the times should be much longer than those observed is not valid. Perhaps, I was mistaken - maybe you don't need a realistic model of such a complex event to actually "prove" anything realistically.

spooked911 wrote:
... why don't you explain how the tower fell straight down at near free fall speed?

I don't think they fell at near free fall speed. Why would I try to explain something that, in my opinion, never happened?

-Make7

[Make7]

35. Don't tease me like that! I want to know the answer. ( n/t )

[spooked911]

21. Are you saying it is so complicated we can never understand it?

Becuase so far you have not been able to explain at all how the towers collapsed straight down at nearly free fall speed.

You haven't done it, and I suspect you never will. Instead you will just hector everyone who says there was CD and you say that there is no way CD happened, it just didn't, it just didn't. Well, that is not very enlightening.

[LARED]

27. No where have I said we can never understand it

And please stop asking me to explain how the towers fell at nearly free fall speed. You know this didn't happen, so why continue promoting that fallacy?

Regarding my explanation as to why the towers globally collapsed without CD;

This is a great summary IMO from the link I provided below. (one that I have posted a number of times)

Global collapse occurred as potential energy of the falling upper structure exceeded the strain energy capacity in the deforming structural members.


The results of global analysis of both WTC 1 and TC 2 showed that global collapse of both towers was initiated by the instability of the exterior walls pursuant to their excessive inward bowing which
progressed horizontally to adjacent walls.

There is an excellent analysis here, http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NISTNCSTAR1-6Draft.pdf

Starting on page 176 (238)

Why not read it and lets discuss.

[Kevin Fenton]

29. I looked

I couldn't find any such analysis there. What section of the document are you referring to? What do the numbers refer to? The report and the .pdf file? The link wasn't the main report, but one of the subsidiary ones - did you mean the main report?

Where's the cutoff point?
If the last floor had collapsed and the roof fell on it, in your opinion would this resulted in global collapse?
If the next to the last floor collapsed and the last floor and the roof fell on it, in your opinion would this have resulted in a global collapse?
Etc.

"The results of global analysis of both WTC 1 and TC 2 showed that global collapse of both towers was initiated by the instability of the exterior walls pursuant to their excessive inward bowing which
progressed horizontally to adjacent walls."
So why is the first thing we see falling in WTC 1 the tower? Or are you saying that this isn't the first sign of collapse we see?

[pox americana]

12. Can't you read your own post? The referent of "complex" is issue,

not model.

p.s. don't worry, I can't read them either. :)

[LARED]

13. Very interesting

I said

Thank you for settling this complex issue.

pox americana's reply regarding this statement was;

Not so complex. No matter what scale you built it at, and no matter how destructive you made the plane crash and fire, the most damage you would ever get is the top chunk tipping or sliding off. Period.

Then I said some stuff about how a useful model is actually quite complex and difficult to make.

Then pox americana admonishes me for not addressing the complexity of the issue in a reference to my original statement. This is fascinating to me because you are the one that moved the subject to the complexity of the model, and then claim I can't read my own posts.

I think it is clear who is having the difficulty.

[spooked911]

8. Exactly. That is why I issue this challenge.

I recently built several models of towers using simple pieces and simple designs-- CDs cases for floors, little tubes as supports. Nothing was welded or even glued together.

When I took out several columns about one-third of the way down to mimic the south tower damage, the most I could do was get the upper floors to slide off. In some cases the floors just fell down on the lower part of the tower without any disturbance to the un damaged section.

The only way I could get the tower to collapse by having the top third of floors fall onto the lower third, was to build an extremely unstable structure which was basically two towers joined together only by shared columns. And even then, this thing didn't fall completely straight down-- half fell quite some distance the side and half fell close to the footprint.

So, seeing how unlikely as a tower would collapse straight down from the top floors collapsing, I think the onus is on the people who say there were no explosives to show how such a collapse could occur with a model.

I say it can't be done.

