According to My Calculations...
See UPDATE below.
According to my calculations, my WTC model was significantly weaker than a WTC tower, proportionally.
And I could not induce ANY COLLAPSE in the model-- even when the bulk of the columns on one floor were severed.
Does anyone find any errors in my calculations?
If not, I submit my model as proof that the WTC could not have collapsed under its own weight and pulled only by gravity.
Calling me a moron, an idiot, a fool, pathetic, sad does not count as finding an error in my calculations.
So-- does anyone find any problems with my calculations?
I am open to admitting mistakes and that I may be wrong. But someone needs to raise a reasonable criticism.
OOPS-- UPDATE-- this section "b) the outer wall columns in my model had over 100 times less steel per cross-section than an individual WTC outer column (0.9 mm round) at floor 80 (180 sq. mm proportionally versus roughly 18320 sq. mm)" was wrong and thus my overall conclusions were very wrong.
I made a major error in calculations-- actually my model columns were roughly 32400 sq. mm in proportional cross-section-- making them 1.8-fold stronger than WTC columns. This obviously changes the overall equation of relative strength and means my model was roughly 34 times stronger proportionally than the WTC. This explains why I could not induce collapse and means I need to redesign the model.
UPDATE 2-- 1/1/07-- OOPS again. Realized I factored in the scale of the columns twice, and the first time going the wrong way-- so I need to take away a factor of 1.9. Also found another mistake, meaning I need to redo the overall calculations.
So, my model columns were 200X stronger than the WTC columns due to scale.
They were 1.8x stronger proportionally, in terms of cross-section of steel.
I had 2.6x fewer columns per wall and 5x few floors meaning the effective strength of the model columns was 5x weaker. Except my model columns had similar cross-bracing to the WTC, meaning we need to lower the 5x figure. Let's be generous and cut this in half to 2.5x.
Thus we have 200 times 1.8 divided by 2.6 divided by 2.5 = 55.
Meaning that VERY ROUGHLY the model columns were 55 times stronger proportionally than the WTC columns. In reality the model is probably less than this-- due to weaker steel and inferior column shape. But the bottom line is the model is far too strong proportionally, and needs to be redesigned.
The simplest way would be to redo the model design with even smaller wires than what I used.
According to my calculations, my WTC model was significantly weaker than a WTC tower, proportionally.
And I could not induce ANY COLLAPSE in the model-- even when the bulk of the columns on one floor were severed.
Does anyone find any errors in my calculations?
If not, I submit my model as proof that the WTC could not have collapsed under its own weight and pulled only by gravity.
Calling me a moron, an idiot, a fool, pathetic, sad does not count as finding an error in my calculations.
So-- does anyone find any problems with my calculations?
I am open to admitting mistakes and that I may be wrong. But someone needs to raise a reasonable criticism.
OOPS-- UPDATE-- this section "b) the outer wall columns in my model had over 100 times less steel per cross-section than an individual WTC outer column (0.9 mm round) at floor 80 (180 sq. mm proportionally versus roughly 18320 sq. mm)" was wrong and thus my overall conclusions were very wrong.
I made a major error in calculations-- actually my model columns were roughly 32400 sq. mm in proportional cross-section-- making them 1.8-fold stronger than WTC columns. This obviously changes the overall equation of relative strength and means my model was roughly 34 times stronger proportionally than the WTC. This explains why I could not induce collapse and means I need to redesign the model.
UPDATE 2-- 1/1/07-- OOPS again. Realized I factored in the scale of the columns twice, and the first time going the wrong way-- so I need to take away a factor of 1.9. Also found another mistake, meaning I need to redo the overall calculations.
So, my model columns were 200X stronger than the WTC columns due to scale.
They were 1.8x stronger proportionally, in terms of cross-section of steel.
I had 2.6x fewer columns per wall and 5x few floors meaning the effective strength of the model columns was 5x weaker. Except my model columns had similar cross-bracing to the WTC, meaning we need to lower the 5x figure. Let's be generous and cut this in half to 2.5x.
Thus we have 200 times 1.8 divided by 2.6 divided by 2.5 = 55.
Meaning that VERY ROUGHLY the model columns were 55 times stronger proportionally than the WTC columns. In reality the model is probably less than this-- due to weaker steel and inferior column shape. But the bottom line is the model is far too strong proportionally, and needs to be redesigned.
The simplest way would be to redo the model design with even smaller wires than what I used.
posted by spooked at 11:23 AM
12 Comments:
I have a problem with your "calculations".
You didn't post them.
Afraid of something, Spook?
sword of truth is the real scaredy-cat - he has still not addressed the issue of the toasted cars, some of which were damn near a mile away from the wtc, nor has he produced any of his invisible structural engineers that he pretends all support the official 9/11 fairytale.
the towers didn't "collapse", they disintegrated at the astounding rate of 11 floors per second.
a bowling ball dropped from the same height (1/4 mile) would reach the ground in the same amount of time that wtc2 was completely disintegrated.
I keep asking for evidence proving your claims about the burnt cars and you keep on refusing.
1. go to janedoe0911.tripod.com
2. choose "star wars beam weapon"
3. click on "toasted cars"
There are many, many pictures there.
fred
I keep asking for evidence proving your claims about the burnt cars and you keep on refusing.
as if you haven't seen the photos of these burnt cars a hundred times.
SWORD OF TRUTH thinks that we don't realize that he is a LIAR!
Check out the new conspiracysmasher.blogspot.com where we're all cackling like little girls at your expense!
Holograms don't exist!
Beam weapons are a fantasy of the Air Force!!
Chicken wire is stronger than steel girders!
conspiracysmasher.blogspot.com
We, the CT movement, know the true extent conspiracy.
To think it's a U.S. or Israeli government coverup is just a red herring.
We are all living in a fantasy world that I like to call "The Matrix" where we are being controlled by machines.
But, fear not. Myself along with the LC guys, Neo, Trinity, Alex Jones, and Morpheus are working to free us from this world.
At least...that's what my dog keeps telling me.
I'm off to watch more episodes of the X-Files. Backwards of course. Mulder and Scully are sending me encoded messages.
Hey anonymous, your Matrix scenario is more likely than planes melting into steel towers like knives into butter, and more likely than plane impacts and fire annihilating two steel towers. In the Matrix, Neo and the agents can bend the rules. Not here.
never forget that each tower disintegrated entirely in only 10 seconds. each. all of the concrete was rendered into powder and most of the steel simply disappeared, seemingly into thin air. at the astounding rate of 11 floors per second. and cars were unexplainably burned and melted. some were flipped over onto their backs. some of these cars were almost a mile away from the wtc.
what the fuck?
...so since I cannot understand it, it must mean that cloaked ray guns from outer space were used...now where are my Spock ears...
Yeah, in your idiot TV world I'm sure cars just wilt and blow up every day. It must be arabs with boxcutters. Show me some fucking evidence that Osama Bin Laden had anything to do with 9/11 first, and after you fail at that fool's errand, then try to wrap your tiny mind around the exploding cars down the street.
Post a Comment
<< Home