Interesting 9/11 video

psikeyhackr said:
Your model has 12 levels. My physical model has 33. Where is you data on the weight at each level? Are the lower levels stronger than the upper ones. Don't real skyscrapers have to be designed that way. My model has triple paper loops at the bottom and single loops at the top.

I don't mind computer models but they are meaningless without the details on the data. Computer models do not really do physics. They simulate it. A physical model cannot escape real physics. So my paper loops MUST be strong enough to support the static load. The top washer was 1.4 oz and they got progressively heavier toward the bottom to 2.1 oz.

So why are you showing us a virtual model without weight specification?

The damage to the north tower was near the top and supposedly the upper portion fell onto and destroyed the intact lower portion.

psik
Click to expand...

You and I both had the same two principles in mind when we built our models:

1. It must be strong enough to stand on its own
2. It must be weak enough to test whether it is possible for it to completely collapse

You used three paper loops at the bottom of your model in order to satisfy #1. If your model could have stood using only two paper loops at the bottom, you would have done so, in order to satisfy #2.

In the free physics program I used, the individual beams never break or bend. Also, the little red connection lines never come unconnected. So, the only way I could satisfy #1 and #2 in that program was to design the model so that none of the beams were really connected. That is why I showed you the closeup picture of the design, and explained that none of the structural components were really connected.

eOsMQTj.png


The 'floors' are only held up by the little squares, (similar to the floor trusses in the WTC, but by no means identical). The vertical columns are only stacked upon each other, with the 'floors' helping to keep them aligned, (similar to the butt joints in the WTC, but by no means identical). All components have the same default density throughout the model, which might mean it is heavier at the top than it needs to be, or it might mean that it is lighter at the bottom than it should be. It's hard to tell with beams that never break or bend, but the connection design is what makes it unstable. If anything, my design might not have truly satisfied #1, because my model can sometimes collapse on its own without me inflicting any damage to it.

EDITED TO ADD:

According to the program I am using, each vertical beam in my model is 7 x 0.5 metres
Each horizontal 'floor' is 4.5 x 0.5 metres
Except for the 'floors' in the core which are 2.0 x 0.5 metres

The overall width of the model is 13.0 meters not including the base squares
The overall height of the model is 84.0 meters not including the squares at the very top
The scale of these overall dimensions is roughly 21% of actual size
 
Last edited:
Neddy Bate said:
The 'floors' are only held up by the little squares, (similar to the floor trusses in the WTC, but by no means identical). The vertical columns are only stacked upon each other, with the 'floors' helping to keep them aligned, (similar to the butt joints in the WTC, but by no means identical). All components have the same default density throughout the model, which might mean it is heavier at the top than it needs to be, or it might mean that it is lighter at the bottom than it should be. It's hard to tell with beams that never break or bend, but the connection design is what makes it unstable. If anything, my design might not have truly satisfied #1, because my model can sometimes collapse on its own without me inflicting any damage to it.
Click to expand...

So are the joints between the core columns different from the rest?

But the energy required to bend beams and columns and break connections is what would slow the falling mass in a gravity only collapse. So any model that doesn't do that can't be an accurate portrayal of what people 'claim' happened on 9/11. Of course if what they claim really could not happen then other forces had to be involved.

psik
 
psikeyhackr said:
So are the joints between the core columns different from the rest?
Click to expand...

All of the joints are built on the same concept. The little squares do it all. The perimeter joints only have little squares on the inner side, not the outer side. The core joints have little squares on both sides, so they are more symmetrical. Other than that, there is no difference.


psikeyhackr said:
But the energy required to bend beams and columns and break connections is what would slow the falling mass in a gravity only collapse. So any model that doesn't do that can't be an accurate portrayal of what people 'claim' happened on 9/11. Of course if what they claim really could not happen then other forces had to be involved.
Click to expand...

For my model, that energy is dispersed as the little squares get moved out of place, allowing the joints to fail. Dispersing that energy does take time, and my model does not fall anywhere near free-fall speed. I timed the collapse against a freely-falling object, and the collapse takes much more time. Roughly speaking, even if I drop the test-object from a height of 1.5X times the height of the model, the test-object still hits the ground before the upper portions of the model. To make them hit the ground at the same time, I would estimate that I would have to drop the test-object from at least 2.0X times the height of the model, if not higher, but the program does not let me do that, (because the model is so large that it takes up most of the workspace).
 
Last edited:
psikeyhackr said:
Your model has 12 levels. My physical model has 33. Where is you data on the weight at each level? Are the lower levels stronger than the upper ones. Don't real skyscrapers have to be designed that way. My model has triple paper loops at the bottom and single loops at the top.
Click to expand...
this is an incorrect model for WTC 1 and 2.
the floors were supported by the core and perimeter.
the "paper" needs to be between the the core and perimeter and only strong enough to hold that particular washer.
to be fair you must include the live loads too.

in your model the floors seem to support one another, and that isn't the case with 1 & 2.
 
Against all evidence and logic you believe that 9/11 was carried by our goverment.
Against all evidence you do not believe that global warming is real.

The idiom "a lost ball in high weeds" comes to mind...
 
