Use of Scale Model or Full Sized models for investigating 9/11 collapses

I suggest you quote an example of my denials from this thread or accept that the contribution you have made to it here is no better than that of a troll. If you are unable to do so I will not respond to you further.

Mick, your three-floor construction here doesn't represent three dimensions, still less support itself: it's a much lower-resolution model than psikey attempted.

I've asked the people on the thread what an acceptable level of simplification might be if a model of the phenomenal collapse of the Towers were to be attempted -- but for me a self-supporting three-dimensional structure would be an initial requirement.
 
No, it's not. It's perfectly clear the same mechanism would work in 3-d as well. You asked for a quote where you denied the applicability of simpler models, that's all. Glad to help.
 
There is no denial in that quote of mine. There is merely an (arguably incorrect) criticism of Mick's model by comparison with psikey's model and a statement of what I feel is one obvious requirement for a serious modelling effort.

So if you actually want to help why don't you come up with something else?
 
Honestly? Because it's pretty clear nothing will convince you and I don't enjoy pissing into the wind. :shrug:

You denied the model was applicable because it was 2-D. My question is: why do you think you'd get a different result if I made the same model in 3-D? If you don't have a reason to believe it would work differently why would I waste my time doing it?
 
Then don't piss in the wind. Piss somewhere else.

I'm not asking you to waste your time. You don't want to engage in a constructive discussion about a model?

OK mate.
 
I just tried.

Why do you think extending the model into 3-D will have a different result?

There's no point in me doing anything physical unless you can answer that.
 
Cube, regarding 3D models, while my model is 2D, would you not agree that piskey's model is 1D?

I think that understanding the difference between 1D and 2D would be helpful here in assessing the usefulness of a 3D model.
 
Don't overlook that psikey's model is NOT a model of the collapse of either of the Twin Towers. So comparing it with a model of WTC actual collapse is a false comparison.

Plus it is 1D.

The two key stages of the Twin towers collapses were:

A) "Initiation" Which was a cascade failure process which reduced the strength of the impact and fire damaged zone until it could not support the "Top Block" which then fell. That "initiation" stage CANNOT be modelled in 1D OR 2D - explanations and modelling must be 3D. The load redistribution processes which are the key aspect of a cascade failure as they occurred at WTC1 and WTC2 are inherently 3D.

B) "Progression" The rapid global collapse also CANNOT be modelled in 1D - but it can be modelled/explained in 2D - does not need 3D.

Both those professional engineers bare assertions I can justify if anyone is seriously interested.

In terms of understanding/explaining WTC Twin Towers collapses psikey's model is not relevant.

It models the wrong "side" of a major controversy in WTC collapse understanding. That is the Bazant explanations of collapses which are based on energy required to crush columns. The WTC Twins collapses did not crush columns therefore models based on column crushing are not valid.

What actually happened is validly modelled in 2D by Mick's Jenga block demonstration. Floors knocked out leaving columns to fall over.
 
I think that understanding the difference between 1D and 2D would be helpful here in assessing the usefulness of a 3D model.
I agree with the proviso that the explanation should be specific to WTC Twin Towers collapses. Trying for understandable generic explanations IMO too difficult in this context.
 
Do you think that part of the problem here is that people want to see the floor slab destruction in a model form? The global collapse of the wood block structures convincing shows the axial structure and even lateral beams coming apart. But doesn't actual model the floor slab destruction and it leading to the frame collapse.

To model the floor slab destruction... perhaps one could take very thin sheets of glass... such as used in framing prints... and stack them up on steel rods representing the columns... this would be stable and maybe you do 30 levels... Then you have to remove some of the columns X number of levels from the top. I would imagine the assembly above the removed columns (show out with a sling shot???) would crash down. The glass should shatter and the entire structure would collapse leaving the rods in a pile of broken glass.

Obviously the glass has to be stiff even to span between the columns... and brittle/fragile enough to shatter from impact of the weight of the glass and columns falling on it. One has to use materials which SCALE the strength of the materials.

I know that the thing glass will shatter to hundreds of pieces of all sizes if drop on to a hard surface from X feet. So I suspect it's a matter of scaling the model. if the glass were a meter square and the flr to flr ht was 25cm and the columns were 2cm square rods... spaced on one side at 25cm apart (core) and the other at 5cm apart... the facade... I would think the would produce a global collapse with lots of shattered glass. Sizes and spacing of columns and so forth need to adjusted to the strength of the glass etc. The stack would be 7+ meters tall... about 30 stories. Shoot out the core side columns 10 levels from the top.

