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

econ41

Senior Member
If you really think the mechanic of the most catastrophic structural failures in history has been understood, the burden is on you to demonstrate that understanding experimentally, using a model (either virtual or physical).
It has been and is understood by any with legitimate standing to question the mechanisms. The burden in not on "us" (AKA "you" as referenced,.) And it is the wrong burden. The burden here is to explain the applicability of models. Your lack of understanding the collapses does not impose any burden on "us" to explain the collapses to you. The obligation (not burden) is to explain applicability of models..

This is the scientific method.
The scientific method is not relevant to the extent that you assert. The topic is one of engineering forensic investigation of an event (or two events or three) which actually happened. Some of the principles of "Scientific Method" are applicable. Some are not. Replication of the events either at full scale or smaller scale is not required to explain the collapses and - as explained in detail months back - other than a "demonstration of gross mechanism" for lay persons - no one yourself included has demonstrated a valid professional reason to conduct scientific grade experiments by models.

You have not established that there is any aspect of physics involved in WTC collapse that requires experimental modelling. Whilst your moving goalposts target - currently loosely focused on "explain to my children" - remains moveable and undefined to suit your whim.

The ball is firmly in your court to take step one - decide whether you want to add to scientific understanding OR you want a simple demo for the kids. If you are demanding scientific rigour I have already several times explained why that is either of no professional value (progression stage) or not practical (initiation stage.) Ball in your court to define and fix those goalposts.

You suggest I am trolling for repeating a simple point -- that the scientific method demands experimental verification for any theory..
Whilst that point - that assertion - is true - it is irrelevant since WTC collapses are not situations pursuing Scientific Method in support of a new theory.

...again fail to address the simple point because of the burden it places on you to produce some experimental verification for your ideas.
There is no such legitimate burden. If you were to state specifically which "idea" you object to it may place an obligation on some of us to respond. A minor obligation and discussion courtesy - not a firm burden. But you wont define what you are seeking and even if you do it does not place burden. Merely an obligation to voluntarily assist you through your lack of understanding.

3) It simply can't be done with any model that can be reasonably taken as a simplified representation of the towers.
At the risk of taking your comment out of context that statement is true - for reasons I explained on previous occasions..

Put very simply:
1) It cannot be done validly for "initiation stage" - the cascade failure; AND
2) It serves no valid scientific purpose for "progression stage" - the "Three Mechanisms" clearly understood by those who need to understand and have standing entitling them to explanations.
3) The same reasoning applies to WTC7 - except the references to stages which are Twin Towers specific.
 
Last edited:

tadaaa

Senior Member
Someone earlier made, what I thought was a very interesting comment of the whole business of the collapse mechanism and related theories.

And in essence it was this, the temptation is to follow “alternative theory” theorists so far into the woods, that the “trees” get obscured

So whilst they want the “why’s and wherefores” of the actual collapse examined in minute millisecond by millisecond, pixel by pixel detail; people loose site of what is important

The actual mechanism that caused the collapse (fires, bombs, explosions etc), once that has been determined (to a sufficient level that is compatible with all the available evidence etc) that is the actual really important detail.

And this is either intentionally or unintentionally missed

Now that is not to say the understanding of the “collapse” has no value – it obviously does for all sorts of academic (and in the case of buildings) regulatory reasons

It is just that, as part of an assessment of the actual cause, it has little value

To try and illustrate my point

Take the downing of Pan Am Flight 103 (otherwise known as the Lockerbie disaster), everyone has the image of a virtually undamaged front “cockpit” section embedded in a field, imprinted on one’s memory

Obviously in the immediate aftermath all sort of theories about the “accident” came and went – in an attempt to describe what the pictures showed

However, once it was determined that the cause of the crash was a bomb, for the vast majority of people, little value could be gained by trying to understand the mechanisms by which the plane crashed as it did, how it fell to the ground, in the context of the tragedy it was unimportant to the lay person.

Obviously to plane manufacturers and the air safety authorities this information would be useful – but pretty much everyone else – I would argue pointless, unless you disagreed with the bomb premise off course

So in a way focusing on the “collapse” in the way that “alternative theory” theorists do, misses the point and only serves to muddy the water

I think this also goes to explain why the various official reports are heavily focused on the actual “collapse event” for WT1, 2&7

Because after that, as in the case of Pan Am Flight 103, by and large gravity did the rest
 
Last edited:

tadaaa

Senior Member
on a quick re-read I would amend my above post very slightly

Obviously to plane manufacturers, the air safety authorities and off course the victims families this information would be useful – but pretty much everyone else – I would argue pointless, unless you disagreed with the bomb premise off course
 

econ41

Senior Member
Someone earlier made, what I thought was a very interesting comment of the whole business of the collapse mechanism and related theories.

And in essence it was this, the temptation is to follow “alternative theory” theorists so far into the woods, that the “trees” get obscured....
Agreed. As I put it several months back to another member on another forum and using my other username:
' "How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41'
He adopted it for his "sig".

And so often it is focus on details so much that you lose the plot. The two sayings both relevant - forests v trees and the one that goes "When you are up to your arse in alligators it is easy to forget the objective was 'drain the swamp'"

So in a way focusing on the “collapse” in the way that “alternative theory” theorists do, misses the point and only serves to muddy the water
True in my opinion but let me present a slightly different perspective. In my experience it is not simply one side - the "alternate theory" supporters but also the supporters of the accepted/official/conventional viewpoint who make the same errors. Focusing on ever finer details whilst losing the plot.

If you are familiar with some of the common topics of discussion for the WTC building collapses. We have several related errors - false starting premises - where both "sides" persist in tacitly agreeing the wrong starting scenario. Two of the commonest being T Szamboti's "Missing Jolt" and the discussions about whether or not tilting of the top block would cause or prevent falling columns coming into axial impact contact with the lower part of the column. Both of those have wrong starting premises. Both derived from misinterpretation of the 2001/2 paper by Bazant and Zhou. And if the starting premise is wrong the argument based on the false premise is wrong. Even though it sometimes leads to valid enough answers - the situation of "getting the right results for the wrong reasons".

Another example is the Szamboti claims of NIST error in the WTC7 initiation by 'girder walk-off' was argued for months with both sides accepting a very probably wrong and certainly unproven starting assumption. Both 'sides' assuming that the support columns had not moved in the slightest from their "as built" location - effectively had not been touched by heat. In a heat ravaged building.

So no point arguing details when the starting premises are wrong. I'll leave it there since we are drifting from topic.

The discussion of the on topic issue here is similarly structured. It is impossible to model the initiation stage of Twin towers collapse to the detail being demanded in this thread AND to scientific standards . And it is unnecessarily trivial to do so for the progression stage. And - since one cannot be done and the other is pointless then all the discussion of details is moot - irrelevant.
 

Oystein

Senior Member
There is no math needed to see that

http://www.imagebam.com/image/771f6f437054899

the whole top section comes down instead of an internal collapse of floors with afterwards columns falling like mikado sticks. A model should at least fit with observation.
This is a reply to what?

Once the whole top has decended by one story, floor slab meets floor slab, and at least one of them has to yield. So whether or not you see "internal collapse of floors", you must agree that inside the walls ("internally"), floors are failing and then falling - i.e. "collapsing".

The animated gif you present stops before the internal collapse races ahead of perimeter column failure below the initiation zone, so the picture can't show what it would need to support your point.
 

Spectrar Ghost

Senior Member.
There is no math needed to see that

http://www.imagebam.com/image/771f6f437054899

the whole top section comes down instead of an internal collapse of floors with afterwards columns falling like mikado sticks. A model should at least fit with observation.
That's actually a very interesting view. If you look carefully, you notice several things:

1. Flames shooting out several floors (I'd estimate 5-7 at least) blow the initiation point, which gives an idea of how far the fires had spread. They appear simultaneously or slightly before visible initiation, indicating air movement before one would expect it without internal collapses below the visible point of initiation.

