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

Tags:

• WTC
• 9/11
• collapse
• gravity
• physics
• conservation
• momentum
• Mackey

[thisisyourwakeup]

wonderful and very excellent analysis. may I post this video on my own channel with a credit to you?

[psikeyhackr]

@thisisyourwakeup Post it anywhere you want.

I admit to some lack of comprehension for why it gets so little attention.

[thisisyourwakeup]

@psikeyhackr people prefer to remain ignorant

[psikeyhackr]

@WhatsReallyGoingOnUS It is not just the AMOUNT of debris. It had to hold itself up & withstand 100+ mph winds. The distribution relates to how strong it had be level by level & the amount of energy required to crush it from above in order to completely collapse.

Where have you seen anyone compute the amount of energy required to crush each & every level of the towers?

It takes 0.118 joules to crush a single loop in my model. But the only source of energy is the falling mass.

[psikeyhackr]

Just Google this:

+"SOME ARTICLES FROM ENGINEERING NEWS RECORD" +"22 tons"

What bugs me is that TEN YEARS have gone by and people interested in this should all know it all by now. I have been banned from Urich's site and my pointing out this error is called a Red Herring. The NIST should have told us the weights and number of each different variation of wall panel in 2002. Urich should never have had to do any extrapolation.

[psikeyhackr]

@WhatsReallyGoingOnUS NO! We know the total weight of the perimeter wall panels. Urich uses that correct total weight. But by putting less weight at the bottom he has to put more weight toward the top. That means he is saying that the bottom is weaker than it was and he is adding more potential energy by shifting weight upward. That would make the top stronger also. So his data would improve chances of collapse, assuming the building could be constructed that way.

[WhatsReallyGoingOnUS]

@psikeyhackr But, his estimate is conservative by your account.

More mass at the bottom would lead to a longer collapse time, and a greater likelihood of collapse-arrest. I think the only way to improve the estimate is with the column data -- which will be a tedious process. That would also be necessary for a proper computer simulation.

But seriously, if you can find the reference for that 1970 article, that would help me out greatly. Thanks man.

[WhatsReallyGoingOnUS]

@psikeyhackr Hey psikeyhackr. Just so you know, I appreciate your efforts. Truly. I'm just giving you my 2-cents. Take it for what it's worth. It is a cool experiment.

But, Ulrich also shows that his estimates are consistent with the amount of debris removed from the site to within 3%. I'd say it's pretty good. And others I've talked to think it is even too high.

I'd love to see that article if you can dig it out.