How it Was Done: 9/11 and the Science of Building Demolition

After all these years I am interested in resolving a simple physics problem not the semantic correctness of fishy analogies.

psik

 

If you're interested, why don't you ever listen to the answers? Why have you not sought an education in these fields that you clearly do not fully comprehend?

 

Well I am willing to let people SEE for themselves something other than computer simulations. You can spend your time talking them into not believing what they see while you pretend to be logical all you want.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xQb_i6MJAVs

The old model is at 7 minutes. This video seems to have crappy sound though.

psik

 

You didn't answer my question. The model didn't collapse. How could Farquaharson have created a model accurate to your standards if in fact it didn't collapse? Why did he claim the full size bridge would collapse when the scale model didn't collapse?

 

Obviously or you wouldn't have made the error.

 

I didn't say the model collapsed. I said it duplicated the oscillation of the real bridge. The purpose of the model was to study the oscillation to figure out how to stop it. But the bridge collapsed before they got to use what they learned.

psik

 

How did you come up with that BS?

I bring up the Tacoma Narrows Bridge to show the efficacy of physical modelling. Considering that they did not know why the wind produced the effect it did and were trying to learn from the model, it did an excellent job. The model was completed before the bridge collapsed. No one knew or even suspected that the real bridge would come down. It was just to dangerous for cars to cross when it was "galloping" so they wanted to figure out how to stop it.

I think modelling the north tower and testing it for collapse would be much easier than that bridge. No wind tunnel required.

I went to a 3-D printer tutorial yesterday. The machine was only $1,500 but would only produce objects 6 inches square and 7 high. A printer that could produce objects 2 ft by 2 ft could produce one level at a time with each 1.5 inches tall. But that would still leave the problem of getting the proper weight distribution down the tower. As long as we do not have that data the model can't be made and tested. So why don't "experts" want that?

psik

 

Why did they make a model of the bridge,if they didn't think that the real one might come down?

 

You still didn't answer the question.

You keep asking for a model of the twin towers that can collapse as the towers collapsed. You claim this should be possible if the buildings collapsed as claimed, and you referenced the model of the Tacoma Narrows Bridge as an example.

Yet the model of the Tacoma Narrows Bridge did not collapse. It experienced the type of flutter that the real bridge experienced and remained standing. The engineers, however, quickly recognized that flutter that the model experienced would mean the end of the real bridge. And they were quite right. Flutter that the model withstood destroyed the real bridge.

So tell me, how did the engineers know that the motion the model withstood could destroy the real bridge if the model was not destroyed?

 

All you are doing is emphasizing the efficacy of modelling. That was my entire point.

You seem to think the objective here is to prove how smart you are and how dumb I am. I don't give a sh!t about your ego. But what you just said would indicate that a good model should collapse if the real building could.

Are you conceding my point?

psik

- - - Updated - - -

Can you read? I said:

psik

 

Your point is that it should be possible to build a model that collapses the same way the towers collapsed and your example is a model that did not collapse the same way a bridge collapsed.

You don't see the conflict here?

 

Are you now saying they wouldn't have anticipated metal fatigue had the bridge continued to sway violently?

 

Let's just forget the conspiracy theory guys for a moment. All that I want from you, is a factual scientific explanation as to HOW so much molten iron and steel was present? WHAT heated up to such a high temp, as to literally melt iron and steel? Kerosene will not do it, nor offices burning.

So what melted it? It cannot be replicated, using kerosene or office fires. For this question must be answered by those who call the truthers names. If you cannot answer it, then WHO is the dummy here? Since I know you cannot answer it, I will have to side with the clearer, more rational, more logical brains, which is in the camp of the so called truthers.

If not for Michael Rupert, we would have never known that another conspiracy took place, that had our CIA providing drugs, coke, to be sold to the inner cities, in order to finance guns for the contras, which congress had said NO to. So, surely this shows people that conspiracies take place in high gov't, even with our intel agencies.

NOW, which one of you will deny that the CIA used a paid agent to distribute coke to our inner cities, in order to acquire money congress would not appropriate them, in order to arm the contras?

It took me 13 years to finally understand that 9-11 was a conspiracy, that involved more than just Saudi financed terrorists, and obviously involved a group of men in high offices in our own gov't. In the same way other men were involved in this coke deal, transporting an illegal drug into America, to sell to americans, which we then could imprison when we caught them, like Freeway Rick, who was getting his coke from a guy who the CIA was using to distribute cocaine to the inner cities.

So, get creative and tell me how that molten metal was present after the towers came down. I even saw an excavator with lots of molten metal running out of his bucket as he was scooping up the beams and girders, which were all shipped as scrap to china, destroying the evidence.

