# Towards A Replicable Physical Model Illustrating Aspects of the Collapse of The WTC Towers on 9/11

#### Oystein

##### Senior Member
In addition to modelling the wrong failure mechanisms, as econ41 correctly points out (the models could be entirely dismissed at that point, no further need to continue scrutiny; but to pile on, Cole commits at least two more fatal modelling errors:

1.) He is unconcerned with scale. Even IF columns-in-line-crushed were a valid model of the real collapse mechanisms, he'd have to show that the dynamic loads in his models are of a similar proportion to the capacity of the static elements thus impacted. This might have to include a discussion of the elasticity of the elements. In all likelihood, all his models have elements that are far too strong relative to loads. This easily happens - it's the old square/cube law that explains why ants can carry tens of times their own weight and flees can jump a hundred times their own length, whereas elephants would probably be fatally crushed if they jumped down from only their own shoulder height. Consider that at each height, the tower structure was able to hold up only something 3 times their weight above, and only if precisely aligned vertically. Now find the most fragile drinking glas, vase or similar vessel that you can find in your household. Weigh it. Then place three times that weight on it. Be bold: ten times its own weight. This should be no problem! A real tower would collapse the moment you place 3 times its weight on it even ever so gently. In correct scale, a model ought to be as fragile as an extremely delicate bottle with super-thin glass walls.

2.) In the models where he has distinct storeys with sequences of floors and vertical supports, he always does the first drop from a height of several such storeys, usually by dropping only one storey of mass. This often breaks the first impacted storey, but then the collapse soon arrests. This is a wrong procedure. He ought to do the drop from at most one storey of height, but with several (ideally like 12) storeys of mass. The first impacted floor then either gets "crushed", or collapse arrests - this is a matter of correct scaling. If the first floor is crushed, then such a correct model would show that all subseent floors also get crushed - at increasing velocity. The reason is that each storey can absorb the same amount of kinetic energy, while kinetic energy is fed by the potential energy difference of 1 storey height difference. A large initial drop frustrates the homogenity of the model.

#### econ41

##### Senior Member
In addition to modelling the wrong failure mechanisms, as econ41 correctly points out (the models could be entirely dismissed at that point, no further need to continue scrutiny; but to pile on, Cole commits at least two more fatal modelling errors:
Agreed - with my usual pedantic provisos - not all members are as clear thinking as you (and maybe I ). Experience tells us that there is always a risk that some will confuse real with not real scenarios >> confusion. And - in strict "issue taxonomy" - given that the model is WRONG the other factors are moot rather than fatal. AKA you cannot kill something that doesn't exist.

1.) He is unconcerned with scale....
Agreed this aspect and your full explanation - provide we maintain clarity of what we are applying it to.
Even IF columns-in-line-crushed were a valid model...
True for the specifics - the principles would apply to either real or false model.

Nearly everyone commenting on the real event or my explanations or Mick's models on this forum comprehends what the real mechanism of progression was. That clarity does not apply on some other forums.

You second "fatal modelling error" goes to "initiation" and is more risky IMO. AFAIK we haven't discussed the "initiation stage" in depth and we still seem to be accepting "drop to impact" mechanisms as valid:
2.) In the models..... he always does the first drop from a height of several such storeys,....
Once again I agree this aspect and your full explanation is valid when referencing Cole's models. BUT the initiation mechanism for the real event was NOT "dropping through a clear gap" (no matter what the distance of gap) - it was by "scrunching" - a cascading sequence of columns "scrunching" - shortening under axial loading thereby folding (possible a few shearing at connections) (Some cut by initial aircraft impact). Bottom line for most columns there was NEVER a gap to fall through and the "descent" was always of a buckling to failure column offering some resistance not free fall.

(And we need to keep that aspect before us on this forum because it is a contentious issue of misunderstanding on at least one other forum.)

"Dropping" can only be an artifice to start the progression NOT a legitimate model of the initiation process. And that is true whether applied to the written in words abstract model of Bazant & Zhou - which used the artifice of pretended dropping OR in a physical model. And also true whether it is a valid physical model of "progression" such as Mick's OR a not valid model such as Cole's.

Last edited:

#### psikeyhackr

##### Member
There was heavy equipment on the top mech floors including elevator machinery, radio transmitters., tanks, HVAC equipment. The mech floors were 6" slabs and the framing was standard wf beams and girders.

And that would affect the location of the Center of Gravity of the tilted top portion of the south tower. The core supported 53% of the weight according to the NIST. So if the CoG was beyond the edge of the core what would the effect have been?

So after 15 years the fact that "Experts" have not raised the question is even more curious than where the CoG actually was.

psik

#### Mick West

Staff member
And that would affect the location of the Center of Gravity of the tilted top portion of the south tower. The core supported 53% of the weight according to the NIST. So if the CoG was beyond the edge of the core what would the effect have been?

So after 15 years the fact that "Experts" have not raised the question is even more curious than where the CoG actually was.

psik

How does this relate to this model?

#### Mick West

Staff member
I had an extended discussion on Facebook regarding this model, and specifically the scale of the strength of the connections. I'm not sure if I got the point across though.

Full discussion enclosed in this spoiler, for size.
Ken Doc II
August 5 at 12:02pm
I, Ken Doc challenge Mick West (creator of Metabunk) to redo his experiment exactly the same way but this time to SCREW each piece of wood together. Deal?

Offset narrow core progressive collapse
See Discussion here:https://www.metabunk.org/towards-a-replicable-physical-model-illustrating-aspects-of-the-collapse…

33

Ken Doc II
Are you going to leave this group too, Mick?

Why did you run away from the 9/11 Truth Movement group?

Like · Reply · 1 · August 5 at 12:03pm

Mike Collins
Mick, you didn't even fasten those members together in your model?

Do you think that buildings are made by duct-taping columns together? lol

Like · Reply · 1 · August 5 at 12:03pm

Mick West
No, and I already explained why. The connections would be too strong for the scale. The floor slabs need to fail at 6x static load.

Like · Reply · August 5 at 12:03pm

Mike Collins
Lol wow man, you should consult with a 7th grade science teacher next time you need help.

Like · Reply · 1 · August 5 at 12:03pm

Ken Doc II
Mick West did a similar experiment but instead of screws, he used magnets to attach the structure together. At 2:25 his experiment fails and in his own words he says "partial collapse". So he takes off the magnetic supports in order to deceive his viewers of structural failure at 4:00.

Mick also drops the boards through the center of the structure with least support....See More

8 Floor progressive collapse, problems with splice plates.

Like · Reply · August 5 at 12:04pm

Mick West
Ken, how much static weight could the floor slabs support in the WTC? How do you model that at 1/100th scale?

Like · Reply · August 5 at 12:04pm

Ken Doc II
Mick West claims that he didn;t want to use screws because it would have made the structure too strong..... as each floor is only designed to hold 6-12 times its static load.

But that didn't stop him from using magnets to attach the structure together in another experiment he did.

Like · Reply · 1 · August 5 at 12:04pm

Mick West
Er yes, that's exactly why I used magnets. To get the 6x static load failure point.

Like · Reply · August 5 at 12:05pm

Mike Collins
The floor slabs didn't have structural loads. They bore the loads of each floor, like occupants and furniture....

You should talk to an actual engineer before making up such ridiculously stupid and childish models. All you are doing is further provi...See More

Like · Reply · 1 · August 5 at 12:06pm

Mike Collins

9/11 Firefighters Reveal Bombs Destroyed WTC lobby

Like · Reply · 1 · August 5 at 12:07pm

Mike Collins
You are a shameful person dude.

Like · Reply · August 5 at 12:07pm

Mick West
Mike Collins: " The floor slabs didn't have structural loads. " -EXACTLY, which is why I can't use screws.

Like · Reply · August 5 at 12:07pm

Ken Doc II
I will let you take it from here Mike...... Mick has already refused my challenge like a coward and even ran away from the other group.

Mick West refuses my challenge!

Like · Reply · 1 · August 5 at 12:07pm

Mick West
I did not run away for the other group, y'all got distracted by someone taking abut energy weapons or something.

Like · Reply · August 5 at 12:08pm

Mick West
And I explained the problem with your challenge. You are basically asking me to make a model that is incorrect in terms of connection strength.

Like · Reply · August 5 at 12:09pm

Mike Collins
Mick, you cannot make a model which would be anything close to the WTC in terms of scale....

1. Because you don't know the scales involved, besides simple minded assumptions of highly estimated values....See More

Like · Reply · August 5 at 12:09pm

Mick West
Mike: " Floor slabs don't support the building's structure. " EXACTLY, which is why can't used screws, as then they would be able to support the entire model structure. I'm striving for accuracy.

Like · Reply · August 5 at 12:10pm

Ken Doc II
"striving for accuracy"

Were all the structural elements inside the towers bolted together? Or were they just laying on top of each other as in your experiment....See More

Like · Reply · 1 · August 5 at 12:11pm

Mick West
Mike "Mick, you cannot make a model which would be anything close to the WTC in terms of scale." Of course not, if you made a 1/100th model it would have to be a solid monolith of something denser than gold to scale correctly. You can only model ASPECTS of the collapse.

Like · Reply · August 5 at 12:11pm

Mick West
The connections had a breaking strength relative to the mass of the floors, did they not? Now should I A) make it the same ratio (magnets), or make it a ratio about 100x too high (screws)? Which is more accurate?

Like · Reply · August 5 at 12:13pm

Ken Doc II
Mick, Mike is a Mechanical Engineer. You are a retired videogame programmer.

He is much more qualified than you on this stuff.

Like · Reply · 1 · August 5 at 12:13pm

Mick West
Then Mike will eventually understand what I'm saying about the connection strength ratio.,

Like · Reply · August 5 at 12:14pm

Mike Collins
Qualifications only matter if someone can't understand the subject matter.

The problem with people like Mick is that they aren't versed enough in this subject to understand the difference between 'facts' and 'opinions', so he calls them both the same thing......See More

Like · Reply · 1 · August 5 at 12:14pm

Paul Kayley
Complex models are not needed. After seeing through the catalogue of lies told by NIST about Building 7 it's obvious to anyone without naïve ignorance that all these were demolitions. Anyone who defends this crime is either too stupid to be giving out advice or is complicit in its escape from justice. Mick you should be ashamed.

Like · Reply · 3 · August 5 at 12:15pm

Mick West
So, Mike, in this scale model, how strong should the floor-to-column connections be, expressed as the static load they can support?

Like · Reply · August 5 at 12:15pm

Mick West
Which words?

Like · Reply · August 5 at 12:17pm

Mick West

Like · Reply · 1 · August 5 at 12:19pm

Ken Doc II
Here is Mick's "this is about 1/100th scale" model of the Towers! lol

Like · Reply · 2 · August 5 at 12:20pm
Hide 11 Replies

Mick West
It's the bottom half. Just imagine it twice as high.

Like · Reply · August 5 at 12:21pm

Ken Doc II
Oh, so you admit that your replica is now not to scale after stating it was a "1/100th scale". Your words.

Like · Reply · 1 · August 5 at 12:22pm

Mick West
Towers were 200 feet wide, my base here is 2 feet wide. The basic principles still apply.

Like · Reply · August 5 at 12:24pm

Mike Collins
"The basic principles still apply...Can someone tell me what those principles are because I have no idea what I'm talking about whatsoever and am not anything close to being an engineer"

Unlike · Reply · 2 · August 5 at 12:26pm

Mick West
Progressive collapse by the floor slab connections failing due to massive dynamic loads far above what they could support. Which at the veery least would result in all the floors falling to the ground. But since the columns lost their lateral support they also failed.

Like · Reply · August 5 at 12:28pm

Mike Collins
Progressive collapses do not occur in real life if the bottom of the structure is completely undamaged and begins in static equilibrium.

If you do not understand this principle of physics and the definition of 'static equilibrium', then this conversation is over and you basically are saying "I am just a fool, ignore me"

Like · Reply · 1 · August 5 at 12:30pm

Mike Collins
Even if you hit a nail with a hammer at 400 mph, the hammer will decelerate upon hitting the stationary nail, because of the transfer of momentum and the conversion of kinetic energy into the nail...

Like · Reply · 1 · August 5 at 12:30pm

Mick West
But the issue here is the failure of the FLOOR SLABS. They can't support the dynamic load of the falling structure, hence they fail. Then the columns fail later.

Like · Reply · August 5 at 12:31pm

Mike Collins
You cannot have a progressive collapse, unless the entire building is somewhat weakened, and the dynamic forces can exceed each floors failure strength. However, for this to occur, the building would have to be weakened to about 95% failure already, o...See More

Demolition Fail Compilation, best…

Like · Reply · 1 · August 5 at 12:31pm

Mike Collins
See my comment above for other buildings which cannot collapse. The floor slabs and structure are one assembly upon completion of construction. Destroying a floor slab still requires energy. I'm not sure how you are getting so confused, unless you are just trolling.

In which case, I dont want to waste time anymore

Like · Reply · 1 · August 5 at 12:33pm

Mick West
We are not talking about destroying a floor slab, we are talking about the floor slab connections failing. The seats. These things:

Like · Reply · August 5 at 12:35pm

Mick West
The floor connections at the columns support the weight to the floor - a static load. There's a minor live load from the occupants. If we were to take six floor slabs and place them on one floor it would fail at the connectors. So we have to model this in the scale model.

Like · Reply · August 5 at 12:21pm

Ken Doc II
DIY Tower Replicator. Screws sold separately. lol

Like · Reply · 2 · August 5 at 12:21pm

Mick West
So Mike, how much weight ,expressed as a multiple of floor slabs, should the connectors in one floor slab be able to support in my model? And how can I do this with screws?

Like · Reply · August 5 at 12:23pm

Ken Doc II
https://law.resource.org/.../gov.bd.bnbc.2012.06.02.pdf

Like · Reply · August 5 at 12:25pm

Mick West
Great, and did you find the answer in there?

Like · Reply · August 5 at 12:26pm
View more replies

Ken Doc II
Geez Mick, you may as well have just built a stack of cards in your experiment.

