The hubris in this post is astounding. You expect me to search the entire internet and multiple forums to find your other remarks under various aliases before I make an observation about your contributions to this thread?
Did I say I expected that? No, I didn't. Instead I explained the situation to inform you and offered an example of what I'm talking about.
And yet when I follow the link you've provided I find the point I make about your comments here is reinforced: you have no constructive criticism to offer with respect to psikey's model.
What is so special about constructive criticism versus simple (and correct) criticism? If an automotive engineer decides to crash test cars using teddy bears instead of vehicles, what constructive criticism would you offer to them? But, the fact is, I've offered constructive criticism many times in many places, including in the discussion I linked. I told him why his model arrested and what would be necessary to change that. That's not constructive? That's giving him the answer!
You're happy to critically analyse his work but you've shown yourself incapable of suggesting how it could be improved or made more representative of a principle you and everyone else here seems to believe is terribly simple.
Incapable? No. Sometimes unwilling because his attitude and demeanor in discussion is abhorrent. Having made many suggestions, regardless of the manner in which I knew they'd be received, I bristle a bit at the notion that I'm incapable of doing it.
You have a physics degree do you not?
Yes.
Then can I ask you how you would go about building a model of the Towers to experimentally validate the mechanic of their collapse through multiple floors?
This can be a tough question to answer, depending on the ultimate objective. To do something at the level of detail of (e.g.) NIST's WTC7 physics simulation seems fruitless to me. I believe the system is too large and complex to expect good results. On the other hand, doing something at the level of detail of psikeyhackr's model is not hard at all in software, I've done it thousands of times with a spectrum of inputs and scenarios. As a result of such exploratory analysis, I understand why it would be difficult to do physically in minature if the objective were to demonstrate complete crushing in the manner of the Bazant analysis. Not difficult if the objective is to model the actual collapse mechanism; Mick's done it here already and you've seen it. Apparently you don't recognize it as such, so I must ask: what was wrong with Mick's model? Do you have any constructive criticism to improve it?
What sort of model wll satisfy you? I'm not trying to be difficult, I want to know. Mick's model is similar in complexity and scale to psikey's, and psikey's level of detail seems okay to you. Based on that, I suggest that what you ask for has already been done unless you're applying different standards depending on who's doing the work. If that level of detail is insufficient, why do you care about means to improve psikey's model? If it's a more sophisticated model you're after, have a look at the work by enik and see if that's more like it:
http://the911forum.freeforums.org/post10861.html#p10861
http://the911forum.freeforums.org/post11030.html#p11030
http://the911forum.freeforums.org/post11868.html#p11868
http://the911forum.freeforums.org/post12000.html#p12000
http://the911forum.freeforums.org/post12213.html#p12213
http://the911forum.freeforums.org/post12340.html#p12340
http://the911forum.freeforums.org/post12443.html#p12443
http://the911forum.freeforums.org/post12488.html#p12488
http://the911forum.freeforums.org/post12526.html#p12526
http://the911forum.freeforums.org/post12925.html#p12925
http://the911forum.freeforums.org/post12956.html#p12956
http://the911forum.freeforums.org/post13265.html#p13265
These are ordered by increasing scale and complexity. Note, in the last one, enik declares "Gravity alone did not bring WTC 1 down" but in fact, his model doesn't arrest so how he comes by this conclusion is anyone's guess. I admire the work very much but I do think his obvious bias could lead others to question the validity.
Do you think it is possible to make a physical scale model that reproduces the effect that occurred twice on 9/11?
Yes, Mick's model. But since that doesn't seem to satisfy you, you'll need to specify what level of detail would. To make something which self-crushes like psikey's model, but does so without arrest, would be quite difficult to do in small scale (reasons have been explained again and again in this thread). Not impossible, just a lot more effort than psikey's. To make something that arrests is easy; a stack of books will do!
Or do you think such a project could only be carried out using software such as Blender?
A lot of useful principles can be demonstrated by a game physics engine. I've used PhysX extensively, but only after a long period of experimentation to determine its limitations and weaknesses then confining models to those boundaries. I found that it was really only adequate for the simplest of systems (I kept it to 1D), which incidentally includes metamodeling psikeyhackr's model as well as Bazant's. The same is undoubtedly true for Blender. Most of my work in this area is found here:
http://the911forum.freeforums.org/solid-mechanics-simulacra-of-the-toy-variety-t163.html
Notice the disclaimer of 'toy' right there in the thread title. I'm under no illusions about the nature of the experimentation. However, it replicates Bazant/Greening style analysis perfectly, and psikey's as well. So, it again depends on what you're looking for. If you accept psikey's level of detail, then what you ask for has already been done, years ago. If not, then I'm not sure why we're laboring so much over psikey's model.