2. There are puffs of dust visible before initiation and in the upper block that fell, which would be consistent with floor collapse in that block before (and possibly triggering) the visible initiation.
 

econ41

Senior Member
There is no math needed to see that
The reference is not clear. See what?

the whole top section comes down instead of an internal collapse of floors with afterwards columns falling like mikado sticks. A model should at least fit with observation.
Maybe to both assertions. When discussing modelling all or part of the event - the mechanisms of WTC collapse - the first requirement is to specify:
1) what part of the mechanism you intend to model - what stage or stages of the collapse and to what level of detail; AND
2) the purpose of the modelling - broad visual representation for laypersons or "the children" OR some rigorous defined and quantifiable aspect of engineering physics.

Not necessarily in that order - the two interact.
 
1793a22e3aa6ae9ebd0755706f93ad7a.jpg
http://i59.tinypic.com/2ppgavp.jpg

Sorry, I replied to Mick's comment.

If 1 is the initial situation then we see that 4 is what happened. If I remember well the NIST also
mentioned an intact top section that fell. Of course some floors on other stories could also fail after the
sections hit each other.

The idea of pancaking or funneling should be something like 2 first where for example a floor falls on the next one
and so on and detaches the trussed from the columns. What happens with the floors in the top section ?? 3 for example or does only the top section fall as an intact one after 2 happened ? An other possibility is that the floors fall from
the undamaged area at the top first but that is of course very improbable because there was no initial damage. We clearly see that the ejections are at about the same time that the top section comes down. If they are believed to be caused by floors collapsing first you have a contradiction because the movement of the top section should be in the order of seconds later, think about the falling Mikado sticks. You also clearly see that the columns are shortened and don't fall over afterwards. And the NIST rejected the pancake theory for floors.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
View attachment 15149
http://i59.tinypic.com/2ppgavp.jpg

Sorry, I replied to Mick's comment.

If 1 is the initial situation then we see that 4 is what happened. If I remember well the NIST also
mentioned an intact top section that fell. Of course some floors on other stories could also fail after the
sections hit each other.

The idea of pancaking or funneling should be something like 2 first where for example a floor falls on the next one
and so on and detaches the trussed from the columns. What happens with the floors in the top section ?? 3 for example or does only the top section fall as an intact one after 2 happened ? An other possibility is that the floors fall from
the undamaged area at the top first but that is of course very improbable because there was no initial damage. We clearly see that the ejections are at about the same time that the top section comes down. If they are believed to be caused by floors collapsing first you have a contradiction because the movement of the top section should be in the order of seconds later, think about the falling Mikado sticks. You also clearly see that the columns are shortened and don't fall over afterwards. And the NIST rejected the pancake theory for floors.
This seems to be some strange simple models that nobody is suggesting.
 

econ41

Senior Member
If 1 is the initial situation then we see that 4 is what happened. If I remember well the NIST also
mentioned an intact top section that fell. Of course some floors on other stories could also fail after the
sections hit each other.
With due respect you are starting from a very simple model which does not represent either the actual collapse OR the state of understanding most of us have of the actual mechanism.

Until your understanding is at least in the same ballpark as ours I see no basis for us to discuss modelling as per the OP topic of the thread.

Here is a brief outline:
The WTC Twin Towers collapse can be seen in two distinct stages which involved two different mechanisms.

Stage 1 - initiation. Ran from aircraft impact which caused initial damage through a period of accumulating increased damage until the fire and impact affected zone "dropped" the "Top Block". The dominating mechanism of that stage was a cascading failure of columns in axial compression with heat as an initiating and contributory factor.

Stage 2 - "Progression" - one the Top Block was "dropped" by the failed impact and fire zone it went rapidly through to global collapse. Driven by material falling in the office space "tube" - which sheared off the floors leaving the perimeter columns to fall away in sheets. A similar process fell down the core area . Thus progression was by a combination of three interdependent sub-mechanisms.

That is the broad outline. There is a lot of explanatory material available across several forums. I can link you to my own explanations - or summarise them (like I just did but in more detail) BUT this is not the thread for such explanations. We can move to another thread if you wish to pursue the topic.
 
Last edited:
The 4th picture is exactly the holy Bazant model with their crushed layers of material that contains everything of the building. If anyone think that is not what happened then please create an animation of it. Show how funneling happens or how columns are bypassed. Econ, I know the theory that you pointed out for 8 years. I'm interesting in what happens if you perform a thought experiment (like verinage demolition) for the twin towers. I'm interested in the part that the NIST did not investigate and where Bazant et al only created a mathfest about.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
The 4th picture is exactly the holy Bazant model with their crushed layers of material that contains everything of the building.
Bazant quite clear does not have "crushed layers of material that contains everything of the building.", see:
http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/people/bazant/PDFs/Papers/476.pdf


There's a dense layer of crushed debris, but there's also a considerable amount of ejecta in the model, which is indicated in Fig.2 2.(a)(4), and is referred to in the paper as Kout​

The floors do not "pancake" in his model, unlike in the diagram you drew.
 
Mick, the 4th picture is Bazant's model, although it is the discrete version of it. In fact it is the Greening model (famous energy transfer paper at 911myths) As you certainly understand Bazant wrote it down in differential equations. Please present a consistent pancake/funneling model, that simply doesn't exist and nobody did model that so far.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Please present a consistent pancake/funneling model, that simply doesn't exist and nobody did model that so far.
Because nobody thinks "pancake/funneling" is a description of what happened. Floors and columns failed, a lot of it fell outwards, a lot fell straight down, more floors and columns failed. The collapse proceeded down as it was impossible to arrest. The exterior walls would obviously supplied some resistance to lateral forces, which would "funnel" to a degree, but they also failed pretty rapidly and chaotically.

I'm curious though as to what you mean by "model" here. Can you give an example of a model of sufficient detail that is the type of model you are thinking of (it need not be of the WTC).
 

econ41

Senior Member
@drommelsboef and other members:
What model of collapse do you want to discuss? What model are we discussing?

The OP - Cube Radio was clear on one thing - a model of the actual collapse. He was and persists in being vague as to what form of model, for what purpose and for what audience. So be it.

BUT it was the real collapse.

drommelsboef which collapse do you want to discuss because I am prepared to discuss any ONE and could discuss all four currently before us?

The current focus is on the collapse which was discussed in the BLGB (Bazant, Le, Greening, Benson) paper. the objective of that paper was to show that the collapse was not caused by CD. It did so but the reasoning was wrong. So another example of "the right results for the wrong reasons". Few people objected because they accept/believe no CD. I prefer my own findings to rest on valid arguments.

The main errors in that BLGB paper are the fallacious modelling that Bazant followed with various co-authors in a series of papers which followed B&Z 2001/2. Fallacious that is when applied to the actual 9/11 collapses at WTC. Briefly stated he simplified the collapse progression to a 1D model and energetics based on column crushing. Both of those premises were valid for his original "Limit Case" B&Z paper. They are both wrong if applied to the real WTC Twin Towers collapses. And the "crush down / crush up" paradigm - whatever validity it may have in other scenarios - is wrong when applied to the WTC "Tube in Tube" design and the real 9/11 collapses.

So can we agree what model mechanism we want to discuss?
1) The Bazant parody from B&Z which was a valid starting premise for his limit case argument but nothing more in the context of the actual WTC 9/11 collapses;
2) The invalidly extended argument of BLGB - based on the original 1D B&Z limit case analysis BUT invalidly extended into a generic model when applied to the WTC collapses.
3) Whatever so far undefined mechanism drommelsboef has in mind; OR
4) The real WTC collapses.

I am wiling to discuss the real collapse(s). I have zero interest in the fantasies.

Which one please drommelsboef??
 
Well, I certainly have no idea about a model that works well. I was only referring to a few existing collapse models. There are a lot of people (past discussions at other forums) that mention funneling, wedging, pancaking or a vertical avalanche. It’s of course a complex event and even simple models are already difficult enough to describe and I’m fully aware of that. I just popped into this thread because it was on top and am aware that the laws don’t scale, however there are things that scale. For example the energy to crush columns and the mass of the floors can be scaled down, but only in a simple 1d model or a 3d model where there is symmetry in the collapse.

The real collapses are of course the ones where it is all about but those discussions are often highly polarized .
 

Cube Radio

Member
Interesting bit of CAD that shows how WTC7 was constructed and interconnected. All these interior connections broke, allegedly, with almost no perceptible effect on the facade until the outer structure fell.

