The WTC Challenge Is To Build a Physical Model
Not to rely on a computer simulation.
Computer simulations of 9/11 are invariably geared around obtaining the "correct" (i.e official) result, and therefore are inherently untrustworthy.
Further, computer programs can be tweaked and manipulated without a layman understanding what has been done.
What is wrong with building a physical model of a rigid tower similar to WTC1, then showing it undergoing RAPID, STRAIGHT-DOWN and COMPLETE collapse due to structural damage to a few floors one-sixth of the way down from the top?
Or if you prefer, build a physical model of a rigid tower similar to WTC2, then show it undergoing RAPID, STRAIGHT-DOWN and COMPLETE collapse following structural damage that causes the top third of the tower to tip about 20 degrees?
Is there something wrong with actually trying this???
Don't tell me you're afraid it won't work.
Don't towers undergo complete collapse all the time?
Computer simulations of 9/11 are invariably geared around obtaining the "correct" (i.e official) result, and therefore are inherently untrustworthy.
Further, computer programs can be tweaked and manipulated without a layman understanding what has been done.
What is wrong with building a physical model of a rigid tower similar to WTC1, then showing it undergoing RAPID, STRAIGHT-DOWN and COMPLETE collapse due to structural damage to a few floors one-sixth of the way down from the top?
Or if you prefer, build a physical model of a rigid tower similar to WTC2, then show it undergoing RAPID, STRAIGHT-DOWN and COMPLETE collapse following structural damage that causes the top third of the tower to tip about 20 degrees?
Is there something wrong with actually trying this???
Don't tell me you're afraid it won't work.
Don't towers undergo complete collapse all the time?
posted by spooked at 4:38 PM
14 Comments:
1) I didn't use chicken wire for my model
2) Even assuming I did build my model out of chicken wire -- my model didn't collapse! So what does that indicate to you? That chicken wire was stronger than the WTC? Does that make sense?
Why would you trust a computer model over a physical model anyway?
If I had $500 million in loose change, I would start by modeling the sequence from plane impact to "initiation of collapse." Here's what I would do:
Build an exact replica of World Trade Center 1, floors 85-110. with same thickness and grade of steel, everything as exact as possible, even inside with offices, computers, etc.
Set the thing on the ground and Sandia and rocket a Boeing 767 into the structure right where the plane hit on 9/11. Make sure the plane has the exact specs, passengers, fuel, cargo, speed etc. as Flight 11. Alternatively, anchor the thing on a platform or cliff and remote control the Boeing into the right spot.
See what happens. If the plane penetrates like it is supposed to and starts the fire, see what happens. If the plane gets in like it's supposed to and damages the columns, but the fires die and the structure is still up, look at the impact and fire damage and see if fireproofing was dislodged.
I really want to see what happens to the plane. I'd prefer to model Tower 2 for the off-center impact further from the core columns, but would need floors 65-100 which would cost more.
For $20 million I would do this:
Create a replica of the external columns and floors of the side of Tower 2 that was hit by the plane.
Anchor it to something to get the right mass and rigidity. Fly the Boeing into it, making sure to place the engines in the right spots. See what happens. If the plane doesn't get in with its fuel and doesn't reach where the core columns would be, end your experiment. If it does, decide if you want to build the $500 million model.
How much do we spend per day in Iraq? I think this is a good investment. Just think, CS, you could shut us up once and for all.
I don't think you could get a collapse to ensure. If you could, and had any money left, build a 1/10 size steel replica and see if you can it to collapse. No fireproofing. Replicate the impact damage from the real-size model, then heat it up uniformly or non-uniformly and see what happens.
This is absolutely hillarious! Perhaps if you had only been arround when the "real" 9/11 investigation was going on you could have made this suggestion to the neoconservative lapdogs conducting it! :) I am sure that fire and trauma from "planes" causes steel and steel reenforced concrete to turn to dust...CASE CLOSED! I am convinced!
"collapse to ensue"
If the plane gets into the $20 million replica, go straight to the 1/10 size replica to save money.
Come on Conspiracy Smasher, take Spooked up on this proposal and tell your Congressman you want a model built.
Check out those idiots at Purdue -- they're shooting beer cans at walls and think that's like an airplane wing full of fuel! Ah ha ha!
Um, are you talking about a life-sized model, or something much smaller? Because if you use a much smaller model you will run into differences in little things like the weight of the towers, air resistence to the fall and so forth that will completely invalidate your results.
"little things like the weight of the towers, air resistence to the fall and so forth that will completely invalidate your results."
I think Spooked just want to show whether the thing would collapse at all, not whether the speed would be the same. Would that be work? Is terminal velocity an issue over this distance? How small would be "much smaller"?
You have a very interesting blog, enlightened layperson. Do you write a lot about humanitarian intervention -- do you have any plans to write about Kosovo?
About your Is Bush to Blame for 9/11 piece, I think the scope of suspects is broader than either the "Bush Administration" or "Al Qaeda." I also don't think the fact that Iraq was not blamed has any special significance. 9/11 led to the Iraq war, and the Afghanistan war was being planned prior to 9/11. I can only speculate about military or geopolitical reasons for starting in Afghanistan.
Anyway, how the towers fell is a separate question from who did it. What was done and how might lead to who did it, or it might not.
Your idea about LIHOP is interesting -- BushCo came in wanting war with Iraq, Iran, or North Korea, didn't consider terrorist attacks on U.S. soil, and saw Afghanistan as an unwanted distraction.
You conclude that you do not believe MIHOP, LIHOP, or culpable negligence, but end with this:
"The way they have exploited the attacks to their political advantage is bad enough."
One could argue that a motive for MIHIP or LIHOP might be in the political advantages sought.
the spooks/perps would never build a legitimate model, it would be an embarrassing defeat...they want to keep these things out of the public's eye...that's the whole essence of a cover-up/whitewash...
because if you use a much smaller model you will run into differences in little things like the weight of the towers, air resistence to the fall and so forth that will completely invalidate your results.
I'm obviously talking about a smaller model. The weight can be scaled down appropriately-- my model weighed about 105 pounds, which scaled up was similar to the WTC. Air resistance is a negligible concern -- especially since we're not talking about measuring collapse times precisely. The more important point is to get the relative strength right, as a smaller model may be more easy to over-engineer.
Why do you think you know more than all of the structural engineers in the country..?
how do you know that he doesn't know more than all of the structural engineers in the country? so far, despite your smashing distractions, we still have yet to see a link to a single structural engineer who really does support the official fairytale.
Read the NIST report doorknob, it's full of REAL engineers, not mouth-breathers building models out of chickenwire.
the NIST report? as if.
what exactly was NIST's explanation for the fact that ALL of the concrete of wtc2 turned completely into powder and MUCH of the steel of wtc2 disappeared entirely in only 10 seconds?
oh that's right, they ignored those phenomena altogether.
oh and what explanation did good old saint NIST give for the fact that many dozens of cars were scorched and some even melted for a radii of several blocks around the wtc on 9/11?
oh that's right, they pretended as if that never happened.
the REAL engineers behind the NIST report? as i said: as if.
spooked, you don't have to prove or explain yourself to Con Smash, Pinch, or any other Spooks/Cointelpro...they have common objectives: ridicule, mock, discredit, distract...cause they're f*ckin spooks/operatives/agents trying to coverup/whitewash the truth...their justice will come...
Post a Comment
<< Home