Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

What do you think of this model?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » September 11 Donate to DU
 
sweetheart Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-17-07 05:24 PM
Original message
What do you think of this model?

The mesh is .7mm in size, steel, with 8 columns per building-side.

The model is 350mm tall, 52mm wide at the base. It is drying in quickset cement in a milk bottom
as this photo is taken. The mesh is 6mm square.

To represent the building core, a coat hanger 2mm in diameter,
and 7 columns of that same mesh bent in a U-shape around it.

I was planning to load the structure by wrapping it in 2 layers of
tinfoil, putting crushed coal in the bottom half soaked with kerosene,
and then the top, loaded with nails, poked through the mesh to simulate
the load, and i plan to cut a hole in the side equivalent to the aircraft.

This experiment planning to put 500ml of gasoline/ kerosine mix
in the milk jug around the base and set it alight using a welding gloves
and a visor, outside tomorrow after the cement is hard. If its still
standing, to then apply a blowtorch to the impact point. I could try loading
it with sand wrapped in plastic, instead of nails... ?

How many columns would you cut to make the simulation as realistic as possible given the proportions?
I was gonna cut 6 out of 8 and 1/2 of the center columns at the south tower impact.

How many grams of weights would you load in to the top of the structure to give a reasonable loading?

I'll post this progress with photos on this thread.. If you have inputs that would
make this jetfuel-melted-the-structure simulation more helpful, please advise.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Kingshakabobo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-17-07 05:34 PM
Response to Original message
1. Is this a joke?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BrokenBeyondRepair Donating Member (642 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-17-07 05:39 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. looks like someone using their creativity and imagination help get
a better understanding of a major event where conclusive answers are in short supply.

can't wait to see the rest..
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sweetheart Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-17-07 05:49 PM
Response to Reply #1
3. No, its a public experiment
I apologize that i cannot afford to do a million dollar fancy model.

But c'est la vie, why not experiment, its life afterall, and its only
a bloody milk jug... i can re-use the nails, i'm dead sure they ain't
gonna melt and i'm not even being cynical. Worst case, a public
experiment without a conclusion at the outset, is that not how
we do 'science' and inquiry? I can run a few experiments myself
if i get the proportions right, and i'll be able to put this issue
to rest in my own mind.

My prediction is that it will fall like a tree... and i've not run
this experiment yet... cement is still drying.

I'll also wager that there are no satellite-visible fires burning
24 hours later... i bet its out in 30 minutes tops.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kingshakabobo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-17-07 06:15 PM
Response to Reply #3
9. How will you account for the "brittleness" of the "column" and/or connections?
(I'm using "brittleness"......perhaps an ME on this forum can direct me to the correct terminology)

Also, is that mesh coated with some sort of film/plastic coating?

In other words, it's clear that a good number of the WTC columns/perimeter columns separated and/or snapped at their connections during the fall...Do you agree? Whether you believe in controlled demolition or not, you have to agree there was significant separation of most of the structural members. How do you account for the fact that your mesh connections are fused/welded at every intersection in a completely different scale to weight ratio?

Do you plan on strapping, say, 25 or thirty firecrackers to your "columns" to simulate controlled demolition?......for fairness sake.

Also, would you mind supporting your model at the base at laying it down on its side to see if it comes apart and or topples over? Meaning, will your mesh welds break? Let us know what happens. Then tell us, if you were to somehow lay a 100 story skyscraper on its side, would you be able to right it and go on about your business without the welds breaking?


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bolo Boffin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-17-07 06:36 PM
Response to Reply #9
13. Thank you.
sweetheart, pay attention. Kingskakabobo is being your friend here.

I suggest, instead of the experiment you propose, to do the one King. proposes: tape firecrackers to every column you have. Hell, strap a firecracker to every place you can strap one to! Load the thing up, every square millimeter, up and down, the whole thing. Add DYEW's thin sheets of metal! Link all those fuses together and set them all off!

Bring us back the pictures.

PS: the laying down the model suggestion is dead on, King.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sweetheart Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-17-07 06:40 PM
Response to Reply #9
14. i was gonna cut some of them to simulate that
I agree that the mesh is overstrong compared to welds, and i will indent
each colum with wire cutters to simulate the weakness of the welds.

I have a bunch of fire-coal-dust, and little chunks of coal, that i was
planning to load in to the core to simulate all the combustibles in the
building... as if they were petrocarbons.

I'll cross wire it a bit using copper wire, to simulate weak breaking joints.

I'm first interested with this first experiment, in whether the steel actaully melts.
My steel is not as good as the steel in the buildings, so it will be interesting to
see if the structure gets that hot when i apply many times the actual proportion
of fuels to the base. 500 ml of gas/kerosine is way more, combined with coal,
way way more petrocarbon than was on that side (not counting thermite).

If i'm to be informed by the actual demolition, i should see the building begin to cantelever,
and then fly apart sideways in 10 seconds. I'm really looking forward to that. As my sizes are
proportionally smaller, it should take just a few second for the whole thing to come down. :-O

:hi: thanks

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MervinFerd Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-17-07 06:56 PM
Response to Reply #14
20. You need a chimney.
Check out post #5.

Enclosing the outside in some way will create a chimney effect, which will increase the temperature enormously. You will get nothing with coals glowing brightly.

And, btw, the object is -not- to "melt" steel, but to get it red hot, at which temperature it is much weaker than at room temp.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LARED Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-17-07 07:26 PM
Response to Reply #3
29. This is not a public experiment, it is a odd CT faith based
post. It's just a new and hardly clever presentation of the same old faith based CT talking points that have been around for many years.

My prediction is that it will fall like a tree... A rather worn out CT article of faith.

I'll also wager that there are no satellite-visible fires burning 24 hours later... i bet its out in 30 minutes tops. That's too ridiculous to even comment on.

The cement is a nice addition.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sweetheart Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-17-07 07:34 PM
Response to Reply #29
32. we'll see how it falls
I told you my hypothesis, it does not make it true. Why is that faith based? You don't know
the scientific method. I'm telling you my hypothesis, so you can critique my bias. What
an article of faith that is!!! ?

I can assure you, that this model has not been around for years, unless you mean as molecules,
and there are no talking points in this, just an empirical test to weigh in to the pile of other
evidence on this subject.

Nothing is new unless its new. :hi: Good morning democratic congress with the power to inquire.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MervinFerd Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-17-07 08:21 PM
Response to Reply #32
38. A scientific test would require another WTC tower. The faith....
is the claim that your model says anything --at all-- about the collapse of those towers. As many here have explained, your model is fundamentally different than the towers; hence, it cannot prove that collapse of the towers from fire is impossible.

Your model -may- however show that collapse is -possible-. With the right distribution of weight and combustibles, it most certainly will be possible to make it collapse.

Assuming you --really-- are new to this forum--sometimes I am naive and gullible--understand that this issue has been beaten to Hades and back to the point of nausea. So, please understand the snippiness--unless you are pulling my leg.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mirandapriestly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-17-07 09:52 PM
Response to Reply #32
44. The hijackers fooling the entire US military is faith based.eom
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LARED Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-17-07 10:04 PM
Response to Reply #44
48. The ENTIRE US military you say?
Now that is faith based thinking.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MervinFerd Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-18-07 09:19 AM
Response to Reply #48
64. Yes. The WHOLE bunch of 'em. Including the Post Office.
And the Boy Scouts.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
vincent_vega_lives Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-18-07 04:59 PM
Response to Reply #64
101. Now, now...
The Boy Scouts are a PRIVATE agency, not a Guv'mint one. Keep your Fascist Institutions straight.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
G Hawes Donating Member (440 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-17-07 09:55 PM
Response to Reply #1
45. Has to be a windup.
Just has to be.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
treestar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-20-07 01:35 PM
Response to Reply #1
147. What is the world is wrong with trying to recreate it on a smaller
scale?

If there is a flaw in the experiment you could point it out.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bolo Boffin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-17-07 05:49 PM
Response to Original message
4. The ability of the inner and outer structures to stand on their own
Edited on Wed Jan-17-07 06:02 PM by boloboffin
...should be your first hint that this structure cannot be used to reproduce the collapse events.

You have put a lot of work into this experiment that doesn't model the WTC towers at all, in the slightest. It is doing you a disservice because you think that by modeling the actual dimensions of the tower, you think you have an accurate representation of all the forces and proportional strengths involved. You do not.

There is a reason that architects and building engineers use computer modeling to predict the effects of structures these days, and why mathematics was used to model structures before that. Physical models don't provide the same kind of information.

The NIST website ( http://wtc.nist.gov ) has a report that models the towers with computers. Lots of physical tests were done to inform that modeling. The buildings fell because of the damage and the fires. They really did.

On edit: Do you think car manufacturers test their cars by throwing little Hot Wheel cars at walls? (thanks, helleon, for that remark)

Seriously. Have you done any calculations to show why the mesh you are using replicates the various strengths of the WTC towers in any way whatsoever? You have zero evidence here that you have tried to control any measure of actual variables in this "experiment". Stop now and see if you can get the moderators to delete this thread for you. That is your reputation slowly drying there. I suggest you get out now while you can still salvage the nails.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sweetheart Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-17-07 06:16 PM
Response to Reply #4
10. i'm sure they did
I saw the videos of them falling as well. I'm dead sure they fell, i went and saw the holes,
clearly it was not done in a film studio.

Re: forces and proportional strengths: The specific density of steel is much higher than any
load in the towers. If i poke roofing nails through that are not making it to the other side:

it will simulate hte load of breaking beams off one side and not the other, much heavier than the actual
loads were due to the specific density of steel.

I find it absurd to suggest that the collapse of tube-shaped steel towers of grid architecture
of a given proportions from jet fuel melting shouldn't resemble each other.

If its all a coverup, as i've recently come to believe, then they've been lying about really
everything, starting with 9/11 their causus belli.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bolo Boffin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-17-07 06:31 PM
Response to Reply #10
11. You find it absurd...
I find it absurd to suggest that the collapse of tube-shaped steel towers of grid architecture
of a given proportions from jet fuel melting shouldn't resemble each other.


Pardon me for asking, but who are you? Why don't you whip out your mechanical engineering credentials and impress us all?

Give me some reason to think you'd have the slightest actual reason for knowing the difference between this model and the WTC towers.

(You know, I threw a Hot Wheels car at a wall and it only chipped the paint. Obviously all of these reports of car accidents are a government plot. Jesus Christ...)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sweetheart Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-17-07 06:45 PM
Response to Reply #11
16. I never finished my M. E. degree
I got interested in other things that seemed more important at the time, but i
still know how to do a simulation that is remotely within proportion.

You'll be able to judge for yourself, as i'll photo what the prepped model looks like.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MervinFerd Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-17-07 06:53 PM
Response to Reply #16
19. Perhaps, one can understand why? :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sweetheart Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-17-07 07:02 PM
Response to Reply #19
21. fair enough
The gauntlet is off for anyone to simulate the world trade
center collapse in a model for less than 50 bucks.

Such were my tradeoffs in the choice of that mesh.

gladly i chose software where the physical dimension folds flat and weighs nothing but time. :hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MervinFerd Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-17-07 07:26 PM
Response to Reply #21
28. Ohhh! It's a BET!???
Edited on Wed Jan-17-07 07:27 PM by MervinFerd
And, you win, if it collapses?

Hot damn! We can help there.

Start with the Chimney idea. Tall as your structure is, you should get a real fine draft.

I'm not sure what to use to enclose the outside. Aluminum foil, I am afraid would melt, and way before the steel is weakened. Thin sheet steel is what you need, but I'm not sure where to get it. And, you have to make sure the enclosure is not supporting anything.

THEN, make sure the heat is directed at chicken wire that is actually supporting something near its maximum weight.

It will collapse.

Are you familiar with the Kingsford Charcoal Starter?

On edit: Oh, and if you are asking honest questions, please excuse the occasional snippy comment. We get a -lot- of knuckleheads here who repeat nonsense endlessly. Becomes tiring.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sweetheart Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-17-07 07:44 PM
Response to Reply #28
35. I have smokeless coal
And fire coal.

I have a coupla butane lighters i can leave inside
the structure to blow up like detonators right where
the plane strike is.

I don't have lighter fluid, but i have smokeless charcoal lighter blocks,
that are super hot to start smokeless coal, so i'll place them all around
the base to the equivalent of 1/12th the building's height, with the coal
lumps in the center cage. I posted a photo of the nail-loading. What those
roofing nails look like on the other side, looks like fish scales, with
the nail heads covering every exterior skin. This should keep the chimney
enclosed long enough and supply the sufficient lateral and twisting forces
on the exterior segments to simulate sagging floors.

Visiting 9/11 and I/P hell's is a pleasure always. :hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ezlivin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-17-07 09:24 PM
Response to Reply #28
41. "Becomes tiring"?
Why would you tire yourself?

Why do you find it necessary to expend so much effort to refute all the clueless foolswho seem to be multiplying exponentiallyout there?

Are you on a mission?

Are you being paid to become tired posting time and again in this forum?

If this is onerous duty why not shirk it? What compels you to come in here and bang your intelligent head against the seemingly impenetrable wall of ignorance erected by the "conspiracy theorists"?