I don't see this arresting and I would expect to see no unbroken glass sheets... and broken glass of multiple sized pieces.

A bit costly....
 
Sander, a short while ago, Truther blogs gleefully linked to a TV show where some stupid truther girl won a physics game against several other young folks, including a NASA employee. The task was to estimate or compute how many glas panes would break in several set-ups. They had stacks of glas panes like building floors, at various distances, and dropped boling balls of different sizes from different heights. The bowling balls in all experiments eventually arrested after smashing through 1-n panes.

Now, obviously, those experiments weren't scaled to represent WTC floors - they weren't meant to be at all. My point is: It can be quite surprising how sturdy glass is!
 
Sander, a short while ago, Truther blogs gleefully linked to a TV show where some stupid truther girl won a physics game against several other young folks, including a NASA employee. The task was to estimate or compute how many glas panes would break in several set-ups. They had stacks of glas panes like building floors, at various distances, and dropped boling balls of different sizes from different heights. The bowling balls in all experiments eventually arrested after smashing through 1-n panes.

Now, obviously, those experiments weren't scaled to represent WTC floors - they weren't meant to be at all. My point is: It can be quite surprising how sturdy glass is!
Did the show specify what kind of glass?

(I mean, there's a thousand variations on fused silica-quartz, vs. soda-lime mixes, etc., that would profoundly affect breakage)
 
Did the show specify what kind of glass?

(I mean, there's a thousand variations on fused silica-quartz, vs. soda-lime mixes, etc., that would profoundly affect breakage)
It was, at the end of the day, an entertainment show, and they were generally short on data ;)

The video that I saw has been taken down because of rights issues.

ETA: Found another upload:
 
Last edited:
Physical inspection of the columns below the collapse initiation point showed that the vast majority had their floor connections disrupted; torn out, sheared off, bent, or whatever. If you really want to do a physical model of the flooring system you can use just about anything for the floor pan system except something really fragile since the connections to the columns were the "weakest link".
 
Back in 2008 I proposed - never built - a model which used cracker biscuits (word may not translate - the sort of square biscuits with holes you use with cheese and savoury onions etc)

Those were the wails and core. Toothpicks/skewers as "floor joists" and either chewing gum or "blu-tac" as the joist/column connectors plus a doughnut shaped weight to simulate Top Block falling.


Same technical point - the connectors were the weak link.

In my first disagreement with Bazantophiles I proposed "correcting" Bazant's erroneous concept and related maths by substituting the maths for connector shear instead of perimeter column crushing.

Risking another cross cultural mistranslate - that comment "went over like a lead balloon" Still does with committed Bazantophiles.
 
I like Jeffrey's mention of the chaos of a weather system. Its quite apt I think. While the details in a system are not understandable, exactly what time will it start raining at location X, exactly what will the wind strength and direction be at any particular time and place?, Still, the general direction of the system can be predicted with some accuracy on the scale of the area of a weather system.
When someone asks what failed first, its really not knowable. Neither is it knowable what the exact mapping of the progression of collapse. However, it can be determined that once collapse begins what the over all result will be. There are two ways (or combo of both) collapse could halt;
1) Enough mass is shed out to the sides
2) Enough reaction force (aka resistance) exists such that it is greater than the downward dynamic forces.

so for :
1)We can see that the bulk of mass ejection is the perimeter frame structure. The greater bulk is that contained within the structure, floors, contents, core columns, truss hat structure.

and for
2)As for dynamic forces and reaction forces, the dynamic forces are primarily imposed upon the floor pans, rather than the columns. Those dynamic forces then are bypassing the greatest source of reaction force, the columns.
 
BTW, love the Kapla (whatever that is) tower. Its upper section rotated, yet while it retains its tilt, its rotation seemingly stops as soon as collapse initiates.
 
Last edited:
To model the floor slab destruction... perhaps one could take very thin sheets of glass... such as used in framing prints... and stack them up on steel rods representing the columns...

I briefly tried extending the Jenga model by using glass slide covers for seats, putting them between the Jenga columns and then resting the wooden floors on them. This was a failure though, as that made the connections too strong, and the collapse was arrested.

