Use of Scale Model or Full Sized models for investigating 9/11 collapses

Cube Radio

Member
Personal comments noted.
It's merely your comments that are fatuous. I'm sure you're a lovely person.

I'm interested in how a model could be created and how it could be acceptably simplified. I've said that many times. None of your remarks are pertinent to that question even though you claim to have expertise in the area. None of your remarks reveal genuine expertise either.

False analogy... etc
Neither jaydee nor econ41 have models to compare. This thread isn't about mental or mathematical models, except insofar as they may inform actual modelling efforts.
 
The floors broke up and fell in pieces. There was a lot of weigh on them, it was not even.

The floors are not like your washers.

What was the first floor to fall on another floor in the north tower? Where is your evidence for that falling to pieces because of a floor falling on another.

psik
 

Jeffrey Orling

Senior Member
What was the first floor to fall on another floor in the north tower? Where is your evidence for that falling to pieces because of a floor falling on another.

psik

This is kinda of a silly statement. There is some vision evidence that at least some portion of some floors collapsed from the plane strike. However since no one can see inside the facade --- in the vids and pics... the destruction of the floors is a logical assumption / conclusion from the fact that the floors where experience massive fires.. and these had to be warping parts of the frame and causing the composite to ... break apart... slabs to fracture and parts fall. Fire expands steel and not at the same rate as it does concrete.
 
This is kinda of a silly statement. There is some vision evidence that at least some portion of some floors collapsed from the plane strike. However since no one can see inside the facade --- in the vids and pics... the destruction of the floors is a logical assumption / conclusion from the fact that the floors where experience massive fires.. and these had to be warping parts of the frame and causing the composite to ... break apart... slabs to fracture and parts fall. Fire expands steel and not at the same rate as it does concrete.
Yeah, people have idiotic visions of floors falling with no explanation of what happens to the core and no mention of the horizontal beams in the core but some how the core goes away because the floors are gone. But we also never hear the total number of connections between the floor, the core and the perimeter but we are all supposed to believe they were weak enough to give way simultaneously.

We can all see the videos of the buildings destroyed. So anyone that chooses to BELIEVE that aircraft impact and fire could do that must then "rationalize" a "collapse".

I insist on the good physical or computer model to demonstrate it. And any computer model must supply complete data. Like the weight of the horizontal beams in the core at every level. I have never even seen a flat diagram of the horizontal beams and NO they are not in the blue prints.

psik
 

Jeffrey Orling

Senior Member
They were not weak enough to give way simultaneously. I didn't write that. The weakening of the entire core was incremental and tool an he for one and an hr and half for the other. The connections likely failed from heat stress / elongation /pushing/ shearing of bolts and a variety of mechanisms which destroyed the integrity of the upper section and with that destruction, bit and pieces of the structure disengaged and dropped... and eventually it appears that the structure left at the lower region of the upper section could not support the mass / loads from above and it buckled / collapsed shattered and fell on the lower section blasting outward the flames which were burning.

The structural plans are not in the public record... but the bracing was not all that robust and it is not critical. But I agree we need to see it.
 

econ41

Senior Member
Yeah, people have idiotic visions of floors falling* with no explanation* of what happens to the core and no mention of the horizontal beams in the core* but some how the core goes away because the floors are gone*. But we also never hear the total number of connections between the floor, the core and the perimeter* but we are all supposed to believe they were weak enough to give way simultaneously*.
False claims psikey. You are aware of my explanations among others from multiple previous discussions between us AND my recent comments in this thread You have never rebutted my explanations nor has any other person done so. Such explanations would be off topic here but I can repeat them in a suitable thread and once again show in detail where your claims are false. Specifically each of the points * is wrong and is a point where I have explained to you on previous occasions and each of the points * is ditto plus also it is a strawman false claim.
We can all see the videos of the buildings destroyed. So anyone that chooses to BELIEVE that aircraft impact and fire could do that must then "rationalize" a "collapse".
False claim. The FACTS are that Aircraft impact and fire occurred AND the building collapsed. The causal relationship is obvious. AND there has never been a plausible alternate explanation. THEREFORE impact and fire is the default - the extant - hypothesis.
I insist on the good physical or computer model to demonstrate it. And any computer model must supply complete data. Like the weight of the horizontal beams in the core at every level. I have never even seen a flat diagram of the horizontal beams and NO they are not in the blue prints.
What you insist on and what you have never seen are not relevant until you demonstrate that they are relevant. The status of discussion here in this thread is that many members have identified aspects of the feasibility and utility of modelling the collapses. I have progressed the discussion by describing the taxonomy of the main areas where models could be applied AND I have commented on the two relevant aspects of feasibility and usefulness of models in each of those four main areas. You have neither commented on nor attempted to rebut my assessments nor the assessments of other members which are compatible with my categorising and comments.