[Make7]

17. It is no one's JOB to show anyone anything here. Give me a break.

[Old and In the Way]

9. You could easily build computer 3D models for 1, 2, and 7

And see how a 757 crashing into the structures would react....probably could program in millions of simulations, changing parameters to see how the theoretical model would hold up over time.

Of course,Guiliana would have to give up the blue prints and construction details to do this properly.

Wonder what the probability of all 3 collapsing would be?

[AZCat]

10. This is ideally how you would simulate it

"Monte Carlo" methods are useful when testing the response of complex systems, such as high-rise buildings, to stresses (such as earthquakes or aircraft impacts). In fact, I think the NIST used Monte Carlo methods in their WTC investigation, although I have yet to find how or where (10,000 pages is a lot to search).

[number6]

11. build us a tower LARED

were waiting ;)

[LARED]

14. You will be waiting a looooooong time

as I will not be building a model. It is far to complex a task for me to undertake. I don't have drawings, or cut sheets, nor the manifold data required to build a useful model, and scale it properly, nor the time or resources to take on such an ambitious task.

Although perhaps I'll follow the lead of one of our leading CD advocates and build a model out of Lego's and Popsicle sticks trying to simulate the global collapse. And when it fails to collapse as expected declare that it is impossible for the WTC to experience global collapse based on my model.

[Make7]

15. You could build a model tower out of cards.

It will almost certainly fully collapse when a paper airplane is flown into it.

(Prediction: No explosives will be necessary.)

:) Make7

[spooked911]

16. what do you think was stronger-- my model or the WTC?

if floors collapsing can't even take down a model tower built with CDs and plastic columns (even when the top is over-loaded with weight), how could floors collapsing cause a massive steel frame tower to collapse?

How does a 30 floor section of tower that starts to tilt and fall suddenly drive a straight down global collapse and turn to dust at the same time?

[Informed Citizen]

18. Question

Spooked,

You never replied to my response below. I'm providing a link just in case you missed it.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=54263&mesg_id=54473

Basically I'm trying to figure out if you and Christophera are as much a distraction, with your ceaseless pursuit of controlled demolition hypotheses, as our 'official' contrarians . They diffuse and frustrate, while you and Chris distract us all from what's important? I'm becoming quite weary of anyone into 9/11 truth who only pursues one line of inquiry, unless it directly relates to their experience. You are one of the few people in here who appears to be intelligent, well spoken, and reasonable, so I would hate to think that you are an agent too.

So how bout a better answer as to why you think the controlled demolition is that important to this movement, specifically relative to research vs. education.

The reason I'm concerned is that there are a couple of 9/11 groups that I reasonably assume to be intel ops, like WingTV, that put controlled demolition front and center when it can not be reasonably argued that speculative evidence should be at the forefront of outreach.

- I.C.

[spooked911]

19. Sorry I didn't respond before-- things have been crazy with Katrina

I couldn't even access "my posts" for a while.

As far as your point about distraction, I respect your point. But I am not trying to distract from any line of 9/11 research at all. If you are doing activism, and you think talking about controlled demo is counter productive, that's fine. In fact, I am pretty much a jack-of-all-trades regarding 9/11, so I am comfortable with talking about anything else regarding 9/11.

I think I should point out that I have never believed, like christophera seems to think, that we all have to unite around controlled demolition as a movement. Although it might be effective to some degree, I am not sure that is the right way to go, for a variety of reasons.

In truth, I only very recently have started focusing heavily on the demolition of the towers. "Janedoe" is actually the one who finally convinced me, and I guess if you are a new convert, you tend to babble on about the topic a lot. Plus, the topic became highly contentious, with lots of back-and-forth, meaning the threads tended to dominate the board here.

I happen to think controlled demolition is extremely convincing once it is explained properly.

