PDA

View Full Version : A scale model of the Twin Towers

Shrinker
10th September 2006, 04:07 AM
I've been wondering this for a while. Perhaps someone with the relevant education can help me with it. Ultimately, perhaps it would be a good way to discuss this with the CD theorists.

Suppose we had an imaginary 1:100 scale model of the twin towers (41cm high) to demonstrate how the collapse occurred. What would we make it out of?

My guess is that 1:100 scale model would have 1/1,000,000th of the weight of the real thing, but if we used concrete and steel for the components, those components would be 1/100,00th as strong as the real thing. Therefore, our scale model would be 100 times more structurally sound than the real thing. Am I right about that?

If so, what materials could be 1/100th as strong as steel and concrete but with similary density? I'm thinking something like chalk and wax, but even chalk seems too strong.

MortFurd
10th September 2006, 04:28 AM
You've already demonstrated a better grasp of the problem that the CTists are likely to ever develop. You know that material weight and strength both scale differently. Before you can get a CTist to understand why a model made of different materials is a good reprenstation you will have to get them to comprehend that first thing about scaling of weight and strength.

10th September 2006, 05:35 AM
Chicken wire and a concrete block? I kid. Better off trying to model it using software.

Belz...
10th September 2006, 05:43 AM
Chicken wire and a concrete block? I kid. Better off trying to model it using software.

:D

Yes, software is better. Otherwise Shrinker and the other JREFers will have to get me the materials (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1893687&postcount=2912)I asked for to build the full-scale thing. (scroll down to the bottom of the post)

Shrinker
10th September 2006, 05:44 AM
Yeah, but I'm not really trying to model it, just trying to find a way to discuss it, so that everyone understands how fragile a skyscraper really is.

Shrinker
10th September 2006, 05:46 AM
:D

Yes, software is better. Otherwise Shrinker and the other JREFers will have to get me the materials (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1893687&postcount=2912)I asked for to build the full-scale thing. (scroll down to the bottom of the post)

Hehe, socks!

B-Man
10th September 2006, 06:18 AM
Yeah, but I'm not really trying to model it, just trying to find a way to discuss it, so that everyone understands how fragile a skyscraper really is.

Indeed. In retrospect, I'm very impressed and surprised that the WTC towers didn't come down immediately when the airliners hit them.
The energy in such an impact is massive.

kevin
10th September 2006, 06:23 AM
Indeed. In retrospect, I'm very impressed and surprised that the WTC towers didn't come down immediately when the airliners hit them.
The energy in such an impact is massive.

Although a plane crash is focused into a much smaller area, wind loading (for New York winds) on a building that size is actually a larger amount of energy.

B-Man
10th September 2006, 06:51 AM
Although a plane crash is focused into a much smaller area, wind loading (for New York winds) on a building that size is actually a larger amount of energy.

True, but wind energy doesn't do massive damage to a large number of structural supports of the skin and core of the building, not create extensive fires.
;)

gumboot
10th September 2006, 07:12 AM
Indeed. In retrospect, I'm very impressed and surprised that the WTC towers didn't come down immediately when the airliners hit them.
The energy in such an impact is massive.

The survivor accounts of the building swaying after the impact are really quite staggering (no pun intended). In a lot of floors furniture and people were thrown all over the place - not my impact itself, but by the oscilation of the towers.

-Andrew

Mancman
10th September 2006, 07:42 AM
Build it out of CD cases and cards. (http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=9021865071819772470&q=wtc)

rwguinn
10th September 2006, 09:20 AM
I've been wondering this for a while. Perhaps someone with the relevant education can help me with it. Ultimately, perhaps it would be a good way to discuss this with the CD theorists.

Suppose we had an imaginary 1:100 scale model of the twin towers (41cm high) to demonstrate how the collapse occurred. What would we make it out of?

My guess is that 1:100 scale model would have 1/1,000,000th of the weight of the real thing, but if we used concrete and steel for the components, those components would be 1/100,00th as strong as the real thing. Therefore, our scale model would be 100 times more structurally sound than the real thing. Am I right about that?

If so, what materials could be 1/100th as strong as steel and concrete but with similary density? I'm thinking something like chalk and wax, but even chalk seems too strong.
you are correct---
Remember the old "Square-Cube law"?
Stiffness and strength are a function of the area, mass a function of volume
but gravity (and resultant energy) do not scale very well. Energy is a function of velocity, and velocity is a function of distance. You'd have to do the testing in a centrifuge...

apathoid
10th September 2006, 09:28 AM
Build it out of CD cases and cards. (http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=9021865071819772470&q=wtc)

But, but, but....the cards and CD cases didn't pulverize into 100 micron particles....lol

[/ctmode]

Shrinker
10th September 2006, 09:41 AM
you are correct---
Remember the old "Square-Cube law"?
Stiffness and strength are a function of the area, mass a function of volume
but gravity (and resultant energy) do not scale very well. Energy is a function of velocity, and velocity is a function of distance. You'd have to do the testing in a centrifuge...

Well, no I don't remember the square-cube law. I don't think I was ever taught it. Thanks for confirming my thoughts though. I'm a little more confident in discussing this with the kooks now.

And by the way, obviously I meant a 415cm high model...:o (Thanks to lurker Bell who pointed out my blunder)

apathoid
10th September 2006, 09:52 AM
You know, I've always wondered why my 1/72 scale model airplanes wont take off at 2 mph :D (even though the weight is about right - 2 ounces).

Does the air need to be 72 times denser, gravity 72 times weaker?
Am I a moron for asking this? :confused:

Alareth
10th September 2006, 11:06 AM
Indeed. In retrospect, I'm very impressed and surprised that the WTC towers didn't come down immediately when the airliners hit them.
The energy in such an impact is massive.

You see that's really the important point of it all.

I've seen people go on ad nauseum about the WTC having a poor design that allowed them to collapse when the exact opposite it true. It's truly a testament to the qualityof the design that they stayed up as long as they did after such a massive catastrophic event.

Pyrrho
10th September 2006, 11:15 AM
Pardon me if this has been posted before

http://www.luxinzheng.net/publications/english_WTC.htm

TruthSeeker1234
10th September 2006, 11:25 AM
Supposedly, NIST already created a computer model of the towers . Can we all agree that they should release it?

a) It was paid for by US taxpayers, and ought to be public property.
b) scientific method requires repeatability and verification by independent scientists

How about a bipartisan (CT's and OCT's) call for NIST to release their model? Otherwise, I'm curious to hear reasons why they should continue to keep it secret.

Pardalis
10th September 2006, 11:31 AM
Supposedly, NIST already created a computer model of the towers . Can we all agree that they should release it?

a) It was paid for by US taxpayers, and ought to be public property.
b) scientific method requires repeatability and verification by independent scientists

How about a bipartisan (CT's and OCT's) call for NIST to release their model? Otherwise, I'm curious to hear reasons why they should continue to keep it secret.

The people at NIST are apolitical. They are scientists.

Besides, you are talking about an hypothetical computer model that may or may not even exist. You're basically accusing the NIST of being involved in your Grand Conspiracy on absolutely nothing.

TruthSeeker1234
10th September 2006, 11:41 AM
paralis bamboozled The people at NIST are apolitical. They are scientists.

Besides, you are talking about an hypothetical computer model that may or may not even exist.

The people at NIST are selected and paid for by the executive branch of the US government. It is not reasonable to assume they are apolitical.

It is NIST which says they made a computer model, and their conclusions are based upon it. What are you talking about paralis??

Pardalis
10th September 2006, 11:45 AM
paralis bamboozled

The people at NIST are selected and paid for by the executive branch of the US government. It is not reasonable to assume they are apolitical.