Until you rebut those comments - mine and other members - your claims are not made out.
 

jaydeehess

Senior Member.
That is why I say LEVEL and not FLOOR.

By LEVEL I mean a 12 foot high horizontal slice through the building. From the plane defined by the surface of one floor to the plane defined by the surface of the next, including everything in the core and the perimeter columns. You are not saying anything I don't know.

But when do you explain how a floor could fall and remain perfectly horizontal? Wouldn't all of the connections have to break simultaneously? But if the floor tilts wouldn't it squeeze the core thereby creating lots of friction and slow things down? How did the north tower come down in 25 seconds?

So let's see a model that can do it.

psik
Not sure why you keep asking for models of processes that did not occur.
ROOSD stands for Runaway open office space destruction, iirc. Where in that do you see anything that requires the floor space to fall as a single unit?
 

jaydeehess

Senior Member.
Neither jaydee nor econ41 have models to compare. This thread isn't about mental or mathematical models, except insofar as they may inform actual modelling efforts.
I have never claimed to have my own personal model.
What I am trying to get through to you is that the greatest impetus to further/additional modeling would come from those who are not satisfied with the modeling that has been done, specifically the computer models of the three structures in contention.
Post 517, this thread, I I stated that I would take a look at any new models. I have no objection whatsoever, specifically none related to any supposed fears of ... something, to anyone wishing to do so.

I have also stated, on more than one occasion, that there is sufficient information available to approximate the towers or #7 for a new model.

If one wants greater detail, such as the data that NIST had, then a group of recognized experts in structural engineering and forensic computerized modeling would need to put together a detailed plan with specific goals and sufficient security of information, and submit that to NIST and ask for the data.

So far that is not forthcoming.

Instead, what we have seen is a group , AE911T, that has consistently and vociferously denigrated NIST and referred to it as complicit in murder and cover up of murder, demand this data for the nonspecific goal of "verification". There is no plan for what AE911T will do with that data. There is no specified group of qualified individuals who will work with that data. There most certainly is no willingness to garuntee the security of the data. Will such a plan of action be part of the supposed legal challenge to release data? I highly doubt it. Would like to see it, but IMHO they have already poisoned the well by basically calling Sunder and other researchers, liars and complicit in a cover up of massive proportions.

Who's left? Psikeyhacker seems to want the data, so do you. AFAIK neither of you fit the bill as qualified experts to work with the data, neither of you have a specific plan for the data and I have not seen anything to suggest either of you would be willing to satisfy security concerns about the data.
Nor am I aware of anyone else , individual or organized group, that fits this bill( which of course also requires the motivation to carry it out)
 
Last edited:

OneWhiteEye

Senior Member
...some how the core goes away because the floors are gone.
And you continue to ignore the images posted which show large portions of the core standing with no floors attached! You don't try to address any point that renders your entire stance on the subject invalid. You seemed to have realized that trying a counterargument is going to fail miserably so instead choose the strategy of ignoring it - which DOES work! People end up saying the same things over and over year after year and, as long as you ignore it, you can keep chugging on like nothing happened.

I salute you for your incredible social skills... keeping countless people at multiple forums chasing their tails for years trying to convince you of the obvious is quite a feat.
 

econ41

Senior Member
...I salute you for your incredible social skills... keeping countless people at multiple forums chasing their tails for years trying to convince you of the obvious is quite a feat.
I can vouch for his fantastic consistency. Hardly a single indication of progress since I met him on Richard Dawkins Net Forum 2007 > 2008 >> till he was persuaded to stop posting.
 

OneWhiteEye

Senior Member
Naturally a discussion of this nature encroaches on arguer/argument and being off-topic. I think it may be germane to point out that one of the few profound things I've learned from arguing 9/11 topics is that separating argument from arguer - when applied universally and indiscrimately - itself borders on fallacious. With some persistent and tenacious individuals, there are ONLY EVER a handful of arguments which sustain debate on many forums over the course of years. How could this happen unless they were right, or particularly adept at manipulating discussion?

The handful of arguments which are successfully recycled over and over are easily defeated/debunked, yet the discussion goes on endlessly, oftentimes comprising the largest threads at some places. Thus the arguer becomes the overarching issue, not the arguments. It is the manner of churning failed concepts which becomes the argument.
 

econ41

Senior Member
That is only one of several "structural" problems with 9/11 debate.

F'rinstance I would opine that most 9/11 debate relies on reversed burden of (dis)proof. Examples in this thread and recent posts.