Why do you suffer such fools?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MervinFerd Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-17-07 09:47 PM
Response to Reply #41
43. I'm tired, and I don't like being accused of being a paid schill.
Edited on Wed Jan-17-07 10:06 PM by MervinFerd
I don't like being accused of being a paid "Schill" and that is against the rules.

NOW,

if you must know, I am offended by pretentious fools, ..., and paranoid Conspiracy Cultists--especially when they attach themselves to Progressive causes and the Democratic Party. And most especially when they are, in truth, as happy with Right Wing anti-semitic theories as with "Progressive" ones.

The issue of the collapse of the towers has been settled completely and irrefutably. MANY times. Any person who would keep bringing up the same shithead arguments is either dishonest or dysfunctional. Maybe both.

Edited to remove irritated profanity
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ezlivin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-18-07 02:23 PM
Response to Reply #43
75. You were so tired that you couldn't answer one single question?
A simple "No" could have sufficed. I'm surprised you had the strength to complete that post.

Let's view what you posted:

"...as happy with Right Wing anti-semitic theories"

Well, since I don't have any bone to pick with any Jew with any theory I have, you can toss out that thought.

"The issue of the collapse of the towers has been settled completely and irrefutably. MANY times." No it hasn't. Perhaps to you it has. And if you feel that way, why "tire" yourself trying to correct everyone else?

"Any person who would keep bringing up the same shithead arguments is either dishonest or dysfunctional. Maybe both." Hey, you forgot to add "interested in determining the truth" to that list.

Now let's get to the crux of the matter. I saw what happened on 9/11. I have many questions. Because I doubt the official theory as to what happened I spend a fair amount of time researching, reading articles, reading books, viewing documentaries and engaging in discussion with others. In short, I am interested in determining what happened on 9/11, who was behind it and other facts.

You, however, seem to only come to this forum to disrupt or to chide others for their "shithead arguments". You seem secure in your grasp of the truth, yet find it necessary to "tire" yourself arguing with those you disagree with.

I hope to find the truth. What do you hope to accomplish? Why are you so driven to constantly attack peoples' character, arguments and opinions? What is in it for you and what is your goal?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AZCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-17-07 08:06 PM
Response to Reply #16
37. I'm not sure that you do...
know how to perform a simulation that is "remotely within proportion." Your posts so far in this thread don't display the necessary knowledge, that's for sure. Where's your analysis of material strengths? Your heat transfer calcs? Without those, your model is incapable of telling us anything relevant to the tower collapses.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MervinFerd Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-17-07 07:17 PM
Response to Reply #11
23. Hot Wheels vs a Real Car
Useful analogy.

Drop the Hot Wheels from 10X or 100X its length and there is no damage. Drop a Real Car from 1X its height and it is wreckage.

Drop a mouse from 5X his length, he runs away. Drop a human from 5X his height, he doesn't run again ever.

It's a fundamental thing. Weight increases as the -cube- of dimensions. Cross-sectional area increases as the -square-. Thickness scales as a power of one.

You really cannot model the collapse of a 110 story skyscraper except by building another 110 story skyscraper.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
vincent_vega_lives Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-18-07 09:20 AM
Response to Reply #23
65. We're going to have to start using footnotes and such
I've been using the matchbox analogy for YEARS! :hi:

'course yer all welcome to it... :smoke:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bolo Boffin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-18-07 02:32 PM
Response to Reply #65
80. I'm happy to give credit where credit is due.
I thought I got it from a person over at JREF (not a journal! NOT!), but whoever came up with it, it's apt and relevant.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
vincent_vega_lives Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-18-07 03:13 PM
Response to Reply #80
85. Can't find the link
But I'm sure it was in response to one of Pet Goats famous analogies.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kingshakabobo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-17-07 06:33 PM
Response to Reply #10
12. If you cut a section of that wire mesh to scale and toss in in the air, will it come apart?
Or will it bounce? Do you think the WTC would act the same?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sweetheart Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-17-07 07:28 PM
Response to Reply #12
30. you have an excellent point
I'll knick the mesh tomorrow with cutters to find out a fair weakening regimen
that makes it more realistic for those properties.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kingshakabobo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-17-07 07:34 PM
Response to Reply #30
33. Ok. You have to be fair......
You have to knick the mesh enough to cause it to crumble in to a pile of rubble when knocked over. After all, isn't that would happen if you tipped over ANY skyscraper??? I suggest you make several models to test that mechanism of destruction before you can even BEGIN to simulate the WTC.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LARED Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-17-07 10:08 PM
Response to Reply #33
49. I think you're optimistic to think that
a significant number of CD CT'er think the tower would collapse into a pile of rubble if it did fall over. Based on past conversations a significant number believe the tower should fall over like a tree.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kingshakabobo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-17-07 10:58 PM
Response to Reply #49
50. *sigh*
I know. I'm an eternal optimist.

How do you get the point across that, even in a controlled demolition, the gravity destroys the building. You would think they would be able to figure out that their 'model' isn't ANYWHERE close to being a valid model if you can toss it 10 up in the air and have it bounce when it lands. I try to keep it simple.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sagesnow Donating Member (311 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-08-07 07:58 PM
Response to Reply #10
239. Questions
238. Questions

Can you design the experiment to make your model collapse vertically, nearly in it's own footprint, and at free fall speed?
Can you design the fall so that none of the falling debris hits other buildings not leased by Larry Silverstein?
Can you design the experiment so that the "bathtub" under the WTC is unscathed?
And will you be sure to take out insurance on your model shortly before you invite fiery disaster upon it.
Seriously, I applaud your attempts at creating a realistic model of the WTC demolitions and only wish someone would provide funding to construct a realistic demonstration of the disaster.

Thanks for your efforts, sweetheart.

(I reposted this higher in hopes that OCTers might see it.)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MervinFerd Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-17-07 06:01 PM
Response to Original message
5. You can't make it a valid model. Sorry.
A 110 Story Skyscraper is just fundamentally different from a hardware cloth structure. Things just don't scale linearly, a skyscraper has thicker beams in the bottom, acceleration of falling bodies is non-linear... Just doesn't work.

The things you -can- test with this are not even remotely controversial. --Of course--, if you cut enough wires, the thing will fall. And, --of course--, if you get a hot enough fire, the thing will fall. The only possible question is whether airplanes could cause -enough- damage and fire for collapse, and this model doesn't test that.

But, if you want to make it, at least entertaining, do these things.

1. Add weight to top until it is near collapse.

2. Wrap the outside with sheet metal to form a chimney and fill the interior with charcoal. Soak the charcoal in lighter fluid, especially at the bottom, and set it afire. You will get a -really- hot flame which will certainly weaken or melt the chickenwire if it contacts it. The only doubt I have is that the outside doesn't get very hot. So, the center needs to be supporting substantial weight.

(I'm thinking of one of those charcoal lighter things--Kingsford sells one--. You fill it with charcoal, put some newspaper in the bottom, and get a really spectacularly hot fire. Like a blowtorch. The Kingsford model has some holes in the sides)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nebula Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-17-07 06:09 PM
Response to Reply #5
7. A blowtorch to melt the wire model?
That's called cheating.

Try kerosene instead. Since it's the same kind of fuel that used in aircraft, you'll get more accurate results.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MervinFerd Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-17-07 06:50 PM
Response to Reply #7
18. Charcoal. It gets as hot as a blowtorch if it gets enough air.
Oh. Yeah.

The only thing that can melt steel is Thermite! Right?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Contrite Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-29-07 12:36 AM
Response to Reply #18
215. Wow,
I'd better watch my grill!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nebula Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-17-07 06:02 PM
Response to Original message
6. Don't forget the magic jet fuel


It's even better than dynamite.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Twist_U_Up Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-17-07 07:23 PM
Response to Reply #6
26. Better than Thermite
I hear the jet fuel made it allllll the way down the elevator shaft to the basement where after the collapse it fed a fire for weeks.

Magical
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
vincent_vega_lives Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-18-07 02:44 PM
Response to Reply #6
84. Not magic, just slower (n/t)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DoYouEverWonder Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-17-07 06:15 PM
Response to Original message
8. You would also need
to add thin sheets of steel for the floors.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ezlivin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-17-07 06:41 PM
Response to Original message
15. Check out what the Brits did
Edited on Wed Jan-17-07 06:42 PM by Ezlivin
They built a multi-story steel structure and actually did the measurements. You can read the entire PDF report here.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bolo Boffin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-17-07 06:47 PM
Response to Reply #15
17. In 1998.
You think a eight story structure successfully produces the same kind of forces that the WTC towers underwent?

Tell me something - any structural damage to that eight story structure?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kingshakabobo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-17-07 07:16 PM
Response to Reply #17
22. ..
Isn't it funny how the CTers will quote tests conducted to better protect steel framed structures from collapsing........structures with state of the art fire-proofing........and then deny that steel framed structures can collapse from fire.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ezlivin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-17-07 09:26 PM
Response to Reply #22
42. Isn't it ironic
That people can label those they've never met?

That people can read all sorts of things into a link, a sentence and a photograph?

The Amazing Kreskin has nothing on you. Really.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ezlivin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-17-07 09:18 PM
Response to Reply #17
40. Steel was completely different in 1998
In fact, all of physics was completely different. Even fire didn't get as hot.

No research done anywhere, at anytime with anything remotely similar to a structural steel frame can ever provide any evidence useful today.

Even if every single skyscraper in the world were ignited and stood without collapsing, that would mean nothing.

Why? Because I have that old time religion! Amen!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
vincent_vega_lives Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-18-07 02:40 PM
Response to Reply #15
82. NIST
Other building fire and structural failure investigations in which NIST has participated or led include:

Terrorist attack, Pentagon, Washington, D.C., 2001
Apartment fire, New York City, 1998
Terrorist bombing, Murrah Federal Building, Oklahoma City, Okla., 1995
Building fire, Happyland Social Club, Bronx, N.Y., 1990
Tank failure, Ashland Oil Co., Pittsburgh, Pa., 1988
Building fire, First Interstate Bank Building, Los Angeles, Calif., 1988
Building fire, Dupont Plaza Hotel, San Juan, Puerto Rico, 1986
Highway ramp failure, East Chicago, Ind., 1982
Condominium collapse, Cocoa Beach, Fla., 1981
Cooling tower collapse, Willow Island, W.Va., 1978
Apartment building collapse, Baileys Crossroads, Va., 1973

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Twist_U_Up Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-17-07 07:18 PM
Response to Original message
24. I think not.
If this was to work you would have to scale down every nut,bolt,beam,truss,bridging,deck pan,interior,exterior materials etc. etc, etc. to their exact dimensions. You would need fire proofing,elevators etc.

You would also need to replicate the damage to the building and assume how long and how hot the fire got.

Then after you got this done, round up a feild of the best engineers from around the world to witness the fire and collapse. Then with their approval that this was done to near perfect simulation.
The OCT crowd will still call you Kooky.

Funny how that works.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bolo Boffin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-17-07 07:22 PM
Response to Reply #24
25. Tell me something, a little thought experiment...
If you were to scale down a human being to the size of an ant, all parts present and proportional, and put an ant and our scaled-down human being in an arena to fight, who would win?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Twist_U_Up Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-17-07 07:25 PM
Response to Reply #25
27. Can your little person use Anthrax ?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bolo Boffin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-17-07 07:31 PM
Response to Reply #27
31. No. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Twist_U_Up Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-17-07 07:39 PM
Response to Reply #31
34. How well trained is your little man in survival ?
Is he a master with weapons ? Can he use weapons ?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bolo Boffin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-17-07 07:52 PM
Response to Reply #34
36. This is a simple test in reasoning.
The man has only his hands. If you like, you can posit him without fight training.

Which will prevail?

Alternately, you can scale an ant up to human size, and set them in the arena.

Who will win?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MervinFerd Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-18-07 07:05 AM
Response to Reply #36
57. The scaled one will be dead. So he loses.
You haven't go an answer, so I jumped in.

If the ant is scaled up, his legs break and he can't breathe. Among other problems.

If the man is scaled down---it doesn't make much sense. But lots of structures are too small to function.

Don't know if that is what you are looking for....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mmmlink Donating Member (75 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-17-07 09:14 PM
Response to Original message
39. You need to connect each
row of the exterior column to the interior column, i.e. you need the floors.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
achtung_circus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-17-07 09:59 PM
Response to Reply #39
46. Not just floors,
but floors that structurally connect the centre core and the perimeter and transfer loads back and forth between the two...

all to scale, of course.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MervinFerd Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-17-07 10:00 PM
Response to Original message
47. What --can-- a model like this show?
The claim ("hypothesis") is that "Ordinary fire -cannot- cause a steel structure to collapse".

This is clearly false and falsifiable.

It should be possible to design a very simple structure in which very ordinary and unthreatening materials--charcoal, wood, paper, kerosene--get iron hot enough to sag dramatically under load.

I'm thinking of a Kingsford Charcoal Starter, which produces a very hot exaust near the center. If you arranged to have a steel rod across the top supporting a weight in such a way that it sagged when weakened by heat, that would be a demonstration of the principle.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sweetheart Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-18-07 05:48 AM
Response to Reply #47
54. Its a systems test


It is a crude test of a system of architecture and its strengths and weaknesses.
This is the structure leaning at a 45 degree angle against the back of a chair,
clearly it is too strong, and i'll need to weaken it.

