WTC Modeling Instruction & Testing in the Real World

Here is a overblown but defective description of collapse modeling by a NASA scientist followed a similar real model showing the actual results which our brilliant scientist failed to predict. In addition there is even worse example modeling presented by MIT which was shown on national television in 2002.

Gravitational collapse with crushable supports between 2 in. diameter washers weighing approx. 1.7 oz. each. The thickness of the washers does vary, they are sorted so the thinnest at the top and thickest at the bottom. 3 of the thinnest are about equal 2 of the thickest. So the weights range from 1.4 to 2.1 ounces. The intermediate supports are loops of paper 9/16 inches tall. The top 11 supports are single loops. The next 17 are double loops and the bottom 5 are triple loops. The falling mass consists of 4 washers out of a total of 33 or 12%. So the falling mass can sustain damage just like the stationary stack.

The model supported itself for three days before the drop was taped so the loops can sustain the static load.

I have tested the single loops for what was necessary to crush a loop. Dropping 4 washers from 4 inches will crush a single loop. It takes 0.1182 joules to crush single loop

The dowel is 4 feet tall and less than 3/4 in thick and there is nearly a 1/16th gap around the dowel to a washer. Some rubbing is inevitable.

Notice that loop 11 which is a single loop remains intact. So the collapse was not stopped because of double loops.

• Category

  Education

[Xantylon74]

This Model from MIT wasn't suppose to be A REAL MODEL, it should only show the fact, what a failing floor can do to such a "building"! Btw, compared to the WTC this model would be way TO STRONG! Real Models of the WTC can't be created I scale, THE FORCES GROW more than 100 times (1/1000) belong to the scale)with the size of ANY object, a scale Model (1/1000) of the WTC must be also reduced more than 100(scale) times in strength!!!

[psikeyhackr]

The MIT model did not have SPANDRELS around the floor. The spandrels could not fall.

[Wakethefuckup67]

Hahahaha.. I had to laugh at the model prepared by the NASA scientist..

No core columns and describing a pancake collapse.. which NIST abandoned some time ago, when many other engineers and architects failed to see NIST's humor..

Then whilst calculating the Conservation of Momentum with an inelastic collision, he simply ignores the lower floors are all mechanically fixed components of the entire structure.. hence the mass (m2) below the impact, should be the complete standing structure.

[SuperChefStar]

That universities have done so little work on this question (that I am aware of) is itself in my opinion a strong indication that they do not truly believe it collapsed due to fires, planes, or damage. Otherwise why wouldn't this be a case study put to students?

But I can sort of understand. They don't want to ruin the lives of their students by having young people being branded as "conspiracy theorists". That in my opinion is where the honest science would lead the students.

[Xantylon74]

@motorartist Absolutely right!!!

[Funkadelic2]

Not sure you address the right person with that question, but my guess is:

1) that the core of WTC 1 was attacked (by something) round the 98th floor (or above), and that for some reason part of the core from about floor 60 or so remained standing (as seen in the videos) several seconds after the perimeter walls had collapsed, and that

2) correctly: 25 seconds was in regard to total time including core remains collapse (a gravity only collapse would take longer than what we saw on 9/11, 2001).

[psikeyhackr]

Here is Dr. Sunder of the NIST saying the north tower came down in 11 seconds.

podcastdirectory (dot) com/podshows/1355626

[psikeyhackr]

Why did the antenna of the north tower go down before the perimeter if the core went down after the perimeter like you say?

Dr. Sunder of the NIST said 11 seconds for the north tower. 25 seconds is the longest time which includes the Spire.

But a "magical" collapse of 109 equal masses held up by nothing and can only be simulated in a computer takes 12 seconds just on the basis of the conservation of momentum. So how can a real collapse take less than 24 seconds.