Originally Posted by

**JJM 777**
The top of the building fell through the entire building, rather than falling aside. It would be interesting to test the mechanisms of these two theories with a model of adequate size, e.g. 10% of the original. Otherwise I guess that I will never firmly believe how it works, until I see how it works.

Right, time for a tutorial on scaling. Let's make a 10% sized model of WTC2. It will have columns 10% of the stiffness (scales as area divided by length), but wind forces will be only 1% of the real ones because wind resistance scales with area. The weight will be only 0.1% of the real one (scales with volume). The fracture energy per floor will be 1% of the real one (scales with column area), but the gravitational potential energy (scales as volume multiplied by height) will be 0.01% of the real one. So energetically a 10% scale model will have a ratio of potential energy to fracture energy - the ratio that determines whether or not it will collapse -

**100 times less** than the real building. So it won't collapse. Now if we weaken the columns by a factor of 100, it will collapse - but this test is discredited by the truth movement, because we have "tweaked the model to ensure collapse".

Summary: Scale models behave nothing like the real thing. If you won't believe it till you see a scale model collapse, then you won't believe it. Even though it's true.

Dave