I didn’t say that no one can figure it out. I said that you can’t figure it out. See the difference there?

I explained the buckling equation to you. You didn’t understand it either. How did you intend to account for buckling once you were given the distribution of mass on every level?

That means they can LIE about the model as long as no one can figure it out.

What were the tons of steel and tons of concrete on every level? If it is a mathematical model there is no reason for it to not have 110 levels.

What was the amount of energy required to collapse each level? You supplied a video about buckling but where does it explain how to compute the energy necessary to do the work of buckling?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wrdO8hPJGyg

They did build a model. They built a mathematical model using “fancy calculus” and you don’t understand it.

By the way, to meet your own standard, wouldn’t the building only have to be 8 floors tall to “collapse completely.”

Is your argument: the taller a building is the less likely it is to collapse?

To psikeyhackr: why is it that every time you don’t understand something, you appear to use the following logic: I don’t understand it = it didn’t happen…? Why do we have to completely disprove every other scientific possibility before you can accept it? Al queda is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, you want us to prove them guilty beyond all possible doubt. That is not realistic. If our legal system used your logic we wouldn’t need jails because there would be no one to put in them.

“So if A BUILDING FELL ON TOP of WTC7 because of the WTC1 collapse shouldn’t there be LOTS of broken windows on the front of WTC7 that faced WTC1.? Why don’t you link us to a picture showing all of those broken windows?”

I’m must be misunderstanding this question. I have been researching 9/11 for about 3 weeks and I have seen countless photos of the damage to the south side of the building that faced the towers. If you want to see some of that damage seethe first 2 minutes of this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YKrthDJ1awM

Also note in this clip your boy Richard Gage and his comments about how the smoke was not coming from WTC7. It’s quite hilarious. This from the same guy who (earlier in this same documentary) suggested that the bombs in WTC7 may have been planted when the building was erected… back in the 80′s! Seriously. This is the representative of your movement.

How much energy was required to crush each level of the WTC? But how can we figure that out if we don’t know the amount of steel that was each level? So this information was distributed when? NEVER?

So why can’t you brilliant physicists just build a model structure that can collapse completely?
.

Because anyone who’s ever studied physics beyond high school knows that structures do not behave according to your simple washer and paper loop high school model. Square cube law, and the mechanics of materials precludes the need for an analysis of the exact distribution of mass within the building. Even if you had the exact distribution of mass within the building down to the very last paper clip, your simple high school understanding of the collapse would not even begin to describe the actual mechanics of the collapse.

You can’t see anything about what the fire does to the core. What you see happening to the perimeter you are ASSUMING is being done by only fire.

So why aren’t we told the TONS of STEEL and TONS of CONCRETE to do a competent analysis of what KNOWN PHYSICS could do. The NIST does the neat trick of assuming the conductivity of steel is ZERO in their simulations. Videos without accurate data are great for people content to simply BELIEVE on the basis of what they can only see.
.

You can see that the fires were taking their toll on the towers well before they collapsed. People like Gage and Griffin insist that the towers were perfectly still until the “suddenly collapsed” Griffin writes, “in fire-induced collapses—if we had any examples of such—the onset would be gradual. Horizontal beams and trusses would begin to sag; vertical columns, if subjected to strong forces, would begin to bend. But as videos of the towers show, there were no signs of bending or sagging, even on the floors just above the damage caused by the impact of the planes.” But contrary to what Griffin claims, there were indeed signs of bending or sagging. Witnesses reported it and photos document it! SEE VIDEO: Facts “9/11 Skeptics” don’t want you to see: REAL 911 Truth

LOL

You are the second nitwit to try to make a big deal about that. But I already anticipated that when I made the video. Why do you think I have TWO MASSES falling, one on the stick and one in empty air. How much difference is there in the rate of fall?

And of course there is Fall pf Physics that someone claimed has incorrect F=M*a calculations even though it doesn’t contain any F=M*a calculations. LOL

(Let’s see if I can trick the filter into not realizing this is a URL) Replace the – with /

i269.photobucket.com-albums-jj77-fangbeer-PhysicsMessage.jpg