What i do see, in this systems test of a steel-grid architecture is its
incredible strength. I wonder how many degrees the world trade center could have
been bent over before it fell apart... like if you laid the building down, when would
the structure fail... how many degrees. I would like to know this angle, as i
can see the model fail if i push it too hard with my hands. Its soft wire mesh,
and any part can easily be bent with fingers.. except the coat hangers depending on your fingers.


Here is the intended explosives for this experiment. 2 full butane lighters of normal type, new
and unused. These i'll place in the structure right where the plane hits. 4 coal firelighters
for lighting coal-burning furnaces. 200 grams of fire coal (dish weighs 100), and 50cl of kerosine
(bottle is empty, i'll fill it at the last moment before t0)

I also feel i'm being generous with the combustibles...
given the extra rigidity of my structure, to scale, my experiment would be like filling the bottom 20 stories
of the world trade center with coal, removing all the floors to make the tower in to a giant chimney, and
enclosing the tower in a lake 10 stories deep of kerosine, 5 acres in area... a tad more than fell out of
those fuel tanks... to really give the elevator shaft theory a boost....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MervinFerd Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-18-07 07:01 AM
Response to Reply #54
55. It is ---NOT--- a systems test. Haven't you been listening at all?
Edited on Thu Jan-18-07 07:02 AM by MervinFerd
Your tiny model is different in ---FUNDAMENTAL--- ways from a 110 story skyscraper. Think Hot Wheels vs Honda Civic. Think Mouse vs Elephant. Think Ant vs human.

Besides the problem of scale, the structures are built in a fundamentally different way. Chicken wire is welded together at every crossing. The WTC was built of individual beams fastened by weak connectors. It was designed to resist the expected forces, not all forces. The WTC was more like a house of cards than an oak tree.

You -------MOST CERTAINLY------ could not have laid the WTC on its side and picked it back up in one piece.

Good Grief.

How far did you get in ME?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Contrite Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-18-07 12:45 AM
Response to Original message
51. You need a hat truss.
Also, a concrete core.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
vincent_vega_lives Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-18-07 02:31 PM
Response to Reply #51
78. WHERE'S THE MEATBALL ON A FORK? (n/t)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bolo Boffin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-18-07 02:40 PM
Response to Reply #51
81. You didn't mean to say concrete core, did you?
That was a joke, right?

Because the WTC towers didn't have a concrete core.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Contrite Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-19-07 01:02 AM
Response to Reply #81
108. That depends
Edited on Fri Jan-19-07 01:40 AM by Contrite
On what you read.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/1540044.stm

The building's design was standard in the 1960s, when construction began on what was then the world's tallest building. At the heart of the structure was a vertical steel and concrete core, housing lift shafts and stairwells.

Steel beams radiate outwards and connect with steel uprights, forming the building's outer wall.

All the steel was covered in concrete to guarantee firefighters a minimum period of one or two hours in which they could operate - although aviation fuel would have driven the fire to higher-than-normal temperatures. The floors were also concrete.

The building had to be tough enough to withstand not just the impact of a plane - and the previous bomb attack in 1993 - but also of the enormous structural pressures created by strong winds.

Newer skyscrapers are constructed using cheaper methods. But this building was magnificent, say experts, in the face of utterly unpredictable disaster.

http://algoxy.com/conc/core.html

Some in the UK still think the WTC tower core was built as shown below. Basically a pre-stressed concrete design. Yamasaki had reviewed the design, and found no contractor that could build a 1,300 foot column of that design. We all know the towers had their stairwells and elevators inside the core.

The design was a "tube in a tube" construction where the steel reinforced, cast concrete interior tube, was surrounded with a structural steel framework configured as another tube with the load bearing capacity bias towards the perimeter wall with the core acting to reduce deformation of the steel structure maximizing its load bearing capacity. All steel structures with the proportions of the WTC towers have inherent problems with flex and torsion. Distribution of gravity loads was; perimeter walls 50%, interior core columns 30% core 20%.

Steel, no matter what temper, no matter what bracing is used, ends up with an overall flexation that exceeds design parameters for defining when deformations and failures occur. These were facts I learned from a documentary in 1990 about the construction of the north tower. Yamsaki's decision making process was outlined and rejected core designs identified.

Both the WTC 1 & WTC 2 towers had a rectangular cast concrete core structure formed into rectangular cells that had elevators and stairways in them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bolo Boffin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-19-07 02:07 AM
Response to Reply #108
109. Oh my G--
Welcome back, Christophera.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
vincent_vega_lives Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-19-07 09:56 AM
Response to Reply #108
118. Here we go again
vertical steel and concrete core,

The concrete refers to the floors. Extra inch thinckness in the core area.

Steel beams radiate outwards and connect with steel uprights, forming the building's outer wall.

I assume you mean trusses, where you say "steel beams" cuz that would mean much more weight.


All the steel was covered in concrete to guarantee firefighters a minimum period of one or two hours in which they could operate - although aviation fuel would have driven the fire to higher-than-normal temperatures.

So all the spray on fireproofing was for....?


There was NO concrete core.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Contrite Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-20-07 01:26 AM
Response to Reply #118
137. No, here we do not go again
Edited on Sat Jan-20-07 01:32 AM by Contrite
First, I'm not Christophera.

Second, the entire core or no core debate is pretty crazy. What is up with the lack of detailed drawings or photos to confirm this or not?

Third, the quotes you repeated are from the article posted, not from me.

Fourth, even accepting that there was nothing but 2-inch thick gypsum board, it's still hard to swallow all of NIST's explanations. They rest their case mainly on the loss of fireproofing materials by virtue of impact. Yet, on floor 81 of WTC2, Stanley Praimnath had to punch through a gypsum wall to get to the stairwell, although he claims he saw a wing through his doorway.

http://www.ernoe.de/en/storys/wtc.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-18-07 04:15 AM
Response to Original message
52. How do you know the size-to-strength ratio is similar to
that of the towers?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sweetheart Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-18-07 05:02 AM
Response to Reply #52
53. A structural test

Here is the structure with nails loaded on the top, and
a 4 KiloGram stone perched on top. If i wobble it, it bends
very slightly, like the WTC did in the wind.

I'm very impressed with this kind of architecture. The center column
is fastened to the outer wall with some bailing wire 'hat' beams...
that a tiny wire structure could support a 4KG stone 350mm in the
air gives me new respect for the WTC structure... it was much stronger
than i realized.

I don't want to try a much bigger weight, as i think i'm up at the top
limits of its capability without yet wiring the trusses on every floor.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MervinFerd Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-18-07 07:10 AM
Response to Reply #53
59. OK. 4 kg.
You need to cut wires until it starts to sag.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sweetheart Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-18-07 07:03 AM
Response to Original message
56. The impact point of the aircraft simulating WTC 2

The skin is separate from the building, aluminum, but so one can
see the 2 butane lighters positioned there to explode. This model
presumes that all the floors of the world trade center have been removed
and replace with coal and fire-lighters below the point of impact.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MervinFerd Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-18-07 07:08 AM
Response to Reply #56
58. Just out of curiosity, how much weight is this supporting?
And what fraction of the maximum weight the structure can support?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TankLV Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-02-07 12:18 AM
Response to Reply #56
223. "minor" point - the "skin" WAS the "structure". There was no "curtain wall"
the glazing ("windows") were installed BETWEEN the "structure".

The only thing that could even remotely be considered "skin" was the glazing between the exterior STRUCTURE.

you guys crack me up...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LARED Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-18-07 07:36 AM
Response to Original message
60. A comment
I applaud your curiosity to learn something from this model. I'm sure it will be a valuable learning experience.

Here's the but

But, you should realize that what you have created in no way tells you anything about the behavior of the WTC on 9/11. As many have tried to point out, it's simply is not a model that CAN tell you anything.

Have fun with it
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sweetheart Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-18-07 08:33 AM
Response to Original message
61. OK, here she burns







The structure is entirely loaded with steel ball bearings on the upper 3rd.

I'll take it appart and weigh all the bits when it cools down.

I already tested it with the 4 kilogram weight, and she's peachy keen.

After observing this, i know that there is absolutely no way in hell
that jet fuel could have harmed that structure. I kept using the blowtorch
to see if it would burn hotter, and it melted the aluminum skin with the
coal fires inside the column.

I'm disappointed, i expected the top of the building to vaporize and fly
apart sideways, and then the rest to come smashing down on to the
foundation throwing the ball bearings all over the place.. Then i expected
it to smoke for several months. It got hot at the bottom, i could see the
mesh turning red from the heat by the fire lighters.

I agree with the critique that my structure model was overstrong, however, i compensated
by loading the building with 70 stories of coal, sitting in a 3 acre lake of kerosine, 10
stories deep, with special ignitor blocks embedded all over the towers to burn hot.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LARED Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-18-07 09:01 AM
Response to Reply #61
62. Now I get it
This is satire

Very clever, you had me going for awhile.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MervinFerd Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-18-07 09:16 AM
Response to Reply #61
63. Good one. Thanks for the laugh.
Edited on Thu Jan-18-07 09:17 AM by MervinFerd
What a crock.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-18-07 10:13 AM
Response to Reply #61
67. You left out the stone in the fire test?
If the model behaves like the towers wrt 'swinging in the wind' only with the weight of the stone on top, then the stone is part of the model and should not be left out in the fire test.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sweetheart Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-18-07 01:48 PM
Response to Reply #67
70. it was blocking the flue
I figured the best hope to get anything to happen was to the thing
running like a chimney, and the stone was blocking the top hole so i took it off.

The structure is still in amazingly good repair. I will probably be able
to run a second test with it, this time with gasoline as jet fuel, more and the stone
on top...

I noticed how much this experiment looked (to me), like the wtc burning, just
without the demolition at the end. I did not realize how cool kerosine burns.
There simply is not enough energy in that kind of fuel to achieve anything like
the demolition force of the actual attacks. I now realize, that without demolition
charges, the worst damage that should have transpired at the world trade center
south tower was the partial collapse of the top bit.

A building with an intact skin does not burn easily.. the official story makes
it sound like those type of buildings are highly flammable, but i found it to smoke
a lot, and had to use a blowtorch a few times at the beginning to get the whole thing
lit.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
vincent_vega_lives Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-18-07 02:25 PM
Response to Reply #70
76. Have you considered a job with these folks?

http://www.absconsulting.com/companyOverview.html

Perhaps you could submit your model simulation as a resume? See what they think?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-18-07 03:50 PM
Response to Reply #70
88. So it a test run
Fair enough.
It might be interesting to see how weak you can build it before it does collapse, including the weight of the stone. I think ideally you'd distribute the weight of the stone throughout the building.


Here's some info about fuel and temperature

There is a direct relation between the emissive color of any material, and it's temperature (save for a very few exceptions under certain conditions). This is known as "blackbody radiation". Orange glowing steel is as hot as an orange flame in a campfire.
The easiest way to make a fire hotter is to add more oxygen (ie blast furnace), the increased temperature of the fire and anything heated by the fire will be seen as a brighter color.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackbody_radiation
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TankLV Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-02-07 12:22 AM
Response to Reply #61
224. Hahahaha! That's a hoot!
Can I use you in court?

I needed a laugh today...

got to have a complete set of construction documents for a large hotel project by March 19 I was just told today - that was my first laugh of the day...and the Owner hasn't even agreed to the basic design yet...

...but I bow to your "logic" - my almost 40 years of professional training and experience are worthless compared to your "knowledge"!

Priceless!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
vincent_vega_lives Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-18-07 09:35 AM
Response to Original message
66. The major problem with this type of simulation
is that when you scale down, you vastly scale up the strength of material bonds and vastly scale down the effect of gravity.

at approx 18" tall means you have a 1/666 scale model. That means you have decreased the P on the modeled by over 600 times. As for mass you would have to take the weight of the towers (250,000 tons each) and divide by 600. But that would increase the molecular density of the materials by 600 times!

To simulate the effect of gravity and the strength of the materials involved your model at its current size would have to weigh around 1,000 lbs!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kingshakabobo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-18-07 01:39 PM
Response to Reply #66
68. Damn factinistas!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
greyl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-18-07 01:45 PM
Response to Reply #68
69. Yeah, What the Bleep Do They Know? hint hint nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kingshakabobo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-18-07 01:49 PM
Response to Reply #69
71. This experiment confirms my darkest fears.....
THE WTC BUILDINGS ARE STILL THERE!!!!!!!!!! THEY NEVER FELL!!!!!!!!! IT'S AN OPTICAL ILLUSION!!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
salvorhardin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-18-07 02:26 PM
Response to Reply #71
77. It's all part of the vast potato based conspiracy n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TankLV Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-02-07 12:24 AM
Response to Reply #71
225. My god, you are right! Why can't anybody else see this obvious point!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kingshakabobo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-18-07 01:53 PM
Response to Reply #69
72. On a lighter not, my block/blockee list dropped by one.....
.....Holocuast denial .....I hate DU nazis. I wonder if we will see much of her trusty side-kick?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nebula Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-18-07 02:17 PM
Response to Original message
73. If only the Twin Towers were constructed of chicken wire
...they would still be standing today.


Who needs core columns? This neat little experiment proves the superior properties of industrial-strength chicken-wire!