I know the WingTV guys focus on that a lot, and what can I say? They are much more militant about it and I am not sure what their deal is. But I am not associated with them at all, and I became annoyed with them when they started trashing Mike Ruppert. (I don't mind factual disagreements, but personal attacks about one's style is over the top)

"So how bout a better answer as to why you think the controlled demolition is that important to this movement, specifically relative to research vs. education."

Well, because I think one can make a convincing case that it was controlled demolition, and then once you show that, everything else slides into place. I think it is an interesting research topic. I really don't know how effective it is for activism. Janedoe apparently has had good success convincing people about it, but if you're not comfortable with talking about it, then there is enough evidence shwoping that 9/11 was an inside job that you can skip it.

[spooked911]

23. PLEASE READ

When I said I built models to simulate a tower collapsing, I was NOT tying to model the WTC towers in any detail.

I was merely trying to show the principle that even a very flimsy tower, where nothing is glued or welded together, does not suffer global straight-down collapse when floors collapse about two-thirds of the way up.

The WTC towers were strong-- they had to be, as they withstood the initial impact of the planes just fine.

It seems logical to me that a stronger tower than the one I built would also not have undergone straight-down global collapse.

It follows simply that the WTC towers could not have undergone straight-down global collapse from airplane and fire damage to a few floors well above the midpoint of the height of the tower.

Could they have undergone partial collapse? Yes. Could they have undergone collapse off of one side? yes.

Complete straight down collapse? NO.

Explosives are the only explanation, like it or not.

Put it another way--there is no logical reason why a thirty floor section of tower would take the high energy route of crushing through the undamaged lower tower rather than taking the low energy route of falling off to the side-- particularly when it was already tilting off to the side.

If you have any specific criticisms of what I just wrote, feel free to chime in. But don't tell me that my model means nothing.

And if you want to show once and for all that there was no controlled demolition-- build the model that shows how damage analogous to what the towers had led to rapid global straight down collapse.

[LARED]

28. Sorry to do this but your model is meaningless

in the context you are using it. Outside of the overall shape having been scaled down, it is not useful for determining anything about global collapse. This criticism is specific to your model. A properly constructed model could be quite useful. (For a look at a properly constructed computer model see the NIST reports)

Look at it this way. For your model to be useful in determining information about a global collapse it MUST model the global structure. Not just the height and width, with plastic CD cases as floors, but the strength and geometry of the connections, and how those connected were stressed by damage and fire, just to mention a few parameters that dictate if a model is useful for its' purpose.

I realize you have great faith in the notion that your CD case and plastic tube model is meaningful to your position, and as an advocate of using science based methodology in examining the WTC collapse, I encourage you to continue in your quest. It only makes the CD advocate look more and more like a faith based extremist.

[spooked911]

30. why didn't the upper thirty stories take the path of least resistance and

fall of to the side (of the south tower)?

Do you truly believe the weight of the upper chink of the south tower ALONE was sufficient to crush the lower undamaged two-thirds of the south tower?

And clearly you still don't undertsand what I was saying about my model. I'm not saying it was a model of the WTC tower. But it was a flimsy model, it was a very weak tower and it withstood global collapse.

Now just give me one reason why the much stronger welded steel constructed WTC tower could not also resist global collapse?

By the way, LARED, you don't need to respond. I know you won't have any answer to this anyway.

[k-robjoe]

25. Makes me wonder

If you build a model out of matchsticks, glued together, about a meter tall, with as many core columns and exterior columns, and ofcourse some horizontals to keep it up, and some connection between the core and exterior walls.

If you build that, and took a heavy book, about 50x the weight of what the top fifteen floors would have been, and dropped it from 10 cm above the model, or whatever would be about five times the height of what the proportions would indicate(?), what would happen?

Forget about the towers for a sec. and just think, if you build this matchstick model pretty strong, how many times the actual weight of what fifteen top floors would have been would you have to drop down upon it, and from what height, for, lets say, the top half of it to get crushed?

Just curious. It´s not meant to prove anything.