- Jun 13, 2007
- 704
- 206
I have not tried contacting Richard Gage in years. It always went to his organization. He has apparently changed his policy. So I sent:
Greetings Mr. Gage,
We met in May of 2008 when you gave your talk at the University of Illinois Circle Campus in Chicago. I got in line after your show to ask a question. I asked you about accurate data on the distributions of steel and concrete down the towers. I have since told people that you looked at me like "I had grown a 2nd head" and you said that the "NIST was not giving out accurate blueprints."
Now here we are 14 years later and no one has built a good physical model of the collapse or created an equivalent virtual model. This is somewhat amusing since it only took 4 months to build a physical model of the Tacoma Narrows bridge in a wind tunnel to study the oscillations in 1940. They did not have electronic computers. Consider how much more powerful and cheaper computers have gotten since 9/11 but still no collapse simulation.
I have searched for data on steel distribution in other skyscrapers but no luck. Odd since they must all cope with the same gravity no matter where they are on the planet. With so many skyscrapers the necessary knowledge should not be that scarce.
This Twin Towers Affair is out of control. How can any engineering schools discuss it objectively without pointing out that they should have brought up reliable data within a couple of years of 9/11? Where was the center of gravity of the tilted top of the South Tower? Why didn't it fall down the side? The NIST admits that it tilted 20 to 25 degrees. But they cannot specify the total amount of concrete in the towers with a $20 million report at $2000 per page while sources before 9/11 said it was 425,000 cubic yards.
I built my own model:
It is a physics demonstration model not attempting to mimic the design of the towers. The paper loops are intended to be as weak as possible relative to the static load. But for the entire structure to collapse the stationary masses must be accelerated and their supports disabled. That requires energy. Since the only source is the falling mass at the top it must slow down.
It stops short of complete collapse.
Of course the problem with any small model is the Square-Cube Law. The smaller it is the more difficult it will be to collapse under its own weight because the weight decreases faster than the strength for the same material. Hence the paper, what could be weaker than paper? A really decent model should be at least 13.6 feet and 800 pounds. Expensive and potentially dangerous.
So what is your solution to this endless but simple physics problem? The 10,000 tons of wrought iron in the Eiffel Tower probably exposes how the 100,000 tons of steel in the North Tower had to be distributed. What has AE911Truth said about steel and concrete distributions in approaching TWENTY ONE YEARS?
psikeyhackr.livejournal.com
Karl Smithe
Greetings Mr. Gage,
We met in May of 2008 when you gave your talk at the University of Illinois Circle Campus in Chicago. I got in line after your show to ask a question. I asked you about accurate data on the distributions of steel and concrete down the towers. I have since told people that you looked at me like "I had grown a 2nd head" and you said that the "NIST was not giving out accurate blueprints."
Now here we are 14 years later and no one has built a good physical model of the collapse or created an equivalent virtual model. This is somewhat amusing since it only took 4 months to build a physical model of the Tacoma Narrows bridge in a wind tunnel to study the oscillations in 1940. They did not have electronic computers. Consider how much more powerful and cheaper computers have gotten since 9/11 but still no collapse simulation.
I have searched for data on steel distribution in other skyscrapers but no luck. Odd since they must all cope with the same gravity no matter where they are on the planet. With so many skyscrapers the necessary knowledge should not be that scarce.
This Twin Towers Affair is out of control. How can any engineering schools discuss it objectively without pointing out that they should have brought up reliable data within a couple of years of 9/11? Where was the center of gravity of the tilted top of the South Tower? Why didn't it fall down the side? The NIST admits that it tilted 20 to 25 degrees. But they cannot specify the total amount of concrete in the towers with a $20 million report at $2000 per page while sources before 9/11 said it was 425,000 cubic yards.
I built my own model:
It is a physics demonstration model not attempting to mimic the design of the towers. The paper loops are intended to be as weak as possible relative to the static load. But for the entire structure to collapse the stationary masses must be accelerated and their supports disabled. That requires energy. Since the only source is the falling mass at the top it must slow down.
It stops short of complete collapse.
Of course the problem with any small model is the Square-Cube Law. The smaller it is the more difficult it will be to collapse under its own weight because the weight decreases faster than the strength for the same material. Hence the paper, what could be weaker than paper? A really decent model should be at least 13.6 feet and 800 pounds. Expensive and potentially dangerous.
So what is your solution to this endless but simple physics problem? The 10,000 tons of wrought iron in the Eiffel Tower probably exposes how the 100,000 tons of steel in the North Tower had to be distributed. What has AE911Truth said about steel and concrete distributions in approaching TWENTY ONE YEARS?
Physics, Psychology and the 9/11 Decade
By the 10th anniversary of 9/11 the 42nd anniversary of the Moon landing will have passed. Newtonian physics will be 324 years old. Newton's Philosophi Naturalis Principia Mathematica was published on July 5th of 1687 and the first Moon landing was July 20th of 1969. How…
psikeyhackr.livejournal.com
Karl Smithe