 

Cube Radio

Member
A set of three real-world experimental models are documented in this video, beginning at 5m30s. Although posted elsewhere to debunk the assertion that the towers' collapses were inevitable, they are also relevant here in that they add to the experimental attempt to reproduce the gravity-driven phenomenon that is claimed to explain the incredible total destruction of the towers though gravity; like all other experiments they fail to support the claim that such a phenomenon exists.
 

Keith Beachy

Senior Member
A set of three real-world experimental models are documented in this video, beginning at 5m30s. Although posted elsewhere to debunk the assertion that the towers' collapses were inevitable, they are also relevant here in that they add to the experimental attempt to reproduce the gravity-driven phenomenon that is claimed to explain the incredible total destruction of the towers though gravity; like all other experiments they fail to support the claim that such a phenomenon exists.
Cole's model fails because a floor in the WTC tower fails at 29,000,000 pounds, and Cole failed to make a valid model. A failed model.
Another silly video by a 911 truth supporter, a great sewer engineer, Cole. He is good at his job, and fails at 911 claims. Great guy, but CD? Really, after 14 years failing to make a valid model is ...
A floor in the WTC can only hold 29,000,000 pounds. Cole's model is not close to the WTC. Cole's model failed again.

The WTC towers fell in a gravity collapse proved by the rate of collapse. Simple physics. A momentum model based on accrued mass of each floor proves no CD for the collapse. Not sure why the proven physics model of momentum is ignore by 911 truth. Do the model, and it is over. 911 truth is now in the JFK/CT salad years of continuous sustained BS.

When 911 truth can prove a floor in the WTC can hold up more than 12 floors and not fail... gee, does 911 truth prohibit math and physics...
Fake model proves 911 truth's engineers can't model the WTC collapse. Video proves it was at a rate which the top section destroyed the lowers section due to the release of E=mgh.
Is the new tag line for 911 truth, 14 more years...
 
Last edited:

econ41

Senior Member
A set of three real-world experimental models are documented in this video, beginning at 5m30s.
All three are invalid models:

(A) The progression stage of collapse of both Twin Towers did not occur through impact load deflecting by bending the floor structures into failure. The impact load was NOT limited to theoretical deflection. The real event failure was by shear of joist <>column connections by overwhelming force.

(B) The Bazant "crush-down crush-up model" does not apply to the Twin Towers collapses. It is based on energy consumed by buckling of columns. A "one dimensional" approximation. Did not happen in Twin Towers collapses where the floors pancaked in a process sometimes described as "ROOSD" - runaway open office space destruction.

(C) The impact collapse of paper supports or weakened support or the fire burning downwards versions are also wrong as anyone can easily see. They do not match what happens.

Detailed explanations of:
1) What really happened; AND
3) Why each of these three bits of nonsense modelling are wrong.
..have been posted by me and others many times. Some of those explanations here - others easily linked on other forums if there is serious interest.

Although posted elsewhere to debunk the assertion that the towers' collapses were inevitable, they are also relevant here in that they add to the experimental attempt to reproduce the gravity-driven phenomenon that is claimed...
It is easily shown that global collapse was inevitable. There are many misguided attempts at proving CD whether by false application of physics OR by modelling - or the combination of untruths that Cole relies on in this video.

... to explain the incredible total destruction of the towers though gravity; like all other experiments they fail to support the claim that such a phenomenon exists.
I have several times explained the difficulties of explaining the events by modelling - especially when the real events are easily explained by descriptive explanation - words alone or words plus pictures.

IMO - and as explained in detail in previous posts - there is no way that any person who cannot accept a words/pictures explanation could be assisted by experimental modelling.

Such a person needs to review what their objective is and why they are not prepared to accept the easiest most practical method of explanation.

Looking for experimental proof will guarantee failure and zero progress. Maybe that is the objective of ongoing support for conspiracy - to avoid facing the true situation - no CD.
 
Last edited:

econ41

Senior Member
Another silly video by a 911 truth supporter, a great sewer engineer, Cole..
Just for the record - and IMO - being a "sewer engineer" does not prevent anyone from being competent at structural physics.:rolleyes:

After all building collapses as per WTC 9/11 AND sewerage systems rely on gravity. Gravity makes sewage run downhill in sloping pipes - it also causes collapsing buildings to fall....

....downwards. :p
 

Cube Radio

Member
Looking for experimental proof will guarantee failure and zero progress.
On the contrary: experimental proof is the foundation of scientific progress. Claiming that "words and pictures" alone are sufficient is quite absurd.

You are simply trying to obfuscate the fact that, after more than 14 years, the thousands and thousands of engineers and experts you claim support your mere words haven't been able to devise even the simplest experiment or computer model to support your deeply improbable claims.

Can to present even one model that supports your words? No, you will have only more words.
 

Cube Radio

Member
As an aside, I am hugely disappointed that a different, new thread that was started before I posted this video has now been locked because it presented the same video. The discussions were making different points.

This is why I find this forum so fascinating, though. The attempt to restrict real debunking is so transparent. Diedre, please lock this thread and unlock the other: I started this thread, and believe it has run its course.
 

deirdre

Senior Member.
The attempt to restrict real debunking is so transparent. Diedre, please lock this thread and unlock the other: I started this thread, and believe it has run its course.
No, the original thread of this video was locked and redirected here because YOU decided you wanted the discussion in this thread, by re-posting the video.

But i will lock this thread for now because i havent read your comments in month and months and yet in post #904 you are just repeating yet again what you were saying all those months ago, and apparently have yet to show proof of.
 

Cube Radio

Member
Literally millions of people (myself included) have a similar skill set. And Ketchum never seems to have worked on anything even remotely similar - being more focussed on mathematics than physics and engineering.
And yet not one of those millions of people -- including you, Mick -- has ever been able to build a virtual model of a tower that demonstrates how the twins could possibly fall with such speed and destructive power under the influence of gravity.

How odd -- perhaps there was more than gravity involved. Will we have to wait another 15 years before some physics student actually bothers to demonstrate their understanding of what you take to be so self-evident with a virtual model?

Quick, everyone here poo-poo the suggestion that experiments are important in demonstrating scientific understanding immediately.
 

Svartbjørn

Senior Member.
And yet not one of those millions of people -- including you, Mick -- has ever been able to build a virtual model of a tower that demonstrates how the twins could possibly fall with such speed and destructive power under the influence of gravity.

How odd -- perhaps there was more than gravity involved. Will we have to wait another 15 years before some physics student actually bothers to demonstrate their understanding of what you take to be so self-evident with a virtual model?

Quick, everyone here poo-poo the suggestion that experiments are important in demonstrating scientific understanding immediately.
Oh get off your ego Cube.. If you're that damned hard up to have the bloody thing done, do it your damned self. Every experiment thats been conducted here, by ANYONE, youve shit on because it doesnt fit YOUR perception of what the model should represent.

Let me present THIS challenge... put your money where your mouth is, pay for the model to be made with all of your variables (or build the damned thing yourself), and then post the results. Normally, I stay out of this kind of thing, but Christ.. youve been on this moaning kick for at LEAST the last 2 years and Ive never ONCE seen you put up or shut up.
 

NoParty

Senior Member.
...not one of those millions of people...has ever been able to build a virtual model of a tower that demonstrates...
Pay handsomely for the unnecessary exercise, and there will be no shortage of model builders for you to choose from.

That no one has done it is absolutely no indication that no one could do it.

No one wants to pay for something that seems redundant...including, apparently, you.



ETA: Evidently Svartbjørn beat me to this post by seconds. :p
 

jaydeehess

Senior Member.
And yet not one of those millions of people -- including you, Mick -- has ever been able to build a virtual model of a tower that demonstrates how the twins could possibly fall with such speed and destructive power under the influence of gravity.

How odd -- perhaps there was more than gravity involved. Will we have to wait another 15 years before some physics student actually bothers to demonstrate their understanding of what you take to be so self-evident with a virtual model?

Quick, everyone here poo-poo the suggestion that experiments are important in demonstrating scientific understanding immediately.
I don't recall how many structural collapse investigations have created a virtual model that demonstrates how the structure could possibly fall with the observed speed and destructive power under the influence of gravity.
Perhaps you have some info on examples?
 

Cube Radio

Member
Oh get off your ego Cube.. If you're that damned hard up to have the bloody thing done, do it your damned self. Every experiment thats been conducted here, by ANYONE, youve shit on because it doesnt fit YOUR perception of what the model should represent.

Let me present THIS challenge... put your money where your mouth is, pay for the model to be made with all of your variables (or build the damned thing yourself), and then post the results. Normally, I stay out of this kind of thing, but Christ.. youve been on this moaning kick for at LEAST the last 2 years and Ive never ONCE seen you put up or shut up.
Blender is free, and the last time Mick said he could build in tower in less than a month (working part time) he insisted he'd do it for free when I suggested a fundraising effort.

But perhaps you didn't see that.
 

jaydeehess

Senior Member.
Was the GWBush admin, the FBI, CIA, or any official at all, given actionable intel concernjng the 9/11 attacks? Maybe you know of someone who passed on intel about the date/time, or location, or if airliners are focused on, the carrier and airport of origin?

"What?.... no, of course not", you say! Pray tell then, what exactly is the accusation being leveled (at the administration, or the alphabet institutions)?

Did they drop the ball on this? To a certain extent, yes. They did not form a special task force to investigate possible ( remember, no one knows it's true yet) suicide airliner hijacking(s).
Was it impossible to envision such a scenario as witnessed to occur on 9/11? No! Was it impossible to know that flights 11,175,77 and 93 would be hijacked after getting to cruise height on the morning of Sept.11/01 and then commandeered to suicide crash missions in NYC and the D.C. area?
Yes, THAT was impossible.
 

jaydeehess

Senior Member.
Blender is free, and the last time Mick said he could build in tower in less than a month (working part time) he insisted he'd do it for free when I suggested a fundraising effort.

But perhaps you didn't see that.
Is Blender sufficient to model the collapses? How long into collapse do you need to go? 2 seconds, 3 seconds, 10? If you did model the first 3 seconds, or until after the first two or three floors below fire floors are involved, do you think that would mollify AE911T gor instance, on whether or not collapse would propagate to the ground?
 

jaydeehess

Senior Member.
Mick did construct physical models demonstrating the concept of tower collapse propagation.
Some truthers then complained it isn't faithful enough to the towers. I see this as being the very same comlaint that woukd be usdd by truthers even if a new, 2017 supercomputer FEA were used that then demonstrated a very similar collapse sequence as was observed in videos of the real event.
Nothing will ever be good enough, no simulation will ever model a collapse close enough for those who remain convinced that the towers and yhat other relatively unknown NYC skyscraper were deliberately demolished by shadowy extra-governmental cabal.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Blender is free, and the last time Mick said he could build in tower in less than a month (working part time) he insisted he'd do it for free when I suggested a fundraising effort.
And I've not done it precisely for the reasons outlined above - it seems redundant. The only use of such a demonstration is to explain things to Truther's who don't understand how the towers could collapse. I felt I did a reasonable job of demonstrating that mechanism with the physical model I built - and carpentry is more fun than programming.

People are not building large detailed models any more because they don't feel like there's any need. The only people who feel there's still a need are Truthers, and they are not building models.
 

Cube Radio

Member
Mick did construct physical models demonstrating the concept of tower collapse propagation.
Some truthers then complained it isn't faithful enough to the towers. I see this as being the very same comlaint that woukd be usdd by truthers even if a new, 2017 supercomputer FEA were used that then demonstrated a very similar collapse sequence as was observed in videos of the real event.
Nothing will ever be good enough, no simulation will ever model a collapse close enough for those who remain convinced that the towers and yhat other relatively unknown NYC skyscraper were deliberately demolished by shadowy extra-governmental cabal.
But there is nothing. It's not a case of nothing being good enough for the likes of me -- fact is, when it comes to a virtual model of a tower that shows how the twins could possibly have fallen in the way they did, there's literally nothing that's ever been done that successfully demonstrates this. All efforts have failed.

Mick made a one dimensional model in wood. But the fact is he's a skilled computer programmer, not an ex-carpenter.

Back on topic, now.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
To be honest Mick I don't think the technology to create models of the towers is quite there yet, although I think it will be fairly soon and when it is I predict a lot of models will be made.
You wrote this three years ago. What's your assessment of "fairly soon" now?
 

Cube Radio

Member
You wrote this three years ago. What's your assessment of "fairly soon" now?
Blender is here now of course. We also have games like Demolition that don't claim to be physically accurate. I think it'll be a fair few years yet before a game like that puts a really powerful physics engine in the hands of kids.

But I predict the even if it takes 50 years, there will still be no physicist or structural engineer who will have successfully modelled the fast, destructive collapse of a high-rise tower using a virtual model even approximately representing the twin towers by then.

Instead, people on forums like this one will still be insisting the effort would be meaningless and unnecessary.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Mick made a one dimensional model in wood.
Two dimensional. A one dimensional model would be more like @psikeyhackr's washers and paper rings.
https://www.metabunk.org/psikeyhackers-wtc-impact-model.t7540/

The fact that it's two dimensions is important as it demonstrates the aspect of the collapse mechanism which is things falling through paths of relatively little resistance, which is impossible in a 1D model.

Gage's cardboard box model is also essentially 1D, and the mental model that most Truther's verbalize is also genrally 1D.

So 2D is very important. 3D would be better, but not necessary for demonstrating the general concept.
 
Thread starter Related Articles Forum Replies Date
J [False] Claim that Scale Model of 2017 Eclipse Disproves the Heliocentric Model Flat Earth 29
Stefan Leahu A real-life 2D curvature analogy and a few thoughts regarding scale Flat Earth 2
Mick West How Big is a Tic-Tac? Scale Models of the Nimitz Incident UFO Videos and Reports from the US Navy 18
Mick West Convert Graph Image from Log Scale to Linear Scale Tools for Investigating and Debunking 0
Mick West Where are you on the Generic Conspiracist Beliefs Scale? Practical Debunking 22
Svartbjørn The Solar System.. To Scale (just for fun, nothing to debunk here) General Discussion 0
TWCobra Effect of mid-range Mohs (hardness scale) Volcanic Ash on aircraft v Aluminium oxide Contrails and Chemtrails 14
Christophe Isbert Quadcopter/RC model? Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 0
Mick West WTC7: Is AE911's (and NIST's) Focus on A2001 Justified if it Was Not "Key" in NIST's Global Model? 9/11 181
Mick West Ground Truth: Verifying Stellarium's Model of The Solar System Flat Earth 2
Mick West A virtual model illustrating some aspects of the collapse of the WTC Towers Tools for Investigating and Debunking 132
Gamolon Does Mick West's WTC model meet the Heiwa Challenge? 9/11 25
Mick West Towards A Replicable Physical Model Illustrating Aspects of the Collapse of The WTC Towers on 9/11 9/11 442
Davy Stone Proposed experiment measuring Doppler shift of the sun on a flat earth model Flat Earth 9
Jay Reynolds "The Awakening"- a 'Franchise' Model to Drive Conspiracy Product Sales Conspiracy Theories 0
Mick West Explained: "It's photoshopped because it has to be" Flat Earth 3
Mick West Converting Nikon P900 to IR/Full Spectrum - The Definitive Guide Tools for Investigating and Debunking 14
Rory Debunked: The Lunar Cycle affects birth rates Health and Quackery 26
L How did Tim Peake get full Earth in his helmet picture? [convex mirror illusion] Flat Earth 11
Mick West Full-Disk HD Images of the Earth from Satellites Flat Earth 94
Steve Funk Elana Freeland, "Chemtrails, HAARP and the Full-Spectrum Dominance of Planet Earth Contrails and Chemtrails 15
Mick West MH370 Preliminary Report Released - Full Text and Files Flight MH370 186
J Debunked: Full proof sandy hook was closed 5 yrs ago Sandy Hook 25
Mick West Boston: Dzhokhar Tsarnaev criminal complaint full text Boston Marathon Bombings 14
Clock 8 Ways to tell a Conspiracy Theorist is really a Fraud (or full of baloney) Practical Debunking 9
Related Articles

























Related Articles

Top