It is NIST which says they made a computer model, and their conclusions are based upon it. What are you talking about paralis??

First off Truthseeker, it's pardalis.

Do you think all postmen are politically biased just because they are paid by the government? How many scientist are funded by the government do you think? Are they all guilty by association as well?

Also, where did you learn that the NIST had a computer model of the towers they kept a secret?

Timble
10th September 2006, 11:48 AM
.

It is NIST which says they made a computer model, and their conclusions are based upon it. What are you talking about paralis??

What would be the point of releasing it to the public?

I strongly suspect that it's not anything that you could run on your home PC under Windoze...

TruthSeeker1234
10th September 2006, 11:49 AM
sorry to misspell your name Pardalis. I got the idea that NIST created a model upon which they based their conclusions because NIST stated that they created a model upon which they based their conclusions.

Pardalis
10th September 2006, 11:51 AM
sorry to misspell your name Pardalis. I got the idea that NIST created a model upon which they based their conclusions because NIST stated that they created a model upon which they stated their conclusions.

I don't think it was a full model, at least from what I've seen in the report. They focused on the impact floors.

Besides, even if they did have a full 3D tower model, why would it matter to you?

TruthSeeker1234
10th September 2006, 11:52 AM
Timble wondered
What would be the point of releasing it to the public?

I have answered that. Repeatability is required for science. Without repeatability, it is not science. Right everyone? Will anyone go on record here and say that independent repeatability is not required for sceince?

TruthSeeker1234
10th September 2006, 11:54 AM
Suppose einstein had simply claimed "there is an equiavlence between mass and energy trust me!". Would we have believed him? No. He released his equation, E=mc2, and other scientists made predictions based on that, which were then confirmed experimentally. Only then did Einstien's idea become accepted.

Shrinker
10th September 2006, 11:55 AM
What would be the point of releasing the computer model? Who on your side is qualified to interpret it?

Exactly the same thing would happen to this data as all the other data released. Some armchair amateur will get a hold of it, find some item that seems anomalous to the layperson, and publish that as evidence of fraud. Just look at what happened to the Flight 77 FDR data.

If that fails, there's an easy fallback. Computer models require data. If you don't like the outcome of the simulation, claim the data is false.

Pardalis
10th September 2006, 11:55 AM
repeatability? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Repeatability)

Shrinker
10th September 2006, 11:58 AM
Suppose einstein had simply claimed "there is an equiavlence between mass and energy trust me!". Would we have believed him? No. He released his equation, E=mc2, and other scientists made predictions based on that, which were then confirmed experimentally. Only then did Einstien's idea become accepted.

Suppose someone were to claim Europe didn't exist. What would be the point of giving them a London Underground map?

Timble
10th September 2006, 11:59 AM
Timble wondered

I have answered that. Repeatability is required for science. Without repeatability, it is not science. Right everyone? Will anyone go on record here and say that independent repeatability is not required for sceince?

Since you cut off the rest of the post. The point was what's the point of releasing it if it's something that no-one can run on their home PC?

Now, if say the University of Podunk had a computer capable of running the simulation and asked to use it for a research program, and NIST refused then you could probably legitimately ask whether it should be released.

Has anyone who's capable of using it asked if they can see the model?

kevin
10th September 2006, 12:02 PM
There were several models. Some for modeling fire, others for modeling structural forces.

The fire models were:

Eight floors were modeled in WTC 1 (92 through 99) and six floors were modeled in WTC 2 (78 through 83). Each floor was modeled separately, since examination of the photographic collection indicated little evidence for floor-to-floor fire spread in the short times that the towers survived. Heat conduction through the floors was included.
Detailed floor plans were available for the eight modeled floors in WTC 1 and the 80th floor of WTC 2. For the remaining floors in WTC 2, the layouts were estimated from the architectural drawings of the core space and from recollections by Port Authority staff and workers from the
tenant spaces.
Note: detailed floor plans mean partition/desk layouts. This was for modeling available fuels.

TruthSeeker1234
10th September 2006, 12:07 PM
Yes, repeatability is a hallmark of the scientific method. See

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

Shrinker querried Who on your side is qualified to interpret it

It isn't about "sides", it's about science. Science requires repeatability. There are many engineers, on all "sides" who would like to have a look. Who else wants to go on record as stating that repeatability is not needed for science. This is going to be great. Kent, you around? Mackey??

TruthSeeker1234
10th September 2006, 12:08 PM
Kevin believes there were computer models made. Kevin, should NIST release them, or not? Go on record.

Pardalis
10th September 2006, 12:09 PM
The NIST doesn't seem to have a full scale model of the towers. Why don't you make one yourself?

10th September 2006, 12:09 PM

TruthSeeker1234
10th September 2006, 12:11 PM
Arkan has sent us a computer drawing of a plane sticking out of a grid. Arkan, should NIST release their computer model, or not? Do you argee or disagree that correct science requires independent verification?

Pardalis
10th September 2006, 12:12 PM
Kevin believes there were computer models made. Kevin, should NIST release them, or not? Go on record.

Have you ever considered contacting the National Institute of Standards and Technology and ASK?

http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/contact.htm

TruthSeeker1234
10th September 2006, 12:15 PM
Yes, in addition to the petition which has been signed by thousands, I personally have requested from NIST that they release the model. No response. I personally requested that Jonathan Barnett obtain them. He did not answer.

I'd like to get answers from all of you alleged science-minded people here on this educational forum.

SHould NIST release the model that they claim to have made? If not, why not?

Shrinker
10th September 2006, 12:19 PM
Yes, repeatability is essentail in science. But what would be the point of using the same computer model in your repeated experiments? That's like videotaping an experiment and playing it back in different labs. Correct me if I'm wrong here but if you want to check NIST's findings you need to run your own unique experiment. In the case of computer simulation that means going back to before the creation of the model. You need to go back to the raw data and create your own model. Don't you?

BTW, yes I believe they should release it, if it's 100% public property, which it might not be. But, it will serve no purpose whatsoever, so I guess it's a cost/benefit thing.

Pardalis
10th September 2006, 12:20 PM
May I see that petition?

What was the NIST response to the petition?

TruthSeeker1234
10th September 2006, 12:23 PM
Shrinker put forth Yes, repeatability is essentail in science. But what would be the point of using the same computer model in your repeated experiments? That's like videotaping an experiment and playing it back in different labs. Correct me if I'm wrong here but if you want to check NIST's findings you need to run your own unique experiment. In the case of computer simulation that means going back to before the creation of the model. You need to go back to the raw data and create your own model. Don't you?

You are wrong. The point would be to see what sorts of simplifying assumptions were made, what values were plugged in, and to see if NIST is telling the truth. Perhaps, just maybe, they are lying. If they are telling the truth, they should release the model.

Pardalis
10th September 2006, 12:24 PM
You are wrong. The point would be to see what sorts of simplifying assumptions were made, what values were plugged in, and to see if NIST is telling the truth. Perhaps, just maybe, they are lying. If they are telling the truth, they should release the model.

Why would the NIST be lying?

Why would they risk destroying their international scientific reputation???????

Timble
10th September 2006, 12:27 PM
Are you capable of running it, are you capable of interpreting it?
Do you know anyone who could do it for you?
If not, why should they give it to you?

apathoid
10th September 2006, 12:27 PM
Shrinker put forth

You are wrong. The point would be to see what sorts of simplifying assumptions were made, what values were plugged in, and to see if NIST is telling the truth. Perhaps, just maybe, they are lying. If they are telling the truth, they should release the model.