The purely technical issue of topic boundaries is problematic because we are not dealing with truly independent sub systems. (Sub-sets will do for anyone who prefers that paradigm.) The OP of this thread is clearly limited to physical models. But we accept that computer models are legit for discussion. And how could the topic be reasonably and comprehensively covered if discussion of computer models was barred? On another contemporary thread the issue of Inwards Bowing cannot be fully isolated from the whole "system" of the cascade failure initiation process. It is a sub system and not an isolated sub system.

Meanwhile I am waiting for posts which advance this topic. Both jaydeehess and I have suggested ways forward. (And, despite the obvious surface differences, they are compatible.)

Let's see if anyone can progress the options identified OR suggest a better classification of options.
 
And you continue to ignore the images posted which show large portions of the core standing with no floors attached! You don't try to address any point that renders your entire stance on the subject invalid. You seemed to have realized that trying a counterargument is going to fail miserably so instead choose the strategy of ignoring it - which DOES work! People end up saying the same things over and over year after year and, as long as you ignore it, you can keep chugging on like nothing happened.

I salute you for your incredible social skills... keeping countless people at multiple forums chasing their tails for years trying to convince you of the obvious is quite a feat.

And I have watched videos of The Spire "collapse" I do not know how many times. I don't see any point in talking to people who either have not seen it turn to dust or have seen it but pretend it did not happen.

http://911review.com/errors/wtc/spire.html

http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/wsb/The_Strange_Collapse_of_the_Spire.htm

I have no idea what could even do that. But it does make me wonder why only one filing cabinet was found in the remains of the WTC. If some unknown phenomenon could do that to the remains of the core then what would it do to the thin sheet metal of filing cabinets?

The trouble with the 9/11 Affair is too much weird stuff that is supposed to be accepted but ignored though supposedly "accounted for" by the word "collapse". Like 13 years passing without the discussion of the center of mass of the tilted top portion of the south tower being raised. I do not think it is even possible for that much man-made mass to have been that high up in such an unstable position at any previous time in history and yet such obvious data can be dismissed.

psik
 
Last edited:

OneWhiteEye

Senior Member

Bottom of that page:

The interpretation that the spire turned to dust is an easy one to make given its appearance in the videos. However, there is a much less exotic alternative explanation. That is that as the spire fell, it released dust which obscured its visibility. The photo on the left shows detail of the lower portion of the spire. It shows what are apparently short horizontal sections of floor connecting several core columns, two of which are visible. Those horizontal sections would have held a great deal of dust, which would be expelled as the spire collapsed from below.
 

econ41

Senior Member
I almost missed this.

Twice in one post. Remarkable.
I noticed that but was leaving it for your response.
The more important aspect with the spires is that it provides evidence of "core Strip Down" i.e. the third of the "Three Mechanisms" explanation of "progression stage" which strictly is not included in ROOSD. The minor issue of misinterpretation of "turns into a cloud of dust" when it is "falls into a cloud of dust" matters little.

NOW - for this thread on modelling the issue is "Should any model include demonstration of the spires". And that is why being clear what we are discussing is important AND for whom we are discussing it. With due regard for Cube Radio's wish to keep the two stages conflated - the spire is a feature of "progression stage" and it is not a feature of "initiation stage" So it cannot be modelled in a model of the "initiation stage" OR in the initiation stage part of a single model if the desire is to make a single model incorporating two stages. And that "cannot" is absolute as it was implied in my earlier posts.

Even though the spires could be modelled in a computer model for a professional audience they would need to be faked in a physical model BUT - important point - could well emerge - without any "cheating" - from a computer model of sufficient complexity. The question then reverts to "What is the justification for a professional grade quantifiable model of that level of complexity?" (And, naturally, "Is there data of sufficient accuracy to support such a fine details model?")

For the lay audience visual demonstration model the way forward is easy - if you want to display spires then fake up the model to ensure that they happen. After all for the lay audience the goal is visual demonstration NOT accuracy of quantifiable research. Another reason why being clear who is the target audience is critical.

The issue of centre of mass of the top block is a feature of the initiation stage. If it is to be a subject for modelling it fits in the model of the initiation stage. Same reasons as above. And it cannot be part of the progression stage. Sorry to repeat the bleeding obvious but we need to get round the "conflation" issue.

Now the usual issue with tilting top block and centre of mass queries is the concern that the location of the CofM should have caused toppling. psikey hasn't identified his concern BUT if that is his concern the "Topple or not Topple" is easily explained by mid level physics. And it has been dealt with numerous times including by you and I on another forum. So we are clear on the mechanism and why no topple.*

Can it be modelled? - I suggest no. It is a feature of the cascade failure of initiation. I have already outlined my arguments as to why I say "no" and can explain further if there is any interest. The related question is "Should it be modelled?" My opinion unchanged and not legitimately challenged so far. No value in modelling for a professional audience. The situation for a lay audience is interesting. The question being "Why doesn't it topple?" It is feasible to model "doesn't topple" in a physical display model for a lay audience but I don’t see how you can model "Why it doesn't topple" in a physical model.