Like · Reply · 1 · August 5 at 12:24pm

Paul Kayley
Why do you guys even bother with people like this? How does he explain the disappearance of the core columns and the floor slabs? The slabs should have stacked up upon each other and core columns remained connected and visible, not turned to powder and fallen to pieces, respectively.

Like · Reply · 1 · August 5 at 12:26pm · Edited

Mike Collins
I'm not anymore. Just ignore him. People like that can only hear themselves, and even if you listed out textbook quotations, he would just rely on his own youtube videos lol.

Like · Reply · 1 · August 5 at 12:27pm

Mick West
Can you just tell me how much weight the floor connectors should support, as a function of the actual floor slab weight?

Like · Reply · August 5 at 12:29pm

Paul Kayley
Yawn

Like · Reply · 1 · August 5 at 12:30pm

Ken Doc II
Do your own research Mick or go talk to Structural Engineers.

Like · Reply · 1 · August 5 at 12:32pm

Mick West
Look, the challenge here was to use screws in my model. I've explained why I did not. Does anyone want to dispute my explanation with actual numbers? How strong SHOULD the connections be in my model?

Like · Reply · August 5 at 12:33pm

Mick West
Maybe a simple example would help. Here's an earlier model with super stable columns, just to illustrate the progressive collapse of the floor slabs themselves. Each slab has connectors that can support 6 other slabs.

Double height progressive collapse

Like · Reply · Remove Preview · August 5 at 12:37pm

Mick West
And this explains the design of the magnet/steel connectors, and a test of the static load. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ddPwLQeowI

Magnets with mending plates as seat connectors

Like · Reply · Remove Preview · August 5 at 12:40pm

Ken Doc II
Just shut up already and screw the planks into each other.

The only reason you refuse to do so is because you know there would be no total collapse. In other words you created your own experiment to suit your pre determined conclusion. Just like what NIST did.

Like · Reply · 1 · August 5 at 12:40pm

Mick West
Watch the above video Ken, it explains the design of the connectors. It demonstrates static loading the same as the towers. Then tell me how I could do that with screws.

Like · Reply · August 5 at 12:41pm

Ken Doc II
I saw that video last night. Stop using weak stilts to hold up your planks. Also, your exterior columns still stood.

Like · Reply · 1 · August 5 at 12:43pm

Mick West
You want them the correct strength though don't you? Why would you make them 100x too strong? What would that prove?

Like · Reply · August 5 at 12:45pm

Mick West
And I meant THIS video: https://l.facebook.com/l.php...

Magnets with mending plates as seat connectors

Like · Reply · Remove Preview · August 5 at 12:45pm

Ken Doc II
So instead you make them 100x too weak. lol

Go talk to a structural engineer you fool.

Like · Reply · 1 · August 5 at 12:46pm

Ken Doc II
Mick doesn;t want to use screws because he didn;t want to make his replica as strong as the Towers....... or a bookshelf for that matter.

Fail!

Like · Reply · August 5 at 12:55pm

Mick West
No, I want to make the connections exactly as strong as they were TO SCALE. It's a scale model remember. They need to support 6-12 times the weight of one floor slab, and they do. So it's accurate.

Like · Reply · August 5 at 1:02pm

Ken Doc II
Then attach your structure together, just like in ANY scale model.

Like · Reply · 1 · August 5 at 1:03pm

Mick West
THere's a difference between a VISUAL scale model and a model that illustrates the PHYSICAL aspects of an object. Remember how strong Hot Wheels are compared to real cars.

Like · Reply · August 5 at 1:04pm

Ken Doc II

SkyscraperModels.us - World Trade Center - New York, New York, United States
SKYSCRAPERMODELS.US

Like · Reply · August 5 at 1:05pm

Mick West
Think about the floor connectors. How strong should they be in my model? I'm not asking what they should look like, or what types of connectors to use. I'm asking HOW STRONG should they be.

Like · Reply · August 5 at 1:05pm

Mick West
That's a visual model.

Like · Reply · August 5 at 1:06pm

Mick West
And it does not have floors, it's basically a cardboard box.

Like · Reply · August 5 at 1:07pm

Ken Doc II
They don't make skyscrapers leaning on stilts. Everything is BOLTED together for extra strength and durability.

But that doesn;t concern you for some reason. You're afraid to attach your structure together because your own experiment would fail.

Like · Reply · 1 · August 5 at 1:07pm

Mick West
I'm concerned the connections are the right strength. You just seem concerned that I use screws. Which concern is going to lead to the most accurate strength for the connections?

Like · Reply · August 5 at 1:09pm

Paul Kayley
This is like arguing over the sinking of the Titanic being due to a fault in the type rivets! It was a F***ing ice berg! The twin towers were brought down the same way building 7 was! It's obvious!

Like · Reply · 1 · August 5 at 1:09pm

Ken Doc II
Ok Mick, you are repeating yourself over and over again and it's becoming quite tiresome.

So make this easy on everyone.... you refuse to accept my challenge!

Like · Reply · 1 · August 5 at 1:10pm

Mick West
Your challenge is for me to make a model with unrealistically strong connections. So why would I do that? Again, HOW MUCH WEIGHT SHOULD A FLOOR SUPPORT in my model?

Like · Reply · August 5 at 1:11pm

Mick West
I'm not asking what connections to use. I'm asking how much weight it should support.

Like · Reply · August 5 at 1:12pm · Edited

Mick West
I'll go do a test with screws right now, if you just tell me how much weight they should support.

Like · Reply · August 5 at 1:12pm

Ken Doc II
Mick, shouldn;t you have done this research yourself? Are you telling me that even though you have done 100's of experiments, that you have never looked into how much each floor should hold?

"For example, a properly designed office floor can support 5...See More

How Much Weight Can a Floor Support? A structural engineer explains. - Allegheny…
ALLEGHENYDESIGN.COM

Like · Reply · 1 · August 5 at 1:15pm

Ken Doc II
Note: These figures seem to represent a wooden framed office building, not a steel framed skyrise. It's not clearly stated in my link.

"For example, a floor joist at 16” spacing’s that can carry 53 pounds per linear foot would translate into a 318 pound single point load at its center."

Like · Reply · August 6 at 7:54am

Ken Doc II

Find this shit on your own. Especially, if you are going to do experiments trying to prove a point but yet have no clue what you are doing.

Like · Reply · 1 · August 5 at 1:16pm

Mick West
I'm going by the NIST figures which give a conservative estimate of 6x their weight, when gradually applied.
"The vertical capacity of the connections supporting an intact floor below the level of collapse was adequate to carry the load of 11 additio...See More

NIST Federal Building and Fire Safety Investigation of the World Trade Center Disaster Answers to FAQ's-Supplement (12/14/2007)
faq's supplement for WTC investigation
NIST.GOV

Like · Reply · Remove Preview · August 5 at 1:27pm

Ken Doc II
The NIST report is so flawed that you shouldn't be using the numbers from a Govt organization that was paid to come to a pre determined conclusion.

Like · Reply · 2 · August 5 at 1:36pm

Ken Doc II
and you do know that NIST's figures you used are based on a STEEL FRAMED WTC. Not a Wooden framed replica.

Just saying.

