9/11 was an inside job

I decided to build my own model using physics software. I am using a free program called Physion which is pretty cool, and very fun to play with.

First I built a tower with no joint connections at all. This "house of cards" model does provide the desired type of collapse, but it does not stand on its own. Even before I could add some damage to represent the plane impact and fires, the building just collapsed due to its own gentle oscillations. If the WTC1 and WTC2 had been designed like this, they would have collapsed in the 1970's or before they were even completed.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Figure 1. The tower with no joint connections, perfectly intact, (before collapse).
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Figure 2. The tower with no joint connections, (during collapse).
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Next I added joint connections which would allow the building to stand on its own. Those connections are like strings tying the individual blocks together. The strings don't break, but they do stretch a little, and they are long enough to allow the columns and floors to move far enough apart to allow collapse. I also cut some of the strings when I add some damage to represent the plane impact and fires.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Figure 3. The tower with joint connections and some damage to represent the plane impact and fires, (before collapse).
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Figure 4. The tower with joint connections and some damage to represent the plane impact and fires. Low and behold, it does not collapse! The damaged top section fell onto the remaining bottom section, and stopped there.
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Figure 5. Let's try it again, this time with more damage. That is the tower with joint connections and plenty of damage to represent the plane impact and fires, (before collapse).
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Figure 6. LOL!! The damaged top section fell off the remaining bottom section. Nothing like what happened on 9-11. LOL!!! Well, I can't say I'm surprised. And before you complain that those joint connections are too strong, bear in mind that I tried using smaller joint connections, but the building would not stand on its own, (it would keel over to the side). I'll try building it taller until it barely stands on its own.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

It was a skyscraper. That means the lower portions had to support a huge amount of weight compared to the upper portion.

50 buildings over 1000 feet tall have been constructed since 9/11.

Since every level of every skyscraper must support all of the weight above The distribution of mass must be taken into account. With all of the skyscrapers in the world this cannot be that difficult a problem for the professional in that area. So it is certainly curious that they have not addressed this in 12 years.

psik

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

That is what should have happened to the south tower.

How could the falling top portion break all of the connections or bend a sufficient number of supports? Does that software require that the strength of the supports be specified to hold the increasing computed weight above?

That is part of the absurdity of 9/11. Everyone can buy computers today more powerful than any available to help design the WTC towers in the 60s. So everyone should be able to do reasonably accurate collapse simulations. So now people must deliberately avoid solving the problem. But then how many want to admit they have been really dumb for 12 years?

psik

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

The top of the building was supposed to sway 3 feet in a 150 mph wind.

Curious how so many people don't bother getting their data correct on the towers but then are so sure they could collapse. Someone said they withstood 100 mph winds on 6 occasions in 28 years.

psik

 

Well I did purposefully added some damage for the above tests, to simulate the plane impacts and fires. You can see it in figure 3 and figure 5.

Here is what happened when I added two more levels, just to see how unstable it would become:

http://i.imgur.com/DVvmutF.png

It keeled over after a few minutes without me ever adding any damage to simulate the plane impacts or fires. In other words, all of the little red joint connections were intact, so no one should complain that I built the model too strong. I will try adding only one more level, but I doubt one level will change the outcome of the tests I posted above.

EDIT: Even with only one level added, my model keeled over. So the model used in figure 3 thru figure 6 was barely strong enough to stand on its own.

 

Your goddamn "evidence" link talked about a missile...

Neddy Bate - please tell me you understand why your model is virtually pointless... I mean, for one, you aren't using anything near the actual method of connection used...

 

I understand that my model is a distant approximation, at best. You seem to be implying that my connections are unrealistically strong, but the model structure is on the verge of keeling over under its own weight. It doesn't seem unreasonable that a building would be made strong enough to prevent itself from keeling over, so I can't really agree that my connections are unrealistically strong.

Anyway, the software is free, so please download it and see if you can make a model that behaves the way you think it should. I'd love to see it. The software is called Physion.

 

that's right, without the floors in place those buildings would fall.
the crazy part is they offered no structural support.
i think that is why most don't understand HOW they fell.

