.
The difference with the supposed collapse of the WTC is that it violates too much basic physics for the details of the structure to matter. We are supposed to believe that the top 15% of a skyscraper which had to be less than 15% of the mass, because skyscrapers must be bottom heavy and get stronger toward the bottom, came straight down and destroyed the rest of the structure in less than double the free fall time from the top.
That would require breaking the supports of all of the intermediate masses and accelerating those masses faster than gravity would have to make them all come down within that time.
Going into details about that particular skyscraper is just useless intellectual busywork.
What matters is distribution of mass and the strength required to hold it up. My washer demonstration had constant strength all of the way down. The support at the bottom of a stack of 20 hard drives would have to be strong enough to hold all of the weight of the drives but I could allow the supports to get weaker going up so at least the distribution of strength could more closely resemble that of a skyscraper. I would have to weigh the drives to put heavier ones toward the bottom.
I don't buy this crap about the towers coming down because of the tube in tube design.
Why can't the EXPERTS demonstrate that something with a similar distribution of mass and strength to the WTC can collapse on itself in SEVEN YEARS? All we have is writing and talking and writing and talking but there are skyscrapers all over the world and the Empire State Building was completed 70 years before the WTC was destroyed. What kind of electronic computers did they have back then? Even the stuff from the early 60s when the WTC was designed is a joke compared to what we have today. So how has this simple problem not been solved? It should have been settled in less than a year.
psik