The problem with very small scale models is that to have something for a floor (or even just a seat) that breaks by fracturing, that means it's incredibly fragile to live loads. It would be nearly impossible to assemble, as a slight human finger touch would be like dropping a whale on an actual floor.

In my model the seats were tape, so they failed by peeling, so had a range of (sticky) motion that gave it some stability
 
It's difficult to include all the nodes and elements in a physical model. If you want to demonstrate for example that the collapsing floors do not arrest and can destroy themselves from dropping one on to the other AND lead to the columns coming down something such as I suggested could show this... Maybe. Getting the connections to mimic the observed failures is a matter of scale and I don't think would be simple.
 
...There are two ways (or combo of both) collapse could halt;
1) ...
2) Enough reaction force (aka resistance) exists such that it is greater than the downward dynamic forces.

so for :
...
2)As for dynamic forces and reaction forces, the dynamic forces are primarily imposed upon the floor pans, rather than the columns. Those dynamic forces then are bypassing the greatest source of reaction force, the columns.
Carefull. It's not the absolute magnitude of the resisting forces that determine whether collapse arrests or not. It's the energy dissipated, the deformation work done: Force times distance, or more precisely the integral under a distace vs. force graph. The thing is that those forces are not constant: They may increase as compression or tension rises, but drop to zero as member fails. Arrest or not is then a matter of comparing the energy dissipated over somne unit of drop distance with potential energy freed over the same drop distance. If mass were constant, the concept here would be average force.
A brittle member may offer a very large force resisting a mass drop, but if it breaks after a small fraction of an inch, not much energy is dissipated. A ductile member might resist a few inches before it fails, but with much less force along the way, for the same energy disspation.
 
In terms of virtual models: I am impressed by enik's work, OWE.
Glad you like it. It is top notch. It took a lot of time to set up those models and a surprisingly long time (~week) to run some of them. They're both more detailed and expansive than most of the scenarios involving large structure failure I've seen in published rags.

All the same, one of the things which was apparent as a result is the profound limitations of FEA when it comes to these simulations. Despite the substantial complexity, there was still important detail missing in some cases which adversely affected the result. Simply providing the requisite level of detail can sometimes make the model unworkable - either it takes literally forever to run, exhausts available resources, never achieves stability, or all of the above. Definitely not a panacea.

Example: in an enik floor collapse scenario, key connectors did not have fracture attributes supplied so were infinitely ductile. You had things like bolts stretching up to 10 feet. While some would take that as a complete deal-killer, I felt there were still some useful things that could be gleaned from it. The problem would be taking it (on the whole) as a realistic depiction of what would happen. Naturally, a major demonstrable flaw casts doubt on the veracity; just because there's a flaw easily discerned doesn't mean there aren't other flaws hidden deeper.

It seems, in an (structural) engineering mind-set, there is deep seated tendency to declare something "good enough" after a certain amount of effort, whether it really is or not. Maybe in the world of static structures always near equilibrium, adding some factor of safety in calculations is in fact good enough. But in chaotic, non-linear systems far from equilibrium, that sort of thinking is inadequate. So there are qualified and competent engineers like enik, who have powerful tools and know how to use them inside their comfort zone, who then apply the same methodologies and standards they do in their everyday work to problems well outside that domain. And expect to run the sim and get a good answer.

enik definitely exhibited that trait; the connections didn't have fracture because it would've been "too much work". But, from my perspective (which I can argue is correct), the work that was invested was largely wasted because a critical element wasn't properly characterized. It probably was a perfectly good model for determining (some aspect of) behavior up to the onset of failure. His mistake was in thinking he could let it run past that point - indefinitely - and it would all be okay.

And so it goes with various aspects of most of them. As impressive as they look, there's only so much you can take away from them. One of things which cannot be determined is CD/not-CD... not a shred of doubt in my mind about that. Which brings us to the next comment.

Why do you think enik concluded gravity alone could not have caused the collapses, having put so much effort into creating models to investigate them?
I really don't know. It was a weird disconnect. On the one hand he's capable of constructing jaw-dropping models and running them, and willing to spend inordinate amounts of time doing so. On the other, he didn't seem to have a good awareness of what shortcomings there are in the models. No doubt he'd come to his conclusions before conducting the experiments. If he was inclined to accept the results as valid, it really should've pushed him the other way since nothing ever arrested.