Wow, so NIST is lying because they havent released a computer simulation that you probably cannot run on a PC?

How are YOU qualified to study the data anyhow?

TruthSeeker1234
10th September 2006, 12:28 PM
I am incorrect that the petition mentions the NIST computer model.

http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/petition/

It does not, I stand corrected. It does not change the point. NIST should release the model, and any conclusions based upon their model cannot be taken seriously as science until it has been examined.

Please, this is good stuff. Please continue with "reasoning" as to why NIST should continue to conceal their model.

Pardalis
10th September 2006, 12:29 PM
Besides, even if they did allow you to see the computer model, it wouldn't satisfy you. It's probably not a full-scale model.

Their job was to figure out what caused the collapse. They did their job.

apathoid
10th September 2006, 12:30 PM
I am incorrect that the petition mentions the NIST computer model.

http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/petition/

It does not, I stand corrected. It does not change the point. NIST should release the model, and any conclusions based upon their model cannot be taken seriously as science until it has been examined.

Oh my good God - it has been examined by people who actually know how to interperet it.

Shrinker
10th September 2006, 12:32 PM
Shrinker put forth

You are wrong. The point would be to see what sorts of simplifying assumptions were made, what values were plugged in, and to see if NIST is telling the truth. Perhaps, just maybe, they are lying. If they are telling the truth, they should release the model.

Ah, so you want to perform peer review, not repeatability. Please, present some peers.

TruthSeeker1234
10th September 2006, 12:33 PM
I thought on this board people understood scientific method. It is not about me, it is about releasing the model to the public, so that other qualified engineers can verify/refute what it does. THis goes for anyone doing any kind of science whatsoever.

Please, instead of throwing all these red herrings around, and issuing rhetorical questions, please state reasons why NIST should conceal their "science". Or join me in calling for the release. Or quit pretending to value the scientific method, and go to another board. My understanding is that JREF is for science-minded people.

Pardalis
10th September 2006, 12:34 PM
Their computer model was probably created out of specs from the tower's blueprints, which anyone can get their hands on.

Plus, the simulation was based on scientific observations and calculations anyone in the field can reproduce.

So there is no reason for you to hold these infamous NIST computer models as the Holy Grail. If you want repeatability, make your own model and calculations.

DavidJames
10th September 2006, 12:35 PM
Oh my good God - it has been examined by people who actually know how to interperet it.
HA HA HA, you're talking about educated, knowledgeable experts in their field, HA. Until the model is "observed" by the brilliant minds of people like killtown and johndoeX, a shroud will forever cloud the issue.

These are people who haven't wasted their time in institutions of high learning or frittering away their days "working", they've spent countless hours in front of a CRT, or for those with a larger allowance, an LCD display, googling the Internet for the riches which can be found there.

apathoid
10th September 2006, 12:37 PM
I thought on this board people understood scientific method. It is not about me, it is about releasing the model to the public, so that other qualified engineers can verify/refute what it does. THis goes for anyone doing any kind of science whatsoever.

Please, instead of throwing all these red herrings around, and issuing rhetorical questions, please state reasons why NIST should conceal their "science". Or join me in calling for the release. Or quit pretending to value the scientific method, and go to another board. My understanding is that JREF is for science-minded people.

JREF is a skeptics/science forum yes - as such people here are quite astute at noting fallacies and junk science. You've tossed out pretty much every fallacy in the book, been called on it, and now you've resorted to projecting....

And why are you repeating yourself, instead of answering questions of you?

TruthSeeker1234
10th September 2006, 12:37 PM
It has been suggested that the truth movement build computer models. I agree. This would require the release of the detailed engineering drawings of the buildings involved.

Please join me in demanding the release of those documents. Science requires it.

TruthSeeker1234
10th September 2006, 12:39 PM
Pardalis fabricated Their computer model was probably created out of specs from the tower's blueprints, which anyone can get their hands on.

No, the blueprints are "missing". Skeptics have been requesting them for years now, without success.

TruthSeeker1234
10th September 2006, 12:41 PM
Apathoid teased And why are you repeating yourself, instead of answering questions of you?
What questions? What fallacies? I am the one demanding that scientific method be obeyed, you guys are excusing NIST's blatantly un-scientific method.

chran
10th September 2006, 12:44 PM
Truth: This is the computer models made by the NIST.

And call the Port Authority and ask for the blueprints yourself! We're not your monkeys.

What, you need permission from us to call them? Do you need burping and wiping too?

There were several models. Some for modeling fire, others for modeling structural forces.

The fire models were:
* Eight floors were modeled in WTC 1 (92 through 99) and six floors were modeled in WTC 2 (78 through 83). Each floor was modeled separately, since examination of the photographic collection indicated little evidence for floor-to-floor fire spread in the short times that the towers survived. Heat conduction through the floors was included.
* Detailed floor plans were available for the eight modeled floors in WTC 1 and the 80th floor of WTC 2. For the remaining floors in WTC 2, the layouts were estimated from the architectural drawings of the core space and from recollections by Port Authority staff and workers from the
tenant spaces.

Note: detailed floor plans mean partition/desk layouts. This was for modeling available fuels.

Pardalis
10th September 2006, 12:44 PM
Pardalis fabricated

No, the blueprints are "missing". Skeptics have been requesting them for years now, without success.

Dog Town
10th September 2006, 12:47 PM
No, the blueprints are "missing". Skeptics have been requesting them for years now, without success.

For a hefty fee you can buy them, I would bet. Contact the original design firm. I hear they weigh alot!

kevin
10th September 2006, 01:11 PM
I'd like to see the plans released but I think the port authority is sitting on them because they imagine the design will be second guessed and they'll be sued for not doing things in hindsight.

I like them released just because it would be neat to see them but I think it would take trooth seekers about a 100 years to plow through them (and the related specifications) and they still wouldn't understand them.

TruthSeeker1234
10th September 2006, 01:19 PM
dogtown challenged For a hefty fee you can buy [the blueprints to the twin towers], I would bet

How much will you bet?

defaultdotxbe
10th September 2006, 01:26 PM
before going on about how its so odd the blueprints to the WTC arent available did you stop to consider that it might not be odd at all?

how many other buildings have their blueprints publicly available? i was told i cant even have the blueprints to my own house because the construction firm holds the copyrights

Pardalis
10th September 2006, 01:28 PM
Face it truthseeker, when it comes to the NIST, if you're trying to accuse them of foul play you're out for a wild goose chase.

GlennB
10th September 2006, 01:40 PM
Well, no I don't remember the square-cube law. I don't think I was ever taught it. Thanks for confirming my thoughts though. I'm a little more confident in discussing this with the kooks now.

And by the way, obviously I meant a 415cm high model...:o (Thanks to lurker Bell who pointed out my blunder)

The square-cube law is right. Biologists mostly refer to it in terms of surface area/volume ratio, but it's the same principle.
If you scaled a stalk of wheat up to the size of a tree (with a magic wand), it would fall over pdq. The strength of the stalk is a function of its cross-sectional area (pi*r^2) but the mass is proportional to its volume (x^3). The mass goes up quicker than the strength, as the stalk "grows".

It applies in countless everyday situations. A small garden bird can get away with very skinny legs, but an elephant needs very stout legs (both relative to their body size) <etc etc>

10th September 2006, 02:02 PM
Arkan has sent us a computer drawing of a plane sticking out of a grid. Arkan, should NIST release their computer model, or not? Do you argee or disagree that correct science requires independent verification?

Let's establish concretely whether or not they have done a full simulation; and if so, if it has been released or not.

TruthSeeker1234
10th September 2006, 02:19 PM
NIST claim to have modeled the aircraft impact, the fires, and the events leading up to the point where "the building was poised for collapse". They admit to not modelling the collapse itself. Their visualizations have not been released. Nothing they did has been repeated. Thus whatever they did is not complete science yet, and in any case does not include behavior of the collpase.

Horatius
10th September 2006, 02:29 PM
:D

Yes, software is better. Otherwise Shrinker and the other JREFers will have to get me the materials (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1893687&postcount=2912)I asked for to build the full-scale thing. (scroll down to the bottom of the post)

You know, you're joking here, but deep in my heart, I suspect a full scale re-enactment is about the only thing that could convince some of these "truth" people. Anyone know an eccentric billionaire with some time to kill?

I must say, after plowing through some of the WTC threads here, I'm in awe of the endurance of some of our JREF posters. I start getting headaches just reading these things, the thought of actually trying to argue with there guys......Ugh! Keep up the good work!

defaultdotxbe
10th September 2006, 02:31 PM
[QUOTE=TruthSeeker1234;1910754]They admit to not modelling the collapse itself.QUOTE]

if i drop a ball off my roof i dont have to watch it fall to know its not going to stop until it hits the ground

10th September 2006, 02:32 PM
NIST claim to have modeled the aircraft impact, the fires, and the events leading up to the point where "the building was poised for collapse". They admit to not modelling the collapse itself. Their visualizations have not been released. Nothing they did has been repeated. Thus whatever they did is not complete science yet, and in any case does not include behavior of the collpase.

Please cite something specific (section, subsection, paragraph) from the NIST report that you feel can not be independantly verified.

Sword_Of_Truth
10th September 2006, 02:37 PM
NIST claim to have modeled the aircraft impact, the fires, and the events leading up to the point where "the building was poised for collapse".

This is similar to how Manhattan Project scientists back in 1945 only modelled up to the point where a certain amoung of thier reaction mass had been converted to energy. Once X amount of energy was released in Y amount of microseconds, Hiroshima was @#\$%ed. Modelling the effects of the blast wave in each building and structure would have been a waste of time.

The same reasoning, on a slightly smaller scale, dictates that once you have a 120,000 ton sledgehammer coming down on a building... she's good 'n @#\$%ed.

Why bother with complicated modelling when you already know you're @#\$%ed?

chran
10th September 2006, 02:38 PM
NIST claim to have modeled the aircraft impact, the fires, and the events leading up to the point where "the building was poised for collapse". They admit to not modelling the collapse itself. Their visualizations have not been released. Really, now?

Take a look at this, bucko.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_5316450485b79f452.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=1421)

Johnny Pixels
10th September 2006, 02:52 PM
From the NIST report, the computer simulations were done using ANSYS, which, for the sake of argument, would run on your home PC, if you could afford the licence for it. It's one of the ones that runs into thousands. I've used it at university for analysing deflections of car chassis.

Effectively NIST have released the models they created. They've given the bulk of information and the techniques used to model the elements in the flooring etc. I've not looked fully, but they've probably given enough information for someone that knows what they're talking about to understand that they're not BSing. It's the same process that I had to go through for my major project at uni. I used computer simulation to analyse air flow underneath cars. I didn't have to produce a copy of the model for marking, because I explained the model in my paper, to show that I wasn't making it up as I go along. My lecturer understood it and knew I had done the work because she has years of experience in computational fluid dynamics.

The reason loosers think that NIST are keeping the model secret is because the NIST report isn't aimed at the man on the street, it's aimed at engineering professionals. That's why it's packed with screenshots from ANSYS, an industry standard analysis package. The loosers can't see the wood for the trees.

TruthSeeker1234
10th September 2006, 02:55 PM
Arkan challenged Please cite something specific (section, subsection, paragraph) from the NIST report that you feel can not be independantly verified.

I feel that the following assertion has not, and could not be verified.

Global collapse then ensued

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NISTNCSTAR1-6Draft.pdf

Pardalis
10th September 2006, 02:57 PM
I feel that the following assertion has not, and could not be verified.

Are you mad? You don't agree that the towers fell down?

TruthSeeker1234
10th September 2006, 02:59 PM
Johnny admitted I've not looked fully

No, Johnny, they have not released their visualizations, nor their input values, nor the original structural drawings, nor anything that would allow anyone to attempt to recreate their results. Please look "fully", and report back.

TruthSeeker1234
10th September 2006, 03:02 PM
Pardalis issued a strawman agrument with Are you mad? You don't agree that the towers fell down?

Yes, Pardalis, the towers came down. The issue (in this thread) is whether a local collapse, at say the 98th floor, would automatically lead to global collapse. NIST simply asserts this with no calcs, no study, no nothin.

The issue of whether the particular impact damage and fires could lead to local collapse is another issue, and was studied by NIST. That would be a different thread.

apathoid
10th September 2006, 03:07 PM
The issue (in this thread) is whether a local collapse, at say the 98th floor, would automatically lead to global collapse.
So, in your expert opinion, after the collapse was initiated(through explosives or gravity), what should've happened if not global(progressive) collapse?

Any ideas?

Sword_Of_Truth
10th September 2006, 03:19 PM
Pardalis issued a strawman agrument with

Yes, Pardalis, the towers came down. The issue (in this thread) is whether a local collapse, at say the 98th floor, would automatically lead to global collapse. NIST simply asserts this with no calcs, no study, no nothin.

This is simply not true. They did model the collapse up to the point where they knew it would become global.

The only thing they needed to find out was wether the first floor beneath the collapse zone would have the strength to arrest the collapse. It did not.

With all the floors posessing more or less identical structural properties, none of the other floors would be able to arrest the falling debris mass either.

If the first floor didn't stop it, the building is @#\$%ed. It's that simple.

10th September 2006, 03:19 PM
Arkan challenged

I feel that the following assertion has not, and could not be verified.

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NISTNCSTAR1-6Draft.pdf

Are you being intentionally obtuse?

tsig
10th September 2006, 03:40 PM
I thought on this board people understood scientific method. It is not about me, it is about releasing the model to the public, so that other qualified engineers can verify/refute what it does. THis goes for anyone doing any kind of science whatsoever.

Please, instead of throwing all these red herrings around, and issuing rhetorical questions, please state reasons why NIST should conceal their "science". Or join me in calling for the release. Or quit pretending to value the scientific method, and go to another board. My understanding is that JREF is for science-minded people.

Planes hit the towers and destroyed 20% of the support beams.

Heat and gravity did the rest.

tsig
10th September 2006, 03:41 PM
It has been suggested that the truth movement build computer models. I agree. This would require the release of the detailed engineering drawings of the buildings involved.

Please join me in demanding the release of those documents. Science requires it.
Planes hit the towers and destroyed 20% of the support beams.

Heat and gravity did the rest.

Johnny Pixels
10th September 2006, 03:42 PM

No, Johnny, they have not released their visualizations, nor their input values, nor the original structural drawings, nor anything that would allow anyone to attempt to recreate their results. Please look "fully", and report back.

You still don't get it do you?

The model is their work. They've released enough data to show that their model is valid, as long as you understand what they are telling you.

If you want to recreate their work, you have to make the model yourself. They don't give it to you, that's not how it works, or you end up with their model which incoporates all their ideas, so all you're going to get by running analysis on that model is their results.

If you want to prove their model wrong, you have to build a better one, and explain how and why you made it like that.

This:

http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1-6D.pdf

Is the model.

What more do you want?

Visulizations are there, "input values" are the mechanical properties of steel,aluminium and concrete, look them up in a book. Structural drawings are there, but if you want, buy them from the Port Authority.