Remember the hail mary pass example? Now, why would I place any credence in your assessment of what constitutes "evidence and logic"?
 
http://ae911truth.info/wordpress/

http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm


http://www.debunking911.com/tactic.htm

http://www.debunking911.com/
New Paper ~ Professor of Civil, Structural and Environmental Engineering at Cambridge University passes yet another peer reviewed paper by a RESPECTED engineering Journal saying the towers collapsed the way they did without the need of explosives.

Update ~ The real conspiracy, the administrations rush to war and the evidence for an investigation people should be fighting for.

Link ~ The Italian debunker does it again! Uninterruptible power supply on the 81st floor may be yet another explanation for the molten flow coming from the 81st floor window.

New Page ~ In Defense of Rosie. Why Rosie O'Donnell shouldn't be fired from 'The View' but should reexamine the WTC 7 collapse.

New Video ~ Frustrated fireman agonizes over not being able to go into "leaning" Building 7 and save it from certain doom.

Update ~ An Italian debunker over seas put an iron slab to the test. Shoots down Steven Jones alleged thermite photo. Badda Bing!

Uncomfortable Questions ~ Was the Death Star Attack an Inside Job?

New Search Engine ~ Debunking 9/11's "9/11 POWER Debunker" Over 200 9/11 related web sites and thousands of pages of facts, papers and commentary!

New Video ~ Did the BBC know the WTC 7 was going to be blown up or is this conspiracy story just petty revenge?

New Video ~ Shows us what he saw from the south side of Building 7!

Updated ~ The NIST and "Pancaking". More deception from conspiracy theorists...

Must Read! ~ 9-11 and the New Pearl Harbor (Part I) (Part II)http://www.gnn.tv/articles/2577/9_11_and_the_New_Pearl_Harbor_Part_I

Reply to conspiracy theorist hit piece ~ Below and on the World Trade Center 7page I respond to a conspiracy theorist's hit piece which mocks my grammar and distorts the firefighters quotes.

Debunking 9/11 exclusive! ~ Portion of World Trade Center 7 South Side Hole

Updated ~ Prof. Steven E Jones The controversial professor of BYU's Cold Fusion physics department and his scholars for truth. Jones is placed on leave with pay and my view on the topic.

Added ~ Examination of evidence concerning asbestos at the towers and occupancyat the time of the attack.

Debunking 911 Links - 9/11 Conspiracy debunking sites... Peer reviewed papers and articles on how the towers collapsed..

Molten Steel Explained - Conspiracy sites like to bring up molten steel found 6 weeks after the buildings fell to suggest a bomb must have created the effect. There is another explanation which is more plausible.

"Iron Burns!!! Mark R Ferran's E-mails to the scholars explaining to them how iron can burn/oxidize in low temperature fires.

The "Squib" Squabble - An examination of the evidence which squelches the "Squibs" issue.

Rethinking Thermite - The reality of thermite and an examination of the evidence

The Free Fall Fallacy - Photographic evidence the towers did not fall at free fall speed.

World Trade Center 7 - Firefighter interviews proving Silverstein meant "pull" the ongoing [rescue operations] out of building 7's immediate area. Proof also that Building 7 was a lot worse than conspiracy theorists lead you to believe.

Columns and Trusses - Photographic evidence the trusses sagged due to fire and pulled the columns in causing the catastrophic collapse.

Peer Reviewed Paper - A look at the only paper which passed peer review on what caused the WTC collapse and the people behind it.

The Fire - The fireman's quote saying all that was needed was two fire hoses to put out the fires is taken out of context by conspiracy theorists.

The Firefighter Quotes - Evidence that conspiracy theorists are lying and taking firefighter quotes out of context.

Civil Engineers' QuotesStructural and Civil Engineers who have spoken out against Controlled Demolition conspiracy theory.

Osama Bin Laden - "A few Arabs in the desert could not have pulled this off..." Why Osama is perfect for this attack.

The Zogby Poll - Conspiracy sites point to a Zogby poll which they suggest proves that the American people think the government blew up the towers. Why that's not the case.

Real Conspiracy - What a real conspiracy looks like. Ironically, this conspiracy goes unnoticed by the conspiracy theorists.

First time in history - Conspiracy sites bring up the fact that the towers were the first steel high raises to fall in history. The fact is the towers had a lot of firsts that day.

The Meeting - The absurd meeting which must have occurred between government accomplices if conspiracy theorists are right.

Sounds of Explosions - A look at a possible explanation for what some people saw and heard.

Massive Conspiracy - All the people who would have to be involved in order to pull this massive conspiracy off...

Debunking 911 Links - 9/11 Conspiracy debunking sites... Peer reviewed papers and articles on how the towers collapsed..


The troofer nuts have got loose again! :)
9/11 inside job, Faked Moon landings, Alien origin UFO's, ghosts, goblins,
With all these damn conspiracies, it's a wonder some people even get out of bed in the mornings!
We're all doomed I tell ya!!!!! :rolleyes:
 
Photizo said:
"Riding a wave of support from 9/11 activists around the world,
Click to expand...

A wave of support!!! :DLike the Idiots that claim the Moon landings were faked, this lot are doing their damndest to stay in the spotlight and create as much doubt as they are able through lies, inuendo, more lies, and just plain old severe case of insecurities.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top