If Indeed Steel-Framed Towers Can Undergo Complete Devastating Collapse from Limited Damage, It Should Be Easy to Reproduce the Phenomenon--
RIGHT?
Should be easy to show, right? After all, it happened three times! (All on 9/11, but as they say, lightning can strike in the same place twice, even thrice!)
Wouldn't it be nice to put all these wacky conspiracy theories to rest for once and all???
So again, my challenge: I challenge anyone to build a model of a steel tower with similar dimensions and structure to the WTC and show it undergoing complete collapse at near free-fall speed following limited structural damage and subsequent column damage (from fire or from physical severing).
Put aside the name-calling and arguing for once and just show how a tower can collapse completely down through itself. It should be easy to do, right?
Put your money where your mouth is.
I tried it myself and couldn't do it. I actually built a steel WTC tower model-- and couldn't get it to collapse AT ALL. It wasn't even a particularly well-built or strong tower. But there is no way the upper 1/3 of my model tower could have crushed the lower part of my model tower, similar to what happened to the south WTC tower on 9/11.
How exactly does a professionally-built strongly-built steel-framed tower undergo complete collapse down to its base?
This is what happened on 9/11.
So again, I challenge anyone: can you model the remarkable WTC collapses???
Aren't you the least bit curious to see if you can do it?
I know NIST didn't even try to do it.
I wonder why.
Gravitational force is the same, no matter the scale.
Should be easy to show, right? After all, it happened three times! (All on 9/11, but as they say, lightning can strike in the same place twice, even thrice!)
Wouldn't it be nice to put all these wacky conspiracy theories to rest for once and all???
So again, my challenge: I challenge anyone to build a model of a steel tower with similar dimensions and structure to the WTC and show it undergoing complete collapse at near free-fall speed following limited structural damage and subsequent column damage (from fire or from physical severing).
Put aside the name-calling and arguing for once and just show how a tower can collapse completely down through itself. It should be easy to do, right?
Put your money where your mouth is.
I tried it myself and couldn't do it. I actually built a steel WTC tower model-- and couldn't get it to collapse AT ALL. It wasn't even a particularly well-built or strong tower. But there is no way the upper 1/3 of my model tower could have crushed the lower part of my model tower, similar to what happened to the south WTC tower on 9/11.
How exactly does a professionally-built strongly-built steel-framed tower undergo complete collapse down to its base?
This is what happened on 9/11.
So again, I challenge anyone: can you model the remarkable WTC collapses???
Aren't you the least bit curious to see if you can do it?
I know NIST didn't even try to do it.
I wonder why.
Gravitational force is the same, no matter the scale.
posted by spooked at 7:35 AM
31 Comments:
pinch, conspiracy smasher and sword of truth -
put up or shut up!
Wouldn't it be dangerous because of all of the tiny dust particles?
I bet Conspiracy Pincher or Smash the Truth would try it if they didn't have so many cars around them that might explode.
Also, what about the risk to tall buildings a few blocks away? There could be some WTC 7 problems for anyone who tried such a dangerous experiment.
Fred
Yeah, please show us the pancake theory in full effect! And how it left one file cabinet and no intact bodies from two high rise office buildings.
That "model" is hilarious.
Keep up the great work Spooked!
So how many chickens died in that terrorist attack?
Sad day for chickens. Sad day for America.
Hey Spooked, I've been down to the hardware store three times, and all three times my tower has turned into volcano and I have to keep buying more steel bars because the mafia keeps stealing the scrap. Also, the aluminum can I keep hurling at my tower keeps vaporizing and I have to get a new aluminum can. Finally, the kerosene in my can seems to be still burning 3 months later. No matter how many times I hose it down, it just keeps smoldering.
On the positive side, I did find an intact passport, and I did find a few rows of passengers strapped to their seats. You'll also be happy to know that I found a cockpit with someone not wearing a pilot's uniform, so this clearly looks like the work of afghan terrorists.
No cell phone calls though. I'm not sure what to make of that.
Fred
That is the stupidest thing I've ever seen. This is a joke right?
Maybe next time you can make a building out of Legos and then throw a Lego airplane at the Lego building to see what happens.
Moron.
How long did you let this "building" burn for? There were fires in the towers if you recall. If you're going to chide NIST for not accurately re-creating the scenario, you'd do well to follow your own advice.
laughed at across the internet?
right. come on smash, let's see you or any one of your moron pals explain a single one of the many many discrepancies that are the official 9/11 fairytale.
and you forgot to giggle this time girly!
put up or shut up.
What's laughable is the idea that steel girders just vanish, and that the pentagon doesn't even have a single lousy security camera that filmed the big jetliner crashing into it.
The whole official 9/11 story is a pack of lies, and all conspiratory pincher can do is hurl insults like a slightly-below-average 4th grader. There's not a single piece of evidence that supports the official version, and that's why Smash the Truth never has anything to say other than "giggle, we are all having a laugh at your expense."
Researchers in the UK tried burning a steel reinforced building and determined that there's NO WAY TO MAKE IT COLLAPSE.
