A virtual model illustrating some aspects of the collapse of the WTC Towers

Oystein

Senior Member
I suggets the following rule of thumb:

When a computer model output, using Blender or any other, more advanced physics engine, doesn't resemble the real world WTC collapse it's supposed to mimic, then there is something wrong with the model, not with reality.
I.o.w.: If you want to know what it looks like when a 47/110 storey skyscraper collapses due to fire, watch the 9/11/2001 news archives.
Model behaviour will not constitute evidence either way that "Truthers" and "Debunkers" would realistically agree upon, ever.
 

Cube Radio

Member
I suggets the following rule of thumb:

When a computer model output, using Blender or any other, more advanced physics engine, doesn't resemble the real world WTC collapse it's supposed to mimic, then there is something wrong with the model, not with reality.
I.o.w.: If you want to know what it looks like when a 47/110 storey skyscraper collapses due to fire, watch the 9/11/2001 news archives.
Model behaviour will not constitute evidence either way that "Truthers" and "Debunkers" would realistically agree upon, ever.
Experimental models don't mimic anything. That is wholly deceptive language. Experimental models seek to investigate reality through the scientific principle of reproducibility. Computer modelling is widely used in industry for its reliability: for example, in aviation, the virtual windtunnel is now a critical part of aircraft design.

I do not think you or Mick would be distancing yourself so rapidly from this little tower collapse experiment if it had produced results that supported your ideas. Can you imagine if I'd used the kind of question-begging argument you've just employed to dismiss the results of a computer modelling effort that did offer evidence to support your theories?
 

Oystein

Senior Member
Cube Radio,
can you please identify what exactly is wrong in my post, or irrelevant to the debate at hand? Because I strongly disagree with the one explicit refutation;
Of course the entire modelling effort in this thread is done to mimic (=illustrate) aspects of the real WTC collapses.

I repeat: "When a computer model output, using Blender or any other, more advanced physics engine, doesn't resemble the real world WTC collapse it's supposed to mimic, then there is something wrong with the model, not with reality."

When a real aircraft's behaviour in reality differs from that of the computer modelling, then it doesn't matter that the model is "reproducible" or "reliable" - it's wrong then and needs to be either discarded or improved until it does in fact mimick real world behaviour. When it fails to reprouce real world behaviour, it's dangerous and worthless.
The virtual windtunnel is now a critical part of aircraft design because it does reliably mimick the behaviour of the real object. If it didn't, it would not be a critical part of aircraft design.

Same applies with WTC models: If they fail to reproduce the behaviour of the real event (to within an acceptable margin of error), that tells us nothing about the real event. It only tells us that the model is wrong. (It doesn't tell us WHAT is wrong with the model, by the way).
 

deirdre

Moderator
Staff member
I do not think you or Mick would be distancing yourself so rapidly from this little tower collapse experiment if it had produced results that supported your ideas
he hasn't even finished it. and he said so which is why he was asking for input. You guys keep saying it doesn't stand up (the one I downloaded stands up, so I'm confused by this although I might be doing something wrong). Maybe you can spend some time adding the column connections, and birdcage, scaling the columns appropriately so Mick doesn't have to do everything for you.
Then you can post your open source code here and Mick can tweak it for you. Maybe you wouldn't have to manipulate the physics in weird ways if the building was built in full, to scale. (I would even add little weight boxes to simulate the weight of office furniture, water in the sprinkler systems etc.. doesn't have to be exact imo).

I don't care what the physics issues are. There's no logical reason those 2 particular floors that I labeled B - and only those 2 floors- would be the first ones to go. It makes no sense if all the sections were built the same.
 

deirdre

Moderator
Staff member
Ah, the model of a "WTC7-style" internal collapse? I'm sorry, I thought the topic of this thread was
the 60 floor one looks exactly like the other ones. have you looked at them yourself? I cant find a 110 one like aka has in his video.
 

Redwood

Active Member

The biggest problem with this is that it has no resemblance to the actual events of 9/11. Both towers leaned as the upper sections collapsed, meaning that when they impacted the lower sections, they did not impact the support columns. Ergo, the failure points on the lower sections were the floor-to-column connections. (See illustration.) The model serves mainly to illustrate that even under the best conditions, total collapse occurs anyway.
@aka has conducted a comprehensive analysis of Mick's models so far. Perhaps the most interesting (in terms of visual resemblance at least) is this one:


Further details in the Reddit thread:
https://www.reddit.com/r/towerchall...adebunk_a_review_of_mick_wests_virtual_model/
 

Attachments

Keith Beachy

Senior Member
The best part about modeling the WTC collapse, we have the gravity collapse of WTC 1 and 2, full up real models, to grade visuals of the models we make. What would the gravity collapse of the WTC towers look like; they look exactly as they did. The WTC towers are a shell, core, and floors; a system which created a building which was strong, could stop airplane impacts below 250 knots, which unlike the ESB which was breached with a small 18 pounds of TNT kinetic energy impact. Do we have to model these things?

Can a model look at the weakness of the WTC, a floor fails at the connections to the core and shell when overloaded past 29,000,000 pounds. This is the weak point, the floors only hold up themselves, not the upper floors. WTC floors are hanging on the core and shell. Thus any model of the WTC which has more than 12 floors collapsing and coming to rest, fails because the lower floors can't hold the 12 floors of mass. Any model which is based on 9/11, if it stops collapsing, fails to model the gravity collapse of the WTC, because the floor core and shell connections can't hold up 12 floors of debris.

Can I move the goalposts for the theme of this thread if the "model" fails to stop a plane going 180 mph?
 

Tomi

Member
That seems a little odd, because his WTC1 collapse simulation seems pretty similar to the actual collapse.

View attachment 26403

View attachment 26402

How do they say it differs? And would that difference be anything that I should look into in my own (much simpler) model?
I think the main thing that you are not modeling is the air pressure pushing the walls out. Your walls are falling in on themselves but if you looked at the time to fall one level, and the amount f air that was pushed out you are getting wind speeds of >200mph and massive pressures, that increase with the speed of the fall. You could model this by an external force to the perimeter structure that varied with height.
 
Top