WTC Challenge-- Day 3
Again-- 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).
It should be easy to do, right? If the official story is true that is.
All you have to do is build a rigid tower with similar dimensions to the WTC, then cause damage to 10% of the tower about one third of the way from the top-- then have the tower completely collapse into basic components.
Think of it as an engineering challenge.
It really shouldn't be that hard to do.
Prove the conspiracy nuts wrong!!!!!!!!!
For those who are interested--here are some more details of what I did.
But mine was a failure. It didn't collapse at all!*
*Does anyone truly believe my tower was OVER-engineered?
It should be easy to do, right? If the official story is true that is.
All you have to do is build a rigid tower with similar dimensions to the WTC, then cause damage to 10% of the tower about one third of the way from the top-- then have the tower completely collapse into basic components.
Think of it as an engineering challenge.
It really shouldn't be that hard to do.
Prove the conspiracy nuts wrong!!!!!!!!!
For those who are interested--here are some more details of what I did.
But mine was a failure. It didn't collapse at all!*
*Does anyone truly believe my tower was OVER-engineered?
posted by spooked at 10:09 AM
13 Comments:
Yeah, I know. I was just trying to get these people to think a little bit.
I liked your model, by the way.
I don't think your tower was over-engineered.
I think it was made out of chicken-wire.
You think that's an accurate representation.
I think that's hilarious.
Post 3 is correct. You should have used a weaker material like steel so that your experiment could have powderized like the WTCs did.
If only they were made of chicken wire... we may have saved them. Alas, if we only had the foresight of Mr. Anonymous...
I have a question maybe someone can answer. According to NIST, the gravitational collapse train is rolling downhill, gaining velocity. Even assuming floors about the impact zone remain intact, which is not evident from the videos, don't you get a situation after 20 or 30 floors or so that the leading floor of the upper block is significantly less massive than the top floor of the lower block? Say the 95th floor hitting the 65th floor. At that point, wouldn't the 95th floor be the one that gives way, not the 65th? I've read about a stress wave going down in front of the collapse front, but wouldn't such a wave go up as well, and wouldn't that wave be dissipating energy or spreading the effects of impact? I've read that even if the upper block was decreasing in size, it was increasing in velocity and increasing kinetic energy by a higher factor, but even if that's the case, wouldn't that increased kinetic energy destroy the less massive upper block first, ending the collapse sequence? Just as it is accurate to say the building flew into the plane at 500 mph, isn't it accurate to say the lower block was flying up into the upper block?
Whoops -- that's "Even assuming floors ABOVE the impact zone remain intact,"
Well that proves it. All skyscrapers from here on out shall be constructed with chicken wire.
so. i didn't actually build a model of wtc but i did try something else:
1 ea. beer can (empty) to represent a 767.
1 ea. barbecue grill (steel) to represent wtc perimeter columns.
1 ea. clown shoe (right foot) to act (in collusion with stomping action) as 500mph momentum.
ready? get set...STOMP!
wow the beer can does not penetrate the barbecue grill! who actually thought that it would?
as well, i actually have kerosene.
surprise! not only does a prolonged (56 mins) kerosene fire not melt said barbecue grill, but it won't even burn the paint off the wheel barrow.
help it's 1300 degrees in here!
help it's 1300 degrees in here!
Could you point out the flames that are surrounding her? Or do you mean that even after a fire has moved on, the area in which it was stays just as hot as when it was engulfed in flames?
Fucking idiot....
I'll ignore the last two words and thank you for your substantive response:
"Or do you mean that even after a fire has moved on, the area in which it was stays just as hot as when it was engulfed in flames?"
My reply is first that the fire has not necessarily moved on but was not there in the first place, or was very small. Second, steel regains its strength as it cools, so columns in that area should be even less likely to fail.
I came across an excellent comment at Alternet, in response to Christopher Hayes' "Is 9/11 Paranoia Good for the Country"?
The context is someone who offered up various inside arguments and someone else responded by saying they are trained in formal logic and the first commenter is being illogical.
I think it may explain why Spooked does his own research. I know it explains why I, with virtually no scientific expertise, think that I can and must question experts.
It's also a good statement of the rules of debate I would like to see followed.
Reaping and Sowing...
Posted by: kogwonton on Dec 13, 2006 10:50 AM
RealPolitick rules. Scientific, logical, and philosophic debates generally adhere to certain rules of conduct, such as 'support every assertion' and 'attack an argument, not a person'. When scientific, logical, and philosophic arguments threaten prevailing paradigms, as well as dominant economic and political systems and institutions, the 'burden of proof' is not on the one making the assertion, but upon whoever cares enough to do the research. That's realism in a nutshell. That is RealPolitick. Say whatever you can get away with, and drown out proof of your lies with noise and saber rattling. Call your opponents names. Call them unpatriotic or 'conspiracy theorists' and escape having to defend your position rationally and honestly.
Unfortunately for you, the previous post was correct. Those are all facts, and they have been in the public domain for going on six years now. People who didn't dare contemplate anything that might threaten their world view, or people who just didn't care to do the research have just ignored that proof, and now they scream for proof knowing full well that it would take a month just to lay out all the evidence.
If the game is RealPolitick, question EVERYTHING. Do your own research. If we are told every single day to be afraid, and to fear the worst case scenario, fine. The WORST CASE SCENARIO is that mass murderers with no regard for our Constitution or our lives is now in control of the mightiest war machine on the face of the earth, and now points it squarely in the faces of those whose taxes and efforts built it. The stench of lies and death permeates every policy and action taken by our government since that day.
I would LOVE to see an investigation take place in a scholastic setting, performed by every imaginable expert we can find who may have relevance. I would love to see a real debate, allowing all sides to voice their arguments and present their evidence for public scrutiny and scientific inquiry without name calling, political saber rattling, or deceptive use of red-herrings. I would LOVE to be proven wrong in the suspicions I have had since the passport of an alleged hijacker was 'discovered' directly following the collapses of the Twin Towers. I mean, come on... I grew up on a steady diet of bullshit, and I know it when I smell it.
If you want to dangle a degree in logic in front of us, why not throw in your lot with us and support an investigation that addresses the legitimate questions that more than half of this country now has, according to at least four major polls I have read (and you can do
your own research on that point too). Maybe then we can get the issue the attention it deserves (at least as much as Clinton's romp on a desktop) in a respectable setting, abiding by formal rules of debate, divorced from political nonsense.
I despair of RealPolitick. There is no truth in that game. There is only manipulation of the public mind, and fabrication of events and arguments. One thing is sure. If 150 million
Americans think something stinks, and that our leaders are covering up any aspect of the attacks of 9/11, it is made valid by virtue of numbers, if not evidence. At the very least they deserve more than 'you're stupid' as an answer.
http://alternet.org/story/45340/#comments
search for kogwonton or RealPolitik.
Good stuff, Ningen. Thanks for being a voice of reason.
anonymous said:
Fucking idiot....
hey, how hot did it need to be for wtc steel box columns to warp enough to allow for a complete "global collapse"? hmmm?
probably a little bit hotter than would be apparent from the condition of edna cintron. hmmm?
fucking idiot
Post a Comment
<< Home