(Now we know what to construct the new Freedom Tower out of).


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
vincent_vega_lives Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-18-07 02:20 PM
Response to Reply #73
74. could it be?
A sense of humor? Though I thinks the irony of your joke escapes you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nebula Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-18-07 02:32 PM
Response to Reply #74
79. No, I'm serious
After 9/11, we have made this breakthrough. A stunning new development in modern high-rise construction.

Mark my words: Chicken wire is the wave of the future.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
vincent_vega_lives Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-18-07 02:42 PM
Response to Reply #79
83. Apparently
If this simulation is believed to be accurate! :hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nebula Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-18-07 03:29 PM
Response to Reply #83
86. Well, I believe
the idea that fire makes steel columns fail, when we can't even get it to harm chickenwire, is pretty funny.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
vincent_vega_lives Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-18-07 03:58 PM
Response to Reply #86
89. Good thing
Yer not designing buildings then.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sweetheart Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-18-07 03:44 PM
Response to Reply #83
87. a postmortem - the beach pebble test


4 kilograms. and she's still stable.



close up of aircraft hit zone, with remains of exploded butane lighters.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
vincent_vega_lives Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-18-07 04:00 PM
Response to Reply #87
90. You realize of course that for this to be accurate
and correctly simulate the stresses the components of the WTC are under, your 18" model would have to weigh around 1000 lbs?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sweetheart Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-18-07 04:18 PM
Response to Reply #90
93. THE GAUNTLET IS OFF
Edited on Thu Jan-18-07 04:27 PM by sweetheart
Gentlemen (on edit-> ;) and Gentle Women and others,

If you don't like my model, then show your better model,
not an NIST spreadsheet, but your one of soldered wire.
Surely a believer can produce a model that reproduces a set of
physical behaviours in miniature on the cheap that resemble the 'actual'.

My model demonstrates that with awesome relative proportions of fuel
and optimal burn conditions with primed coal lighters up the building,
that the structure sink'ed all the heat. There simply is not enough
energy in those fuels, 90 cubic meters of kerosine (the total fuel tank
load) does not have enough joules in it to heat up the structure for
any serious melting.

You are welcome to assert your better models, an i respect being bested
by better science... but so many of y'all claim to be scientists, well
lets see yours baby, not as a critique of this, but your model, show me
a nuclear pancake from an 757 on a steel tube.

Make your model behave on camera like the WTC dropped, and
wimping out that you have to reconstruct the actual building to
test it is a coppout, especially for ME's... they know how to
simulate the calculations in miniature on the cheap, using chopped
up tin cans and a rivet gun, name your contstruction technology of
junkyards, lets see your world trade center drop on 90 cubic meters of kerosene at 500mph.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
vincent_vega_lives Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-18-07 04:24 PM
Response to Reply #93
95. Can't be done
Not on a global scale. Only selected aspects of the WTC could be modeled in narrowly defined simulations. Like conducted by the NIST.



http://wtc.nist.gov/media/gallery2.htm#fire
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
vincent_vega_lives Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-18-07 04:33 PM
Response to Reply #93
97. Try asking these folks

Thats what they do.

http://www.holmesgroup.com/steelfire.html

Structural Performance in Fire

Extreme earthquakes and fires cause steel structures to yield beyond their design capacity, exposing structural weakness and revealing collapse mechanisms. Performance based structural and fire design significantly enhance a steel structures capacity to resist the effects of fire and earthquake.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bolo Boffin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-18-07 04:38 PM
Response to Reply #93
99. No need to get snippy
We tried to warn you as to the grave failings of your model to demonstrate anything about the towers. You went ahead and confirmed your bias anyway.

Here's what you need to do now. Take that mass of chicken wire, just exactly the way it is. Tape as many firecrackers as you can to that thing. Light them off. Do it again. Do it as many times as you want.

Then bring us back those pictures and tell us about controlled demolition.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
vincent_vega_lives Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-18-07 04:56 PM
Response to Reply #99
100. Yep we'll see pulverized chickin' wire everywhere!
Or maybe not? Any bets? :evilgrin:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jberryhill Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-18-07 06:59 PM
Response to Reply #93
105. Why not face up to your own challenge?

Make *your* model drop like a WTC tower, and then tell us what was needed to do it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sweetheart Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-19-07 08:39 AM
Response to Reply #105
111. modellers research
I see some paths we can take as amateur modellers, to investigate the WTC myths.

1 area is to reproduce the visual-actual using explosives (i don't have.. gauntlet).

1 is to attempt to get a steel structure to collapse using the story,
or showing the worst damange possible by petrocarbons on a steel structure..
i'm on to the latter... any of you black powder enthusiasts, the former can be
tested with chicken wire. For all the scientists out there with a bag of cement,
and some chicken wire, the proportions are all on wikipedia.

I'm prepping this structure for a second firing, but i will need to re-set the
foundation in new cement as the milk carton melted and screwed up the still-wet
foundation of the model.

I intend on getting more of the wire and doing a 1/2mm := 1 meter model and perhaps
if i'm still driven to do such tests, a 1mm := 1meter model. Just, now that i know
that none of these models will ever collapse from a fire, i'm wondering what exactly
i'll be doing with them... like when people visit... "Oh, what's with the 3 world
trade centers outside?".. "Oo, they're bird feeders."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spooked911 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-19-07 08:50 AM
Response to Reply #93
112. I can relate to this SO MUCH. I've tried something similar.
"THEY" will NEVER ever try to model.

They will just bitch and moan about how impossible it is.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sweetheart Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-19-07 08:59 AM
Response to Reply #112
113. I saw yours if it is the one with what looks like a rat cage
with a paver. Thank you. You inspired me.
I realize that this thing can be modelled with
everyting from paper-towel tubes to solder and tiny wires,
even toothpicks painted with fireproof paint. To claim that
no model can be created is patently absurd. Thank you very much for your
inspired work. You'd think, considering america's population of amateur modellers
and inspired pyromaniacs, that an annual contest be held to replicate.


If Gas or petrol does not burn as jet fuel, then what is the joules/liter of jet fuel?
(afterthought on another post i just read)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spooked911 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-19-07 09:53 AM
Response to Reply #113
116. Thanks and that was my point! We have so many modelers in this country
I don't know why a physical model can't be constructed.

I did a better model than the small one, described here (model pics at bottom):
http://wtcmodel.blogspot.com /


The undertaking is more complicated than I originally thought, and there are complicating factors for scale-- see this post:
http://wtcmodel.blogspot.com/2006/12/scaling-eulers-for...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
vincent_vega_lives Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-19-07 10:11 AM
Response to Reply #116
121. Please answer this question
Why would fire crackers not shred the chicken wire model when the comparative scaling up of the explosive power of a firecracker (say 500 times more powerful) would severely damage any structure.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
vincent_vega_lives Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-20-07 08:16 AM
Response to Reply #121
141. Buhler? (n/t)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spooked911 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-23-07 12:24 PM
Response to Reply #121
202. since you said please
of course there are relative strength differences--- though I'm not sure about your calculations of 500x bigger firecracker. I don't know that a 500x bigger firecracker would do much to a steel framed tower.

In any case, the point is that this doesn't mean that one can't build a reasonably accurate model if relative strength differences are taken into account.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TankLV Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-02-07 12:38 AM
Response to Reply #116
226. Thanks for the links - the chickenwire model was the lamest thing I ever saw!
Edited on Fri Feb-02-07 12:40 AM by TankLV
Thanks for another laugh for my day!

Good god, do you have an CLUE of what you are talking about? I mean, REALLY!

It is so just so - LAME!

You sound just like the "earth is 7,000 years old" idiots...

Please tell me this is a joke PLEASE!!

Good god....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
greyl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-19-07 10:36 AM
Response to Reply #113
124. "an annual contest be held to replicate" ?
To replicate what happened at the WTC on 9/11? Yeah, that would be fun!

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
vincent_vega_lives Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-19-07 10:13 AM
Response to Reply #93
122. Please answer this energy question
Why would fire crackers not affect the chicken wire model when the comparative scaling up of the explosive power of a firecracker (say 500-600 times more powerful) would severely damage any full scale structure.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nebula Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-18-07 04:02 PM
Response to Reply #87
91. Nice

Wow, you even simulated the plane crash. So I will expect the model to buckle and come crashing down any minute now.


Are we placing bets yet? :evilgrin:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
vincent_vega_lives Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-18-07 04:12 PM
Response to Reply #91
92. My matchbox car was fine after i drove it off a 12" bridge
How bout you try driving your real car off a 120' cliff and report back the findings?

Are we placing bets yet?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nebula Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-18-07 04:20 PM
Response to Reply #92
94. Bad analogy

This is about testing fire, not car crashes.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
vincent_vega_lives Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-18-07 04:29 PM
Response to Reply #94
96. Miss the point.
Its about the inability of fire to cause steel to weaken right?

Then how bout this one?



http://www.tfhrc.gov/pubrds/02sep/05.htm
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nebula Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-18-07 05:04 PM
Response to Reply #96
102. ok, instead of home-made models
lets compare the WTC to other similar structures.


You know, other modern steel-framed buildings.
Can you tell us of any that have collapsed due to fire?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
vincent_vega_lives Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-18-07 05:10 PM
Response to Reply #102
103. Ok, lets ignore that relevant point
And get on to more inanity.

Which ones had a similar design to WTC 1 & 2?

:boring:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nebula Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-18-07 07:52 PM
Response to Reply #103
106. Are you suggesting the Twin Towers can't be compared
to other buildings, because they were somehow flawed in design?

Which is why they collapsed from fire while others didn't?


If anything, the Twin Towers should have been even more impervious to collapse than conventional buildings due to its strength. The unparalleled strength of its core columns was one of the unique features of the WTC.

And WTC 7 DID in fact utilize a conventional design. So why did that building collapse while others did not?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
vincent_vega_lives Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-19-07 09:32 AM
Response to Reply #106
115. Not flawed
but unique. All building construction is a compromise. Cost vs safety. Weight vs height. You could've designed a 110 story building in the 1970s using contemporary concepts but it would have been massively overbuilt and incredibility costly. WTC 1 & 2 used a design that eliminated the bulk and weight of traditional concrete and steel girder frame for a lightweight system that involved placing all the vertical load bearing columns in a small core area, and supporting the floors with a truss system that tied to an exterior perimeter that supported a significant portion of the floor weight. Traditional buildings had supports evenly distributed throughout the internal volume and the facade was just that, for looks, not load bearing. This perimeter columns, truss and core columns SYSTEM meant that each was dependant on the other.

They didn't "collapse from fire". They collapsed from that structural system being compromised. The physical damage of the impact of the aircraft had a significant roll in that compromise, as did the subsequent fire. BOTH need to be considered, not one without the other. as one without the other would most likely have NOT resulted in total collapse.

Why do you insist that the WTC tower were of unusual strength? What does "unparalleled strength of its core columns" mean? Can you quantify that? The core, along with the perimeter columns and truss system were designed specifically to safely hold itself up, and resist predicted wind loading, to include your typical mid-atlantic hurricane. Building design is based on predicted forces and a safety factor balanced against COST.

You are completely WRONG about WTC-7. You ASSUME it is a completely conventional design because it LOOKS like a conventional design on the outside. Due to it's roll as a command center it had modifications to include power generation and fuel system, that resulted in a design compromises that allow for a significant internal void bridged by a truss system. I suggest you look into it.

I hope all this isn't a waste of typing...but I suspect it is.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wickedcity Donating Member (47 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-18-07 11:21 PM
Response to Reply #102
107. The WTC...
...didn't collapse due to fire, it collapsed due to extreme structural damage due to an aircraft hit and the effects of gravity. Steel loses over half it's strength at the temperature jet fuel burns, the structured buckled, it didn't melt.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sweetheart Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-19-07 09:05 AM
Response to Reply #107
114. what temperature does it take
Edited on Fri Jan-19-07 09:08 AM by sweetheart
to pulverize all the concrete in a building in to fine dust, to
blow its structure apart sideways and leave nothing left but bone
fragments from victems, to liquify all the steel in the building's
center and leave a fire burning long afterwards. I'm sorry, but no
energy in that impact, or that fuel, if you add them up as energy equations
can balance even remotely the energy of the damage.

A physicist would be suspect when the inputs are so disproportionate with the outputs.

' go back to sleep, accept the offical story '
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
vincent_vega_lives Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-19-07 10:02 AM
Response to Reply #114
119. Whaaaaaat?
That wasn't THERMAL energy that did that, it was KINETIC energy that pulverized the concrete and blew the structure apart.

All the steel in the building's center was certainly NOT liquified.

Lets see your "energy equations". I did them, the potential energy alone of the part of the building above the crash site amounted to MJ equal to a ton of TNT.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Contrite Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-22-07 04:05 AM
Response to Reply #96
176. What about this part of it?
"...exploded into a fireball that was estimated to have reached more than 1,093C (2,000F) at one point."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LARED Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-18-07 06:25 PM
Response to Reply #92
104. Problem solved. Drive a Tocoma
Them puppies can be thrown a few hundred feet and drive away, no problem

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K2QGTaq13ds
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
vincent_vega_lives Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-18-07 04:37 PM
Response to Original message
98. Perhaps this website will help
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Renegade Paladin Donating Member (22 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-19-07 06:31 AM
Response to Original message
110. You're not going to be able to make it work
Steel wiring doesn't have the same tensile strength as structural steel beams, but that's not the important part. Gasoline and kerosene do not burn at near the heat of jet fuel, and the heat needed does not scale with size. You won't be able to weaken the structure enough, and that won't prove a thing about anything because the materials used don't simulate the conditions enough. To say nothing of the fact that the impact of a to-scale 737 is removed from the equation.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spooked911 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-19-07 09:55 AM
Response to Reply #110
117. Of COURSE it CAN be done
if the scaling effects are taken into account.

