More on beer-can analogy

I have previously written about beer-cans as an analogy for 9/11 twin towers and how they could not have fallen as they did.

Christmas Day 2017 I proved that two empty Banks’ beer-cans would independently support the weight of child A (weighing 25 kilos or 55 lbs) and child B (weighing 45 kilos or 99 lbs). The cans did not buckle.

When cans buckle there is no set uniformity in the way they buckle but it takes an awful lot of kinetic energy to collapse them.

I had previously established that two empty beer cans together weigh 1.2 oz approximately. There are 16 ounces in a pound (avoirdupois).

The weight in ounces of the heavier child B is 99 x 16 = 1584 oz

So the two cans could at least support (1584 / 1.2) = 1320 times their own weight.

It follows that one can would support 660 times its own weight.

Child B

Child B supported by beer-cans

There is no central core to a beer can. Bearing the beer-can example in mind what the authorities want thinking people to believe is that a much more solid structure than a beer-can, with a very strong central core and stabilising floors, with progressively thicker and stronger box-column supports, could not hold the damaged 1.4% of its own weight in structural steel which failed above the undamaged tower below it.

Furthermore they want you to believe that it would indeed crush the structure vertically all the way down to the ground.


One thought on “More on beer-can analogy

Comments are closed.

Up ↑

%d bloggers like this: