WTC Impact Model - MIT

Thank you for your efforts, very appreciated!

"The question is: Does it demonstrate anything relevant in relation to what it's trying to model?"

Yes and no.

Yes, because it demonstrates that a tower can absorb impact. No, because your model has nothing relevant to the events of 9/11.

Your model, as did the actual towers, quite easily survived the impacts.

We all know it survived the immediate impact. But how do we compute the structural damage done by the impact?

Why don't we know the TONS of STEEL & TONS of CONCRETE on every level after SEVEN YEARS?

The NIST says the 70th floor moved 12". Extrapolation would indicate that the 81st floor moved 14 ".  How many tons of steel & concrete had to move how fast? How much of the planes kinetic energy did that take?

Curious how so many people that claim to know physics don't ask obvious questions.

My point is that your model is only a simple demonstration of the elasticity built into towers in general. Your models and elasticity are of no aid in understanding the collapse mechanism or the dynamics of the collapse.

Do you have a plan to do something with a more accurate measurement of the weight of each individual floor? Or is the lack of published precision just something that feeds paranoid thoughts about a grand coverup?

All you demonstrate is that you can't figure out the purpose of the model.

Why did I do multiple deflections with different weights? Why are there time lapses with different weights and distributions? Why are there frames asking about the steel and concrete.?

The point is that the behavior changes with the different distributions. Therefore that information is necessary to analyze what happened to the REAL TOWERS.

The Experts at the NIST need to explain why they don't have it.

Of course towers react differently to outside disturbances depending on their mass and mass distribution. But, since the planes did not knock the buildings over, your demonstration is irrelevant. The elastic behavior from the impacts was over long before the collapse initiation. Why don't you build a model that deals with NIST's collapse initiation theory instead of an elementary school classical mechanics demonstration?

And how is such a model to be built if we don't know the TONS of STEEL and TONS of CONCRETE that were on each level of the tower?

That is what I keep asking in both videos.

Didn't you notice?

THAT is why scientists and engineers describe a degree of uncertainty in their calculations. The weight of each floor can be obtained from sources other than NIST that would allow a degree of uncertainty of +-10%. If you build a model that will only collapse using the NIST collapse initiation theory when you go beyond the uncertainty, THEN a more precise value is called for. If a collapse initiates for all values within the uncertainty, you can't learn much more using greater precision.

All that means is that you worship people that you BELIEVE ARE SCIENTISTS.

You cannot think for yourself.

There were more than 2500 exterior wall panels on each tower and 12 different types of those panels. Let's see you find the weights of those panels +/- 10%.

Oh sure, like my model can violate the laws of physics!

Why can't the NIST specify the total for the concrete in the towers?

Why don't they specify the quantity and weights of each of the 12 types of exterior wall panels?

Why aren't we told the TONS of STEEL and TONS of CONCRETE on every level?

Why can't you figure out the obvious questions to ask? Can't handle grade school physics?