The real Apollo wasn’t powered by gravity either. Nor could any scaled down physical Apollo model be built to faithfully create a scaled down moon trip (though computer models do model such trips pretty well).
What exactly is your point? Your attempt at a “clever” retort is clearly failing.
Your quoting leaves a lot to be desired. Combine that with your almost irrelevant and unspecific complaints nobody has a an idea what you are talking about. Including you, I suspect.
Rockets aren’t powered by gravity. How shocking!
So talking about a scale model of the Apollo in this discussion was ridiculous in the first place. So pointing out that it didn’t use gravity should have been obvious sarcasm.
Not in this crowd I guess.
psik
Anyone?
How so?
Model rockets might not be gravity powered, but they have their place in studying applied rocketry.
But like any model, you must be familiar with how the model doesn’t scale up.
Your sarcasm fails because it’s misplaced. An intelligent retort might have been recognized as such. But YOUR sarcasm is as comprehensible as your physics - kind of bears a resemblance to reality but makes less and less sense the more you stare at it.
The sarcasm was noted. (Sarcasm appears to be about the only thing you can express coherently.) However, your “gravity” comment directly followed the sentence in the quote you supplied talking about the Scientific American article. If you are no better able to use quotes than you are to understand physics and engineering, you are not in a position to make snide remarks about other posters’ abilities to recognize sarcasm.
The Scientific American article that uses the word “model” thereby implying models can be important but provides no description of, or data from, the model.
But this is supposed to dispute my pointing out that no models of the collapse have been done. All that is is talk. No video, no explanation of how it can be duplicated.
Regardless of what anyone thinks of my paper loop and washer model at least they have enough information to duplicate it for themselves and do not have to take my word for anything.
It supports its own weight, it has mass and uses gravity for acceleration. It is not an attempt to be to scale it is only a demonstration of physical principles. It does not get out of the atmosphere. 
psik
:yawn:
This thread has become boring. Now, where’s that unsubscribe function again… ?
it’s under the pile of debris.
That’s what they want you to think!
It’s called “Google ‘North tower collapse’”
Can this thread be done now? Or does one of those videos show Godzilla knocking down the tower?
Here’s one that’s a compilation of clips. They all show(surprise!) the tower failing at the point of impact and no “explosions” anywhere in the path of the fall.
Well, there you go, psikeyhackr. You said:
Something caused by someone would have had to destroy the supports below
and
No, I mean something else destroyed the supports in the 90 stories below where the plane impacted the north tower.
The video above clearly shows the tower falling at the point of impact and not falling from supports destroyed below. You lose the debate. So sorry.
Jesus, just LOOK at it. It’s not being demolished, it collapses exactly where it was hit. How can a sane person watch that and deny it?
There you go putting unrealistic qualifiers in your question.
If you were to remove the word sane we could answer.
So what? My comment to you was based on your pointing tothe Scientific American article and making a dumb comment about gravity while you are now (again) ducking and weaving and claiming that you were “really” talking about the space program.
Perhaps you were. As I said, your ability to use the quote function appears to be as poor as your grasp of engineering and physics.
Again, so what? Anyone with a basic understanding can tell that the strength of the materials and construction of your model is not proportional to the strength and materials of the World trade Center. If some kid built a sand castle and knocked it down, we would not need to duplicate his efforts to see that they were irrelevant to a discussion of the WTC.
And your “principles” are worthless, since you have no idea what you are talking about, believing that you demonstate anything when not to scale. And with your dumb comment about the atmosphere, you reinforce my belief that you are trolling.
As noted earlier, I recognize that it is sometimes difficult to distinguish trolling from a lack of capacity to participate in a discussion. However, your recent actions and your monomaniacal persistence in repeating the same nonsense is causing me to see your posts as trolling, even IF you actually believe the stuff you post.
[ /Moderating ]
All you can do is TALK.
How can anyone build it to scale if they do not know the distribution of mass? :smack:
That is why I made supports AS WEAK AS POSSIBLE. We know skyscrapers are not constructed that way.
To talk about scale and not demand that official sources provide data on the tons of steel and tons of concrete on every level is complete nonsense.
And then this site has the nerve to talk about fighting ignorance.
psik
So, psi. What you’re saying now is that not only does your “model” NOT represent the thing you purport it to, you made it intentionally in such a manner that it would not. Does that about sum it up?
:smack:
I feel like I have some idea of how Bill Nye felt debating with Ken Ham.
If you can read the description with the video I said it was as weak as possible when the video was posted.
So if a structure designed to be AS WEAK AS POSSIBLE can’t collapse straight down then what should that imply about structures designed to be stronger than that? And I actually did TWO DROPS and still did not get complete collapse.
I guess I was assuming people watching the video had some degree of intelligence. :smack:
psik