This is an engineering document, not painting by numbers.

tsig
10th September 2006, 03:42 PM
Apathoid teased
What questions? What fallacies? I am the one demanding that scientific method be obeyed, you guys are excusing NIST's blatantly un-scientific method.

Planes hit the towers and destroyed 20% of the support beams.

Heat and gravity did the rest.

Sword_Of_Truth
10th September 2006, 03:47 PM
Is anyone else finding these reponses anything but cute?

Pardalis issued a strawman agrument with
Arkan challenged
chran opined
Pardalis whined

And here's the kicker...

Pardalis fabricated

Care to explain exactly how you know Pardalis lied?

TruthSeeker1234
10th September 2006, 06:15 PM
I will pay a \$10,000 fee to anyone who can get me a set of detailed structural drawings of the twin towers, plus pay for the cost of the drawings.

TruthSeeker1234
10th September 2006, 06:18 PM

"which anyone can get their hands on."

meaning the blueprints. No, nobody can get their hands on them. I'd like to, and I'll pay for them.

TruthSeeker1234
10th September 2006, 06:27 PM
DHR repeated Planes hit the towers and destroyed 20% of the support beams.

Heat and gravity did the rest.

This is what NIST claim, yes. But NIST also claim that "thousands of pounds" of explosives would be needed to demolish the towers.

Clearly this is a contradiction. If a local collapse can lead to complete destruction, then all a demolition would need to do is cut the support columns at one floor, and let gravity take over.

Anybody care to reconcile those two NIST claims?

Oliver
10th September 2006, 06:29 PM
I will pay a \$10,000 fee to anyone who can get me a set of detailed structural drawings of the twin towers, plus pay for the cost of the drawings.

http://www.yamasakiinc.com

900 Tower Drive, Suite 190
Troy, Michigan 48098
p. 248 267 5300
f. 248 267 5313

http://www.panynj.gov

The Port Authority of NY & NJ
225 Park Avenue South
New York, NY 10003
T: 212-435-7000

BTW: if anyone is interested in a 3d Model of
the complex, PM me.

TruthSeeker1234
10th September 2006, 06:34 PM
I sent this to them -

Will you please tell me how I can purchase a complete set of detailed structural drawings of the twin towers? Let me know how much and where to send it, and I will forward the money.

Thank You,

I'll let you all know how that goes.

Oliver
10th September 2006, 06:52 PM
I sent this to them -
I'll let you all know how that goes.

I guess that the port authority owns these plans, but
i hope you have a chance to move something.

R.Mackey
10th September 2006, 06:52 PM
Oh, looky who's accusing others of being "unscientific" in other threads as well. How surprising.

NIST claim to have modeled the aircraft impact, the fires, and the events leading up to the point where "the building was poised for collapse". They admit to not modelling the collapse itself. Their visualizations have not been released. Nothing they did has been repeated. Thus whatever they did is not complete science yet, and in any case does not include behavior of the collpase.

The latter bolded statements are a lie. NIST contracted out a lot of this work and had it independently reviewed. That means an IV&V team, that means replication -- at varying levels of fidelity -- to prove solution stability and accuracy.

The former bolded statement proves, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that you wouldn't have any idea to evaluate the NIST models (meaning grids, initial conditions, assumptions, kernel, forcing functions, visualizing grids, and output) even if they were handed to you. We discussed this in another thread. There's no model in the world that can accurately predict which side of a thrown die will come up, let alone the disposition of the literally millions of free elements that would be produced in a WTC tower collapse. You will never get the input data you need.

Look up "deterministic chaos" if you get a chance.

TruthSeeker1234
10th September 2006, 07:11 PM
Johnny said The model is their work. They've released enough data to show that their model is valid, as long as you understand what they are telling you.

If you want to recreate their work, you have to make the model yourself. They don't give it to you, that's not how it works, or you end up with their model which incoporates all their ideas, so all you're going to get by running analysis on that model is their results.

If you want to prove their model wrong, you have to build a better one, and explain how and why you made it like that.

No, the pdf is the results of their model, not the model.

It would be like Einstein saying, "I have derived an equation showing the equivalence between mass and energy. Based on this equation, you could build an atomic bomb that can be made with such and such material and produce such and such amount of energy".

Then TruthSeeker would come along and ask, "Yo, Einstein, what's the equation, and how did you arrive at it?"

And Johnny Pixels would jump in and say,

The claim about an atomic weapon is Einstein's work. He released enough data to show that his equation is valid, as long as you understand what he is telling you.

If you want to recreate his work, you have to derive the equation yourself. He won't give it to you, that's not how it works, or you end up with his equation which incoporates all of his ideas, so all you're going to get by using his exact equation are his results.

If you want to prove Einstein's equation is wrong, you have to derive a better one, and explain how and why you arrived at it.

TruthSeeker1234
10th September 2006, 07:27 PM
Mackey, I am not an engineer. You are correct that I could not do this modelling myself. However, I am very science minded, and quite familiar with scientific method, and realize when scientific method is being followed, and when it is not.

Repeatability, that is, independant reproducibility is a hallmark. One cannot simply make claims and hide the methodology. It is my understanding that NIST tweaked many input values to their model until it showed a local collapse. I believe many of these input values are not released, but I will stand corrected if that turns out not to be the case. If so, anyone with ANSYS could, and should, reproduce their results.

I am quite certain that NIST truncated their timeline after showing a local collapse. Though it is impossible to predict where every chunk of steel will land, it is certainly possible to model a structural collapse and show that it would continue, or stop.

Scientific method would require NIST to provide the input values so that others could reproduce their results. It would also require them to not truncate the timeline, because the real important stuff, and the charge of their job, was to explain the collapses, the entire collapses, which they did not even attempt.

Gravy
10th September 2006, 07:38 PM
I will pay a \$10,000 fee to anyone who can get me a set of detailed structural drawings of the twin towers, plus pay for the cost of the drawings.
What level of detail do you require?

Gravy
10th September 2006, 07:47 PM
It is my understanding that NIST tweaked many input values to their model until it showed a local collapse.
The model must match observed conditions, agreed?

TruthSeeker1234
10th September 2006, 07:55 PM
I require all of the engineering documents that were used in the construction of the towers.

Enough detail so that copies of the towers could theoretically be built from them. Enough so that current and future generations of software could be utilized in modelling the structural behavior of the collapses. Enough that the debate about cross bracing could be settled. Enough so that the debate about floor trusses could be settled. (Some specualte that some floor trusses were bolstered with solid steel beams, this based on estimates of total steel used, and on claims that the lightweight floor trusses were insufficient by themselves to transfer lateral load from the perimeter to the core).

Gravy
10th September 2006, 07:56 PM
I require all of the engineering documents that were used in the construction of the towers.
The blueprints weighed 650 lbs.

TruthSeeker1234
10th September 2006, 07:56 PM
The model must match observed conditions, agreed?

Of course.

TruthSeeker1234
10th September 2006, 07:57 PM
The blueprints weighed 650 lbs. I have a big house

apathoid
10th September 2006, 08:00 PM
I require all of the engineering documents that were used in the construction of the towers.

Enough detail so that copies of the towers could theoretically be built from them. .......

Yeah. Thats a perfectly reasonable request. :rolleyes:

R.Mackey
10th September 2006, 08:24 PM
Mackey, I am not an engineer. You are correct that I could not do this modelling myself. However, I am very science minded, and quite familiar with scientific method, and realize when scientific method is being followed, and when it is not.
If that's really true, then you should recognize that you are leaping to conclusions.

In my brief experience with you, you only follow the scientific method when it suits your purposes. Prove me wrong.

Sword_Of_Truth
10th September 2006, 08:26 PM
Mackey, I am not an engineer. You are correct that I could not do this modelling myself. However, I am very science minded, and quite familiar with scientific method, and realize when scientific method is being followed, and when it is not.

Repeatability, that is, independant reproducibility is a hallmark. One cannot simply make claims and hide the methodology. It is my understanding that NIST tweaked many input values to their model until it showed a local collapse. I believe many of these input values are not released, but I will stand corrected if that turns out not to be the case. If so, anyone with ANSYS could, and should, reproduce their results.

I am quite certain that NIST truncated their timeline after showing a local collapse. Though it is impossible to predict where every chunk of steel will land, it is certainly possible to model a structural collapse and show that it would continue, or stop.

Scientific method would require NIST to provide the input values so that others could reproduce their results. It would also require them to not truncate the timeline, because the real important stuff, and the charge of their job, was to explain the collapses, the entire collapses, which they did not even attempt.

I think we've found Truthseekers happy thought.

3" rebar on 4' centers, scientific method, there's no place like home, there's no place like home! Wheeeeeeeeeeee!!!!

Dog Town
10th September 2006, 08:28 PM
I sent this to them -

I'll let you all know how that goes.

You mean all this squawking, and you have not tried to contact anyone till now?
TS your detective skills are lacking!

I will pay a \$10,000 fee to anyone who can get me a set of detailed structural drawings of the twin towers, plus pay for the cost of the drawings.

I'll split it with the Cter! Cash please. If you get them, not sure you have the skills. Jeezis!

TruthSeeker1234
10th September 2006, 08:44 PM
Many have been trying very dillegently to obtain the blueprints for the towers for a long time. I sent an email, because someone sent me a link to the Yamasaki firm. Others have fabricated the notions that "anyone can get them".

Dog Town
10th September 2006, 08:46 PM
The point is you have not even tried, till now! Tried contacting the Port Auth?

TruthSeeker1234
10th September 2006, 08:51 PM
NIST contracted out a lot of this work and had it independently reviewed. That means an IV&V team, that means replication -- at varying levels of fidelity -- to prove solution stability and accuracy.

Then why the big secret? And while we're at it, how about the Pentagon video tapes?

TruthSeeker1234
10th September 2006, 08:54 PM
Dog misunderstood The point is you have not even tried, till now! Tried contacting the Port Auth?

Many have been trying very hard to get the blueprints. Nobody is releasing them. Not the port authority. Not Silverstein. Not the Feds. Not Leslie Robertson's firm. Nobody. They've gone missing. maybe there were no drawings, maybe they just winged it.

Dog Town
10th September 2006, 08:56 PM
You!

R.Mackey
10th September 2006, 08:58 PM
Then why the big secret? And while we're at it, how about the Pentagon video tapes?
It isn't a secret. The RFPs are still posted on the NIST site. And while we're at it, how about not hopping from subject to subject like a jackrabbit on meth?

gumboot
10th September 2006, 09:00 PM
Then why the big secret? And while we're at it, how about the Pentagon video tapes?

-Andrew

10th September 2006, 10:04 PM
Then why the big secret? And while we're at it, how about the Pentagon video tapes?

Don't move the goalposts. If you want a discussion on that, open a new thread.

chran
11th September 2006, 12:58 AM
Repeatability, that is, independant reproducibility is a hallmark. One cannot simply make claims and hide the methodology.
STOP LYING!

They didn't.

E.2 METHODOLOGY AND ANALYSIS RESULTS

E.2.1 Overview and Approach

The interdependence of the analyses of significant events is illustrated in Fig. E–1. Reference structural
models were first developed and used to determine the baseline performance of each tower prior to
September 11, 2001. The reference models were then used as a basis for the aircraft impact damage
models and the structural response models to ensure consistency between structural models. The aircraft
impact analysis determined damage to the interior of the building including the structural system,
fireproofing, partition walls, and furnishings for each tower. The analysis also provided an estimate of the
fuel dispersion in the towers. These results provided initial conditions to the fire dynamics analysis,
thermal analysis, and structural analysis. The fire dynamics analysis simulated the growth and spread of
fires and produced gas temperature histories for each floor involved in fire. The fire dynamics model
accounted for window breakage and damage to interior partition walls and floors (both affecting
ventilation conditions), and the distribution of debris and fuel. The thermal analysis used the heat transfer
model to determine temperature histories for the various structural components. The thermal analysis
required input from the structural analysis model, fire dynamics analysis results, damage to fireproofing, and temperature-dependent thermal material properties. The structural temperature histories, also referred
to as thermal loads, were input to the structural analysis, along with the structural impact damage and
temperature-dependent material properties, to determine the structural response of each tower.

Uh-uh! Look at this!

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_5316450516d9d0533.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=1424)

qarnos
11th September 2006, 02:57 AM
Dog misunderstood

Many have been trying very hard to get the blueprints. Nobody is releasing them. Not the port authority. Not Silverstein. Not the Feds. Not Leslie Robertson's firm. Nobody. They've gone missing. maybe there were no drawings, maybe they just winged it.

How, exactly, do you know that nobody is releasing them?

Did you get this idea from one of the many CT sites making this claim without trying to reproduce their results by asking for yourself?

Oh, I get it. Results only need to be reproduced when the conclusion isn't what you want it to be.

qarnos
11th September 2006, 03:46 AM
Whilst I'm on the subject, I'd like to make a little prediction about the future:

JREFer: Look, CTist, the blueprints for the Twin Towers have finally been released to the public. Now you can verify the NIST findings.

CTist: Well, obviously the guberment has modified these blueprints to support the pancake collapse theory. How else to you explain the fact that these blueprints produce results which are consistent with the NIST findings?

JREFer: Don't you think you're being a little short sighted?

JohnDoeX: I'm a pilot. How dare you question us. Banned.

CTist: pwned.

kevin
11th September 2006, 04:26 AM
Repeatability does not come from re-running the same model over and over. That will obviously produce the same results. Repeatability comes from building ones own model and seeing if it produces the same results.

Having the as-built structural drawings would help do this, but of course you have to be able to understand those drawings. Further you have to have the software to input the data into. Unless of course you want true repeatability and write your own structural analysis software.

Then of course you need to publish your own methodology in producing your own models so the two can be compared.

Further there was more than just a structural model involved in the NIST findings. They also ran fire tests on columns and floor joists.

So far we have:
truthseeker admitting to not being a structrual engineer. Therefore no understanding of structural drawings or structural software.

truthseeker unable to answer questions of methodology for marking up photos. and we're to trust his methodologies in studying structural models?
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1910615&postcount=177
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1911025&postcount=236

Not a single post containing a single scientific statement and a plain refusal to produce calculations supporting his conclusions.

kevin
11th September 2006, 04:32 AM
Truthseeker has claimed, repeatedly, that the NIST study is unscientific. There are 2 ways to attack the conclusions of a scientific study. The first is to run your own study and see if you get the same results. The other is to find fault with the methodology of the published results.

Truthseeker - you've been pointed to the paper detailing the creation and methodologies behind the NIST models. Please read them and point to specific methodologies that make their conclusions wrong. Further, provide an alternate methodology that would produce a more realistic result. This does not require access to any of the models NIST produced, nor does it require access to the structural drawings (those would just provide the numbers to plug into your alternate method, we won't need those until we agree your method is superior to the NIST method.)

qarnos
11th September 2006, 04:59 AM
Repeatability does not come from re-running the same model over and over. That will obviously produce the same results. Repeatability comes from building ones own model and seeing if it produces the same results.

I think truthseeker has finally understood this point. This is why he now wants the blueprints - originally he wanted the actual NIST model.

Having the as-built structural drawings would help do this, but of course you have to be able to understand those drawings. Further you have to have the software to input the data into. Unless of course you want true repeatability and write your own structural analysis software.

I have been wondering what the CTists actually plan on doing with the data, if and when they get it. I haven't seen one yet who seems to have the depth of knowledge required to do this kinda thing.

Do they realise the NIST report was the work of more than one person?

It reeks to me of whining because they can't have something their own way. Give them the blueprints and they will ignore them and whine about something else.

Then of course you need to publish your own methodology in producing your own models so the two can be compared.

It will be in Loose Change: 38th Edition. :D

B-Man
11th September 2006, 09:12 AM
Whilst I'm on the subject, I'd like to make a little prediction about the future:

JREFer: Look, CTist, the blueprints for the Twin Towers have finally been released to the public. Now you can verify the NIST findings.

CTist: Well, obviously the guberment has modified these blueprints to support the pancake collapse theory. How else to you explain the fact that these blueprints produce results which are consistent with the NIST findings?

JREFer: Don't you think you're being a little short sighted?

JohnDoeX: I'm a pilot. How dare you question us. Banned.

CTist: pwned.

I really did LOL over that.
But it's sooo true!

kookbreaker
11th September 2006, 09:33 AM
Many have been trying very dillegently to obtain the blueprints for the towers for a long time. I sent an email, because someone sent me a link to the Yamasaki firm. Others have fabricated the notions that "anyone can get them".

I would have my doubts that any can 'get them'. I do beleive the need to be accessable for certain things, but that does not mean anyone can just have them.

However, blueprints are essentially of trade secrets. I doubt that the architecture firm is going to just hand over what are essentially trade secrets to strangers. Don't expect cookie companies to hand over their recipies just because you ask them.

A lot of conspiracists fail to understand the difference between a 'trade secret' and 'their hiding TEH CONSPIRACEE FROM US'.

jskowron
11th September 2006, 09:39 AM
I have been wondering what the CTists actually plan on doing with the data, if and when they get it. I haven't seen one yet who seems to have the depth of knowledge required to do this kinda thing.

Of course you haven't seen a CTist with the required depth of knowledge to properly use and interpret the data. Anyone with that knowledge would presumably understand the NIST findings and not see the need to create their own model (repeat- "understand the NIST findings", not, as the CTist would prefer to say "believe the NIST findings").

Johnny Pixels
11th September 2006, 11:34 AM
Johnny said

No, the pdf is the results of their model, not the model.

It would be like Einstein saying, "I have derived an equation showing the equivalence between mass and energy. Based on this equation, you could build an atomic bomb that can be made with such and such material and produce such and such amount of energy".

Then TruthSeeker would come along and ask, "Yo, Einstein, what's the equation, and how did you arrive at it?"

And Johnny Pixels would jump in and say,

No you still don't understand. The .pdf describes the model as well as giving results.

I can tell you don't understand because you can derive Einstein's equation without having the equation itself:

http://www.karlscalculus.org/einstein.html (http://www.karlscalculus.org/einstein.html)

This is the same as building the model of the WTC yourself. You need to start at first principles, with the blueprints and the material properties.

And then you can use the equation, or the model to solve problems.

If you think there is an error in the derivation of the equation or the model, then the error will be seen in the derivation, not the model itself. You'll find it hard to spot an error in E=mc2 just by looking at that equation. You'll need to look back through the assumpitions and principles used, such as those listed in the .pdf file, which explains how the model was created.

But reading through a lot of technical boundary conditions, initial conditions, element types, material properties etc isn't as much fun as looking at blueprints, videos and 3D models is it? Maybe that's the problem with the "truth" movement. Real life just isn't much fun for you.

Architect
11th September 2006, 12:09 PM
Dog misunderstood

Many have been trying very hard to get the blueprints. Nobody is releasing them. Not the port authority. Not Silverstein. Not the Feds. Not Leslie Robertson's firm. Nobody. They've gone missing. maybe there were no drawings, maybe they just winged it.

Well in the UK, any proposals have to get a Building Warrant (or Buildings Regulations Approval, depending on where you are) in order to show compliance with statutory codes. Of course they're not the construction drawings, but they're still pretty detailed. These are then public documents, and can be FOIed in the normal manner.

Don't you Americans have a similar system?

I should note, however, that in the UK there would be an FoI exemption for particularly security-sensitive sites.

Oliver
13th September 2006, 06:43 AM
I sent this to them -

Will you please tell me how I can purchase a complete set of detailed structural drawings of the twin towers? Let me know how much and where to send it, and I will forward the money.

Thank You,

I'll let you all know how that goes.

What was the response?

einsteen
13th September 2006, 03:42 PM
A scale model will not work, because the physical behavior is not invariant under scaling.

Imagine you are enlarged a factor 2, then your weight becomes 2^3=8 times more, but the area of your muscles and strength only enlarges by 2^2=4 ===> problem.

You can however emulate/simulate ? a scale model if you use different densities/strengts/whatever and give it a different g value by accelerating it

TruthSeeker1234
13th September 2006, 05:25 PM
Originally Posted by TruthSeeker1234 http://www.randi.org/forumlive/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=1911305#post1911305)
I sent this to them -

Will you please tell me how I can purchase a complete set of detailed structural drawings of the twin towers? Let me know how much and where to send it, and I will forward the money.

Thank You,

I'll let you all know how that goes.

What was the response?

No response yet. I'm not holding my breath. As I said, many researches have tried very hard to get them. I wonder why they are so secret? Could it be that "they" don't want anyone to be able to build an accurate model of a twin tower?

Bell
13th September 2006, 05:28 PM
What was the response?

No response yet. I'm not holding my breath. As I said, many researches have tried very hard to get them. I wonder why they are so secret? Could it be that "they" don't want anyone to be able to build an accurate model of a twin tower?

Yes, absolutely. You are absolutely right.

Dog Town
13th September 2006, 05:33 PM
Could it be that "they" don't want anyone to be able to build an accurate model of a twin tower?3104

I feel ya TAM !

apathoid
13th September 2006, 05:58 PM
I feel ya TAM !

TAM has the right idea about not debating the clownshoes anymore. I really can't think of anything that is less productive, perhaps teaching a 2 year old semi-retarded chimp Calculus would be more futile, hard to say.

Alareth
13th September 2006, 06:04 PM

Dog Town
13th September 2006, 06:04 PM
TAM has the right idea about not debating the clownshoes anymore. I really can't think of anything that is less productive, perhaps teaching a 2 year old semi-retarded chimp Calculus would be more futile, hard to say.

Hell that would be much easier! The chimp wants to use its brain, just not sure how! Cters seem to know how, but CHOOSE not to!

Oliver
14th September 2006, 06:13 AM
No response yet. I'm not holding my breath. As I said, many researches have tried very hard to get them.

I wonder why they are so secret? Could it be that "they" don't want anyone to be able to build an accurate model of a twin tower?

Could it be that you spend to much time in here to think
in such a "conspirational" way? :-D

Brainache
14th September 2006, 06:25 AM
This was posted in the Loose Change thread. Is this what you were looking for?

http://news.uns.purdue.edu/UNS/html4ever/2006/060911.Sozen.WTC.html

Maybe you could get in touch with the guys who made this computer model and ask where they got the plans for the WTC.

gumboot
14th September 2006, 06:38 AM
Not directly related...

But have a look at this (http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=106842).

I am utterly stunned. This guy has created an entire 3D computer model of the WTC complex. And I mean ENTIRE. He even has the escalators etc... it's truely incredible.

Here's a picture of the wire frame (http://img527.imageshack.us/my.php?image=wf-axon2.jpg) to give you an idea of the detail. He appears to intend to do the underground stuff and everything.

-Andrew

KingMerv00
14th September 2006, 06:46 AM
I'd like to see it. What the hell...it would probably be interesting.

Hellbound
14th September 2006, 07:06 AM
DHR repeated

This is what NIST claim, yes. But NIST also claim that "thousands of pounds" of explosives would be needed to demolish the towers.

Clearly this is a contradiction. If a local collapse can lead to complete destruction, then all a demolition would need to do is cut the support columns at one floor, and let gravity take over.

Anybody care to reconcile those two NIST claims?

I will.

First, not any local collapse will lead to a global collapse. You need an entire floor to collapse, with several floors above it, and pretty much fail the whole floor at the same time (so the mass above that floor drops together as a live load). On 9/11 this was accomplished by:

1) The impact of a jet airliner, with an estimated energy yeild (from kinetic energy alone, not counting the ignition of jet fuel) equivalent to 4,000 to 6,000 lbs. of TNT.

2) Subsequent fires, which weakened the remaining support columns...columns that were already over-stressed due to the removal of many columns by event 1.

By examining the structural properties of steel, and the average size of the support colums in the WTC, I've calculated that you'd need thousands of pounds of explosives to cut the supports sufficiently to cause collapse of a single floor. Just over 3,000 lbs. of C-4 as a matter of fact (over 4,000 lbs. of TNT). Although, technically, if you used shaped charges, had direct access to the steel core and exterior columns (meaning cutting into walls), and only took out just enough of the columns to have a good chance of collapse (instead of taking them all out) you could get it just below 1,000 lbs. of explosive, if you're lucky. More realistically you'd still need 1500 to 2000 lbs. Even more realistically you'd have to limit your placements to areas that could be concealed and accessed, which would mean non-optimal placement and would also limit the ability to use shaped cutting charges...so I'd revise that estimate to 2,000 lbs. as a ballpark figure.

You'd need hundreds of tons to cut supports on all floors, or for a typical CD situation.

Of course, I've actually done some of the calculation on this, using information that is not that difficult to obtain. A bit easier for me, as I've had some demolitions training and experience, but anyone can get the data. But, as with most of the "Truth Seekers", spending a few days getting in touch with people who know demolition, and finding the sizes of the columns, the equations governing charge sizes, and doing a bit of multiplication is too much work...the 3,000 who died isn't worth that to you, eh?

Oliver
24th September 2006, 06:45 PM
I sent this to them -

Will you please tell me how I can purchase a complete set of detailed structural drawings of the twin towers? Let me know how much and where to send it, and I will forward the money.

Thank You,

I'll let you all know how that goes.

What did they say? :confused:

qarnos
24th September 2006, 07:35 PM
No response yet. I'm not holding my breath. As I said, many researches have tried very hard to get them. I wonder why they are so secret? Could it be that "they" don't want anyone to be able to build an accurate model of a twin tower?

Bolding mine.

Just a quick question... how hard is "tried very hard"? After all, you came on here bitching and moaning about the plans for goodness knows how long before we discovered you hadn't even tried to get them.

Does "tried very hard" mean sending an e-mail?

25th September 2006, 02:28 AM
Originally Posted by TruthSeeker1234
No response yet. I'm not holding my breath. As I said, many researches have tried very hard to get them. I wonder why they are so secret? Could it be that "they" don't want anyone to be able to build an accurate model of a twin tower?

BS1234 should talk to Dylan Avery. Months ago, in the LC forum, Avery stated that blueprints would be in his hands imminently. They should have a talk, BSer to BSer.

Bell
25th September 2006, 09:22 AM
Bolding mine.

Just a quick question... how hard is "tried very hard"? After all, you came on here bitching and moaning about the plans for goodness knows how long before we discovered you hadn't even tried to get them.

Does "tried very hard" mean sending an e-mail?

I think "tried very hard" means that everytime the owner of the blueprints told him they would send them, he wanted something more. Like full size. Printed in gold. On the hide of an elephant. And wanted to publish it. Much like the BS101 \$1000.00 challenge.

TruthSeeker1234
25th September 2006, 01:30 PM
Purdue emailed back.

Dear Mr. TruthSeeker1234,

at this point we do not have plans to extend the time interval.

Sincerely, Chris Hoffmann

______________________
Christoph M. Hoffmann
Computer Science, Purdue University
West Lafayette, IN 47907
ph: 765-494-6185, fax: 765-494-0739
www.cs.purdue.edu/homes/cmh
______________________

-----Original Message-----
From: TruthSeeker1234
Sent: Sunday, September 17, 2006 9:49 PM
To: venere@purdue.edu; Chris Hoffmann; Voicu Popescu; ayhan@purdue.edu;
purduenews@purdue.edu
Cc: ekgardner@purdue.edu; sozen@purdue.edu
Subject: WTC computer simulations

Dear Purdue Scientists:

I read with interest your material on the computer simulations of the jet
crash into WTC1 that you have created. Fine work.

As you may be aware, there is some debate as to whether or not a local
collapse of the upper section of the tower would lead to the type of
pulverizing, obliterating behavior that we actually observed on 9/11. (e.g.

Do you have any plans to run your model further in time? That is, would it
be possible for you to assume a local collapse of the upper part of the
building falling down into the lower part, and then model the behavior of
the entire tower from that point forward?

Thank You.

Shrinker
28th September 2006, 01:32 AM
From Cinefex issue 107, page 16. Regarding the visual effects for the movie World Trade Center:

In an opening montage establishing the Manhattan skyline as it appeared early on the morning of the attacks, Double Negative nestled the World Trade Center's twin towers into live plates, computer modelling the structures using original blueprints.

(Double Negative is a visual effects company based in London.)

Now, isn't it wonderful how the people who need the blueprints can get hold of them, and the people who need the blueprints to be some sinister covered-up secret, can easily fail to get hold of them.

Lurker
28th September 2006, 04:50 AM
In Design News, Professor Abolhassen Astaneh-Asl was in New York days after the collapse to get information. He is a professor at UC-Berkeley in Structural Engineering. He collected perishable data, took photos and then proceeded to make computer models of the structure. He did have a grant from NSF to do this work and was able to obtain construction drawings and design documents from the Port Authority.

Specific to the docs, the article said:

What he did not realize, however, was that he was embarking on a half-a-decade-long odyssey that would have him scrambling for resources and trying to obtain construction drawings and design documents for the towers from the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, the owner of the WTC.

The release of these documents—which ultimately required an order from Congress’ Committee on Science --was critical because they contained design specifics that Astaneh-Asl needed in order to develop a detailed structural model to simulate the impact of the airplanes on the twin towers.

http://www.designnews.com/article/CA6363426.html

So Truthseeker is partially correct in that not just anybody can request and receive those documents from the Port Authority. But they have been released to Professor Abolhassen Astaneh-Asl.

Lurker

Matthew Best
28th September 2006, 05:49 PM
Here (http://chronicle.com/free/v53/i03/03a02901.htm) is an interesting story on Mr Astaneh-Asl's theories about why the WTC buildings collapsed.

It seems his ideas are somewhat controversial as he seems to be suggesting that if they'd been built according to New York City Building Codes (they weren't) they would have stayed standing longer.

(Incidentally, in this story he says he was sent a copy of the building plans by an official from FEMA.)