Like · Reply · 1 · August 6 at 7:49am

Mick West
But if you want to go with 50 pounds per square foot, then being REALLY conservative we can take the entire cross-sectional area 200x200 feet (the actual area was less), so 200x200x50 pounds, in tons 1000 tons. So you think a floor should be able to statically support 1000 tons, right? Or about 1/500th the weight of the entire structure?

Like · Reply · August 5 at 1:32pm

Mick West
And that's just static load, right? And spread over the entire floor area.

Like · Reply · August 5 at 1:33pm

Mick West
Okay, I'll go do a test with some screws.

Like · Reply · 1 · August 5 at 1:33pm

Ken Doc II
I am not a structural engineer Mick. Neither are you. But please, do the same experiment using screws. That is all I have been asking for. Thanks.

Like · Reply · 1 · August 5 at 1:35pm

Mick should explain his test using magnets where the friction coefficient does not equate to live load capacity,his three block live load does not even equal nists claimed live load capacity,and,he has no core,and no peeling walls,just a pancaking collapse induced by sliding magnets and a lot more weight.
That their is science.....in bizarre world

Like · Reply · 1 · August 5 at 1:45pm

Ken Doc II
Welcome to the discussion Barry. Mick is preparing his new experiment with screws this time.

and Mick, if you could securely attach your structure to the ground as well, that would be great. I'd hate to see it wobble on you and fall over.

Like · Reply · 1 · August 5 at 1:47pm

Mick West
I'm just going to do one floor, to demonstrate it's too strong a connection. As should be pretty obvious.

Like · Reply · August 5 at 1:54pm

Ken Doc II
Wooden planks with screws is too strong....... but steel framed buildings with center core columns, trusses, perimeter columns are weak.

Like · Reply · 1 · August 5 at 1:56pm

Mick West
It's all about scale Ken. Would you agree that a floor should fail at the column connections if it were loaded with the mass of 12 identical floors?

Like · Reply · August 5 at 2:03pm

Mick West
The wooden floor slabs, with screws, can support around 200 pounds of fairly dynamic load (i.e. a person). That's 400x their own weiight, or around 66x too strong

Like · Reply · August 5 at 2:05pm

Ken Doc II
Isn't it amazing how strong a tower becomes when it's connected together with bolts.... or in this case.... screws.

Like · Reply · August 5 at 2:08pm

Mick West
How strong, relative to the weight of one floor?

Like · Reply · August 5 at 2:09pm

Ken Doc II
What you did in your experiment was create a house of cards.

Like · Reply · August 5 at 2:09pm

Mick West
I created something with accurately scaled floor connections.

Like · Reply · August 5 at 2:09pm

Ken Doc II
For a perfect symmetrical collapse like we witnessed tells me that every connection would have failed simultaneously. This is something that fire cannot accomplish alone. Which is why Controlled demolition companies exist.

Like · Reply · 1 · August 5 at 2:06pm · Edited

Mick West
Here's a single 0.5 pound floor model (with screws) supporting 170 pounds of live load. It's supposed to fail at 3 pounds.

Like · Reply · August 5 at 2:08pm · Edited

Ken Doc II
Experiment: Have you ever stood on a popcan? I think we have all tried it at one point in time. An empty hollow aluminum popcan typically weighs 15 grams, yet it can easily hold the weight of 100 lbs.

In comparison, 100 lbs is roughly 45,000 grams. Wh...See More

Standing on a soda can
I stand on a regular Barqes root beer can.

Like · Reply · 2 · August 5 at 2:10pm

Mick West
I stand on cans all the time. It's a great example of the scale problem. Could WTC2 support the weight of 3000 times its own weight.

Like · Reply · August 5 at 2:12pm

Ken Doc II
You are comparing Apples to Watermelons! Finish your experiment with screws and let me know when you are done.

Like · Reply · 1 · August 5 at 2:12pm

Mick West
Take one WTC2, place another on top of it. The bottom one collapses. Cans do not. It's a scale problem. How do you model a WTC2 that's 12' tall?

Like · Reply · August 5 at 2:13pm

Mick West
That one floor is all that is needed to illustrate the problem. I'll upload the video in a bit.

Like · Reply · August 5 at 2:13pm

Ken Doc II
Actually, if you looked at the design of the towers. It's really three towers stacked on top of each other. You can see that when looking where the sky lobbies were.

https://kendoc911.files.wordpress.com/.../wtc-elevators.gif

KENDOC911.FILES.WORDPRESS.COM

Like · Reply · 1 · August 5 at 2:15pm

Ken Doc II
That one floor screwed together would probably be able to support 10 floors above it. So I do understand the "scaling strength" you are talking about. But then this goes back to premise that.... It’s physically impossible for the top 1/5th of a building to smash through and completely destroy the entire bottom 4/5ths.

Like · Reply · 1 · August 5 at 2:17pm

Mick West
I'd agree if we were talking above a sold block of something. But we are not, we are talking about a complex structure. What if, purely hypothetically, we were to remove all the floor slabs in the building, so the outer walls were no longer attached to the core? What would happen?

Like · Reply · August 5 at 2:31pm

Ken Doc II
Are you trying to change the design of the WTC to suit your needs again?

Lets put things into perspective, no building (HIGH RISE) has ever completely collapsed from fire and /or structural damage in the history of modern construction....See More

Like · Reply · 1 · August 5 at 2:39pm

I personally would like to ask,and forgive me if covered,where have we covered perimeter wall collapse?
Is it demonstrable that the four sides would all fall out and down? If so,then wouldn't they need to remain connected in order to peel.
If they dri...See More

Like · Reply · 1 · August 5 at 2:43pm

Ken Doc II
Great point Barry. Let's not forget about the 22 degree tilt seen in the video footage. It doesn;t continue falling over. It decides to go straight down through the path of GREATEST resistance at near free fall acceleration.

https://kendoc911.files.wordpress.com/.../22degreetiltmem...

KENDOC911.FILES.WORDPRESS.COM

Like · Reply · 2 · August 5 at 2:45pm

Ken Doc II
As for the Jolt! There is no jolt from the top block hitting the lower block. In fact, the top block looks to disintegrate before it even touches the bottom block.

WTC1 Upper Section Collapse...See More

Like · Reply · 2 · August 5 at 2:48pm · Edited

Ken Doc II
Not sure if this animated gif will work but here.

Like · Reply · 1 · August 5 at 2:49pm

Ken Doc II
https://kendoc911.files.wordpress.com/.../wtc1frameantenn...

KENDOC911.FILES.WORDPRESS.COM

Like · Reply · August 5 at 2:49pm

Ken Doc II
I got so many more images just like that and they all show the same thing happening.

Like · Reply · 1 · August 5 at 2:50pm

Mick West
I think you are kind of drifting off topic. The issue the model s intended to address is if a structure could collapse from the top down. I think my model illustrates that it can. I also explained why do not use screws.

Like · Reply · August 5 at 2:58pm

Mick West
I think also the model shoudl help illustrate why there would be no "jolt". It's not like falling solid block with a flat leading edge, it's a wave of debris.

Like · Reply · August 5 at 3:00pm

Mick West
And I ask again. What would happen to the building if the floors were removed?