Jesus-- where would America be with YOUR attitude?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
vincent_vega_lives Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-19-07 10:03 AM
Response to Reply #117
120. Oh really?
What scaling effects would you take into account and how exactly?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Renegade Paladin Donating Member (22 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-19-07 10:19 AM
Response to Reply #120
123. For starters...
I would use a model that actually needs its supports to stand. The outer shell on hers can stand up by itself.

Honestly, though, this experiment cannot serve it's purpose. It's cool and a good try and all, but there are too many variables unaccounted for to make this scientific in any sense of the word. And even if it did, the experiment makes no provision for the impacts of the aircraft, which were 767s, not 737s. Sorry about the typo above.

Even still, I'm never opposed to lighting models on fire if it's done safely. ;) Since it's already this far along I say go for it, though it can't prove anything.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
vincent_vega_lives Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-19-07 10:40 AM
Response to Reply #123
125. No Offense Paladin
But I didn't ask you. I am curious to know Spookie's thoughts on the subject.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Renegade Paladin Donating Member (22 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-19-07 10:50 AM
Response to Reply #125
126. Ah. Sorry...
The post forms in here mix me up occasionally. Sorry about that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
vincent_vega_lives Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-19-07 10:51 AM
Response to Reply #126
127. No prob.
Yer thoughts on the subject are welcome.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sweetheart Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-19-07 11:26 AM
Response to Original message
128. here is the model brought to failure by blowtorch
Edited on Fri Jan-19-07 11:28 AM by sweetheart
These photos are taken after using the blowtorch for about 2 minutes:


The 4kg stone fell off at this point and the structure just slumped
a tiny bit more:
FAILURE:

(from the back).


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dailykoff Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-19-07 07:07 PM
Response to Reply #128
133. That's an awesome experiment.
I don't think the towers would have shown any failure as a result of planes and fires, but if the story had gone the way we're told, I would expect, at worst, the type of damage your experiment illustrates.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sweetheart Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-19-07 08:05 PM
Response to Reply #133
134. check out this photo:


It is sitting on my table, it is really a disturbing thing
to sit next to and inspect closely... beautiful to look at
if i forget what it symbolizes, but disturbing otherwise,
really, it is emotionally upsetting to sit next to this sculpture.

Then it winks at me with the final moment we last saw each other...

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
William Seger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-19-07 11:46 PM
Response to Reply #134
136. Doesn't that picture tell you...
... that your model isn't really telling you anything useful about how the towers would behave? Or do you seriously imagine that the towers could have possibly bent like that and just stayed there?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sweetheart Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-20-07 08:17 AM
Response to Reply #136
142. The top would probably crumble
and fall apart i imagine. Clearly this structure is more rigid than the actual.

That said, using fossil fuels i managed to get the structure to the point where
we all last saw it. (before the demo) Had there been no demo, i doubt any
collapse would have involved more than a portion of the top bit.

Certainly this model is not energy balanced, as there simply is not enough energy
left to keep the rubble burning for 100 days... nor to blow the structure apart
sideways and pulverize it at the speed of gravity. As the 'actual observed'
contains these secondary events, i figure that this model is accurate up to the
point that explosives were used to demolish the WTC by bush/cheney's CIA and their
saudi secret strike teams.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
William Seger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-20-07 09:46 AM
Response to Reply #142
143. Why?
> i doubt any collapse would have involved more than a portion of the top bit.

But, why? Theoretical calculations based on the kinetic energy released and the actual strength of the materials (neglecting heat affects, after to collapse started) show that the collapse would be complete. Your model doesn't address that issue at all because, as has been pointed out, the major problem with your model is that the gravitational energy in it, relative to the strength of the hardware cloth, bears no resemblance whatsoever to the WTC towers.

> Certainly this model is not energy balanced, as there simply is not enough energy left to keep the rubble burning for 100 days... nor to blow the structure apart sideways and pulverize it at the speed of gravity.

But it's already been explained to you that the energy to do all that didn't come from the jet fuel. The initial damage from the plane crash and the subsequent fire only weakened the structure enough to initiate the collapse. (And according to NIST's study, they did so in a way that isn't represented at all in your model: the sagging floors pulled the perimeter columns in, which reduced their buckling resistance.) After that first level collapsed, gravity took over: The energy to destroy the structure came from the gravitational energy stored in the building (which your scale model vastly under-represents). That gravitational energy was equal to the energy it would take to lift the whole building to the height of it's own center of mass. How much energy would it take to lift half a million tons about 600 feet in the air? That's how much energy was released when the tower fell, and it was equivalent to about 240 tons of TNT.

The fires that burned for weeks were obviously fueled by combustibles already in the building -- paper, carpeting, plastic, etc. in the offices, and gasoline in the tanks of the cars in the basement parking garage.

> As the 'actual observed' contains these secondary events, i figure that this model is accurate up to the point that explosives were used to demolish the WTC by bush/cheney's CIA and their saudi secret strike teams.

Your model is not accurate in any significant way to support that conclusion. And I'm still waiting for the results of the firecracker experiment, because I don't think your model can be destroyed with firecrackers. Would that prove to you that building demolition with explosives is impossible?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
vincent_vega_lives Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-20-07 08:12 AM
Response to Reply #134
139. Your Model Would be pretty impressive
If you had submitted it as a 6th grade science project.

Otherwise it is a poor parody of real engineering.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sweetheart Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-20-07 11:04 AM
Response to Reply #139
145. Its exploratory
Any modeller is aware that a model is a flawed likeness,
and for those flaws, a discovery of differencing.

You're trying to make this an issue of authority, and education,
like that the NIST is smarter because they get a government budget,
the very intellectual lazyness that ike eisenhower warned us about.

Common sense has nothing to do with 'education'... frankly education
blinds people to their class, giving them a false sense of entitlement
to be more easily fooled, like all the educated people who've supported
bush in this fucking genocide. Buildings don't fly apart and vaporize
burning for 100 days afterwards by kinetic energy of falling concrete;
nope, lazy science, sir. Talk to someone else about your 6th grade
realization of energy dynamics... a 100 day fire of supendous heat!!!
... kinetic puuuhhhh!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
William Seger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-19-07 12:14 PM
Response to Original message
129. Your model would also predict...
... that if the towers had been lifted several thousand feet in the air and dropped, they would have bounced into New Jersey and landed intact. Do you think that's an accurate prediction?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sweetheart Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-19-07 04:30 PM
Response to Reply #129
130. It predicts no such thing
Look 1 post upthread to see what it predicts given excessive heat from a blowtorch.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
vincent_vega_lives Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-19-07 05:03 PM
Response to Reply #130
131. So how does that translate to the WTC Towers? (n/t)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
William Seger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-19-07 07:01 PM
Response to Reply #130
132. Try it
I'm pretty sure it would predict that bounce, if you dropped it from a height of several times its own height. Would that tell you anything useful about the towers?

Yes, your blowtorch experiment proves that heat reduces the strength of steel, which is not surprising. Your original experiment might have actually produced some useful results, too, if you had first determined the maximum strength of your model and then retested it during the fire (and it would also be useful to know what temperature the steel wire reached).

Since you didn't do that, the experiment didn't prove anything; and in fact, if you concluded from that experiment that "ordinary" fire doesn't weaken steel, then your experiment was flawed to the point of producing results that are well known to be false.

And, even if you had measured the before- and during-fire strength, that wouldn't tell you much about how the towers would react to fire, since the structural similarity between your model and the towers is so superficial. (For example, as others have already pointed out, your model's perimeter columns support themselves, whereas the towers' perimeter wall could never have stood under their own weight, much less the weight of the floors, without having the floors every 13 feet to restrain them from buckling.)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sweetheart Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-19-07 08:24 PM
Response to Reply #132
135. no, it would crumple
Its pretty weak, it is filled with ball bearings that are heavier than they
look and they would blow it apart like a bean bag if it fell.

It would destroy it, even if it fell over.. the fire weakens that steel indeed,
does not destroy the building, but certainly weakens it.. the tower is no longer
'springy', but rather more ductile?, it is still strong enough to stand, but much
more like the properties that we wuz discussing upthread, about the fragility of
how it is... weakened.

I'm inclined to think that maybe i should test-fire the next one, so that the
structure is pre-weakened by 1 full firing... Then to do a subsequent test with
the fragile structure. I'm hoping to pursue this using a model twice the size,
this is not over. :-)

The experiment is helpful for subsequent research, in terms of setting expectations and
what things should be studied and measured.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
William Seger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-20-07 02:15 AM
Response to Reply #135
138. Well, you should be able to fix that problem
If it would just fall apart, your seam must not be as strong as the walls, so you should be able to fix that minor problem. (After all, the WTC towers were the same strength all the way around.) I think you do that and then try the dropping experiment. Even if it does get crumpled, I think you should still get a pretty good bounce out of that hardware cloth.

It also sounds like you're not going to try the firecracker experiment. But what would you expect, if you did?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dailykoff Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-21-07 09:27 AM
Response to Reply #138
160. Why don't you build your own
instead of bloviating about his?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wickedcity Donating Member (47 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-21-07 02:40 PM
Response to Reply #160
164. Because...
Edited on Sun Jan-21-07 02:43 PM by wickedcity
...it's pretty much impossible. There are to many variables to account for.
We don't have to build our own to point how that his is flawed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dailykoff Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-21-07 09:26 AM
Response to Reply #135
159. What ever you built these guys would claim it wasn't good enough.
Personally I think you already proved your point far better than the NIST proved any of its allegations, or maybe we should call them insinuations, about the towers.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
vincent_vega_lives Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-20-07 08:14 AM
Response to Original message
140. I have YET to see anyone here address
Edited on Sat Jan-20-07 08:15 AM by vincent_vega_lives
The actual scaling issues presented involving the materials involved.

Other than the Counter-Conspiracy folks of course.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sweetheart Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-20-07 10:36 AM
Response to Reply #140
144. the cross section of beams at the base
I did a little work on this. This website shows the dimensions of
the outside 59 columns... when i scale it to 1/1200th size, i get 2.3278 square millimeters
of the kind of steel they were using.

I'm using a softer steel, and 8 columns * pi (.35)(.35) = 3.078 square millimeters at base
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/arch/core.html

It suggests that the model is positive about 3/4ths a square millimeter per side (but modified
by the weaker steel's tensile strenth).

The core is more difficult to calculate, as it is partly unknown.

the model:

coat hanger: 2 * pi (1mm)(1mm) = 6.28318531 square mm
+ 7 core beams of mesh 7 * pi (.35)(.35) = 2.69 square mm

The core is 48 beams, 6 rows of 8
12 beams or so that are 55 *22 inches of 5 inch steel based on the construction photo from the link above.
The others are slightly smaller, writing says 4 inches steel boxed at 1 yard by 1 foot.
55 * 22 - (42 * 6)-hollow inside = 958 square inches per big column * 12 columns. ->11496 square inches at base
36 * 12 - (4 * 28)-hollow inside = 320 square inches per small colum * 36 columns. ->11520 square inches at base
for 23000 square inches cross section of core at base. /1200**2 = 10.30 square millimeters

CORE:
The actual scaled : 10.3 sq.mm. - model (6.28+2.69)sq.mm. = 1.33 mm2 underscaled on core

Curtain wall:
The actual scaled: 2.3278 sq.mm. - model (3.078)sq.mm. = .75 mm2 overscaled per wall totally 3mm2 overscaled

3mm overscaled at the walls - 1.3mm underscaled at the core -> 1.7mm2 differential in favour of model..
something fairly discounted by the much-softer steel.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
William Seger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-20-07 01:55 PM
Response to Reply #144
148. Scaling doesn't work that way
Edited on Sat Jan-20-07 02:25 PM by William Seger
I didn't check your arithmetic because you're completely off base with scaling, and worse, off track with what you would need to do to make the model accurate. If I have a cube that's 1 inch on each side, the cross-sectional area is 1 square inch and the volume is 1 cubic inch. If I double the length of each side to 2 (scaling 2x), the cross-sectional area would be 4 times larger and the volume would be 8 times larger.

At any rate, the problem is more severe than scaling linear dimensions versus square inches. Look at it this way: Assume that the towers (at least at the level of impact) were made of A36 steel. Under compression, that type of steel has a minimum yield strength of 36 kips (36,000 pounds of stress per square inch), but because of the factor of safety employed in the design, the normal load would have been less than that: According to the "reverse engineering" that NIST did, the perimeter columns had about 5x the minimum capacity necessary to resist their gravity loads (because they also needed to resist the wind loads), and the core columns had about 1.67x factor or safety (which is typical for a gravity frame). Without knowing anything about the number of columns or their dimensions or the loads they were carrying, that means that the perimeter columns were loaded to about 7200 psi (without any wind) and the core columns were loaded to about 21556 psi.

