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

econ41

Senior Member
Good job with your model, Mick.
Without doubt it is a good model and goes a long way to demonstrating the key feature of the WTC "Twins" progression stage collapse. But the issue of objective or purpose remains implicit.

And your criticism of NIST does not follow. There are two main issues of relevance:
1) NIST made a choice to not detail the mechanism of the inevitable global collapse. From a professional engineering point of view that was a legitimate option. The contention only arises in the setting of conspiracy based criticism of NIST. A topic I am willing to discuss in a more appropriate thread. The bottom line is "how far should a public funded investigation go to guess and forestall false claims from conspiracy theorists?" There could well be a valid public policy choice to go further - but discussion is not the topic of this thread.

2) What is the purpose of the model? Read the two (?) year history about choice of goal or objective. The reality is that most parties with a legitimate interest in understanding the mechanism ALREADY understood the actual mechanism it was modelling. So the model adds little if anything to understanding of the mechanism.

NIST spent $20 million on their study and, as evidenced by the footnote (below) from their final report on WTC Towers 1 and 2, didn't care to venture into the behaviour of the building after "collapse became inevitable."
Wrong - the "loaded emotive" term "didn't care". NIST chose not to and read their brief as permitting that choice. NIST was statutorily obligated to the US Government which has NOT asked NIST to go further. NIST has no statutory obligation to predict and forestall false clams based on conspiracy. There could be a valid argument for "better PR" BUT it is hindsight. It could well be that any future such brief extends beyond technical minimal scope and ventures some distance into PR. Again - a topic for another thread if you want to explore it.

"The focus of the Investigation was on the sequence of events from the instant of aircraft impact to the initiation of collapse for each tower. For brevity in this report, this sequence is referred to as the “probable collapse sequence,” although it includes little analysis of the structural behavior of the tower after the conditions for collapse initiation were reached and collapse became inevitable."

This is the single most important and telling bit of text from this NIST report. Wow.
Why not drop the innuendo of the last sentence and state what you mean explicitly. Preferably in a different thread.
 
Last edited:

Hierophant

Member
Even if making it a 3D model is more work, you could simulate "squibs" by placing some flour or powdered cement on the floor boards? Maybe also demonstrate how powdered cement is created by smashing it with a hammer.
 

Nada Truther

Active Member
Even if making it a 3D model is more work, you could simulate "squibs" by placing some flour or powdered cement on the floor boards? Maybe also demonstrate how powdered cement is created by smashing it with a hammer.
I would think "squibs" can easily be created by stacking cardboard boxes with some sort of powder, like flour, inside each. Make some weak points to serve as simulation for the weaker windows that would blow out upon the crushing of each box (floor); then crush the boxes. I think most rational people can predict what will happen. My prediction would be that as the boxes are crushed and air pressure is increased inside each box, the weak points will give, sending the powder out the weaker points in a jet, or "squib"-like fashion. If someone wants to actually create this, be my guest. [...] I do not have either the time or desire to do it myself. Nor, do I want to waste one cardboard box or grain of flour to do it. In my opinion, the cardboard and flour are more valuable than the need to "prove" this one.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Top