The government lied about 9/11. It has always been a lie.
I think poor spooked likes it when he is the butt of the joke. Where did you get your degree in structural engineering again little man?
"Researchers in the UK tried burning a steel reinforced building and determined that there's NO WAY TO MAKE IT COLLAPSE"
Did they try flying a fully fueled 767 into it first? Hmmm?
I love all the "facts" everyone spews .. "A fully fueled 767" for instance. I guess it didn't use any from Boston. And as if the more the fuel the hotter the temperature. Whatever the temperature, it doesn't make steel DISAPPEAR.
oh my god, you are nuts
Where did you get your degree in structural engineering again little man?
and where did you get yours einstein?
Did they try flying a fully fueled 767 into it first? Hmmm?
how many eyewitlesses to this phenomena are there again? hmmm?
i like your new and anonymous handle - who's the real clownshoe? hmmm?
"A fully fueled 767"
The planes would have had slightly less than 50% full tanks. Karim and Hoo Fatt, Impact of the Boeing 767 Aircraft into the World Trade Center, Journal of Impact Engineering, Vol. 131, No. 10 (October 2005) say that residual kinetic energy and residual impact velocity do not vary much if the tank is more than 65% full. They assumed the tank was full, and said that after penetrating columns roughly the size and strength of the external columns at the impact floors, the plane would have 54% of its kinetic energy remaining and would have an impact velocity of 171 m/s, down from 240 m/s (the South Tower velocity). Assuming the tanks were 50% full, the figures would be 160 m/s and 49% of kinetic energy remaining. Even if the tanks were empty, their model shows 115 m/s and 43% of kinetic energy remaining. So in their model, the amount of fuel in the tanks is not decisive on whether the plane gets through.
What Karim and Hoo Fatt leave out is the floors. About this, they say: "Since floors would add to the bending resistance of the column, a solution without them will yield more conservative results." Because they are trying to find out how much thicker the external column walls would have to have been to stop penetration in their model, I assume they mean that an increase in bending resistance would make the columns easier to penetrate, perhaps because bending prior to fracture would absorb more energy.
Regardless of whether the floors would make the columns easier to penetrate, the floors themselves -- as a longitudinal plane the plane would have to plow through -- would offer tremendous resistance.
Wiezbicki of MIT says in a paper available online at the link below that the floors would dissipate 48% of the plane's initial kinetic energy. His plane was modeled differently, with stronger wings and empty tanks, so these numbers cannot simply be added together, but roughly adding approximately 50% dissipate by the external columns to approx. 50% dissipated by the floors, there is little if any energy left to damage the core columns. Moreover, the plane must have greatly decelerated before it got to the core columns.
http://web.mit.edu/civenv/wtc/PDFfiles/Chapter%20IV%20Aircraft%20Impact.pdf
Based on this rough analysis, which is the best I can do, I don't see how that video of UA175 sliding into the South Tower can be real.
"Based on this rough analysis, which is the best I can do, I don't see how that video of UA175 sliding into the South Tower can be real."
What sort of professional accreditation do you have ningen?
He can read and look and see what is in front of his eyes. More people should be as informed.
pinch, smasher, and S.O.T are cointelpro/spooks/operatives/agents, or perhaps just right-wing wannabes...if they ARE agents and KNOW the truth (inside job) and are purposefully trying to squelch it from being known by the public, then they've committed high treason and deserve to die, it's that simple...spooks protect the perps...and remember, cointelpro agents use distraction, mockery and ridicule, it's a known tactic of theirs...Spooked, it's important for you not to be intimidated by them, you're doing good work, stay calm and focused...keep the quest alive...focus on your work, not the distractors, their justice will come...
Ningen is not an engineer. Ningen dropped calculus in college. Ningen hasn't had a physics class since high school. Ningen has this crazy idea that a plane hitting a skyscraper and the resulting demolition of the skyscraper is a lot closer to banging his elbow on the desk than it is to a black hole, and that he can grok the event with his common sense.
Anonymous, may I ask why you asked about my professional accreditation?
If you must know, I awarded myself a doctor of philosophy in thinking for myself. I also did some post-doc work at the Neil Postman Institute of Crap Detection.
I wouldn't go in a skyscraper designed by me, that's for damn sure. That's doesn't mean I need an engineer to tell me what is obvious.
You can take what I wrote and make a response, or you can leave it.
"To the casual observer, it would appear that the facade of the Twin Towers did not offer any resistance at all, and that the plane's wings and fuselage slice through the exterior columns as if they were made of cardboard. . . How was it possible that the relatively weak, light, and airy airframe damaged the apparently heavy lattice of high strength steel columns? The devastating result of this encounter came as a surprise to the engineering and scientific community or at least to the present authors."
From: Wierzbicki and Teng, How the airplane wing cut through the exterior columns of the World Trade Center, Int'l J. of Impact Engineering 28 (2003) 601-625
These experts grokked it the same as me. I would say their grok is more refined than mine, and I give it great weight because it comports wih my grok.