An educated guess as to why he made this proclamation on a collapse model which had not arrested at termination: he was indoctrinated in Bazantian thinking. There were some clues in things he said - and you pretty much have to take those "pennies from heaven" because he's a man of few words and many graphics and tables! I believe enik bought into the idea that exclusive crush down will occur, and further that exclusive crush down is required to perpetuate collapse. He made a point of how bidirectional crushing was demonstrated in his model and this proved Bazant wrong. I guess, by extension, he thought that meant Bazant was wrong about everything and, if Bazant was wrong, the collapse was not natural.

Funny, all enik had to do was look at his own model! If he took it seriously, and clearly he did, why didn't he notice that his model gave no indication of arrest? It crushed up and down simultaneously. Cool, that's good, that's realistic. Did it arrest? No.
 
Last edited:
It seems to me that one of the main problems in these models is that one can isolate part of a complex system and model performance. But when you are forced to deal with the complexity of all the elements, nodes, forces, acting through time and in space the complexity seems to make modeling impossible. How can a model which by definition reduces complexity reliably predict complex outcomes? This seems to be the essential contradiction / conundrum. And perhaps such complex systems are sensitive to even the smallest variation that the outcome would be different... or perhaps slight variations produce the same outcome. Both of these would mean that there is something unreliable about modeling very complex systems.

It appears to me that the ROOSD process includes settled science/engineering... ie when dynamic loads which far exceed capacity of a slab it fails and this process repeats to the slab below .. it's unstoppable if all the slabs have the same capacity. Further it is also settled engineering in use every day that columns or structures of too high slenderness ratio are not stable or self supporting... and so they are braced or guyed. These two known behaviors of materials don't need to be modeled... as they are established behaviors of the materials of the WTC twin towers. It seems odd that this was something not apparent to engineers and scientists from the get go. Go figure...

The only interesting thing then is how was this ROOSD mass created... how was the top section turned into the mass which would ROOSD the bottom? Axial capacity destruction would do it and that could be accomplished with or by various means... the plane destroying columns... heat warping the steel and destroying bearing area or axial alignment, perhaps heat weakening of the trusses to the point of failure or a combination of them or... placing devices as the truth guys insist.

Of course the truth guys don't even accept ROOSD and will assert that the entire building was CDed... that is buildings like that simply don't collapse.

Go figure.
 
It seems to me that one of the main problems in these models is that one can isolate part of a complex system and model performance. But when you are forced to deal with the complexity of all the elements, nodes, forces, acting through time and in space the complexity seems to make modeling impossible. How can a model which by definition reduces complexity reliably predict complex outcomes? This seems to be the essential contradiction / conundrum.
This is huge. Simple systems and/or simple scenarios are modeled with accuracy all of the time. As state of the art progresses, the ability to scale size and complexity obviously will increase correspondingly. Where is it now? No doubt things have improved considerably since the time of NIST's work on their reports. Best I can tell, though, something like the full scale physics simulation of WTC7 is still out of practical reach. It's best to confine use to smaller but highly detailed subsystems to better understand how they act under variety of circumstances. Things like total building collapse are still best handled by abstracted physics models, IMO. That's not saying much, but you play what you're dealt.

In that regard, I should mention another couple of things about enik's experiments. The first is that the collapse scenarios, which ran from single perimeter element impacts in one story drops to quarter-tower (coreless/floorless) progressive collapses, were mostly 1D in nature. The environment is 3D but the setup and constraints make things effectively 1D. The only thing which deviated significantly from that was offsetting the top section before dropping. I think that was the proper approach for a variety of reasons, at least for initial experiments, and it fortuitously allowed comparison with other 1D models.

Second, as flawed as these simulations were, they're generally far better than one should expect from game engines which are stretched beyond their applicability. On the other hand, a game engine or algebraic model properly applied could (and has) produce results similar to enik's work, with the benefit of mere minutes for setup and taking a few seconds to run instead of days. In one of the threads I linked, there is an overlay graph with one of my analytical step-wise runs and enik's early perimeter impacts. Practically the same result.

Sure, they could both be wrong, but I always take corroboration between widely disparate environments to be a positive sign. In this case, my models (plural) were already matched to Greening's and Bazant's fairly closely (though not Seffen or some others) so it is a broad corroboration of the 1D approach. My takeaway from that was that a good physics model will give sufficient results for the aggregate or general case and be far superior in terms of effort and time. In the time it takes to set up and run one grand FEA modeling one particular scenario, you can run much simpler models thousands of times and explore the entire solution space.