Those comments should fit the two issues cleanly within the scope of this modelling topic.

On topic discussion welcomed.



* The issue with the "why didn’t it topple" problem is that it relies on a Heiwa style 'rigid block' understanding of initiation. The actual mechanism was more like a wire basket. Main problem no firm enough pivot for the toppling. PLUS the geometry was wrong even if there was a pivot.

A topic for another thread.
 
Last edited:

Cube Radio

Member
After all for the lay audience the goal is visual demonstration NOT accuracy of quantifiable research.
Nonsense on stilts, as Bentham would have said. This is why your distinctions are so fatuous. The objective is not to create an animation, but a verifiable model: verifiable by both professionals and informed lay parties. It may be simplified -- and how it can be (or has been) simplified must be open to examination if it is to maintain explanatory power -- but the objective is to demonstrate the collapse mechanic, not superficially illustrate video evidence. That would be merely patronising -- a characteristic of your remarks, I'm afraid.

I have also stated, on more than one occasion, that there is sufficient information available to approximate the towers
Is accurate data on the distribution of concrete and steel through the towers available? This would be basic to a modelling effort and certainly cannot be sensitive information, but psikey claims upthread it is not in the public domain.
 

Oystein

Senior Member
If the goal of a model for a lay audience is to display macro features (i.e. "details") of the outward appearance of the collapses downstream from actual initiation (when the top is seen to have tilted, what I call "actual initiation" is already in the past), then I think ozeco is right: Such features must be designed into the model. But that "faking" would be its immediate downfall: It diminishes credibility. Difficult to explain to a layperson why a "faked" model can be valid after all.

The issue is that many features come about by chance. Every collapse is going to be different from the next. Differences in starting conditions will amplify to differences in collapse detail.

So, for any set of plance crashes, there is a chance that some will never lead to any collapse, but a number will.
For any set of collapses, some will display major tilt, some won't; some will display spires, some possibly won't.
I'd predict that all, or almost all, scenarios with collapse across major portions of one floor will go all the way.
Also I'd predict that none will show toppling as in "CoM wanders outside original perimeter". All will show "squibs". All will have dust ans coarse rubble "explode" around the collapse front. All will end up with similar extents of "dustification". Etc.

What I am saying is: Some features are very certain to appear in all models, to quite an extent independent from exact starting conditions (as long as starting conditions roughly resemble 767 crashes with fuel on board; or their effects). Others however will likely be present in a significant percentage of cases and not be present in another significant percentage of cases. From which follows: If you want to show that (and how) plausible those latter kinds of features are, AND you choose to not "fake" them into the model, you'd better run the model many times, with different paramaters for starting conditions around those you are interested in. Which probably speaks strongly against physical models.
 

Oystein

Senior Member
...but the objective is to demonstrate the collapse mechanic, not superficially illustrate video evidence...
Almost all of those who claim that the collapses could not have happened the way they did from plane crashes and fires alone, raise this claim not because they have issues with the proposed collapse mechanics on an engineering level, but instead they come from video evidence; apparent speed of descent, tilting, squibs, spires; spires-to-dust... All of these have little to do with "collapse mechanics", as the behaviour of steel assemblies is hardly touched upon.
It is those people, who just cannot believe that collapse mechanics exist that account for the video features, who have a need for a model. Those already convinced there is no problem don't need to be convinced.
So for those folks, a model that is sufficently "like" the twin towers - even if you don't have them down to individual structural member with exact physical specs, and that displays the video-features most questioned - speed of descent, degree of pulverisation, or whatever you deem impossible - will do, even if the exact collapse mechanisms aren't the same.
 

econ41

Senior Member
If the goal of a model for a lay audience is to display macro features (i.e. "details") of the outward appearance of the collapses downstream from actual initiation (when the top is seen to have tilted, what I call "actual initiation" is already in the past), then I think ozeco is right: Such features must be designed into the model. But that "faking" would be its immediate downfall: It diminishes credibility. Difficult to explain to a layperson why a "faked" model can be valid after all....
Take care you don’t EITHER lose the point I make Oystein. OR change the scope of what I am claiming. By all means present your own if you wish BUT don't slip into applying my comments to your different stages of collapse.

Reviewing I made two distinctions:
1) The actual collapse of WTC Twins (recall I set aside wtc7 at this stage) into two stages which are:
(a) "Initiation" - what happens from aircraft impact to "Top Block starts to fall bodily"; AND
(b) "progression" which is the stage of global collapse due to ROOSD; peel off of perimeter and core strip down.