Like · Reply · August 5 at 3:00pm

Ken Doc II
I have to close up shop now Mick and will be back on later tonight. Hopefully you are a man of your word and finish screwing the rest of the planks and redo your experiment.

"What would happen to the building if the floors were removed?"...See More

Like · Reply · August 5 at 3:02pm

Mick West
Here's the full test. There's no need to do any more than this, as it's obviously too strong. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aqaGgSmcoL4

Why not use screws
Explaining why screws would be far too strong in a scale model of the WTC.

Like · Reply · Remove Preview · August 5 at 3:19pm

Ken Doc II
Thanks for proving my point! lol

Like · Reply · August 6 at 8:00am

Ken Doc II
Mick, you are hung up on the 6 to 12 times the static load limit.

A lot buildings are created differently but one thing that is the same is that all the pieces are bolted or screwed together....See More

Like · Reply · 1 · August 6 at 7:55am · Edited

Mick West
Yes the PLANKS can support 100x their own weight with screws However the ACTUAL FLOORS in the WTC could not. Hence I don't use screws, because want it to be accurate.

Like · Reply · August 6 at 8:08am

Ken Doc II
Like i said before Mick..... please never design a building that people have to walk into. Let alone a book shelf for a book to rest on. lol

Like · Reply · August 6 at 7:56am

Why should the top floors or many even,dissapear.
We are not talking whole floors.
The floors were composite sections.
They were on four sides connected eight sides.
Any warp or bow,would...See More

Like · Reply · August 6 at 7:58am

Mick West
My model illustrates the progression of the collapse. How it got started is another story. I just wanted to illustrate that progressive collapse is possible without explosives.

Like · Reply · August 6 at 8:10am

Ken Doc II
It's only possible if you stack it like a house of cards, which is what you did in the o/p video.

Were the Towers stacked like a house of cards?

Like · Reply · August 6 at 8:19am

Ken Doc II
The key word you used there Barry is SIMULTANEOUS!

In order for a structure to come down the way we witnessed with both Towers and Building 7. All vertical supports must be removed at the SAME TIME. There are even many cases when Controlled demolitio...See More

Like · Reply · August 6 at 8:05am

Ken Doc II
I guess that building debunks your 6 to 12 times the static load limit. lol

Like · Reply · August 6 at 8:05am

Mick West
6-12 is for non-load-bearing floor elements - i.e. the office space.

Like · Reply · August 6 at 8:06am

Ken Doc II
If you add 47 center core support columns to a structure. What is the static load limit compared to a structure without 47 center core columns?

Like · Reply · August 6 at 8:09am

Mick West
The support from columns is irrelevant in the model, because I'm modeling the collapse of the floor via the failure of the seat connections. The columns could essentially be infinitely strong in this model. Remember we can't simulate EVERYTHING at this scale, just aspects of the collapse.

Like · Reply · August 6 at 8:12am

Ken Doc II
but but but, you claimed your model was almost at "1/100th scale" but then you said, you have to add another tower on top of it.

So which is, is it a 1/100th scale or did you lie?

Like · Reply · August 6 at 8:13am

Mick West
the 1/100th scale is based on the width being 2 feet. The model would need to be higher to be true to scale (in terms of the aspect ratio). However it's only intended to model the collapse progression - once it gets started it would obviously accelerate and keep going. It's just rather tricky to build a 13 foot high model. I went up to 8 feet.

Like · Reply · August 6 at 8:21am

Ken Doc II
and you also forgot to attach the pieces together but ya!

In your last video, you proved that just by adding screws that the structure was able to support your own weight (170lbs)

Like · Reply · August 6 at 8:31am

Mick West
Yes, that was the point. It supported too much weight.

Like · Reply · August 6 at 8:34am

Mick West
So why would I add screws and make it inaccurate?

Like · Reply · August 6 at 8:35am

Ken Doc II
So why would you not even attach them at all and make it inaccurate? How about glue or would that make it too strong as well?

Like · Reply · 1 · August 6 at 8:39am

Ken Doc II
Mick creates a replica of the WTC and then says the Center core is irrelevant. LOL

Like · Reply · August 6 at 8:14am

Ken Doc II

What are the static load limits of a floor structure in a building which has a center core and does not have a center core?

Like · Reply · August 6 at 8:16am

Mick West
Load limits are a design spec, they can be achieved with or without a central core.

Like · Reply · August 6 at 8:18am

Ken Doc II
Heck, why do they make a center core if they only need to achieve a 6-12 times static load? lol

Like · Reply · August 6 at 8:21am

Mick West
To hold up the building, and to give the floors something to be attached to. You are confusing the overall structural loads with the local static loads of the floors. The floors do not need to support the vertical load of the building - they just hol...See More

Like · Reply · August 6 at 8:24am

Ken Doc II
"It's the columns that hold up the building."

and are these columns attached together or just sitting on themselves?

Like · Reply · August 6 at 8:36am

Ken Doc II
"The floors do not need to support the vertical load of the building"

This is correct but adding a center core is only going to give the floor that much more support. As each floor will be sitting and bolted to the core!

Like · Reply · August 6 at 8:41am

Ken Doc II
You like to leave things out that don't suit your needs. Just like NIST!

Besides the center core, bridging trusses and the steel deck, Nist totally left out the concrete floors! So this whole theory of the “truss Pull in” is totally flawed because the...See More

Like · Reply · August 6 at 8:43am

Ken Doc II
Just one of NIST's many theories.

https://kendoc911.files.wordpress.com/.../nistcoll_truss.gif

KENDOC911.FILES.WORDPRESS.COM

Like · Reply · August 6 at 8:45am

Ken Doc II
NOVA thought the core was irrelevant too. Only problem is that the Core was not still standing.

Debunking Novas Pancake Theory of WTC using common sense...See More

Debunking Novas Pancake Theory of WTC using…

Like · Reply · August 6 at 8:46am
View more replies

Mick we know a progressive collapse can be done without explosive ,verinage method shows that,but.
The verinage I have examined have different lines at different heights,internal jacks,everything possible removed,and weakened.
So the etc not weakened ...See More

Like · Reply · August 6 at 8:51am

Yep that fema image is a classic,and highlights my point,because a 3d rendering will show a isolated pocket of fire under a spot of sagging floor,the WTC 5 columns show us buckling,which we would expect in the twins and subsequently,lean,and partial failure.
We instead get,straight through itself all the way

Like · Reply · August 6 at 8:53am

Ken Doc II
The verinage techinique cannot be done on steel framed buildings. Only buildings with load bearing walls.

The Verinage Technique Characteristics:...See More

Like · Reply · 1 · August 6 at 8:54am

Ken Doc II
Debunkers forget to mention any of these characteristics when explaining the Verinage technique.

The Verinage technique only helps validate that what happened on 9/11 was physically impossible without the aid of explosives.

Like · Reply · 1 · August 6 at 8:54am

Went through with a debunker and discovered that verinage rarely even caused a total collapse and ALWAYS had prep,like you said and I said,weakening wall.rwmoval,cables and jacks over multiple.floors.
Proving that you need to control the demolition very carefully to replicate what is seen.

Like · Reply · August 6 at 9:56am

Mick West
The original question here is if I should have used screws in my model. I think I've explained why not.