To make your model at least somewhat accurate, one important thing you need to do is get the stresses to be about the same stress per unit area, regardless of the number of columns or their dimensions or the scaling factor.

So, let's assume we can make your model with A36 steel hardware cloth so we don't have to worry about strength differences. From your numbers, I take it that the wires have a radius of 0.35 mm, which would be about .006 square inches per wire, or about 0.038 sq.in. for all 64 of them. So, just to get stresses similar to those in the tower, then, you would need a load of about 275 pounds on the perimeter columns.

Your model core columns are 1 mm radius, about 0.049 sq.in. each, or about 0.02 sq.in for the 4 of them. So, you need about 140 pounds of load on your core columns. (I've rounded all the numbers shown, but I used the full calculator precision for each calculation, so you may get slightly different numbers if you use the numbers I've shown.)

Right away, even if we used A36 steel, putting 415 pounds of load on your model is almost certainly going to cause a problem -- the same problem the towers would have if they were built like your model, without horizontal restraint at every floor: buckling. Buckling causes columns to fail well before their theoretical yield strength because they bend to the side. The model would surely just collapse immediately. But then, if you try to model the buckling behavior precisely, you couldn't do it with hardware cloth and coat-hangers, because column buckling behavior depends on the column shape and the "slenderness ratio" so it would be very hard to duplicate. Simply stated, your model's buckling behavior bears no resemblance whatsoever to that of the towers, which is just as much a problem as the lack of modeling the stresses appropriately.

Even if you did all that, the only thing you could hope to model would be the initial collapse -- and you would only be testing a failure mode (column buckling under heat alone) that is not very similar the one NIST found for the towers, because you're not modeling the sagging floors pulling the perimeter columns in, you're not accurately modeling the way loads would have been redistributed in the early stages of the collapse, and you're not modeling how welded and bolted pieces of steel would have become disconnected, destroying structural integrity. And then, unfortunately, you can't really model what happened after the collapse got started, because even if you scaled the masses involved, there isn't any way to scale the acceleration of gravity over the distances involved.

Does this approach to the analysis give you any insight into why your model doesn't tell us anything useful about the towers?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sweetheart Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-20-07 11:29 PM
Response to Reply #148
150. Thank you
I appreciate your explanation.

Here is version 2 of the model under development:


My theory, is that if i grossy overload the petrocarbon fire far beyond
any reasonable proportions by packing this model with coke-coal, wood,
coal, coal-lighters, all soaked in a gallon+ lake of kerosene and just a
bit of gasoline, not enough to burn the experimentor to death.. that i have
given all reasonable conditions for the structure to explode and burn for
100 days like the actual observed.

This time round, i'll see about taking temperature measurements and i'll
weight this whole structure before i set it in cement.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bolo Boffin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-20-07 11:47 PM
Response to Reply #150
151. Again, the ability of the structure to stand on its own should be your first clue...
...that the model will not replicate one single factor of the WTC towers whatsoever.

Period.

I continue to respond to your exercise in futility and confirmation bias merely to show that not all of DU can be tainted with the inevitable and deserved mockery your model will draw. I beseech you to try the firecracker experiment on this model or on your last. Nothing you have done or are doing is modeling real-world conditions at all.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sweetheart Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-21-07 12:18 AM
Response to Reply #151
152. The heat equation
Edited on Sun Jan-21-07 12:25 AM by sweetheart
The model will be a test of
E_kinetic_impact_767
+ E_fuel_embedded_insitu
+ E_gravity_latent_energy (for all people who bake by dropping a loaf of bread over and over until it heats up ;-) )
+ E_90000_litres_kerosene

must equal

E_observed
+ E_absorbed
+ E_out_of_spectrum

All tests of such a thing are energy equation tests with the tongue-in-cheek already-realization
that if i pack the world trade center with petrocarbons from floor to ceiling, that i will
never ever see what was actually observed... 100 days of fires.

I am modelling in the real-world, using real-world petrocarbons like those that were in the world
trade center that day. I find your negativity inappropriate, i am the first to admit that the structure
is not to scale, not loaded appropriattely, who said it was! But it is made of softer metal than the
real thing was made of, metal that should burn and collapse faster than the actual.

Note that my line of experimentation has specifically been in regards to skewing this energy equation to the
absurd to see if, even without an actual model costing a billion dollars, we can observe some hint of the
actual! I saw a lot of hints of the actual in that last experiment, i know you didn't, but i did... a lot
of them, all the way up to the point where they started using explosives.

You needn't be upset by my line of expermentation. All you need to do is show me ONE!!!!! model behaving
at all like the actual observed on camera, then i'll stop asking. An NIST computer copout is not a repeatable
experiment... where are the scientists in a land of apparent scientists? Where is the inquiry, the curiosity?
Rather, people talk as if its a cult and thou shalt not question the mouth of sauron - bought science from the NIST.

I don't have any firecrackers or any explosives... not an option to test unfortunately.

(on edit)
The energy equation for the several hundred persons's who's pulverized sub-centimeter remains were found in the
deutschebank air ventilators... love to see the physics of that.

We've all seen a lifetime of earthquake fallen buildings, and bodies trapped in that wreckage, even after bombings like recently in beiruit... and nowhere where several hundred people reduced to bone fragments... the physics of how
several hundred person's bone fragments wafted to the top of the deutschebank building is simply outside any
conventional energy equation of the official story)

http://www.saunalahti.fi/wtc2001/military.htm
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bolo Boffin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-21-07 12:37 AM
Response to Reply #152
153. Nukes???? You link to a site that thinks nukes brought down the towers???
Here's a model you can build to test some real-world situations:

http://www.imagesco.com/articles/geiger/01.html

Take that down to Ground Zero and see what it says.

You are confirming your own bias admittedly: the tongue-in-cheek already-realization
that if i pack the world trade center with petrocarbons from floor to ceiling, that i will
never ever see what was actually observed... 100 days of fires.


You aren't testing anything, you are conducting a confirmation bias exercise writ large, and you are spreading the ignorance around. "Sauron-bought science," indeed - "shalt not question"... what questions have you ever asked about the NIST study? Have you even read it? Ask a couple of questions about the study, already!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
John Q. Citizen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-21-07 01:50 AM
Response to Reply #153
154. I have a question that hasn't been answered. Why doesn't NIST have any physical
evidence from the fire floors or the failure floors that confirm their hypothisis that the metal in the towers reached 600+ degrees?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sweetheart Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-21-07 02:45 AM
Response to Reply #153
155. alpha nukes - next-gen neutron bomb with 25meter fireball
If you read his military assessment, he describes a nuke big enough to
superheat the entire contents of the building core, to vaporize the entire
foundation of the core, where the explosion's heat is contained to the
steel frame.

When i watch the videos of the collapses, i can see the explosions with
my own eyes blowing out the beams. I can see the flying bits of ablumating steel,
and the totally abnormal superheated 'brown cloud' over the site.

If foreign military experts think that the USA is using nukes on its own civilians
to exacerbate false flag wars, much as has happened, would it be a suprise that any
american pearl-harbour-PNAC-planned event threaten the world with the new micronukes.
Despite whether the american public is willing to accept irrational physics, does the
world's military commanders really fly in that stupid a pack? Arn't they paid to
know the dynamics of weapons systems. This finn's explanation is a final piece in the
puzzle i could not explain... where did all the heat come from... Where is the pancake stack
if the bloody thing pancaked?

Figure Russia gets to bomb its own people in moscow like putin did to get elected, and
bush has done his own version of the moscow bombings to dictator the world... this false
flag bombings has become a tiresome ruse... in future, a leader that need takes a nation to
war for an honest reason will not be believed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bolo Boffin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-21-07 02:55 AM
Response to Reply #155
156. I don't care what -gen it was, no nukes were used on the towers!
Remember that spy killed with the polonium? It was all over the place!

Go build a Geiger counter and learn the truth. The idea that a nuke was used on the tower is as nutty as the idea that no planes hit the towers. Get real!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
John Q. Citizen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-22-07 01:57 AM
Response to Reply #156
172. Bolo, read the links to the academic papers at the site. Pure hydrogen fusion nukes produce
tritium, which is practically harmless unless breathed in. It has a half life of 12 years. It is almost undetectable without very specialized equipment. A Geiger counter won't detect it. It is dispersed and rendered harmless by spraying water on the particles.

Polonium is a product of fission generation. This is fusion.

Just because you haven't read the academic papers at the link, it's understandable that your apparent lack of knowledge on the subject would lead you to grossly erroneous assumptions. (such as excessive and detectable radioactivity)

By the way, I'm not saying that they used a pure hydrogen/tritium fusion bomb. For one thing, no one has told us that they even exist yet. But there is considerable observed phenomena at the WTC that could be consistent with a fusion bomb.

Unlike fission bombs, fusion bombs can theoretically be built with yields as low as a hundred Kilograms (TNT equivelant) and fit in the palm of your hand.

I was fascinated reading the academic papers, because it was all new to me and I learned a lot. Here are the direct links. You might just learn something, if you read them.

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/physics/pdf/0510/0510071.pdf


http://www.princeton.edu/~globsec/publications/pdf/7_2J...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sweetheart Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-22-07 12:57 PM
Response to Reply #172
183. "target coupling"
Thanks for the papers... it explains something i haven't had a language for,
regarding 'coupling' and the difference between chemical explosives and a fusion
explosive. This specifically was how the blast wave is what does damage in the
former, but in the latter, the xrays and radiation wave, that when superheating
air, produce a blast wave/fireball in above ground nukes. It explains how so much
heat could have been transferred to the buidling's core to melt it and keep it
molten for weeks afterwards.
pp.34:
" a 1 tone FGNW detonated 1 meter away from any solid target leaves 1kj/cm3 in
the first 10cm of any material."
The ablating steel would have detonated the entire
core, and as the core was so dense, the fusion energy would be absorbed in to the
structure with awesome efficiency.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
John Q. Citizen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-22-07 04:18 PM
Response to Reply #183
198. You are welcome. This is facinating stuff, whether it's relevant to 9/11.
or not.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
achtung_circus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-21-07 08:44 AM
Response to Reply #155
157. alpha nukes - next-gen neutron bomb with 25meter fireball
Just wow.

Here's a Fireball.



Sorry it's not brown.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dailykoff Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-21-07 09:21 AM
Response to Reply #155
158. That would explain a lot
and is entirely consistent with the irresponsibility and evil-mindedness of this administration.

I found it interesting that when I went looking for local radiation measurements a while back I discovered that the CDC, based in Atlanta Georgia, (a) evidently has the data but hasn't released it, and (b) isn't testing victims of 9/11 sickness for radiation poisoning or even conducting autopsies, opting instead for psychological explanations a la Agent Orange and Gulf War syndromes.

So as far as I know we have no idea how much or what kinds of radiation were released in downtown Manhattan on 9/11.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bolo Boffin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-21-07 01:23 PM
Response to Reply #158
163. Feel free to make your own Geiger counter as well, dailykoff
Last I heard, downtown Manhattan had not been stored away in the CDC's back room.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Renegade Paladin Donating Member (22 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-21-07 09:10 PM
Response to Reply #155
167. That's insane.
A nuclear initiation on Manhattan Island simply could not have gone unnoticed, and certainly wouldn't have limited itself to just one building without producing any radioactive fallout. The idea of two such initiations is even more absurd. Nuclear weapons by definition cause mass destruction. Even the smallest nuclear warhead in the United States arsenal would have taken the southern end of Manhattan Island along with most of the harbor if it went off inside one of the Twin Towers. It would certainly not have been contained within a single building.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sweetheart Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-21-07 09:58 PM
Response to Reply #167
168. Read what the guy has to say
He's talking about a nuclear weapon without uranium, that just produces alpha radiation
that disappates rather quickly. He says that the technology for these unregulated nukes
is new and very secret still, many years ahead of public disclosure. He explains so many
things that are left unexplained by the official story, and a new angle, how the attacks
were interpreted by foreign military's in the know, as a policy of first use of nuclear
weapons for political gain, to reorder the world petrocarbon-war-prison-statist.

Figure that the explosion is beneath 110 floors of concrete, contained in a steel cage,
contained in a steel tube. The nuke with a 25m fireball would melt and vaporize the core
cage that was VERY strong and heavy steel... that the silverstein report be a prophesy,
it unlike NIST blames 'column failure', than the impossible floor fire theory. As the
nuke would be underground, and more heat than explosive, more like a little 'sun' in
the bottom of a toilet paper tube, dissolving the thing from the inside out, rising up
inside the collapsing structure as the demo charges blow out the walls... but trapped
beneath the remainder of 110 stories of rubble, weeks of molten metal that simply
could never get that hot without some awesome source of power, perhaps a kilotonne of
thermite. It explains how all the concrete and human flesh was blown to dust totally
uncharacteristic of otherwise-similar earthquake collapses.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bolo Boffin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-21-07 10:25 PM
Response to Reply #168
170. You. Have. No. Idea. What. You. Are. Talking. About.
Exhibit A: Every picture you have posted in this thread.