The scope of discussion is the modelling of the actual collapses - not a generic set or range of possible other collapses and those two actual collapses occurred in two self contained stages which are potentially suitable for modelling.

I have already noted that the boundary of "Top Block starts to fall" is clear enough for purposes of this discussion.

By all means introduce your own stage boundaries for discussion and I will withdraw. I'll be very surprised if you can put definable boundaries for modelling around a significantly different definition of stages. The characteristics of those two stages are very different and need different modelling. Whether or not the two different modelling approaches are stand alone separate OR build into one two part model. Cube Radio was conflating the two and other members not making the distinction. IMNSHO discussion cannot progress if the two different needs are conflated into some sort of average. That much should be self evident. There were two distinct and vastly different mechanisms

2) Two audiences for the models.
(a)One needing rigorous verifiable accurate numeric data which I labelled "professional". Naturally some informed lay persons would need and could access such a model; AND
(b) One needing nothing more than a visual display of the mechanisms. I labelled that group "lay persons"

By definition those who want a visual display want a visual display and "diminished credibility" is not a weakness. If anyone who initially seeks a visual display later decides they want more accurate quantified credibility they move over to the "professional" model. And - in doing so - face all the constraints as to whether or not it is plausible/practical.

The two groups which I deliberately left on one side are:
(c) Those obsessed truthers who will not accept any model or argument no matter how rigorous. AND
(d) Those persons who want to explore the science out of their own curiosity.

Both are legitimate aspects of the demography. The former will not be satisfied by any model and therefore do not fall within the legitimate scope of the analysis I am presenting.

The latter would no doubt want the full bells and whistles "professional version" whether or not it was justifiable by the normal standards of research for community purposes and funded from the public purse. Witness the extended research into thermXte dust by some interested parties led by Chris Mohr and outside the normal boundaries of legitimate need. It was self funded and, yes, I was one of those who donated to that project.

The issue is that many features come about by chance. Every collapse is going to be different from the next. Differences in starting conditions will amplify to differences in collapse detail.

So, for any set of plane crashes, there is a chance that some will never lead to any collapse, but a number will....
You are drifting way outside the scope of my comments which were within the scope of the OP - "use of scale model or full sized models for investigating 9-11 collapses" - meaning physical models but extended as I have explained to include computer models. And related to the actual collapse mechanisms.
 
Last edited:

econ41

Senior Member
Nonsense on stilts, as Bentham would have said. This is why your distinctions are so fatuous. ... That would be merely patronising -- a characteristic of your remarks, I'm afraid...
Be advised that I have been posting on forums since Nov 2007. And have had every form of insult thrown at me. They don't change my abilty to remain objective and focussed on the issues.

Now let's look at the on topic content of your post:
The objective is not to create an animation, but a verifiable model: verifiable by both professionals and informed lay parties. It may be simplified -- and how it can be (or has been) simplified must be open to examination if it is to maintain explanatory power -- but the objective is to demonstrate the collapse mechanic, not superficially illustrate video evidence.
There are two identified objectives. You are correct on one of them. In fact you are agreeing with me on that one which is:
a verifiable model: verifiable by both professionals and informed lay parties. It may be simplified -- and how it can be (or has been) simplified must be open to examination if it is to maintain explanatory power -- but the objective is to demonstrate the collapse mechanic,
So you agree with me on that one - no need for you to put it forward as disagreement.

The only area where you are actually disagreeing with is the existence of another legitimate need for modelling - the visual demo of the mechanism.

If your personal interest is in the more rigorous model NOT the visual demonstration - it doe not make the visual model wrong for those who need it.
Is accurate data on the distribution of concrete and steel through the towers available?
Yes - the doubts are about accuracy and relevance. Take care to not put cart before horse. Until you/we define what model you are referring to we cannot know the scope or accuracy of required data.
 

jaydeehess

Senior Member.
I did an approx of concrete upthread. How is that difficult, it was used on floors and foundation and the thickness of floors is well known.
Foundation doesnt enter into this discussion
 

Oystein

Senior Member
econ,
while composing a longer reply, I think it dawned on me where I conflate things. I was thinking of a causal chain of events from "nose of plane touches wall" to "all rubble is on the ground"; which implies that starting conditions for phase two could/should/would not be modeled without consideration of what the planes and fires did until the end of phase one.
Do I understand right that you'd propose a model for phase two without direct recourse to planes and fires - your often stated "when top block falls, column ends have already passed each other" (or similarly)? So such a model would start off with severed columns, as closely resembling the actual conditions as observed at the moment of release?

That said, I don't think my stage boundary is really different from yours. By the time the top block is seen tilting (and I don't mean any slight leaning before release; I mean the increasing tilt after release), it already started "to fall bodily".


2) Two audiences for the models.
(a)One needing rigorous verifiable accurate numeric data which I labelled "professional". Naturally some informed lay persons would need and could access such a model; AND
(b) One needing nothing more than a visual display of the mechanisms. I labelled that group "lay persons"

By definition those who want a visual display want a visual display and "diminished credibility" is not a weakness.
This puzzles me.
You mean there legitimately exists an audience that merely wishes to see the visuals, even if they knew they are "faked"? Will a conjurer's trick do?
Or what amount of faking would be acceptable?


From my science classes in primary and secondary school I remember at least three expermients that produced the visuals to convince everyone except (and, in one case, for many years including) me that they witnessed the effects of a certain physical mechanism. One might say that the display thus served a legitimate educational purpose; but once you look through the deception, that ought to backfire.
The first was an experiment to show the 20 % oxygen proportion in air. A burning candle is placed in a flat basin filled with water. A beaker s placed upside-down over the candle, edges submerged. The air thus cut-off from environment is depleted of oxygene after a while, finally the flame goes out. After this, water is sucked into the beaker, it's surface within the beaker higher than in the basin around, filling about 20% of the beaker volume. BUT this didn't happen because oxygen was gone; it was actually mostly the result of cooling air.
Nice visuals, fake model. This was ok in 4th grade perhaps, but I am not sure it would fly with adults...


I realize I am overstating the amount of fakery needed to design visual features into the lay model. I do that on purpose, of course: To highlight how any amount of manipulationg a model to reach a desired outcome is legitimate target of attack.

The two groups which I deliberately left on one side are:
(c) Those obsessed truthers who will not accept any model or argument no matter how rigorous. AND
(d) Those persons who want to explore the science out of their own curiosity.

Both are legitimate aspects of the demography. The former will not be satisfied by any model and therefore do not fall within the legitimate scope of the analysis I am presenting.
Why, if not for group (c), are we debating this topic at all?
The entire point of this forum is debunking bunk.

Back to my first question: Does a lay audience actually exist that is interested in having the visuals demonstrated without having been prompted by truthers?
I imagine that most lay people who want to understand the visuals have at least once been told by truthers: "Hey, look at that dustification / falling in footprint / speed of descent / flling outside of footprint / those squibs / these ejections / etc etc! This can't happen without sinister devices!" Such lay persons would legitimately expect a model that cannot be rejected out of hands by truthers because it has been openly "faked".
You see, you can't shield the interested lay folk from truthers. Suppose you get "your" model, it is shown, and has all the collapse features you desired; the very next day, truthers will have heard about it, they'll dug up this thread and whine "see, econ41 admitted that he wants a fake model", and your legitimate lay folk will ask you: "Hey econ, what do you say to this?"
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
2) Two audiences for the models.
(a)One needing rigorous verifiable accurate numeric data which I labelled "professional". Naturally some informed lay persons would need and could access such a model; AND
(b) One needing nothing more than a visual display of the mechanisms. I labelled that group "lay persons"

By definition those who want a visual display want a visual display and "diminished credibility" is not a weakness. If anyone who initially seeks a visual display later decides they want more accurate quantified credibility they move over to the "professional" model. And - in doing so - face all the constraints as to whether or not it is plausible/practical.

The two groups which I deliberately left on one side are:
(c) Those obsessed truthers who will not accept any model or argument no matter how rigorous. AND
(d) Those persons who want to explore the science out of their own curiosity.

Why, if not for group (c), are we debating this topic at all?
The entire point of this forum is debunking bunk.

There's a spectrum of people between a generic (b) and the hardcore (c). Part of debunking is preventing people from falling down the rabbit hole, and helping those people out who have only fallen down a little.

Consider a young person, late teens, early 20s, who is being exposed to arguments like "the collapse violates Newtons laws of motion". They might be persuaded by such specious arguments, but if shown a generic simple model that demonstrates how a collapse might occur at the observed speeds, then they could be persuaded.

Currently how would you approach such a person? The walls of text that give eloquent descriptions of non-aligned columns, floor clips failing, peeling walls, buckling, etc, are opaque TLDRs. They are intellectually satisfying, but from a larger debunking perspective they are a waste of time. The time would be better spend on creating more accessible and well organized visual debunks.
 

Cube Radio

Member
Those already convinced there is no problem don't need to be convinced
Those who want a visual display want a visual display
What is this, state the bleeding obvious week or something?

econ41, no group of "lay people" exists that want a "visual display" of the collapse mechanism if it doesn't represent the output of an accurate (if reasonably simplified) model. A group with such a requirement only exists in your imagination, allowing to gish on this thread for page after page without ever contributing anything of substance to the discussion.