Like · Reply · August 6 at 9:58am

Paul Kayley
There's only one issue regarding you and a screw or two mate!

Like · Reply · August 6 at 10:12am

#### deirdre

##### Senior Member.
I'm not sure if I got the point across though.
maybe part of the problem is that they didnt read the whole thread (well to page 2) or watch all the videos.. and who can blame them really. Here he says

but your first magnet experiment on page 2 shows the magnets holding 11 or 12 floors. he also states [paraphrased] that the floors are just resting on each other. The beginning of the thread is when you just had the floors resting on each other.

I think you need to fix the OP probably, including a clearer explanation that the thread below is a discussion on how to build a scale model. Maybe also edit your final video to splice in the construction including that the magnets hold 12 floors (or 6 or whatever the final set up held)... too many video pieces all spread out for them to find.

#### OneWhiteEye

##### Senior Member
I had an extended discussion on Facebook regarding this model, and specifically the scale of the strength of the connections. I'm not sure if I got the point across though.
Ouch, what a train wreck. You are quite patient.

#### Oystein

##### Senior Member
Let us know when Ken Doc gives you the ban hammer.
I have been banned from his group since over a year ago.

#### tinkertailor

##### Senior Member.
Oh, lovely. He memed you. How positively charming...

#### econ41

##### Senior Member
I've been posting a bit on facebook after a respected colleague asked me if I would debate a truther member who was after an engineer opponent. I sort of said "yes" but here is the outline of my CV and ROEs. The challenger disappeared over the horizon in a cloud of dust.

Silly me didn't walk away - instead I got caught in discussions. Talk about 2006-7-8 revisited. Sadly Facebook is a "one sentence" response sort of medium and even the best of the "debunkers" are not into discusion at the level of seriousness the topic complexities require.

At my age I should have known better. BUT it is trivially easy even tho discussion goes nowhere.

I wont embarrass the "respected colleague" by identifying him. I've forgiven him.

#### Oystein

##### Senior Member
Hey econ, I didn't ask you to stay when said engineer opponent disappeared over the horizon in a cloud of dust

#### econ41

##### Senior Member
Mea very much culpa - and I'm old enough to know better.

#### Mick West

Staff member
Just add this interesting rebuttal of my arguments here:

#### Jeffrey Orling

##### Senior Member
This is what happens when you engage juveniles.

#### Mick West

Staff member
This is what happens when you engage juveniles.
Sure, but there's 37,000 members in that group. Some of them might actually get what I'm talking about.

#### Landru

##### Moderator
Staff member
Just add this interesting rebuttal of my arguments here:

Ah, the Socratic wonder that is the the internet.

#### tinkertailor

##### Senior Member.
My favorite part is that he added it as an aside afterwards, like his argument was spot on but then he just HAD to add that last bit.

#### econ41

##### Senior Member
Sure, but there's 37,000 members in that group. Some of them might actually get what I'm talking about.
That is my assessment also Mick - for the Group Oystein introduced me to.

#### deirdre

##### Senior Member.
Sure, but there's 37,000 members in that group. Some of them might actually get what I'm talking about.
im assuming he means the screw should go inward so only a teeny part of the screw sticks out to mimic the floor bracket. maybe. Because if the head was the bracket its even stronger.

he claims a screw would hold 10 floors. well,, yea even I know that.

maybe you can build a quick box thing and pile 30 or 40 "floors" on it to show that the screw is TOO strong. ?? (which again even i know, without having to see it, so i think this guy is just trolling you)

#### Landru

##### Moderator
Staff member
im assuming he means the screw should go inward so only a teeny part of the screw sticks out to mimic the floor bracket. maybe. Because if the head was the bracket its even stronger.

he claims a screw would hold 10 floors. well,, yea even I know that.

maybe you can build a quick box thing and pile 30 or 40 "floors" on it to show that the screw is TOO strong. ?? (which again even i know, without having to see it, so i think this guy is just trolling you)
I don't think they get the simulation. They don't understand/believe that six floors would cause a collapse.

#### Oystein

##### Senior Member
Sure, but there's 37,000 members in that group. Some of them might actually get what I'm talking about.
Off-topic, but perhaps some are interested in a bit of trivia:

KenDoc's Facebook group, though still the largest 9/11 Truth group I can find, is slowly decaying, he steadily loses around 90 members per months (3% annually), and that is typical for the larger and older truth groups.

There is another, newer group also named "The 9/11 Truth Movement". Founded, it appears, in late 2015, that group quickly jumped to 13,500 members, and since then has averaged an annual growth rate of 1.7%.

There is probably a lot of overlap between these and other groups. Generally, the "movement" has been stagnating on Facebook lately.

#### Mick West

Staff member
im assuming he means the screw should go inward so only a teeny part of the screw sticks out to mimic the floor bracket. maybe. Because if the head was the bracket its even stronger.

he claims a screw would hold 10 floors. well,, yea even I know that.

maybe you can build a quick box thing and pile 30 or 40 "floors" on it to show that the screw is TOO strong. ?? (which again even i know, without having to see it, so i think this guy is just trolling you)

The screws only go in 1/4", maybe 1/3".

I feel it's possible they just don't understand the point I'm making. Scale issues can be hard to comprehend.

#### Oystein

##### Senior Member
Mick,

perhaps you need to start even earlier in the logic: Explain the mechanism that you are modelling! That you want to show how floors tear out when debris falls on them.

Then explain under what load they tear out:
That they are designed to only hold the dead and live load of an office floor - their own weight plus carpets, ceilings, furniture, people.
That the capicity of the steel plates that hold the floor joists (seats) should have a factor of safety. Many truthers have heard that such FOS are often like 3x, or 2x to 5x; that the floor seats happened to have a FOS that is even higher 12x static load.
But that applying a new load suddenly causes a dynamic that is at least twice the static weight. It's twice when the load drops from zero height - or think of a supertiny height like 0.000001 inches -, and more when dropped from a finite height.
That therefore, the WTC floor seats would start to fail when 6x (half of 12x) their own weight is added suddenly, such as by debris falling from above.
That you wish to demonstrate if and how floor collapse may continue once floors and other debris are already falling and impacting floors still attached.
That therefore, you need to scale floor connections and floor mass (both the static floor and the falling floor impacting from above) such that the connection holds when you apply under 6x its weight suddenly from "zero" hight, and fails when you apply more than 6x its weight.
And then you run the experiment by dropping 1x floor weight from 1 story height.

See, it's not as simple to explain to the uninitiated, and attention span on this group may not be enough

#### deirdre

##### Senior Member.
perhaps you need to start even earlier in the logic: Explain the mechanism that you are modelling! That you want to show how floors tear out when debris falls on them.
agreed.
and talk SLOWER, besides the accent, you threw out about 4,000 numbers in 2 minutes. Even i had a hard time following along and i already know the science i was watching. The pop ups helped but they werent on screen long enough for my brain to really absorb them.

Get rid of as many numbers as possible. Like maybe forget the 12 floor static load. unless you are speaking slowly and demonstrating each thing as you say it.

Unfortunately the video he challenged you with was an evolutionary thing that i feel showed too many things all at once. I always thought when you chose to off set the columns to initiate, that that was going to confuse people.

