http://msp.warwick.ac.uk/~cpr/twin.txt

From his own website, folks.

I don't see what the obvious conclusion is, he seems to imply you would need to blow every single floor up to make the building collapse. :D

I also like how he has to add every few lines "No I am not saying the building is invulnerable" because he is nearly saying that it is.

Ah so we're picking on the details, that's the game? Well, much of the essay seems to convey to me that what little architectural intuition I have is nowhere near reliable enough to be of much worth. At which point I find myself invited to imagine how the eiffel tower might collapse. I'm evidently supposed to have some idea, but frankly I could imagine practically anything.

Meanwhile, this is beside his point but

Now the building got stronger (and heavier) as it went down.

I can't decide whether I think he means 'towards the bottom' or 'during the collapse'. The first one seems more plausible to me but for all I can tell, the second may make just as much sense.

Haha, if you look at the sauces there is only one so he obviously got a balanced viewpoint on the subject.

More 'enlightening' 9/11 discussion here:

http://images.encyclopediadramatica.com/images/a/af/Jews_did_wtc_flowcha...

Funny, he doesn't go into how it was actually brought down.

Thermite + core steel structure = pools of molten steel in basement

Wired explosives on each floor + spark = level collapse (note that in videos of the collapse the building collapses at freefall, impossible if the floors remained intact)

I can't decide whether I think he means 'towards the bottom' or 'during the collapse'. The first one seems more plausible to me but for all I can tell, the second may make just as much sense.

It's a well known architectural fact (known as the Smitherson effect) that the more you destroy something the stronger and heavier it becomes. Even the Romans knew this: when they wanted to build an exceptionally strong fortress, they would first build one twice as large and then fire catapults at it until it was reduced to the desired size.

Uh-oh, I do hope this thread won't go the way it's threatenning to. You know at the end of last year, when there was little left to do, I found myself in the library and decided to wander to an unfamilliar area of the building, meander among the shelves for a while and stare at the titles of books to see if I came across anything interesting. I ended up in the section for politics students. There was plenty of material dedicated to various historical events, including an entire shelf for 9/11. A second glance at that shelf revealled that many of the books were cleary conspiracy theories. I wasn't just judging books by their covers - the titles were pretty unambiguous. One was called "9/11 - the big lie", and I swear I've heard of that book elsewhere. Must be a pretty notorious book, that. Just on the offchance that anyone's interested to know where in the library they are, there's no point in asking me; I know for a fact that they aren't where I saw them anymore because thanks to the remodelling project, there are no longer any bookshelves on that spot. If for any reason, someone wants to see them for themselves, they'll have to find them. But I'm surprised the library has a little collection like that. Is there a demand for that kind of book or something?

Well, I suppose that, if you're studying that kind of stuff, you'll want to hear the arguments that both sides have to offer...

Uh-oh, I do hope this thread won't go the way it's threatenning to.

What do you mean? Everyone knows 9/11 is a conspiracy.

Why are you even bothering to say that ? I thought it was obvious to everyone...

It was a soundstage on Mars

Didn't Neil Armstrong fabricate the entire of 9/11 to detract attention away from the fact that he didn't even go to the moon?

I've just noticed that the above is my hundredth post. Just had to be my usual long winded stuff, didn't it? What a thing to write about in your hundredth post. Cosmin, you've nearly reached 1000, eh? Funny, what's so special about some numbers that we like to celebrate them as anniversaries? Probably something to do with their factorisations. Because of our traditional notation for them, numbers of the form especially seem to make good anniversaries. Meh, if I really cared I'd start a new thread about it. But isn't this just typical of me - I start making up a post as I go along, and it just gets longer and longer. Oh well.

Is it just me or is there something strange about the way train has come off the rails more at the middle of the train rather than at either end and also... no wait, this has NOTHING to do with what anyone else was talking about.

Funny, what's so special about some numbers that we like to celebrate them as anniversaries?

They are exactly the values taken by the Niloç metric on .

What ? What about 7331... surely that invalidates that statement !

No, clearly not, .

Yes and this is exactly what I meant, as it is not an anniversary number.

Actually, it is, isn't and neutral. Ad infinitum. My point is literal. There is no point in making a theory of anniversary numbers that does not work.