The initiation event was modelled by NIST, as discussed in the early stages of this thread. What NIST failed to do was demonstrate how the collapse could progress down the structures, destroying them as suddenly, quickly and as totally as we know happened.

This "collapsing skyscraper" phenomenon has never been shown to exist on a day other than 9/11. People like yourself can bandy acronyms like ROOSD around, while "truthers" can insist that the collapses break Newtonian Laws. But what is certain is that no-one has been able to reproduce the principle of the collapse mechanic as it is said to have happened under experimental conditions: which is to say, by creating a model.

[...]
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Cube Radio

Member
Consider a young person, late teens, early 20s, who is being exposed to arguments like "the collapse violates Newtons laws of motion". They might be persuaded by such specious arguments, but if shown a generic simple model that demonstrates how a collapse might occur at the observed speeds, then they could be persuaded.
My point exactly.

On a side note, who limited NIST's remit to only the initiation event when it came to modelling the Towers? No doubt this limitation was explained by a lack of resources, but contained within it is the assumption that the collapse would unquestionably progress as witnessed. Where did this directive originate from?
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
My point exactly.

On a side note, who limited NIST's remit to only the initiation event when it came to modelling the Towers? No doubt this limitation was explained by a lack of resources, but contained within it is the assumption that the collapse would unquestionably progress as witnessed. Where did this directive originate from?

Largely from the observation that the collapse did progress at witnessed, and some very obvious back-of-a-envelope calculations:

http://www.nist.gov/el/disasterstudies/wtc/faqs_wtctowers.cfm

12. Was there enough gravitational energy present in the WTC towers to cause the collapse of the intact floors below the impact floors? Why weren’t the collapses of WTC 1 and WTC 2 arrested by the intact structure below the floors where columns first began to buckle?

Yes, there was more than enough gravitational load to cause the collapse of the floors below the level of collapse initiation in both WTC towers. The vertical capacity of the connections supporting an intact floor below the level of collapse was adequate to carry the load of 11 additional floors if the load was applied gradually and 6 additional floors if the load was applied suddenly (as was the case). Since the number of floors above the approximate floor of collapse initiation exceeded six in each WTC tower (12 floors in WTC 1 and 29 floors in WTC 2), the floors below the level of collapse initiation were unable to resist the suddenly applied gravitational load from the upper floors of the buildings.

Consider a typical floor immediately below the level of collapse initiation and conservatively assume that the floor is still supported on all columns (i.e., the columns below the intact floor did not buckle or peel off due to the failure of the columns above). Consider further the truss seat connections between the primary floor trusses and the exterior wall columns or core columns. The individual connection capacities ranged from 94,000 pounds to 395,000 pounds, with a total vertical load capacity for the connections on a typical floor of 29,000,000 pounds (see Section 5.2.4 of NIST NCSTAR 1-6C). The total floor area outside the core was approximately 31,000 square feet, and the average load on a floor under service conditions on Sept. 11, 2001, was 80 pounds per square foot. Thus, the total vertical load on a floor outside the core can be estimated by multiplying the floor area (31,000 square feet) by the gravitational load (80 pounds per square foot), which yields 2,500,000 pounds (this is a conservative load estimate since it ignores the weight contribution of the heavier mechanical floors at the top of each WTC tower). By dividing the total vertical connection capacity (29,000,000 pounds) of a floor by the total vertical load applied to the connections (2,500,000 pounds), the number of floors that can be supported by an intact floor is calculated to be a total of 12 floors or 11 additional floors.

This simplified and conservative analysis indicates that the floor connections could have carried only a maximum of about 11 additional floors if the load from these floors were applied statically. Even this number is (conservatively) high, since the load from above the collapsing floor is being applied suddenly. Since the dynamic amplification factor for a suddenly applied load is 2, an intact floor below the level of collapse initiation could not have supported more than six floors. Since the number of floors above the level where the collapse initiated exceeded six for both towers (12 for WTC 1 and 29 for WTC 2), neither tower could have arrested the progression of collapse once collapse initiated. In reality, the highest intact floor was about three (WTC 2) to six (WTC 1) floors below the level of collapse initiation. Thus, more than the 12 to 29 floors reported above actually loaded the intact floor suddenly.
Content from External Source
Unfortunately a bit of a wall of text, even though it explains exactly why there's no need to model the collapse progression.

Note where they discuss "6 additional floors if the load was applied suddenly" that's vastly conservative, as it implies simply dropping those floors flat from only 1/1000th on an inch above the supporting floor, not 12 feet (then 24, 48, etc).