And i always thought the two sides was unnecessary and would also confuse people. If you are only showing that the floors will collapse at scale with a dynamic load of 6 then you only need 1 column.

The real video that showed what you were wanted to demonstrate was much earlier, when you only had 1 column and demonstrated the static load and then dropped a few floors onto the top to initiate.

I realize the experiment evolved a bit (for reasons obvious to those following the actual thread) but its a bit confusing IF you are only demonstrating dynamic load carpeted floor connections breaking at the columns where they were attached.

add: i said carpeted floor because there might also be some confusion between Floor and Story. Although im not sure. the Truthers it seems from reading comments dont seem to be using their xray vision when watching the collapse, they seem to think what they saw on the outside of the building was how the building collapsed. a column crushing if you will.

Last edited:

#### puresci

##### New Member
perhaps you need to start even earlier in the logic: Explain the mechanism that you are modelling! That you want to show how floors tear out when debris falls on them.

That's the way how scientists do that - and yet that model is high simplified, but at least it tries to analyse some real aspects of steelframed buildings and the destruction of floors:

https://www.tuhh.de/sdb/starossek/V...e_on_the_final_outcome_(complete_version).pdf

#### OneWhiteEye

##### Senior Member
Hi puresci. Thanks for the link, always interesting to see new articles on the subject.

#### econ41

##### Senior Member
Hi puresci. Thanks for the link, always interesting to see new articles on the subject.
New article maybe but it leads off with the same old wrong scenario setting.

"...As a result, the upper part of the building fell over the height of at least one story. <<Not what happened The resulting impact forces greatly exceeded the buckling load of the columns near the impact zone, <<Not what happened which led to the release of a new portion of potential energy. It was also shown that the energy absorbed by the columns during buckling <<What columns were buckled AFTER the downwards movement of the Top Block (NOT "fell" with the false implications attached to that word) through that height of "at least one story"? was significantly less than the potential energy released during this process. << Non sequitur This led to the conclusion that the total collapse was inevitable once initial failure occurred. <<Which NIST accepted and is now known to be true due to analysis of what really happend. So NIST was right for the wrong reasons"

...their new research may be valid - I haven't studied it. BUT the setting the scenario with the same misinterpretations derived from Bazant & Zhou continues to appear in new papers. Does academia EVER stop to check if they somehow got onto a wrong track??

Provided the new work does not rely on the misunderstandings the errors may not be significant. The "lead in scenario" does not validly represent the WTC Twins collapse mechanisms. It repeats the same misunderstandings that have plagued discussion of WTC 9/11 collapses. And where forum discussion researchers still appear to be ahead of academia in understanding "what really happend"

The setting for the "new research" is realistic with this:
"...the horizontal spread of column buckling across a floor has been recognized as the most critical event in a multi-story steel-framed building(Lim, 2004)
. Once this occurs, a collision of the upper part of the structure with the structure below or..."

Which is generically correct and fits what really happend at the WTC Twins - viz a "cascading failure of columns initially in buckling" although as buckling progressed Top Block rotaton plus tilt brought significant horizontal vectors into the mix.

So first impressions E&OE - I'll probably give the paper a bit more consideration as time permits.

Last edited:

#### puresci

##### New Member
...their new research may be valid - I haven't studied it.

It'd be a good idea if you make that first ...

It doesn't seem that you understood on what the work focuses - but that is possible to understand, even if one isn't able to follow the mathematics it uses !

But because "normal debunkers" (forum discussion "researchers") wont be "happy" with the suggested conclusion made by science, any discussion will rather tend to be a fighting agains strawmen.

Last edited:

#### deirdre

##### Senior Member.
It'd be a good idea if you make that first ...

It doesn't seem that you understood on what the work focuses - but that is possible to understand, even if one isn't able to follow the mathematics it uses !

But because "normal debunkers" (forum discussion "researchers") wont be "happy" with the suggested conclusion made by science, any discussion will rather tend to be a fighting agains strawmen.

#### puresci

##### New Member

a rather funny question when the threadtitle is:

"Towards A Replicable Physical Model Illustrating Aspects of the Collapse of The WTC Towers on 9/11"

Isn't the destruction of the floors an aspect which happend at the collaps of WTC1+2 ?

The work is basically a critic to Bazant/Seffen: both used rather inappropriate physical models for there mathematical analysis. It does not adress the exact modelling of WTC1/2 but rather the basic physical princips in the general dynamic response of steelframd highrise-structures in collapse situatians that met those of 9/11 - so the dynamic impact of upper stories to the lower structure.

And of course it can be also read as inspiration to rethink the model which is presented by Mick West. Steelframed highrisers, when stressed by dynamic forces, dont behave like "house of cards" - so they are not an assembly of some sort of solid "blocs" in case of destruction - if they were, all of them would collaps at minimal windloads.

Last edited:

#### econ41

##### Senior Member
It is a generic theoretical model deirdre - not relevant to WTC collapses because it makes generic assumptions which are diametrically opposed to the real WTC situation AND favours the "wrong side" of what is probably the most controversial issue in WTC 9/11 collapse debate.

So - put simply - it is off topic for this specific WTC physical model thread. Although it could serve as an example of what Mick should not model if he is modelling WTC 9/11. It has a "sort of" indirect relevance to the criticisms Mick received on Facebook. (Mainly the "screws" criticisms.)

However I do need to apologise somewhat to puresci who - as a new member - may not be aware of the extensive previous discussions of these issues - esp between OWE and myself. My post was responding to OWE who is fully aware of my position on the issues. In fact he could probably have "ghost written" my post for me.

It'd be a good idea if you make that first ...
Done - if you want to discuss it a separate thread may be appropriate - I'll await Staff guidance on that.

It doesn't seem that you understood on what the work focuses -
True at the time of my first post. BUT I had identified what the work does NOT focus - WTC collapses - which was the basis for my comment. Not true now if you want to discuss the research in it own right.

but that is possible to understand, even if one isn't able to follow the mathematics it uses !
The structure of the maths is no problem.

But because "normal debunkers" (forum discussion "researchers") wont be "happy" with the suggested conclusion made by science, any discussion will rather tend to be a fighting agains strawmen.
If you are hinting that somehow forum discussion "researchers" are not as competent and behind the progress of whoever you imply by "science"...that I and others such as OWE are not "scientific".....be prepared to defend those fighting insinuations.

Meanwhile the opening of the conclusion to the paper may interest some:

Which clearly has little relevance to WTC Twins 9/11 collapses - totally different mechanisms.

#### econ41

##### Senior Member
I drafted my post responding to your previous ones BEFORE you posted - then had dinner and did spell check and.....in short "crossed in posting".
a rather funny question when the threadtitle is:

"Towards A Replicable Physical Model Illustrating Aspects of the Collapse of The WTC Towers on 9/11"
Yes - a "Physical Model" which validly models the WTC1 and WTC2 collapse mechanisms - the mechanisms which actually occurred on 9/11 2001.

Isn't the destruction of the floors an aspect which happend at the collaps of WTC1+2 ?
Yes and no! The WTC collapses were dominated by shearing of the floors off the columns - not load sharing and energy absorbing situations.