The prosecution rests.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
John Q. Citizen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-22-07 02:11 AM
Response to Reply #170
174. Exhibit B
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/physics/pdf/0510/0510071.pdf

http://www.princeton.edu/~globsec/publications/pdf/7_2J...


If you read these academic papers, you will know more than you do now. I guarantee it.


By the way, both papers say that these weapons are theoretical, not operational. So don't go overboard. But the theory is strong and this kind of weapon will be operational one day. Some facinating science. You will impress your friends at that magician site.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
John Q. Citizen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-22-07 02:04 AM
Response to Reply #167
173. Pure fusion bombs can theoretically be as small as a hundred kilogram yeild
(that's the equivelant of 100 kilograms of TNT)

These are 4th generation fusion bombs, not 1st, 2nd or 3rd genreation fission bombs. You are correct about fission bombs but that's not what these are about.

read these academic papers on the subject.

By the way, I don't claim this is what happened, only that much of the phenomena observed at the WTC would'nt be inconsistent with pure fusion bombs

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/physics/pdf/0510/0510071.pdf

http://www.princeton.edu/~globsec/publications/pdf/7_2J...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
greyl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-22-07 04:04 AM
Response to Reply #173
175. Garrison's Magic Pure Fusion Bomb!
"Theoretical physics can prove that an elephant can hang from a cliff with his tail tied to a daisy."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
John Q. Citizen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-22-07 11:12 AM
Response to Reply #175
179. That's a pretty good assesment of the NIST report greyl. But I posted a
couple of academic papers on 4th generation nuclear devices, that you obviously haven't read.

So there's not much point in discussing their implications.




Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
greyl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-22-07 12:50 PM
Response to Reply #179
182. Show the evidence that your elephant hung from a daisy. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
John Q. Citizen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-22-07 01:17 PM
Response to Reply #182
185. I haven't any idea what the hell you are talking about. What elephant?
who is the person you mentioned a couple of posts ago?

If you are ignorant of the academic papers, there is no reason to pretend you are discussing them, is there?

I know that science isn't something you understand or appreciate, I'm begining to think semantics are a mystery to you as well.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
greyl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-22-07 01:35 PM
Response to Reply #185
187. The elephant is your fusion bomb. Show evidence of their use on 9/11. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
John Q. Citizen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-22-07 01:50 PM
Response to Reply #187
190. Why should I? I never claimed they were used on 9/11. However, I find
the academic papers I provided links to to be very informative and facinating.

Not that academics or science is something that would be of interests you, of course, and I didn't mean to imply that they are.

However, I them interesting. I thought I'd share.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AZCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-22-07 01:53 PM
Response to Reply #190
191. If you want to talk about fusion...
I suggest you begin a thread in the Energy & Environment forum here. We have a number of knowledgeable posters that I'm sure would be happy to share their opinions of these papers.

I, for one, have downloaded the pdfs but am at work and won't be able to read them until later (if I get to them at all).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
John Q. Citizen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-22-07 02:04 PM
Response to Reply #191
192. Or maybe the national security forum, since both of these papers are
about 4th generation nuclear weapons and not directed at domestic energy production.

I put them here because of the post by the OP to the Finnish site. That guy makes some interesting points, but these papars, which are linked from his site, are by far the most interesting and authoritatve on the subject of fusion as weapons.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AZCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-22-07 02:37 PM
Response to Reply #192
193. Fusion is fusion...
whether it is used to create power or used as a weapon.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
John Q. Citizen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-22-07 03:31 PM
Response to Reply #193
196. Perhaps you can lobby for a "fusion " forum?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AZCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-22-07 04:53 PM
Response to Reply #196
199. I always figured it was covered...
under the "Energy" part of the E&E forum title, but I get the feeling you don't agree.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
John Q. Citizen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-22-07 05:09 PM
Response to Reply #199
200. When the N. Koreans announce a nuclear test, it usually doesn't get
posted in the E&E forum, even though articles on domestic energy nuclear reactors often do.

Polonium is made at a number of domestic energy nuclear reactors, but when it's used to assassinate a former soviet spy it ends up even here.

Weird, I know, but that's they way it is.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AZCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-22-07 05:13 PM
Response to Reply #200
201. When they put me in charge...
things are gonna change. Everything will be in it's proper place - mark my words!


(said by the poster who read "If I Ran the Circus" a few too many times as a child)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Renegade Paladin Donating Member (22 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-22-07 09:25 AM
Response to Reply #173
177. Fusion weapons...
A fusion bomb produces a much larger blast than a fission device, not a smaller one. That's what a thermonuclear weapon is: A two-stage hydrogen fusion bomb. Their yields run into the tens of megatons at the high end.

The meat of the matter of a 100 kg nuclear weapon is this: If 100 kilograms of TNT would be sufficient for a task, why not use 100 kilograms of TNT? The inefficiencies of a mass of chemical explosives (i.e. the interior being unable to ignite and explode due to the outer explosives having exploded, as they do, outwards) wouldn't have come into play yet.

Untested, experimental nuclear weapons are thoroughly unnecessary to explain what we saw on September 11, 2001, and in fact would introduce whole new problems, such as: The initiation of a nuclear weapon of any type is, as noted by someone else above, akin to a miniature sun. That kind of flash would not go unnoticed, even underground. There would be shockwaves, ground ballooning upwards around the buildings at the moment of detonation, and most important of all, the detonation of the first device would destroy the second one as it lay underneath the other tower right next door. The theory plain old doesn't hold up.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
John Q. Citizen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-22-07 10:46 AM
Response to Reply #177
178. You didn't read the academic papers by the time you posted, did you?
I can tell from your reply. It's so glaringly obvious, that if you were to read the papers, you would be embarrassed by your own reply. I'm a little bit embarrassed for you.

Oh well. They say ignorance is bliss, so if it makes you happy.....that's your problem.






Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Renegade Paladin Donating Member (22 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-22-07 11:58 AM
Response to Reply #178
181. I hardly have to.
Fourth generation or not, any underground explosion, nuclear or otherwise, causes ground ballooning to some degree. Even if all the other characteristics of nuclear initiation are magically removed in fourth generation nukes, the ground would still surge upwards from the pressure of the explosion.

That said, I'll still read the paper when I have time. The concept sounds interesting. But underground explosives of any sort simply don't fit the facts we have.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
John Q. Citizen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-22-07 01:06 PM
Response to Reply #181
184. Read the papers and get back to me. They are pretty technical in some
parts, but I'm sure if you take the time you will come to understand that fission and fusion are very different processes, and that they have very different properties. I have no background in nuclear physics, but i was able to understand and to learn a lot about why governments and corporations all over the world are pouring lots of time and money into researching and developing these devices.

As the author in the first paper points out, pure fusion is very adaptable to shaped charges, ie directing the force in the direction one desires. He envisions using fusion as a propellant force to launch projectiles, for instance.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Renegade Paladin Donating Member (22 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-22-07 01:29 PM
Response to Reply #184
186. You're not listening to what I'm saying.
I'm sure the papers are fascinating, and I will read them and get back to you. But what I'm saying is that there was no damage to the foundations beyond that caused by the collapse. Look.



That image shows the cleaned concrete flood basin around the World Trade Center, with the bases of the towers outlined. If there were underground shaped nuclear charges, where are the holes?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
John Q. Citizen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-22-07 01:40 PM
Response to Reply #186
188. First, I never claimed there were underground shaped fusion devices.
Second, I'm not going to discuss hypotheticals with you until you have at least a rudimentary understanding of issue of 4th generation nuclear devices. Because it's just a waste of my time. Read first, then hypothisis all you want please.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sweetheart Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-22-07 01:42 PM
Response to Reply #186
189. you need to read the papers
The kind of weapon generates radiation-heat as its primary, not a chemical blast wave,
and as such melts the entire building core ablating the steel. Such a weapon would not
crack the ground, but leave a molten pool of metal that would take weeks months to cool.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Renegade Paladin Donating Member (22 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-22-07 02:57 PM
Response to Reply #189
194. I see.
Edited on Mon Jan-22-07 03:00 PM by Renegade Paladin
In that case, it should have melted the concrete rather than breaking it. It quite obviously didn't do that either.

Edit: Hell, even that's generous. Suddenly superheating compressed material causes it to expand which would, again, generate an explosion if done underground because the expanding material would push other material out of the way and so on until the shockwave reached the surface. This is basic physics, here.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
John Q. Citizen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-22-07 03:29 PM
Response to Reply #194
195. Have you read the papers yet? Or is an informed opinion beside the point?n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Renegade Paladin Donating Member (22 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-22-07 04:00 PM
Response to Reply #195
197. This is a matter of the most basic laws of physics.
Edited on Mon Jan-22-07 04:00 PM by Renegade Paladin
The properties of 4th generation nuclear weapons are irrelevant to the fact that matter expands when heated and rapidly expands when rapidly heated. Rapid expansion in an enclosed area causes an explosion. I do not need to read the papers to know basic principles of the properties of matter.

I'm done with the other stuff I was working on and will now read the papers. I can almost guarantee that nothing in there will dispute the fact that heat production increases pressure.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
John Q. Citizen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-23-07 01:25 PM
Response to Reply #197
204. So, what did you think of the science papers?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Renegade Paladin Donating Member (22 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-25-07 08:30 PM
Response to Reply #204
209. I found them fascinating.
Edited on Thu Jan-25-07 08:32 PM by Renegade Paladin
Particularly the parts on antimatter weaponry and, of course, the pure fusion concept.

Now I have something for you to read.

http://www.shodor.org/unchem/advanced/gas /

As you should be able to see from this explanation of the Ideal Gas Law, as the temperature of a gas rises, it's volume increases if it is uncontained, or it's pressure increases if it is contained. (Volume x Pressure = the amount of gas in moles x the molar gas constant x the temperature in Kelvins)

As the temperature rises, the volume of the gas rises proportionately. If it cannot, the pressure rises instead. The Trade Center towers were not designed to handle a massive pressure imbalance between their internals and the outside atmosphere. In the case of what is almost literally a miniature sun coming into being, the air within the towers would be heated so much and so rapidly that the towers would explode from the pressure. They did not do so. No matter what else might have happened, no kind of nuclear weapon could have been used.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Renegade Paladin Donating Member (22 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-27-07 06:01 PM
Response to Reply #155
214. Question:
Missed this earlier. What the hell does "ablumating" mean, anyway? This thread is the only place on the Internet where Google finds reference to that word.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TankLV Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-02-07 12:48 AM
Response to Reply #144
227. again - there was no "curtain wall" in the WTC - but thanks for playing...
how many tons of beef steaks could the WTC barbecue if it were set on fire? THAT's the kind of "science" you're peddling here...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spooked911 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-23-07 12:25 PM
Response to Reply #140
203. I discussed scaling at my site:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AZCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-23-07 08:29 PM
Response to Reply #203
206. I am unable to access your site.
Is it down for maintenance or have you moved it?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ma2007 Donating Member (221 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-20-07 11:53 AM
Response to Original message
146. another pic
see this


Do you think this steel beam is able to bear a construction made by concrete ?

Chewing gum concrete floors ?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
William Seger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-20-07 02:01 PM
Response to Reply #146
149. "Just asking questions" double huh?
:wtf:


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ma2007 Donating Member (221 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-21-07 11:01 AM
Response to Reply #149
161. Sorry I do not understand what you mean
I point on the FACT of bended steel. It is an answer to the question concerning the model.

The model iss so much inadequate to the reality that it is senseless to discuss it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wickedcity Donating Member (47 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-21-07 11:20 AM
Response to Original message
162. I'm not sure if you're getting it...
Your model proves nothing. It's no more valid than say, lighting a dog house on fire and claiming it proves the government was responsible. The model doesn't behave in any way similar to the real WTC. There are countless factors you have to take into account other than the size.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ma2007 Donating Member (221 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-21-07 03:08 PM
Response to Reply #162
165. dog house
good example.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wickedcity Donating Member (47 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-21-07 07:54 PM
Response to Reply #165
166. I used it as an example...
...because I did it once.
Wait a minute...it burned down. The Reichstag burned down too! :o
CONSPIRACY!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TankLV Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-02-07 12:58 AM
Response to Reply #166
228. maybe they slept in a Holiday Inn, too - just like that commercial.
Maybe I can get sweetheart to do some oral surgery on me once, because she went to a dentist once and is now and expert!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sweetheart Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-21-07 10:20 PM
Response to Reply #162
169. fortunately, you are not my customer
"I" am my customer. I'm doing this for my own peace of mind, not yours. You can
look at the photos and draw your own conclusions. Modelling like this is very tactile,
i can feel how strong the structure is, as it knits together and what makes it strong.

I'm not from missouri, but i like the idea of the 'show me' principle, once i've 'shown me',
then i can set right with it. Some of y'all do science for other people, or for your job.
I do it for my own conscience. Those buildings were demolished with explosives, i'm
now sure of it, and i honestly did not really think that could be true prior to
setting out in this investigation.