So it's obvious the tower would have collapsed. So what's to model? Even if there was some question, who even cares if it comes down in 15 seconds or 20 seconds?
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Also consider from the above:

The vertical capacity of the connections supporting an intact floor below the level of collapse was adequate to carry the load of 11 additional floors if the load was applied gradually and 6 additional floors if the load was applied suddenly (as was the case). Since the number of floors above the approximate floor of collapse initiation exceeded six in each WTC tower (12 floors in WTC 1 and 29 floors in WTC 2), the floors below the level of collapse initiation were unable to resist the suddenly applied gravitational load from the upper floors of the buildings.
Content from External Source
A floor can only support 11 additional floors, and yet in WTC2 there were 29 floors above the impact point. So it's quite clear they are not talking about what the columns can support. They are talking about, as they note later, "a floor outside the core"

And consider just how conservative they are being in their assumptions. It was clear to them that the building would continue to collapse. So there was never any need to model exactly what it did.
 

NoParty

Senior Member.
Did any of the wilder conspiracy theories about how the towers fell actually
have enough adherents to be on NIST's radar back when they did modeling?
 
Last edited:

Cube Radio

Member
So what's to model? Even if there was some question, who even cares if it comes down in 15 seconds or 20 seconds?
You've answered this question yourself upthread. Even if it is taken as self-evident, there are a sizeable minority of individuals -- including a number of experts -- who need to be disabused of the belief such a collapse could not possibly occur in the way it did under the force of gravity alone. In certain geopolitically sensitive countries even the majority of populations may believe this.

Unfortunately these doubters have not created models to support their convictions, with the notable exception of individuals like psikey. Perhaps even more unfortunate, though, is the fact that even the simplified "back of an envelope" calculations you refer to above have not been demonstrated experimentally using a credible model by those who assume they're right.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
You've answered this question yourself upthread. Even if it is taken as self-evident, there are a sizeable minority of individuals -- including a number of experts -- who need to be disabused of the belief such a collapse could not possibly occur in the way it did under the force of gravity alone. In certain geopolitically sensitive countries even the majority of populations may believe this.

It was more a rhetorical question in answer to your question about who told NIST to not model. NIST was not interested in the conspiracy theorists back then. They were interested in why the building fell. As they explained in the FAQ, it's obvious it would continue to fall once started, so there was no need to model that.

Their simplified calculations were incredibly conservative. It's incredibly obvious that the building would continue to collapse. The fact that some people have blinders on about this is not a good reason to spend millions on trying to remove those blinders.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
And I have watched videos of The Spire "collapse" I do not know how many times. I don't see any point in talking to people who either have not seen it turn to dust or have seen it but pretend it did not happen.

http://911review.com/errors/wtc/spire.html

http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/wsb/The_Strange_Collapse_of_the_Spire.htm

What was there to tip? I didn't make the videos and you can watch them as well as I can.

What is to tip is your apparent belief that the spire did turn to dust, despite you linking to a page that explained what happen.

You hand is thus revealed to be stacked with jokers. And honestly I don't see any point engaging you about models if you have some underlying beliefs that demonstrate such a disregard for the facts, willful or otherwise. Clearly there are more fundamental issue here.

You've explained what you think your model shows. You'd had people tell your their objections. You've ignored those objections. Apparently you have a history of doing this.

For these reasons, I'm removing you from this thread. You will no longer be able to post in this thread.
 

econ41

Senior Member
There's a spectrum of people between a generic (b) and the hardcore (c). Part of debunking is preventing people from falling down the rabbit hole, and helping those people out who have only fallen down a little.
Yes.
Consider a young person, late teens, early 20s, who is being exposed to arguments like "the collapse violates Newtons laws of motion". They might be persuaded by such specious arguments, but if shown a generic simple model that demonstrates how a collapse might occur at the observed speeds, then they could be persuaded.
Agreed - which I why I commended your blocks model, compared it with several others in the same genre that I have seen or used myself. Exactly the target for what I have called a "visual demonstration model".
Currently how would you approach such a person?
Preferably with a visual model such as your blocks model - which is where I entered this discussion of models. I have used a verbal description of that progression stage with a wide range of people for many years. Few however were partly committed truthers. It would be great in such situations to have a portable mini WTC blocks model to demonstrate the "progression" stage.
The walls of text that give eloquent descriptions of non-aligned columns, floor clips failing, peeling walls, buckling, etc, are opaque TLDRs. They are intellectually satisfying,...
They are the stuff of detailed discussions among those of us exploring the mechanisms. Not in the target for the teens - 20's target you identify.
but from a larger debunking perspective they are a waste of time. The time would be better spend on creating more accessible and well organized visual debunks.
Not sure about "larger debunking perspective". I have in mind the full spectrum of 9/11 WTC interest...certainly if we focus the "teens - 20's" group you identify THEN effort on the model which suits them is the priority.
 
Top