The operative word, though, is 'good', for both engineering and physics models.
 
Enik definitely exhibited that trait; the connections didn't have fracture because it would've been "too much work". But, from my perspective (which I can argue is correct), the work that was invested was largely wasted because a critical element wasn't properly characterized. It probably was a perfectly good model for determining (some aspect of) behavior up to the onset of failure. His mistake was in thinking he could let it run past that point - indefinitely - and it would all be okay...
I have long admired Enik's work and the pretty colours images stuff sure looks great.

BUT the bottom line is "Does it validly advance our understanding?" and I would have to say no.

The reasons - two different audiences:
1) Audience 1 - Professionals with a high level of directly relevant expertise:
- for those who like me can see where the limits of the method fall short of explaining the actual collapse. And they fall short in the very same way that I have stated repeatedly through these discussions. The actual mechanisms are:
A) For the initiation stage - simple enough for a high school student with a bent for physics to understand in broad principle BUT impossible to know in detail even for professionals. THEREFORE neither virtual NOR physical modelling can satisfy the technical aspects of the need which CubeRadio has expressed. And that is ignoring the conceptual/psychological/learning/understanding aspects of his need.

B)For the progression stage the mechanism also explainable at high school physics capable student level so the professionals don't need models.

2) Audience 2 - Lay persons or professionals with less expertise

The risk with this groups is that they may be misled by the pretty colours impressive graphics and be unable to discern the failures or shortcomings in the underlying foundation assumptions or process short-cuts. "They look great so they must be right!" Not so.

And again the understanding of the two critical stages of mechanisms is easier to convey by methods of explanation other than modelling. The base threshold problem being that the level of comprehension needed to translate any model into real concepts is much higher than the level of intellectual grasp need to understand the explanation. Especially when any model will have shortcomings which would impose an extra burden of comprehension needed to accommodate - allow for - model shortcomings.

I really don't know. It was a weird disconnect. On the one hand he's capable of constructing jaw-dropping models and running them, and willing to spend inordinate amounts of time doing so. On the other, he didn't seem to have a good awareness of what shortcomings there are in the models. No doubt he'd come to his conclusions before conducting the experiments.
My interpretation after several direct interactions with him is that his goal is to solve a problem using FEA - use of FEA being his driving objective. Possibly also showing off his fluency with FEA. BUT Solving the actual problem at best a secondary objective. And very prone to "forests v trees" or "alligators v swamp draining" syndrome. AKA losing the plot which is typical of many engineers posting on 9/11 WTC matters. From either "side".

That said I still hold him in high regard. He is the only engineer who I have challenged over an error who after persuasive reasoning from me accepted that he had been in error.

Enik was prepared to discuss and saw where the error had occurred. His debunker side opponent never even acknowledged my correct "call" of the error.

So top marks to enik from me.

An educated guess as to why he made this proclamation on a collapse model which had not arrested at termination: he was indoctrinated in Bazantian thinking. There were some clues in things he said - and you pretty much have to take those "pennies from heaven" because he's a man of few words and many graphics and tables! I believe enik bought into the idea that exclusive crush down will occur, and further that exclusive crush down is required to perpetuate collapse. He made a point of how bidirectional crushing was demonstrated in his model and this proved Bazant wrong. I guess, by extension, he thought that meant Bazant was wrong about everything and, if Bazant was wrong, the collapse was not natural...
Ah what a different world it would have been if Bazant had not lived in the land of "Publish or Perish"

His early model taken way out of validity still dominates most WTC 9/11 discussions.

And he is WRONG when he applies it to WTC 9/11 collapse. NOT "near enough' NOT "Good enough as an approximation" Simply W_R_O_N_G.
 
It seems to me that one of the main problems in these models is that one can isolate part of a complex system and model performance. But when you are forced to deal with the complexity of all the elements, nodes, forces, acting through time and in space the complexity seems to make modeling impossible. How can a model which by definition reduces complexity reliably predict complex outcomes? This seems to be the essential contradiction / conundrum.
Spot on target there Jeffrey.
 
