A nice attempt
@Marc Powell. My thoughts are:
Good thinking. Worthy of discussion. I suspect that it is negated because all factors on the left are reducing proportionately as the rungs cease to be involved. So the falling weight is also reducing, countering the reduced air resistance? And, at this stage, I haven't a clue as to a full comprehensive analysis - YET!!. So, once again I'll take the risk. It looks "close enough" to offer a
case to answer as the lawyers would state it.
Certainly it is a better topic for challenging our thinking and reasoning skills than some of the other divergent subtopics.
I'll challenge you back with that one. Each rung, as it impacts is the same tilting beam model as the several times referenced ball into cup proof of "over G". So, if you want to argue that it is not relevant, I suggest the burden of proof is yours. Go for it.
And, for those who, like me are interested in the meta-process denial aspect littering this thread. It is in logical process the same situation as those arguments claiming that "over G" can be dismissed from consideration in WTC7 collapses. There isn't enough data or evidence to warrant disregarding the issues. It doesn't need "proof" that it is a factor. It needs proof that it is NOT. << Some lovely irony for those who may appreciate it.