 

The "evidence" was what I talked about from the NIST. You just want to make a big deal of what YOU choose to. I am not responsible for someone else's speculation about the NIST's "evidence" which is all it was.

psik

 

the dimensions of the core columns is given in the 911 report from congress.

 

Whatever you say...

 

Where did I ever say we did not know the dimensions of the core columns?

There isn't much info about the horizontal beams in the core though. Didn't they have to get thicker toward the bottom. It is easy to compute that the length of horizontal steel in the core had to be about 2 1/2 times that of the vertical steel.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

psik

 

They are opening the 911 museum on May 21. So psikeyhackr, you must just be heart sick that they have the pictures of those poor wrongly accused hijackers in the museum. I am trying to think what to say next but if I say what I want to about you it would be a bannable offense. So I will just say you make me physically ill. I believe I will have to move on now; have a swell life.

 

I second the thought in bold... that someone would be so desperate the believe "the great ebil goberment" is out to get them as to fly in the face of evidence like this... it's like watching a bird trying to catch fish under a frozen lake. Kinda funny... but at the same time kind of sad cause you know if they don't succeed in getting somewhere they will eventually wither and die...

 

Sorry, this is a physics problem not a people problem. I don't give a damn about any hijackers even if there were any.

It is this 12 year fiasco that is so hysterical. What can happen scientifically and technologically in 12 years?

1957, Sputnik, 1969, Apollo 11 on the Moon.

2014, people who can claim that the top 13% of a skyscraper can fall straight down and destroy the intact 85% can't wonder about the relevance of the distributions of steel and concrete down skyscrapers. Oh yeah, the Empire State Building is 83 years old.

But then David Chandler doesn't talk about mass distribution and the Conservation of Momentum and Collapse Time but he believed in the collapse for years.

Fuckin' Brilliant!!!

psik

 

See... this, this right here, showcases the reason why NOBODY takes you goddamn conspiracy woo-woo'ers seriously...

IF there were any hijackers? So, you are saying all those phone calls coming from the planes in question... those were faked?

The fact that you simply do not understand AT ALL why the top few floors of the WTC falling upon the lower floors would take the entire building down shows an absolute and total lack of understanding on your part.

It is disgusting... it it literally to the point that I have to assume it is deliberate and intentional dishonesty on your part, which is a blatant violation of the sites rules. The fact that you continue to fail to produce evidence to back your claims just further evidences that thought.

 

Try finding anywhere that I ever said anything about phone calls.

I don't give a shit about phone calls.

How did the top of a skyscraper fall straight down and destroy a structure strong enough to hold the static load? And do it in 25 seconds?

So make a big deal about irrelevancies and say it is OK for the NIST to not specify the amount of concrete in the towers.

psik

 

So much evasion, so little actual evidence... yeah, no, that isn't going to fly on a science site, sorry.

I get that this is the conspiracy theory section... but even here, you must have a SHRED of substantiating evidence... if you are going to just dismiss facts as "irrelevant", then this isn't the forum you are looking for.

 

Seriously? Seems a bit harsh...

 

I agree, actually. I mean, I don't view psik as a great contributor to the site or anything, but he was banned for "continued intellectual dishonesty, disregard for evidence, and general consporacy woo-woo," none of which are violations of the site rules. I mean, general conspiracy woo-woo is endorsed by sciforums, evidenced by the existence of a "Conspiracies" subforum. Even if we view this as a trash heap for the inevitable flood of woo, it's not fair that he's banned for what amounts to the general requirements to hold the affirmative position in any discussion therein.

I expressed my disgust earlier that psik remained while Victor was banned, but that was less about evening the score, so to speak, and about the inherent foolishness of banning people for being cranks, especially when people seem to enjoy taking these cranks to class.

And that's the most important apsect of this; for all of his woo, psik (and Victor, for that matter) has a host of posters more than happy to argue with him. It would be one thing if his posts were in the Architecture and Engineering subforum, but they are in their proper, assigned place, and seemingly relegated to a single thread. Add to that the fact that he hasn't actually broken any rules, (in fact, the only one to violate the rules in this thread, at least recently, is Kitta, with his blatant insults) and what are we left with?

tl; dr - Kitt, you can't just ban people because they frustrate you.