The work is basically a critic to Bazant/Seffen: both used rather inappropriate physical models for there mathematical analysis.
The shortcomings of both are well known. Which ones are relevant here? How does this paper address them?

It does not adress the exact modelling of WTC1/2 but rather the basic physical principles in the general dynamic response of steel framed highrise-structures in collapse situatians that met those of 9/11 - so the dynamic impact of upper stories to the lower structure.
Yes - it is generic NOT specific AND does NOT match the WTC specific. So are you after WTC specific OR generic. Mick's model is specific. And "we" already understand the real WTC mechanisms better than any generic model can approximate.

So whatever value it may have as a generic model for future buildings or events it cannot be better than the specific understanding we already have (some of us have) of the WTC 9/11 real event.

And of course it can be also read as inspiration to rethink the model which is presented by Mick West.
"rethink" to what purpose? Mick's model is targeted at a specific event(s) and is an accurate demonstration of the qualified explanation with some minor criticisms about quantification. Are you suggesting that he should change his objective to model a generic event?

Steelframed highrisers, when stressed by dynamic forces, dont behave like "house of cards" - so they are not an assembly of some sort of solid "blocs" in case of destruction - if they were, all of them would collaps at minimal windloads.
Sorry - I cannot discern anything of use in that collection of apparent "truisms".[/QUOTE]

Last edited:

#### puresci

##### New Member
ok guys - good by - it's really hopeless, but funny

btw.: the work of the techn.university in Hamburg isn't new - it was presented here in 2013:
http://ascelibrary.org/doi/book/10.1061/9780784412848

but it's - at least for me - clear why such work is worthless for "forum researchers" (both: truthers & debunkers)

As long as they dont calculate and build highriseres or other complex structures, one can view the "important conclusions" of "scientific" YT-video-modellig, which mets most of the physical reality so well, as a new form of internet-entertainment - have fun folks ...

PS @mods: you can deactivate my account and also delete the postings, if you want to. I'm aware of the "proof" i've got as response, that it's off-topic by means of "forum research".

Last edited:

#### econ41

##### Senior Member
ok guys - good by - it's really hopeless, but funny
Don't give up so easily. We - or at least I - can discuss at whatever level you desire. Just set topic and suggest "level".

---surely nothing said so far presents a problem??
1) The paper is interesting;
2) But not relevant to WTC collapses as you yourself identified;
3) Does not help Mick's project for the objective of modelling WTC 9/11 collapses;
4) (several more)

AND
5) you have my offer to discuss the paper in an appropriate thread; AND
6) My acquiescence to Staff to decide an appropriate thread.

What more do you want???
btw.: the work of the techn.university in Hamburg isn't new - it was presented here in 2013:
http://ascelibrary.org/doi/book/10.1061/9780784412848
That was and is understood. It is "new" relevant to the 2006-7-8-9 era issues it raises.

but it's - at least for me - clear why such work is worthless for "forum researchers" (both: truthers & debunkers)
Please tell us why such a generic dismissal is valid. Given that OWE and I have both expressed interest and support. You continue to imply denigration of "forum researchers". In my opinion both OWE and I can hold our own on these topics against any academic you care to involve in discussion. And both of us (IMO for OWE) would welcome high level participation. So what are you looking for?

#### Mick West

Staff member
a rather funny question when the threadtitle is:

"Towards A Replicable Physical Model Illustrating Aspects of the Collapse of The WTC Towers on 9/11"

The thread is about a physical model in the sense of being an actual model made of actual matter, not a mathematical model or computer simulation. And more specifically it's about my efforts to make such a model. So posts should pertain to that in some identified way.

#### Keith Beachy

##### Senior Member
ok guys - good by - it's really hopeless, but funny

btw.: the work of the techn.university in Hamburg isn't new - it was presented here in 2013:
http://ascelibrary.org/doi/book/10.1061/9780784412848

but it's - at least for me - clear why such work is worthless for "forum researchers" (both: truthers & debunkers)

As long as they dont calculate and build highriseres or other complex structures, one can view the "important conclusions" of "scientific" YT-video-modellig, which mets most of the physical reality so well, as a new form of internet-entertainment - have fun folks ...

PS @mods: you can deactivate my account and also delete the postings, if you want to. I'm aware of the "proof" i've got as response, that it's off-topic by means of "forum research".
After reading the work you posted, not sure how it relates to the reality of how the Towers collapsed. It is interesting how energy is dissipated by deformations of floors --- however, for the WTC if all the energy of falling floors is dissipated by the floor below; the collapse will continue as the weight of the upper floors will cause the lower floor to fail instantly because the debris weighs more than 29,000,000 pounds.
To make a physical model to look at the different aspects, like maximum static weight of what a floor can hold before the connections fail; for the WTC some value has to be set and the mass coming down has to exceed the lower floor capacity to model the WTC tower.
The Towers will complicate typical math models due to the system. Towers were a system of core, shell, and floors. This is why the Towers were so strong to resist winds and loads. The shell and core hold floors individually, the floors tie the core and shell together to form a very strong building, and the floors only hold up themselves by those connections to the shell and core.

On 9/11 there are two full up models of the Towers, and they failed as seen due to fires caused by aircraft impacts. Not much use for math models or scale models, it was done deal on 9/11.

The paper did not say the collapse can't happen; or did I miss something. With the Towers, one key to the collapse is what a floor can hold... If a floor fails, the system of the Towers is being destroyed, lateral support is lost for the core, and we see how the WTC collapses. Hopefully a model showing aspects related to the WTC structure can help 9/11 truth believers to understand a building can collapse as seen.

How would the paper help a physical model? (there is nothing to debunk with respect to the Tower collapse due to fire, it really happened). What was the bunk of the paper vs physical models?

#### jaydeehess

##### Senior Member.
The thread is about a physical model in the sense of being an actual model made of actual matter, not a mathematical model or computer simulation. And more specifically it's about my efforts to make such a model. So posts should pertain to that in some identified way.
Correct me if I am wrong but your physical modeling is in response to some truthees complaining that the computer models are too easy to fudge and that an actual physical model would demonstrate concepts much better.

Your model illustrates how stripping the floor pans and lateral supports causes global collapse and that such a mechanism of collapse bypasses the strength of the columns completely. As such the most salient point is in scaling the floor to column strength.

Your critics on fb cannot seem to recognize why your choice of scaling is valid.

#### Mick West

Staff member
Correct me if I am wrong but your physical modeling is in response to some truthees complaining that the computer models are too easy to fudge and that an actual physical model would demonstrate concepts much better.

It was more a response to the claims that other physical models (like the paper rings and washers) were illustrative of the collapse mechanism. I explained my motivation in the OP:
https://www.metabunk.org/towards-a-...the-collapse-of-the-wtc-towers-on-9-11.t7396/

#### Mick West

Staff member
Your model illustrates how stripping the floor pans and lateral supports causes global collapse and that such a mechanism of collapse bypasses the strength of the columns completely. As such the most salient point is in scaling the floor to column strength.

Your critics on fb cannot seem to recognize why your choice of scaling is valid.

Exactly.

Replies
348
Views
20K
Replies
4
Views
644
Related Articles