Why has nobody made a scale replica?

A simplistic answer would be that the moment of inertia (I) doesn't scale linearly with mass. You would need them both to do an analysis. Thus making any scaled down model innacurate.

Of course you would have to size the members properly along with the total and individual mass. So sizing a 1/10 model say, then the mass would be 1/10, the inertia would then have to be sized with the constraint of mass. So for instance the actual scale model profile or cross-section would be different from the actual beam member.

From the horses mouth:

9/11 conjecture is not appropriate for this board!

community.discovery.com...

Please post myths that the MythBusters can bust

Originally posted by Azriphale
From the horses mouth:

9/11 conjecture is not appropriate for this board!

community.discovery.com...

Please post myths that the MythBusters can bust

Wow that seems like a defeatist attitude for the mythbustrs show. Perhaps word your posts to NOT relate to 911 theorys, posts like:

Testing out cell phones aboard airplanes
Airplane crash site crater tests and debris fields
Real strength of the pentagon outer inner walls
etc

It would be real funny if the discoverychan forum was flooded with these kind of posts by ats'ers...

They would probably ban the referral link (if there is one) coming from this site.

Originally posted by greatlakes
So for instance the actual scale model profile or cross-section would be different from the actual beam member.

Right. And eventually, you might end up with a model that looks nothing like the towers. Then, the skeptics will really start yelling because it doesn't look like a tower.

yes its not a trivial thing tho make a complex structure behave and react like the WTC tower, thats why not scale model has been made that im aware of. Also why I suggested building a less complex structure such as wtc7 or the pentagon. These buildings also have complexities but are dramatically less.

Greatlakes,

I think you're right in that there are ways to do it, but just trying to figure out all the differences in modulus of inertia and mass and so forth for every element, you might as well have just structurally analysed the complete tower to begin with. I think, that's why we haven't seen a model yet. I'm still waiting for a computer model with all parameters shown. NIST?

I don't see why you even need an accurate model, or a model at all. If it were a pancake collapse the collapse wave could not have accelerated. But it did accelerate.

What part of the physics escapes you?

Originally posted by Yandros
I don't see why you even need an accurate model, or a model at all. If it were a pancake collapse the collapse wave could not have accelerated. But it did accelerate.

What part of the physics escapes you?

So case closed then Yandros? We can put the 911 event to rest folks, Its all as simple as Yandros says in the above 4 little sentences.

[edit on 28-4-2007 by greatlakes]

NIST built a scale model floor assembly that covered about 30-40 floors. They used spray burners 2-3 times hotter than the WTC fires and they could not initiate a collapse.

Their computer models, which supposedly support their collapse theory, do not show the type of collapse that was seen on 9/11. They have not released their data or shown simulations, but apparently they had tons of problems with their computer models. First, they had to use ridiculous inputs to initiate the collapse. Second, after collapse initiation they could not get the collapse to progress. It was not symmetrical, it was not complete.

I dont think it matters if we built an exact scale replica of the towers. The problem is it wont fail. In debunker logic its obviously a flawed experiment because the real towers fell so the scale model must be off.

You cant win with these people.

Originally posted by Yandros


The trusses were welded AND bolted to both the outer walls and the inner columns

In order for the trusses to sag the walls would have need to have bent inward or the bolts would have need to have broken.

The bolts had no reason to snap, and I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if someone found an intact bolt joint in the rubble.

well, do a formal FOIA request,
there must be thousands of truss supports to be found at the 'Fresh Kills'
debris site...all of which ( the debris) has been analysed but our trusted/truthful govt.

does your diagnosis include the 3" layers of lightweight concrete on the majority of floors....opposed to the higher grade concrete at the appropriate floors where service & structural requirements called for 5-6K lb concrete instead of the lightweight 'gypcrete' slushed-on the corregated pans??



let 'em buy a similar constructed building (as the style/enginering is supposedly so common in modern buildings- after the WTC twin towers were constructed in late '60s thru early '70s) to test demo...
as CGI buildings would most likely produce whatever results it was programmed to show...
real time & real life variables or overlooked factors would not necessarily reveal themselves in a programmed WTC tower model destruction.

by buying a same type building, instead of building a scale model,
it would probably cost less & produce an accurate collapse reenactment....
imo

Good ideas, and perhaps you should build at least 3 exact replicas, one showing the collapse with explosion, one with just the impact and the 3rd with both. Just an idea.