An angle of the WTC collapse I'd never seen

[psikeyhackr]

@GIGObuster

So was the paper withdrawn? I guess by this time you can point at the counter paper from a scientific publication, however I guess you will not be able or your criticisms were not accepted.

You are indeed missing that he points out that it remains an approximation, it is still better than working with toothpicks.

If you do know how was Urich wrong then it should be easy to apply better values to the table and do the modeling to show us then how it is impossible that the planes, fuel and fire was not the reason. So far it is clear that you are not willing to publish your “research” and face peer review.

Once again, it is thanks to the work done by others that we can say with confidence that explanations that use controlled explosions for the collapse of the towers are wrong.

http://space.crono911.net/EBook/702_Bazant_12_07.pdf

I never said anything about explosions controlled or otherwise.

I already made a better model than the one with toothpicks. The toothpicks were too strong in relation to the mass.

Gravitational Collapse onto Cumulative Supports

The laws of physics don’t give a damn about papers and peer reviews but grade school kids can build models and test them. is Newtonian physics to difficult for grade school kids that may now have $300 netbooks?

But the falling portion of my model that arrested did not remain intact. The bottom was crushed like the top of the stationary portion which makes perfect sense according to Newton’s 3rd Law. Crushing the paper loops requires energy and the onlysource is the kinetic energy of the falling mass. So it slows down. Bazant is talking nonsense. So how has he been allowed to talk nonsense for so long?

psik