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

Discussion in '9/11' started by Cube Radio, Jun 14, 2014.

1. ### Keith BeachyActive Member

Psikey is an engineer? Engineers would not waste time crying about the mass, they would study the WTC and figure out numbers in a day, something he has failed to do given over 5 years, or more. A quick estimation has been done, why can't he use this one? http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=87583 There is enough knowledge out there to estimate the mass of each WTC section, even the different strength of steel used on the shell. Anyone can estimate the mass, and then set bounds of their "model". Do the max, and min, etc. But a floor only holds 29,000,000 pounds, which is why the WTC collapsed like it did after terrorists flew planes into the WTC and murdered people.

The WTC towers on 911 are two full up models of a gravity collapse and behaved as they were built. You can't beat full up reality, and there is no purpose to model the chaotic collapse of the WTC past initiation because one floor holds 29,000,000 pounds. That makes your statement wrong. Scientists would love to test full up models but the cost is usually a problem. On 911 the WTC were on fire, and then a gravity collapse. No one can beat this model we saw collapse on 911. You are wrong. You can't produce a purpose for the study to repeat 911 again. Which part of 29,000,000 pounds fails to meet a model for what a floor holds? My model wins, and can be seen on video, a gravity collapse. And that was the last time you said I was wrong, so you will not be wrong any more.

Are you saying you don't believe a floor fails when you put over 29,000,000 pounds on it? Do you think NIST got that right. The chief structural engineer has no need for a model of the collapse, and understands the gravity collapse. Are you saying a gravity collapse is not possible after being proved by two full up WTC towers? Engineers don't need no stinkin model when they can witness the real thing.

You can estimate the mass of the WTC, I can't help it if Psikey can't do simple engineering, simple estimation. There is work already done estimating the mass of the WTC, many times by ex-911 truth believers, who after research stop pushing fantasy from 911. What is the problem with estimating the mass of the WTC, what block is stopping him? You deny two full up models of the WTC are not how a gravity collapse looks, when it is the truth. Not sure what you are searching for, but why would engineers waste time modeling the WTC collapse when we know the weight one floor can hold? What is your block understanding the collapse continues to the ground, what is the purpose of wasting time on a model? You want a physical model, or math/computer models?

Why can't you state a purpose and goal? The gravity collapse is proved by the WTC collapsing due to fires not fought, and video (and people who saw it in person). What is the block. Why do we need to study the collapse part? Why would the collapse not be like we saw, is there something wrong with reality? When will the many experts Gage has signed up for the lies he spreads do a model?

Since when are models better than the real thing? I had model airplanes, but nothing beats pulling 7gs in the real thing, or does it ...

I read the manual, this jet was rated at 7.33g (at one time, long ago), I flight tested (okay, chasing clouds) the full up model, and verified the 7.33g, I did not demand a model to test out what I saw in reality (plus if he wings failed, I had an ejection seat, and a parachute). If we read the manual on the WTC (aka do research), we find the WTC floors can hold about 29,000,000 pounds. The top sections weighed more than what a floor can hold, when they failed during the fires, the WTC collapsed and we have two real WTC towers showing how a gravity collapse of the WTC looks - what no model can do. A model will not change what a real WTC could hold.

Last edited by a moderator: Oct 16, 2014
• Like x 1
• Dislike x 1

Why not?

3. ### Keith BeachyActive Member

No, they are real, no model, what really happens, not some computer model. Reality is better than a model, not better, but real. Real gravity collapses due to fire on 911, seen with full scale real WTC towers.

Yes you can take events as real, not models. The are perfect models, so we can take events as real models of themselves.

• Like x 1
• Dislike x 1
4. ### WeedWhackerSenior Member

That would also be a question that I would like answered. Because I have memories of his "broomstick, large flat washers and paper rings" video from another Forum, years back. It seemed completely ridiculous back then, too....as representative of the actual structural design (and as a failed attempt to "model") of the Twin Towers.

5. ### jaydeehessSenior Member

To my mind, because you cannot use them to observe mechanisms that are not grossly visible from the outside due to intervening walls and dust.

• Like x 1
• Agree x 1
6. ### jaydeehessSenior Member

Discussed in this thread as well by others , and by a person very close to my person.

7. ### JasonSenior Member

Just speaking off the cuff here, but how is it NOT relevant. If it's relevant to include the dimensions of the floors, their square footage, their mass, their potential energy after initiation why would the core's be irrelevant? Again, I don't doubt the official story, but from a purely scientific approach wouldn't it be prudent to know all of the details?

8. ### JasonSenior Member

Define credible computer model?

9. ### WeedWhackerSenior Member

Jason, I think it's clear that not ALL things can be "computer modeled" in a way that will result in an identical outcome, each time, when compared to real life, and the nature of "chaos theory".

I'll use an example that popped into my mind, of which I am quite familiar --- United flight 232 in Sioux City, Iowa. The details that led to the problems are not pertinent, it is the dynamic effects OF the way the airliner disintegrated in the emergency landing that are relevant.

I point this out merely to say that, yes we could find the best Super-Computer on the planet, and attempt to program into it EVERY parameter and still, the EXACT results of every bit of the airplane (and the other components, to include the people inside) simply can NOT be predicted with absolute, and repeatable accuracy.

Some may wish to call this the "Butterfly Effect" (which is mostly a theoretical mind exercise), but it does relate to "chaos", and hence, certain unpredictability (but ONLY in the "details"!! Not the ultimate outcome!).

• Agree x 2
10. ### jaydeehessSenior Member

Because, in the proposed mechanism of collapse the strength of the columns doesn't enter into resistance to collapse. At most, the mass of the steel is simply contributing to that which is falling and even in that, the only possible ability to calculate its contribution at anytime, would be at initiation, from the upper 'block'. For this, an approximation of mass of the steel would suffice

Sure, if someone wishes to consider a column failure due to massive vertical overload, then you'd need its particulars.

Last edited: Jun 19, 2014
11. ### jaydeehessSenior Member

BTW, not entirely sure that the dimensions of the steel and characteristics of the concrete are not in the NIST report. Just not listed out in table form.

We know for instance the construction of the floors and the type of concrete used and how thick it was. How does that not satisfy mass and distribution of concrete?

• Agree x 1

All input data for femr2's collapse simulator is available for examination. That would be one definition, and in that sense femr2's model is greatly superior to NIST's model of WTC7. But that would be off-topic.

• Disagree x 1
13. ### jaydeehessSenior Member

Iirc, NIST did describe the perimeter and core columns at impact floors. They would have needed that for the impact analysis.

• Agree x 1
14. ### WeedWhackerSenior Member

Great. Very polite response, and not sure if it is (or isn't 'OT') but.... Again, I asked before and didn't seem to get an answer...

There were the (very much discussed) collapses of WTC 1, 2 and 7.

What else (in your opinion) could have been responsible?

15. ### JasonSenior Member

Why do you choose femr2's over NIST?

16. ### EfftupSenior Member

OK, I understand Cube's point, that if you are trying to work out what happened to the towers, you cannot use them as models of themselves. that is the sort of circular argument you normally see CTer's making.

BUT, once you have a model that shows how the collapse can happen due to floor collapse and doesn't require column buckling, and you are happy that is the best explanation for what happened at WTC, THEN those towers can become full up models for any future gravity driven collapse.

Cube, you keep pushing femr2's model. Why?
You have said that there are NO accurate models.
if you think that femr2's model is inaccurate, why push it?
If you think it IS accurate, What happens when you do put all the best information you have regarding the WTC into it and run the simulation? does it collapse to the ground or not? If no-one has tried this yet, why the hell not?

also, has anyone tried to model any OTHER explanation other than gravity driven collapse?
if not, why not? You can't claim Controlled demolition on supposed "squibs" coming as the tower collapsed, very dubious evidence or thermite/thermate/nanothermite (delete as applicable depending on what is being precisely debunked at this moment) without attempting to model that either.
How much of this explosive would be required? do you just need enough to start a collapse off, and it then collapses due to gravity?
Do you need to load every single column with 4 tonnes of something?

So far, the models all show a gravity driven collapse is the most likely scenario.
All those people with Nukes/Spacebeams/explosives theories have not even attempted to model anything. All they have done is try and prove the "official" story wrong.
Dr Judy Wood specifically didn't even do any calculations as to how much energy would be required to "dustify" the buildings. She didn't bother because as far as she was concerned, she had proven the official story and the CD story wrong and so by false Sherlock Holmes style logic, whatever argument she pulled out of her backside MUST be the truth.

Once you have worked out, as loads of people apparently have, that a gravity driven collapse is the most likely scenario, then you only really need to model the START of the collapse to see how THAT happened and building an identical 110 story building from scratch just to destroy it is really not necessary.

• Agree x 2

I think this point is a tad off base. Nobody says that a model is better than the real thing. However in a model you know all the starting variable, and other inputs. Cube is suggesting that there are some additional inputs (explosives/thermite) that are not in "the real thing" as described by the building blueprints and the visible events of the day. So the need for a model, in Cube's mind, is to determine if there is actually a need for these additional inputs to match the observed events. From his point of view we never had access to "the real thing", we don't know the inputs, so we can't judge from the outputs. From his perspective there's a need for a model which is "better than the real thing", in that the inputs are known.

You and I don't think there is, because it seems eminently clear to use that progressive collapse was inevitable once started. But I think the an arguable "need" for an accurate model is to demonstrate to the theorists that they are barking up the wrong tree.

The problem though, as seen by the many ridiculous models, both physical (cardboard boxes, washers, plastic in-trays, etc), and mathematical/computer, is that they are both riddled with errors, and very difficult for the layman to understand.

I think if there is to be an educational model, then a numerical one is going to be a waste of time, as people will either not understand it, or argue with the numbers. The best use of a model is to demonstrate the mechanism of collapse - the stripping of the floors, the incredibly fast wave or rubble, the folding out the exterior walls, and the collapse of the center columns at the joints.

That's not really the topic here. 9/11 threads have a tendency to explode in multiple directions, so need to stay on topic.

19. ### JasonSenior Member

I'm also suggesting there could be "missing" inputs or not well understood inputs. Not in terms of explosives or thermite, but in understanding how the core came down. Obviously it did, but all the forces and mass discussed in many of the explanations seem to discuss the mass and potential energy of each floor (not including the core columns or core's floor mass). Or maybe I'm missing something (which isn't out of the ordinary).

I agree, but would it's load capacity vary significantly from the outer columns to the core columns. I'm trying to distinguish the initiation for both the outside columns and adjoining floor joist, and the core. We've already determined that the mass above the initiation was sufficient as such to create the pancaking effect which cause total collapse. But was the mass above the core sufficient to bring down the core floors and columns. I don't understand how the mass and resistance strength of the columns doesn't add into the collapse of the towers neither.

I'm trying to approach this from the outside looking in as a scientist (which I'm not) would do. I'm trying to hang my beliefs and understanding of what happened on a hanger, so I can look at this from both an unbiased perspective. I think it's important to do that when these types of questions are asked so we don't seem automatic in our answers. Sometimes it also helps to try and prove the CT's theory, and in doing so the theory "shouldn't" hold up, but it also allows the ones asking the questions or promoting the theory a chance to see why it doesn't work. It's fair to discuss this, and in doing so it will inevitably help cuberadio understand why femr2's theory is flawed.

20. ### deirdreModeratorStaff Member

i think this pic says it all. the little clips holding Everything together are really all that matters, not sure how to model that.

a thought: I cant find it now, when my nephew was 10 and just starting to be interested in engineering I found an online Build a Bridge simulator. YOu obviously aren't out to SHOW collapses, but if I'm helping you you see ALOT of collapses (we killed Mr. Bill in his box truck about 150 times before we gave up)...anyway, there must be Build a skyscraper type programs out there. and if you just build a tube in tube skyscraper and say pile heavy stuff on the 100th floor it will collapse. and you film it and can watch it in slo-mo. Maybe @Cube Radio you can find something like that and play around.

heres one bridge thing, similar to what we used. basically we got a bunch of cars across but once the cargo truck went it collapsed (for various reasons) but mostly because the weight was too much.

anyway, just a thought.

• Agree x 1
• Funny x 1

The core was not brought down by forces from above, although that played a part. It was brought down by a combination of lack of lateral support, and then being pushed and pulled from the side by a violent wave of thousands of tons of steel and concrete.

Look at the center column here:

Now try to imagine what the collapse (of this model) would look like if it were 30x as high. Even if I tape up the center column quite firmly, it's still going to collapse by itself at a certain height, and the vast accumulation of debris in the falling wave is going to make it collapse (in sections) much quicker.

22. ### JasonSenior Member

How dependant was the core on its lateral support, meaning could it have stood without the exterior columns? Better yet, if the core was built all by itself, could it have existed on its own accord. I also remember reading they staggered some of the core columns, and the columns got lighter the higher up the tower you went. I think staggering the core columns, due to the way the elevators went up the bldg, and having successive mass decreases as you worked your way up would actually make Mick's statement even more likely; "and then being pushed and pulled from the side by a violent wave of thousands of tons of steel and concrete" as the culprit for bringing down the core. This is why they actually chose this design to deal with wind loads in hurricanes and ground movements in an earthquake. So the technological "marvel" of the 1970's could've been one of the main culprits in it's demise. Anyone in agreement, and not all of the columns were staggered, some ran from top to bottom in as one column after being welded together.

23. ### JasonSenior Member

In this photo we can clearly see that the top of the tower started its descent leaning over to the left which meant the corner columns and flooring failed first, Right? So maybe the pancaking was initiated by what Mick said above. Maybe the corner started to collapse due to failure and heat, and by leaning like this, it could of pulled on the columns in the opposite corner until they snapped and then that initiated failure on the opposite side. While this was happening there could've been like "mini earthquakes" happening in the building or a violent wave from these failures and forces that initiated the core columns to fail. The core columns and flooring ultimately had to fail simultaneously on the left side in this photo at the same time the outer columns and f?ooring failed. Does this make sense?
http://www.croberts.com/tc.htm

24. ### deirdreModeratorStaff Member

I'm just guessing, but I imagine all this has been explained in minute detail in other threads

The initiation and progression are separate things. We are discussing models of the progression of the collapse here.

• Agree x 2
26. ### SvartbjørnSenior Member

What I want to know, from your perspective @Cube Radio , is why the actual collapse of the WTC towers is not a viable collapse model for the event? Its a point you've brought up over and over again, and the vast majority of the posters who have responded have disagreed with you saying that it IS a model.. but I havent quite gotten a good grasp of your your objections. This is a very sincere question, not a dig on your position or a snarky response. Im wanting to understand where you're coming from and why, and what your objections are to Keith (and the others) saying that the actual collapse IS a model.

• Like x 2
• Disagree x 1
27. ### JasonSenior Member

You guys are right, sorry for digressing

Models are a form of controlled experiment that demonstrate understanding of a event/phenomenon through (among other things) reproducibility -- they can in principle be made to work again and again, including on days that aren't 9/11. As Efftup says upthread, it is a circular argument to suggest that the event/phenomenon you're trying to model is itself a controlled, reproducible experiment designed and set up to demonstrate understanding of itself. It's just a bit absurd.

Efftup, femr2's model offers all its inputs in a spreadsheet and you can adjust them as you wish. In this sense it us neither accurate nor inaccurate: the question is whether or not you can use it to achieve a model of the collapse that progresses in a similar way to what was observed. There is no real point in trying to model other scenarios until the dominant hypothesis has been properly modelled. The fact that this dominant hypothesis could potentially be falsified through modelling experiments is merely the correct application of the scientific method.

Mick is absolutely right: an excellent use of a model would be to demonstrate the mechanism of collapse; in my view this mechanism would need to be demonstrated to continue through a large number of modelled "floors", although possibly all 110 would be unnecessary! A relatively accurate model would also be very interesting from the perspective of investigating the behaviour of the collapsing/collapsed structure's core.

29. ### vookeActive Member

Does the model accommodate explosive charges?

30. ### qedSenior Member

@Cube Radio What do you think of the model of @Mick West ?

What would you like Mick to add to the model that you think could halt the collapse?

No, I think we can all agree that explosives do not feature in the dominant hypothesis, and it is the dominant (gravity driven) hypothesis that should be modelled first.

32. ### EfftupSenior Member

so why haven't YOU tried it yet? what information are you missing that you need to input?

33. ### jaydeehessSenior Member

Ok, is the sticky point that no computer model of the towers has been made in which it is run through for the full height of the structures?
If so then the reason for that is simple. That is waaaayyyy beyond the ability of computer modeling unless you very greatly simplify the modeled connections and structural components. the real collapse got very complex very quickly. Nor is it required! If at first contact there is a massive overload of the floor pans, unless one can come up with a mechanism by which this won't occur as well in the next floor down, then there is no possible reason to suspect it will be any different 30 floors down, nor would it make much of a difference as far as the reason for the NIST investigation, to come up with reccommendations for building codes.

If the sticky wicket is the lack of physical modeling, that has now been put to rest by Mick's models. You can work on making it more and more representative of the towers but it will always be an approximation and suffer from scaling issues.

So, its a win-win for the truthers isn't it. There is absolutely no way to perfectly model the buildings and thus there is always an 'out' for them. This is evidenced by the continued attack on any and all NIST computer models.

Its also a win-win for models they create as all they have to do make up anything at all and call it a model of the mechanism of tower collapse. That's what Psikey did, but as pointed out, it isn't a model of what really occured or what NIST said occured.

• Like x 1
• Agree x 1
34. ### jaydeehessSenior Member

Does the existance of femr's model mean that your insistence that there is no model, is incorrect?

BTW all, gotta work all weekend so may not be posting much after this afternoon.

I was just thinking about how difficult it would be to scale this illustration to a more reasonable 3D physical model. The answer is: VERY difficult. You could maybe do a column layout a bit like this:

But the complexity has already exploded, and it's hard to get a reasonable layout of floor sections, and attach them to the columns.

So I think it's very unlikely that any individual is going to do that. Any improvements would be two dimensional. I would focus on making something with consistent breakable connections, and more appropriate weights. The larger the model could be the better.

• Useful x 1

There's a collection of "models" here:
http://aneta.org/911experiments_com/other.htm

Well meaning, but wrong stuff that ignores scaling issues like:

and

Several of the videos are unavailable. I wonder if in any case this was because the creator of the video realized their error?

This guy claims he paid over \$3,000 to have this 1/50th model made:

At that size it it would have to be made for spun sugar and lead for it to be accurate. But he does not even attempt a drop test, just uses an argument from incredulity.

It's interesting that there is so much misunderstanding of the square-cube issues in the 9/11 "Truth" community. Even architects are no immune. Here's the most accurate model AE911 could come up with.

• Informative x 1

I didn't say there were no models, I said there were no successful models.

And what makes YOU so certain I haven't tried it, given that I posted it to this thread?

Sheesh.

39. ### qedSenior Member

What in your mind would make a model successful?

Is Mick's model successful?

[...]

40. ### vookeActive Member

They are not mutually exclusive, test both on this relatively reliable model and tell me whether it contradicts what we witnessed

CTers tend to doubt 'official versions' without offering more credible explanations. A model that goes all the way in predicting what SHOULD NOT have happened should also explain or attempt to explain what happened