In that regard, I should mention another couple of things about enik's experiments. The first is that the collapse scenarios, which ran from single perimeter element impacts in one story drops to quarter-tower (coreless/floorless) progressive collapses, were mostly 1D in nature. The environment is 3D but the setup and constraints make things effectively 1D. The only thing which deviated significantly from that was offsetting the top section before dropping. I think that was the proper approach for a variety of reasons, at least for initial experiments, and it fortuitously allowed comparison with other 1D models...
And at the risk of boring repetition the WTC Twin Towers collapses cannot be validly explained in 1D. Some sub aspects possibly but the overall mechanism CANNOT. And IMNSHO the full explanation of mechanism is not assisted in any valid way by 1D modelling. Before shooting me please read again that I said "full explanation".

(Twin Towers "initiation" needs 3D - cannot be explained in 2D or 1D. "Progression" needs 2D. Explanation if anyone needs it.) (I'll reserve comment on WTC7 - the issues in contention are different.)
Second, as flawed as these simulations were, they're generally far better than one should expect from game engines which are stretched beyond their applicability. On the other hand, a game engine or algebraic model properly applied could (and has) produce results similar to enik's work, with the benefit of mere minutes for setup and taking a few seconds to run instead of days. In one of the threads I linked, there is an overlay graph with one of my analytical step-wise runs and enik's early perimeter impacts. Practically the same result...
Valid comments if your interest is using Game Engine or similar software. (I think - it's not my game - I'm the structural engineering person.) My interest is in understanding and explaining WTC collapse mechanics - not in using the tools of the trade whether they assist or not.

Sure, they could both be wrong, but I always take corroboration between widely disparate environments to be a positive sign. In this case, my models (plural) were already matched to Greening's and Bazant's fairly closely (though not Seffen or some others) so it is a broad corroboration of the 1D approach. My takeaway from that was that a good physics model will give sufficient results for the aggregate or general case and be far superior in terms of effort and time. In the time it takes to set up and run one grand FEA modeling one particular scenario, you can run much simpler models thousands of times and explore the entire solution space....
Provided the solution space includes what actually happened at WTC on 9/11 I am interested. :rolleyes:
 
The risk with this groups is that they may be misled by the pretty colours impressive graphics and be unable to discern the failures or shortcomings in the underlying foundation assumptions or process short-cuts. "They look great so they must be right!" Not so.
I have to admit the pretty colors sucked me in.
 
(regarding a deleted post) Psikey has been banned from this thread, so it's really unfair to discuss him, the focus should be on models.
 
I don't pray a lot...
We're an atheist household but by all means invoke your deity of magical gravity power on our behalf. Perhaps you can develop a tower model made out of duplo that shows how a falling upper section can crush the structure below without itself being rapidly destroyed. We have a lot of duplo so I could then reproduce your experiment at home for my kids.

But I don't mean to derail this thread with whimsy. In all seriousness, when anyone here -- I'm looking at you, JRBids -- can come up with a model-based collapse experiment that validates the theory you present as so self-evidently true, please start another thread to discuss it. You need one, but none exists.
 
We're an atheist household but by all means invoke your deity of magical gravity power on our behalf. Perhaps you can develop a tower model made out of duplo that shows how a falling upper section can crush the structure below without itself being rapidly destroyed. We have a lot of duplo so I could then reproduce your experiment at home for my kids.

But I don't mean to derail this thread with whimsy. In all seriousness, when anyone here -- I'm looking at you, JRBids -- can come up with a model-based collapse experiment that validates the theory you present as so self-evidently true, please start another thread to discuss it. You need one, but none exists.
Good thing we have video of it happening, so that endless conjecture with various models is not necessary.
 
Good thing we have video of it happening, so that endless conjecture with various models is not necessary.
If you think you know how it happened, a model that experimentally validates your explanation would be possible if not easy for you to make. It's no more than the scientific method demands, if you're honest. Strangely, though, no-one can fulfill such a simple requirement. Maybe something to do with Newton's Third Law is the problem for you?
 
I'm looking at you, JRBids -- can come up with a model-based collapse experiment that validates the theory
.

I already asked you a question and you didn't answer it.

https://www.metabunk.org/9-11-consp...ooking-for-their-big-break.t6832/#post-165358

If you think you know how it happened, a model that experimentally validates your explanation would be possible if not easy for you to make. It's no more than the scientific method demands, if you're honest. Strangely, though, no-one can fulfill such a simple requirement. Maybe something to do with Newton's Third Law is the problem for you?

It's up to you to validate your own explanation (whatever that is). You're making the claim.
 
Back
Top