I think I can understand the assumptions that were necessary to overcome this heretical common sense.
Here's how I got this idea I can grok 9/11:
"Evolution wired us with both hardware and software that would allow us to easily "grock" concepts like force, acceleration, and temperature, but only over the limited range that applies to our daily lives — concepts that are needed for our physical survival. But it simply did not provide us with wiring to intuit the quantum behavior of an electron, or velocities near the speed of light, or the powerful gravitational fields of black holes, or a universe that closes back on itself like the surface of the Earth. A classic example of the limitations of our neural wiring is the inability to picture more than three dimensions. Why, after all, would nature provide us with the capacity to visualize things that no living creature had ever experienced?"
http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/horgan05/horgan05_index.html
(scroll down)
LEONARD SUSSKIND
Felix Bloch Professor of Theoretical Physics, Stanford University
IN DEFENSE OF UNCOMMON SENSE
Leonard Susskind Responds to John Horgan
pinch, smasher, and S.O.T are cointelpro/spooks/operatives/agents... they've committed high treason and deserve to die
Wow, so much love for me here and I haven't even said anything yet.
Spooked, are you pulling a hoax here? If you're just a guy yanking the chains of the stupid and laughing his ass off at the morons who swallow your bilge... then I salute you.
But if you actually believe the garbage you're spewing... then may God help us all. You are truly a black hole of stupid sucking in all intellect that enters it and destroying it completely.
This latest stunt is a new low for you, Spooked. You're either a brilliant manipulator, or a man possesed of literally [b]incredible[/b] idiocy.
How long did you let this "building" burn for? There were fires in the towers if you recall. If you're going to chide NIST for not accurately re-creating the scenario, you'd do well to follow your own advice.
Perhaps this wasn't clear or perhaps you didn't read it. I CUT columns to mimic the fire weakening of the columns. I cut all the columns on one side and in half the core, which is surely equivalent or more to a one hour fire. Fire weakens columns. I severed the columns mechanically.
Thanks, buddy! Got another Instapinch post up with your latest moonbattery! Stand by to repell boarders!
I really, really needed a laugh this morning.
I didn't need to snort coffee out my nose.
Perhaps this wasn't clear or perhaps you didn't read it. I CUT columns to mimic the fire weakening of the columns. I cut all the columns on one side and in half the core, which is surely equivalent or more to a one hour fire. Fire weakens columns. I severed the columns mechanically.
You're right, it was hard to read through the tears of laughter. So the fires had no effect on the floors and you saw no need to attempt to account for them? Fire doesn't effect steel at all? What about the bowing inwards of exterior columns? Hell... I'd be happy if you at least held a Zippo up to a couple "columns" for a minute or two.
Your rationalization that cutting the columns would have the same effect as the fires just shows your complete and utter stupidity when it comes to the what happened that day.
Sometimes things really are simple. Every building collapsed/destroyed on 9/11 in NYC was owned by the same man. An insurance investigator would have closed this case on Day 2.
"An insurance investigator would have closed this case on Day 2."
Only if solving the case was in the interest of the company.
I have wondered about this -- from a contractual point of view, does it matter who the perp was and how it was done, since regardless it is an act of terrorism that the company would have to pay for under the policy? If so, why question the U.S. government when that will get you nothing but grief and the government is likely to somehow pay through the back door as long as the company goes along?
So the insurance angle may not be as significant an obstacle to believing 9/11 was an inside job as I had previously thought.
I realize my insurance theory spreads the complicity of silence even further. This is hard for me to believe, but less hard for me to believe than the NIST/ASCE theory of "global collapse." Rather than go with the supernatural, I have to go with the sad reality of cowardice.
the spread of complicity of silence is probably immeasurable, so you shouldn't feel ill-at-ease about pointing just a little bit of it out.
"The whole official 9/11 story is a pack of lies, and all conspiratory pincher can do is hurl insults like a slightly-below-average 4th grader."
And he's joined by Manuel Garcia in Counterpunch, with his article "The Physics of 9/11."
http://www.counterpunch.org/physic11282006.html
The only difference is that Garcia hurls insults like a way-below-average college sophomore, especially considering his Princeton education. "Conspiracy theory," Jungian "mass psychosis," "flying saucers," "Godzilla," and "political immaturity," etc, with the obligatory unexplained reference to Occam's Razor.
After finishing his attempt at mockery and intellectual intimidation, Garcia then moves to what is supposed to be the subject of his article, the physics of 9/11. The purpose of this, he says, is to bestow rationality and political maturity on the poor, misled "conspiracy theorists."
Garcia does this with a big fancy tautology. Why did the towers fall in virtually free-fall time? Because Garcia assumes they did, and has created a fancy model that most readers of Counterpunch won't take the time to recognize assumes would it purports to prove. Garcia has a PhD in engineering and is much too erudite and sophisticated to be a victim of conspiracy theories, so the truth of his analysis is self-evident.
Manuel Garcia, Conspiracy Smasher's big brother that went to college.
Post a Comment
<< Home