My next model:

Will hold a lot more combustibles, and i'll put a huge amount of fuel on it, just
to give it a real pyro-kick, i want to see a full reproduction of WTC2 coming down
from a massive kick of petrocarbons as is the official story... the steel is soft,
it will be wired without floors to achieve an optimal burn chimney. My intention
is to fire it on a windless day to see the structure fail from fire.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wickedcity Donating Member (47 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-22-07 01:19 AM
Response to Reply #169
171. And we've pointed out...
...why your "experiment" isn't even remotely valid. You can't reasonably conclude anything from your test. You're the reason no one takes the rest of us seriously when we question the government.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TankLV Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-02-07 01:00 AM
Response to Reply #171
229. maybe she can make us a volcano out of cake flour and drano, too...
and use toothpaste to simulate the lava...

or how about a nice macaroni map of the USA...

it would be as valid...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ma2007 Donating Member (221 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-22-07 11:44 AM
Response to Reply #169
180. the word "paradise"
is Persian. A paradise is a square garden with a water source in the middle. It is a model of the paradise of Adam and Eve.
Including an apple tree.

Have you ever heard about "modelling" or about "prototyping" ? The term notes a sciense. Not pupils experiments like how water changes its substance when heated.

Just be aware that you have to learn a lot. It is no problem not to be a scientist yet. Learn and the world gets open for you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jberryhill Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-25-07 08:45 PM
Response to Reply #169
210. One thing the model does prove...

Is that if you cut a hole in the side of the World Trade Center Towers and tossed them into the Chesapeake Bay, then they would have made perfect crab traps.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HughMoran Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-26-07 12:02 AM
Response to Reply #210
212. That's it!
He's making crab traps!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
woo me with science Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-23-07 06:29 PM
Response to Reply #162
205. It IS a silly experiment that proves nothing, BUT...
you have to give her credit that she hasn't blocked responses telling her so...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ma2007 Donating Member (221 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-24-07 12:47 PM
Response to Reply #205
207. Yes.
It shows the variety of persons with a variety of aspects and a variety of thinking.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
greyl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-24-07 02:10 PM
Response to Reply #205
208. Hey, guys can be sweethearts, too. ;)
(sweetheart is male.)

And yes, all due credit.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HughMoran Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-25-07 11:59 PM
Response to Reply #162
211. Experiments this naive border on pure insanity
What a shame - some people just don't get it - what a waste of perfectly good brain power in a completely meaningless result.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MadBiologist Donating Member (25 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-27-07 05:27 PM
Response to Original message
213. Scaling: Beating you with high school physics and chemistry
I am forced to agree with my distinguished knight in shining armor. A nuclear explosion could not have been used. Even a fourth generation device. Heat by it's very nature when applied quickly and on a small area causes an explosion.

Additionally, to rip apart any and all models this "person" (and I use the term loosely)creates.

The amount of weight a material can support does not scale linearly with increased size. Think of it like an insect, something I am familiar with. If you create a scale model of an ant, if it is the size of a real ant it can hold up a much greater mass than it's own mass without collapsing. If you create a scale model of an ant the size of a person using the same materials, it will collapse under its own weight.

The same with the world trade center. A model of the scale you are using can take exponentially higher stress proportionately, before it will collapse. The original WTC was carefully designed and constructed to stand under normal conditions. To deal with vertical stress and to a lesser degree horizontal stress. It had a steel core which helped it deal with vertical stress, and perimeter columns to help it deal with vertical and horizontal stress. If any component of that support system was significantly damaged the building's structural stability will be greatly decreased in that area. Additionally, head does nasty things to metals. If a metal is heated, it bends, warps, etc. Weakening the structural stability of the structure. Enough damage, and the impact of a plane and subsequent burning is more than enough, and a floor will collapse. Every floor above depends on the support from the floors below. They fall as well. The supports were not designed to handle the stress from a vertical impact on the sheer magnitude of upper floors collapsing and would offer minimal resistance.

Then there is the problem of none of your models EVEN HAVING THE SAME CONSTRUCTION AS THE WTC!! NOT ONLY IS THE SCALING USELESS, BUT YOU ARE COMPARING APPLIES TO WATERMELONS!

Then there is the fact that conspiracy theories are loony on their face.

Our government cant keep secrets for shit. They couldn't even keep a burglary of a hotel a secret. You think they could keep this a secret? To have ANY way of orchestrating this, all it would take is one person who had a conscience to fuck it up. One person. Out of the sheer number of people that would need to be complicit in this to make it occur through government conspiracy. A few nutbags hijacking a plane is easy to do. Faking that, and somehow demolishing a building and making it look like planes caused the collapse is much much more difficult and complex and would require the cooperation of dozens if not hundreds or thousands of individuals. Including, if the official account is massively in error, every civil engineer in the country. Believe me, I know a lot of engineers, they would be frothing at the fucking mouth if the WTC could not have collapsed in the manner in which it did.

Then there is the issue of demolition. Demolishing a building is much more difficult than just planting a few explosive devices and running. Reality is very different from an action movie. It takes weeks of planning, the structure is manually weakened first, and that takes a while. You think people wouldn't notice that? People walking in, cutting through supports and making it look like they didn't, then planting massive amounts of explosives in key positions in a busy office building that is still functional. Please. Lay of the opiates. Unless you think everyone in that building was in on it and sacrificed themselves for Our Glorious Leader. Explosives do not generate the sort of heat that jet fuel does. C4 is more concussive. It cant break through steel structures as easy. The more parsimonious explanation is that a kinetic impact weakened the structure and a high temp fire and the laws of physics did the rest.

There is evil in the world. But not all of it stems from George W Bush. Sometimes, it comes from a Precision Guided Faith Missile known as a plane controlled by religious fanatics.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Contrite Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-29-07 12:39 AM
Response to Reply #213
216. Then, make your own model.
Edited on Mon Jan-29-07 12:50 AM by Contrite
This person is at least working with the principles involved.

"Heat by it's very nature when applied quickly and on a small area causes an explosion."

That is simply not true. What happens when you strike a flint? That's not an explosion; that's friction heat. What about putting an ember on a piece of paper? No explosion, just ignition.

"If a metal is heated, it bends, warps, etc."

Again, not true. My barbecue will cook my meat but not itself.

"Then there is the fact that conspiracy theories are loony on their face."

The story of 19 hijackers is a conspiracy theory.

"Our government can't keep secrets for shit." They kept Operation Northwoods a secret for 40 years--well past the time when most of the players are dead anyway. And there is the little manner of how they knew "bin Laden was determined to attack" but kept THAT a secret from us, didn't they?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Renegade Paladin Donating Member (22 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-30-07 06:49 PM
Response to Reply #216
219. That's funny.
Try using jet fuel to run your barbecue next time you cook out. I guarantee it will cook itself.

More to the point, your barbecue is designed to take the temperature of charcoal/propane/whatever it uses when burned. It does "cook" itself, but at such a low temperature that it's structural integrity is not meaningfully affected.

It would be affected if the fuel burned at over 1,500F. Which is exactly what happened in the Towers.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Contrite Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-30-07 08:24 PM
Response to Reply #219
220. The poster didn't say jet fuel.
He made a blanket statement about heat melting metal.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Renegade Paladin Donating Member (22 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-31-07 01:53 AM
Response to Reply #220
221. Well, if you want to be that pedantic...
Any amount of heat obviously doesn't melt any metal, but in context it should be fairly obvious that he referred to the heat of the fire in the World Trade Center and the structural steel of the towers. And melting would be unnecessary; in the same way that a blacksmith doesn't need to melt iron in order to soften it enough to forge, you don't have to liquefy steel to make it soft enough to bend under tens of thousands of tons worth of building.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Contrite Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-31-07 02:47 AM
Response to Reply #221
222. Well if that's what he meant he should have said so.
Or is it too "pedantic" to be specific?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-29-07 04:06 AM
Response to Reply #213
218. "takes weeks of planning"

If you want it to be a neat traditional CD. Much of the preparations are about preventing damage to surrounding buildings.

But in this case it obviously was not supposed to look like a CD, and preventing damage to surrounding structures was not an issue.

If the WTC was brought down by CD then it was "controlled" wrt to when and how the buildings were brought down - not CD in the classical sense.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
greyl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-29-07 02:58 AM
Response to Original message
217. This:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-21-07 08:05 PM
Response to Reply #217
231. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
TankLV Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-02-07 01:10 AM
Response to Original message
230. Laughable, at best.
Edited on Fri Feb-02-07 01:34 AM by TankLV
Pure unadulterated hogwash.

Ignorance.

You can't be serious.

Pick one - that's what I think of your "model"...

Now for some suggestions:

The WTC was constructed from individual "tic tac toe" type sections - two columns wide and two stories tall - connected at the midpoint between every two floors and between the window openings. Try making your model like that - of individual pieces glued together. That would give you a better exterior structure simulation. Then we can BEGIN to discuss this seriously. The chicken wire is one monolithic piece - not what ANY building is at all.

Make it 110 "stories" tall - no shortcuts, no exceptions. Have the EXACT same number of exterior sections - NO EXCEPTIONS ALLOWED.

Construct the floor slabs of a solid material supporte on a much more spiderlike web for the horizontal structure - your model doesn't even begin to come close. Glue the floors to the exterior skin.

Anything short of that - you might as well use a vacuum cleaner pipe to simulate the tower to get an equivalent idea to your "model" - your model is that preposterous...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kingshakabobo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-02-07 09:16 PM
Response to Original message
232. Kick. Important experiment threads must remain kicked. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Anarcho-Socialist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-07-07 10:37 AM
Response to Original message
233. A kick for the happy, funny memories
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
petgoat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-07-07 11:17 AM
Response to Reply #233
234. I note that all you guys ever did was snigger at imperfect models.
Edited on Mon May-07-07 11:17 AM by petgoat
None of you ever had any proposals for a valid model.

Well I do.

Let's build full floor sections with full-length 60'
trusses 60' wide, four of them, suspended between
well-anchored perimeter columns and core columns four
stories high.

Let's load them up with office furniture and
sprinkle 5000 gal of jet fuel on them. Let's see
if those trusses sag enough to buckle the perimeter
columns like NIST claims.

How much could this cost? A million? Two?



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Anarcho-Socialist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-07-07 11:42 AM
Response to Reply #234
235. I tend to leave that to people who know what they're doing
Scientists, structural engineers and the like. Not theologians, not film makers. You can build your model if you want to. Undoubtedly your expertise in such things is profound.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
petgoat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-07-07 12:15 PM
Response to Reply #235
236. Not having an extra $2 million, I'm not proposing to build such a model myself.
Edited on Mon May-07-07 12:21 PM by petgoat
In fact, my proposal brings forth the question--why didn't NIST
build such a model?

And implies an answer: Because they knew it would not validate
their hypothesis.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Carefulplease Donating Member (749 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-07-07 09:03 PM
Response to Reply #234
237. Sagging trusses...
But NIST *did* conduct fire resistance tests on the floor systems didn't they? They contracted Underwriters laboratory for this. They performed both full-scale tests on short span floor assemblies (35 ft) and half-scale tests on long span assemblies (30 ft instead of 60 ft). The furnaces weren't big enough to contain full scale long span assemblies. (Is that a big problen in your view? Why?)

http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1-6B.pdf

The fire exposed trusses *did* sag in all four tests (two with ends restrained and two with ends unrestrained). They did no begin to sag after many hours but almost instantly (within minutes) and the sagging increased pretty much linearly over the course of about two hours (for some tests) until the maximal vertical deflections reached about half a dozen inches. All these trusses were fully fire-protected since these were standard fire rating tests and not a simulation of the actual conditions in the WTC (which were quite variable, large areas of many floors having been shredded to bits by incoming planes).

One main structural function of truss floors in the WTC towers was to brace the walls against buckling. (There were beams in the core to perform that function with core columns) Once many floors began to sag -- and it can be seen on photographs that some floors sagged to the point where they got disconnected from the perimeter and the slabs can be seen hanging through the windows -- they could not perform that functions anymore. They certainly did initially pull on the wall but at some point (when many consecutive floors sagged) it would have been sufficient that that they did not restrain (push on) the already overloaded walls anymore to prevent buckling.

And however that may be, NIST did not *assume* that sagging floors pulled the exterior walls in. This was not part of the equation at all. The floor systems were too much of a headache to model reliably in their finite element model. Rather, they measured on photographs that the walls did bow-in as much as three feet, and they adjusted their model parameters to match *observations*. They assumed that the floors pulled just enough so that the bowing of the walls matched what was seen. And this observation isn't an illusion caused by the refraction of light going through a sheet of hot air -- not, that is, if Snell's law of refraction has any relavance to actual refraction phenomena, as we discussed elsewhere.

So we know that fire make trusses sag (even fully fire protected trusses) and we know that something pulled the walls in. What would we gain more from your multimillion dollars experiment?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sagesnow Donating Member (311 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-08-07 12:58 AM
Response to Original message
238. Questions
Can you design the experiment to make your model collapse vertically, nearly in it's own footprint, and at free fall speed?
Can you design the fall so that none of the falling debris hits other buildings not leased by Larry Silverstein?
Can you design the experiment so that the "bathtub" under the WTC is unscathed?
And will you be sure to take out insurance on your model shortly before you invite fiery disaster upon it.
Seriously, I applaud your attempts at creating a realistic model of the WTC demolitions and only wish someone would provide funding to construct a realistic demonstration of the disaster.

Thanks for your efforts, sweetheart.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sat Dec 27th 2014, 04:32 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » September 11 Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC