Wire Model of WTC Bldgs. to Simulate Collapse?

Originally posted by bsbray11
Considering :p NIST :p ~

My only suggestion would be this for a computer model: it should recreate the collapse features almost exactly. About 90% or more of the mass should land outside of the footprints. The cores should sink straight down after the perimeter/truss failures. The collapses should not slow down as they descend.

If you're going to be that thorough, you might as well get something useful out of it.

This is info I want and stuff that will be considered. I believe the core did survive a little longer and will be considering these factors.

Last line is the intention.

Do we really need a model?

JUST THINK ABOUT IT!

If you picked up the top 30 storeys of WTC 2... lifted it 100 ft. in the air and THREW it down on the building... what would you expect to happen? A COMPLETE and total PERFECT crushing of the intact and VERY STRONG remaining 80 FLOORs? No.

Take thre cinder blocks... stack two of them the tall way, now take a third and THROW IT DOWN as hard as you can on top of the stacked two... Do you see complete and utter destruction?

Didn't think so.

Build a model and try it.

The remaining intact floors could take a HUGE impact from above anf not "landslide" collapse the intact floors... To much energy required... not enough available under even the most TWEAKED models... why do you think the NIST tweaked and then SUPPRESSED their own models?

Allies and the USA might consider sending a warning to each Arab State. If any extremist involved in terrorism originates from your State or Country, You will be held accountable for their actions against any NATO Country.

Extreme I know.. but how better to try and grip that raging bull my the horns. We're living in a different world now.

Dallas

There were NO EXPLOSIONS! This is whatt explosions look like but more important,this is what they sound like!!!

ebaumsworld.com...



I sont see any explosions here? The audio is clear as is the video,The distance is almost exactly the same as the demo video as well.

www.revver.com...



If there were explosions believe me we woudnt be 2nd guessing it it would be very obvious.There hasnt been 1 shot of video from the WTC that shows explosions visually or from audio and considering the hundreds of videos out there=THERE WERE NO EXPLOSIONS GET OVER IT.

[edit on 19-9-2006 by Samblack]

[edit on 19-9-2006 by Samblack]

Originally posted by Akareyon
I know it sounds a bit far-fetched... but there's a lot we know and that is public knowledge even without the blueprints - we know how many core columns there were, how many floors, how thick some of the steel was... aren't there a few minimum and maximum numbers that we can estimate or deduce? Is it worth the research, math and work?

[edit on 10-9-2006 by Akareyon]

The only reason we "know" how many core columns, thickness etc. is from NIST and others. Some here (including myself) do not totally trust NIST or FEMA (remember FEMA didn't even know that a core existed). Without total disclosure of the construction documents, I do not believe it is worth it. There have been many differing accounts of the core structure (pre and post 9/11) that may come about that there was actually concrete used in the core.

Originally posted by snoopy
So can people generally have access to the floor plans to most buildings? Could i access the floor plans to the empire statebuilding or anything like that if i wanted to?

Yes, if you are willing to buy them. Construction documents are copywritted by the designer, so there is no worry of copywrite infringment....as long as you don't try and reproduce their work and say it's your own. I could be wrong but in my line of work, we recieve documents from other engineering firms all the time.

Originally posted by Samblack
There were NO EXPLOSIONS! This is whatt explosions look like but more important,this is what they sound like!!!

ebaumsworld.com...



I sont see any explosions here? The audio is clear as is the video,The distance is almost exactly the same as the demo video as well.

www.revver.com...



If there were explosions believe me we woudnt be 2nd guessing it it would be very obvious.There hasnt been 1 shot of video from the WTC that shows explosions visually or from audio and considering the hundreds of videos out there=THERE WERE NO EXPLOSIONS GET OVER IT.

[edit on 19-9-2006 by Samblack]

[edit on 19-9-2006 by Samblack]

Just to answer your questions Samblack....

Explosives come in all sorts of forms--gels, granules, powders, cord, liquids, plastics (in blocks and sheets), and old reliable, stick dynamite. All have properties designed for specific conditions. Huge quantities are used every year, often in urban areas and often without anybody even noticing the detonations. Dynamite is a mixture of nitroglycerin, a liquid and a binder. It was the first practical high explosive and revolutionized mining and construction by making the blasting process safer and more efficient... As per the design, the first blasting takes place the weight of the structure will begin to pull the building down in a controlled direction. The remaining charges fire at preset intervals of about one second, fracturing the structure's internal supports, weakening it from the inside out. Then, as it falls, the once strong structure's own weight tears it apart leaving nothing but a pile of pulverized concrete and reinforcing rod.

Source: www.buildingdemolisher.com...

Notice how it says that in urban areas often people don't even hear the detonations. Just because one demolition is loud, doesn't mean all demolitions are the same. Back to topic....I don't know how we got from models to explosives anyway.

Originally posted by bsbray11
A real model would be A LOT easier than a computer regeneration. A computer simulation is also not as rigorously subject to actual laws of physics as a real-life model would be.

We wouldn't have to build something exactly like the WTC Towers. We would only have to build something with a similar structure, that's also weaker and that would be more prone to what we were told collapsed the real WTC Towers.

[edit on 11-9-2006 by bsbray11]

I sell very complex Finite Element Analysis (FEA) software for a living and I completely disagree with your assessment. First all all, there are several ways to approach a comprehensive analysis of the WTC collapse. One could do a nodal analysis of only a few floors to assess the dynamic characteristics of the loading conditions during the collapse to ascertain it's feasability. One could do a fully linear analysis of the materials and it's joints to determine feasability. Or you could actually completely remodel the WTC and attempt to recreate the variables as they occurred on that day. However, your approach leaves far too much to the imagination. A carefully constructed CG (computer Generated) model would at least allow you to manipulate necessary variables to complete the task with a reasonable amount of accuracy.

First of all, one needs to understand HOW such analysis works and what goes into it as there are several different types of analysis all working together. To start with, every single structural memeber of that building was under a loading consition on that day - prior to impact. Being an organic structure (Moveable), the WTC would undoubtably be handling dynamic (Changing) loading conditions throughout any given day due to temperature, wind, weather, population of the building, mechanical system functions (Yes, even the flow of the air conditioning effects the dynamic loading condistions on a structure!), etc... These need to be accounted for.

Secondly, you have material. Concrete, steel, fasteners etc... Each material is represented by a set of characteristics known as properties. Properties include density, weight, creep (Tensile strength), center of gravity, etc... And those properties play directly upon the materials behavioral characteristics under varying conditions. This would be a ridiculous task, but not impossible. One would have to go through the computer generated model of the building and apply the correct characteristics to the members of the overall structure and do so accurately. A physical reproduction would be much more difficlut to approximate.

Your assessment that "A computer simulation is also not as rigorously subject to actual laws of physics as a real-life model would be" couldn't be further from the truth. A computer model could delve into the most minute and highly refined nodes of the structure and be controlled - never the case in a physical model. Secondly, a computer model would allow me to construct thousands of scenarios within millions of specific moments of inertia while analysisng the output - whereas a physical model, once destroyed, is gone forever. Unless I have billions of sensors connected to every possible node, I would never get the data required for validation.

Finally, I could not recreate the variables of that fatal day on a physical model: heat, humidity, wind direction/speed, barometric pressure, dynamic loading conditions, material properties (Of the exact materials), moments of inertia, nodal interaction etc... However, I could control every one of those variable on a CG model. Where people get confused is on WHAT TYPE of computer model.

We have all seen very simple wire-frame analysis of the collapse. Good for building hypothesis, lousy for exacting theories and law. Surface (Graphical) models lack the properties attributed to the matieral itself and therefore cannot behave appropriately and have to built off of speculative data at best. And finally, 3D Solid Models would enable the comprehensive analysis necessary to dissect this tragedy.

In order for this to work, a highly skilled team of multi-disciplined engineers would need to be employed. You would need structural, mechanical, civil engineers just to get started. You would need an accurate blueprint to work from in which to create the CG Solid Model. You would need to know a few conditions - wind speed, direction, temp, humidity, pressure. You would also need some expertise in avionics - weight and mass of plane, speed, direction and orientation, etc... All of these things sound impossible, but, however difficult, they are not impossible. In fact, it is more reasonable to assume I could accomplish all of this on a computer, long before I could recreate it in reality.

The beauty of CG analysis is that I can create thousands of "What if" scenarios without having to fell a single structure. I can tweak these variables infinitely until I approximate the conditions on that day. Good luck pulling that off in reality. In this way, I can begin to ascertain whether or not the collapse of the towers as they were reported to have occurred is possible. Most strucutral engineers I know will tell you that it not only is possible, but likely.

What mystifies me is that knowing that these capabilities exist and could be completed, they have not been. This whole silly mess could be put to bed in a few months if only someone with the time, money and resources (Blueprints for one) would do the analysis. It's not impossible, merely difficult and time consuming. The fact that this hasn't been done and that the blueprints are under lock and key tells me that someone doesn't want people to to be able to do this - why? I have no idea.

In order to do it and be somewhat accurate you would need a carefully reconstructed model of the WTC buildings, a proper accounting of materials and their respective properties, a recreation of the weather conditions, a reasonable recreation of even typical loading conditions are all possible on a CG Solid model. Then you would need data on the aircraft - dimensions, mass, COG, material properties etc... and you could easily recreate the impact. That data could then easily be interpolated into an analysis of the collapse. You could never do that in reality, sorry, couldn't be done.

Until this is done - I'm not buying anything from anyone until I see it empirically!

It is posts like the one ^^^ above that should make the entire world angry with the NIST. Show the models NIST. Show the evidence.

I would love for someone to do the kind of modeling you're talking about. What I had in mind were models based on things like this,

**BEGIN PROGRAM**

# Demonstrates the kinetic energy of the WTC collapses, to debunk 9/11 conspiracies # www.geocities.com...

where Greening's error is made all over again: no mass was lost during the collapses, as opposed to the fact that some >90% was lost, not to mention all the other variables left out, etc.

And I agree with Slap Nuts. How much did NIST get again? Some tens of millions to do their work?

Very constructive arguement but a little rigid in requirements for the demonstration model. I'm thinking of a simple approach with individual elements (objects) that have properties.
The properties to start with are:
Have Mass, can collide and be hit in 3D space.
Have weight, exert force upon other members.
Have strength, supports weight, provides tortional support or deflects forces, moments etc.
Has connections, mounted to other components forming structural or other elements.
Has spacial position, is located somewhere, can be dropped, thrown, crushed or pulverized.

The intention is to see how elements react according to user modifiable parameters. I want to see parts tumble, land, fly, crush and fall away. I've seen the pancake demo, what a crock. Let's see structural degredation and what realy happened. I also believe that 75 or more of the mass ended up outside perimeter wall.

New status: Model started was too rigid, now switching to a componentized model of aggregate nature. This is where elements share common properties and can be worked with but in their own right are different. Steel, Glass, Concrete, Column, Brace, truss etc.

How many people have Dual Core processors or Hyperthreading Pentiums? This will take a lot of time to run.