OMG! It goes even deeper then. They were uniquely targeted starting with the design phase! :eek:
ROFL
The only alternative explanation you will encounter is the release of pressure built up inside caused by the falling top portion of the building.
Of course this “PRESSURE” would build up throughout the lower portion of the building going down stairwells and elevator shafts presumably. So how could it ever become great enough to cause those ejections? That “EXPLANATION” is ridiculous.
It is so curious that in 1940 a 1:200th scale model of the Tacoma Narrows Bridge could be built in a wind tunnel which duplicated the oscillating behavior of the real bridge but in 12 years we don’t have a physical model of the collapse. What engineering school has even discussed building one? :smack:
psik
Mods, if he is just going to say the same things over and over again, things that have already been repeatedly rebutted, can we just link to a previous thread or two and close this one?
Take the cap off of a full tube of toothpaste. Smash the tube near the center with a brick. Tell me if all of the toothpaste that escaped came out of the little hole.
Why hasn’t an engineering school discussed building a scaled down model? You already know the answer as you’ve been schooled on it in multiple message boards. It’s because of the square cube law.
There’s a very active thread on this in the Politics section of the IMDb Board. Somebody copied post 104 over there.
It made you barf? It made me cry. 
Obviously, we are both deluded.
On another note, IMDB is the Internet Movie Database. SDMB is the Straight Dope Message Board. BIG difference.
Three possible reasons come to mind:
-
Engineering schools mostly concentrate on putting things up, seismic safety being the major exception;
-
It would be big enough to be a significant expense for a demonstration that would have little or no benefit; and
-
It would be really creepy.
As a subset of #3, if modeling of portions of the collapse has been done, the results are buried in engineering journals and have gone unnoticed by net denizens.
We get a better class of CTist; those who stick around, that is. 
I guess the square cube law didn’t work in 1940 on the Tacoma Narrows Bridge model.
At 2:45
That model was 54 feet long.A 1:100th scale model of the north tower would only be 13’ 9" and would not have to be built in a wind tunnel. And they could use 3D printers. The support material would have to be weaker relative to the weight to compensate for the square cube law but we would still have to have accurate data on the mass distribution.
psik
If you think it can be accomplished that way, why have you written the following on your blog?:
And why, exactly, would they build one?
Allow me to 'splain… The Tacoma Narrows Bridge fell down because of a stiff breeze. Engineers NEED to understand why stiff breezes knock down bridges. It’s IMPORTANT, because they plan on building more bridges, and would like them to not fall down when the wind blows. Building a model helps them learn how the wind affects bridges.
The World Trade Center buildings fell down because they were hit by jets. We already know why they fell down, it’s not a mystery, and engineers don’t need to know why a firey jet crash made the building fall down.
Even if you buy into the Conspiracy Theory 100%, then you’ll say the WTC was taken down by explosives, that’s not a mystery either. There is no engineering to be learned by building a model.
YOU want a model to be built to prove your theory correct. Of course, if the Engineering Department at MIT builds a model that shows a collapse 100% consistent with a jet crash, I fully expect to hear that the model was ‘tweaked’ to match the government’s narrative.
Conspiracy Theorists do not accept data that fails to fit their model. They live on uncertainty, and any data, from practically any source, can be questioned.
Plenty of engineering schools have made models of the WTC collapse. They don’t make physical models, because we have computers now, which make much more accurate models at less cost, and with less effort.
What relevance does the square cube law have to the collapse of the Tacoma Narrows?
I actually recall hearing something like this before online on one of the major CT websites. That the WTC was originally designed in such a fashion to make it susceptible to collapse for when the government found use for it. I think it was part of a larger exercise of moving the goalposts after repeated challenges of how aircraft damage and burning fuel COULD account for the collapse for building of that design. The glaring issue here, of course, is the goalposts have moved so far back that the controlled demolition isn’t even required anymore…which was the original argument. :dubious:
Again, arguing with true believers is a USELESS exercise beyond simply exercising one’s own fingers. They are immune to facts and reason. Anything that doesn’t fit the narrative is immediately disregarded or incorporated into the conspiracy.
In the video he linked to, a scaled down model of a bridge was made and it was able to sway. This proves…Hell, I don’t know what it proves.
And the latter is done via cherry picking out of context then spun to the point of being meaningless to everyone else.
Wow, there are still people who believe that 9/11 was an inside job? Their lives must be incredibly dull.
Here’s a video of the University of Delft’s Technology school.
It collapsed after a fire on its 7th floor.
The collapse is the 1:00 mark.
Reference:
So, what’s the allegation here? The government gives money to engineering schools, on the condition that they don’t make physical models to study 9/11? They threaten the faculty of every engineering school? All engineering school instructors are government agents? What?
Unless, of course, the agreement happened during a discussion at the urinals…
Well, from the description:
The architects are in on it. Excuse me while I put on my tinfoil hard hat and check my crawl space with a flashlight.