You're asking the wrong guy. What I'm seeing here is that several people are telling you that you're wrong, showing you where you're wrong, and your response is juvenile BS like "ROFL" followed by a more emphatic restatement of your original position. You don't address any of the criticisms of your argument, you simply mock and restate. That's how I know you're a loon.
We are talking about 300 year old Newtonian physics that grade school kids should understand. It does not change. The fact that most American adults do not understand it is disturbing and hilarious but not surprising.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p0wk4qG2mIg
Harvard graduates can't explain what causes winter and summer, and that video was made a decade before 9/11. So this hilarious stupidity is not surprising. I laughed at that video the first time I saw it. It took me two weeks to conclude airliners could not destroy the towers but the information that led me to that conclusion is what gets disappeared about the towers. So 9/11 says something about the psychology of this culture. Just like economists who can pretend that planned obsolescence is not happening and ignoring the depreciation of all of the cars purchased by consumers.
So you don't understand the conservation of momentum and you think my laughing at this nonsense is evidence of something. Yeah, that is the problem with most people. They think emotional nonsense is more important than physics.
Every skyscraper has to hold itself up. That means every LEVEL has to support the combined weights of all LEVELS above. But to make LEVELS stronger they have to put in more steel. Grumpy makes a big deal about the trusses. The trusses didn't hold up the towers. The core and perimeter columns held up everything and the trusses are attached to them. So to have discussed this for ELEVEN YEARS without most "scientists" demanding accurate data on the distributions of steel and concrete down the towers is HILARIOUS.
But the 9/11 decade is a psychological issue Physics IS NOT.
My model has to get stronger toward the bottom just like a real skyscraper. The paper loops at the bottom are tripled. The washers are sorted by weight so the structure is bottom heavy. The strength and weight are separate unlike a real skyscraper because one washer weighs more than all of the paper loops. But if my paper loops are as weak as possible relative to their static load then why does the structure fail to collapse in two drops?
So if the physics dictates that the towers could not possibly collapse then what does that say about the psychology of all of the people who believe that they did?
It is hilarious but also a serious cognitive dissonance problem. So build a physical model that can completely collapse. But if you can't di it then...
psik