 

Sure, only those with real intelligence understand what took place. This includes thousands of professionals and more ex FBI, CIA, and military officers than you would care to count. And that list continues to grow, as other americans for some reason just refuse to use their own intelligence, but have bought into the official story, when even that commission has been revealed by the head of it to be bull(*)(*)(*)(*). An ass covering exercise that wasn't concerned with finding the truth, but only to put forth a lie, as the explanation. How many of these men will it take to convince you? My guess is you cannot be convinced. That is the thing about human beings. Once they make their mind up, it is almost impossible for them to change it, for now their ego is involved, and we all know how powerful an ego is, in being unable to admit it was wrong....about anything.

 

My experience only amounts to a logical brain, and the accounts of a vast array of others, in your field, who would think you were daft. You have to work gov't contracts? Of course you would lie, for you need to feed your family. But some people in your field are only concerned with the truth, and my money says, they are more of an expert than you are. As far as I know, you are just a grunt, that cleans up after the pros bring a building down. I have been told my others online they were this or that, for that is so easy to do. Hey, I am really GOD, and just posting here for (*)(*)(*)(*)s and giggles, and I SAY you are full of (*)(*)(*)(*). Prove me wrong.

 

That isn't true, they just didn't have to worry about losing gov't contracts is all. Did you stay at a holiday inn last night or something? I hear that makes all an expert, in anything they want to be an expert in.

 

How do the witnesses know it was actually molten iron?

And yet, they have not offered a consistent theory either. Tell me, why do you think thermite would keep metals in a molten state for an extended period?

That pic is faked.

- - - Updated - - -

It is true. A member of ISF has checked the credentials of those who signed up for AE911T and he found that many were not qualified.

 

No my point is that IF THE NORTH TOWER could collapse solely due to aircraft impact and fire then it should be possible to make a valid model that behaved the same way, though it will have to be based on accurate data about the building. But that also applies to a computer model.

I don't think that can be done though it is easier to lie with a computer model, so I think a physical one is better.

If I am wrong however then why should people who say the collapse is possible have any objection to making a physical model and doing the demonstration, thereby putting my dumb ass in its proper place? But we are now going on FOURTEEN YEARS and we don't have either type of model that demonstrates the collapse. Considering how much better and cheaper computers have gotten since 2001 that is pretty ridiculous.

Why do you want to bother with all of this semantic obfuscation about what I mean about a model? I said the model could duplicate the oscillation of the real bridge and anyone could see that from watching the film. I did not say there was any significance to the bridge collapsing and the model not doing so. And we don't know that the model wouldn't have collapsed if they had run the wind tunnel long enough. But why would they bother with that after the bridge had already collapsed? The objective at the time was not to find a possibly unknown cause for a collapse. After the bridge collapse the model was irrelevant except to help figure out how to design a better bridge that would not oscillate.

You just need to find trivia to blather about to give the appearance of intelligent argument.

psik

 

What 'molten metal'?.and that can cover everything from lead to titanium

 

Don't you see you're expecting a different standard from the tower model than you are expecting from the bridge model? If you can answer this question, you'll understand the problem you're having. The bridge model modeled the behavior of the bridge, but it did not collapse. Why? Why didn't the model collapse, but the same behavior in the full scale bridge DID cause collapse?

The answer isn't because they didn't run the wind tunnel long enough.

 

thats the amalgamate that was glowing bright yellow orange and flowed like lava that the firemen and so many other people talked about.

 

1) aluminum remains silver when it flows iron and concrete become incandescent before they flow.





2) Thermite would start the reaction, the production of hydrogen from the residues would stoke the temperatures and maintain the heat.

3) The pic is not faked. Some unknowledgeable poser made a website pretending it was.

4) Were not qualified to do what? Opine on the events of 911?

5) What are your qualifications?

 

There are many videos showing the molten metal. What else could it be? And it remained molten for a long time as they continue to dig up pools of it. I lost a car to a fire a few years ago, and the aluminum didn't turn molten, and run down. Not even close to the gas tank.

Thermite burns at a much higher temp than kerosene or offices, in the point that it cuts through metal. The molten iron would remain molten if covered up by insulating ash and debris, surely you know this.

The molten metal is a huge indicator that something more than damage from planes and the burning jet fuel was involved, yet the official report didn't address it. Why? Well, they didn't even look to see if other factors were involved, like cutter charges, or demolition.

Until the molten metal is explained, which would be hard to do, from what the official report said brought those buildings down, then this is still highly questionable. In the cases of iron or steel stuctures, that have burned from top to bottom, never was the steel or iron melted to the glowing state. Never. So how you guys can just ignore that, is puzzling.

Kinda supply a link that says the credentials of the 2200 were checked with MANY found not to be qualified. I would imagine that all are qualified, architects, engineers, physicists, demolition experts. If you staffed that group with village idiots that would have been made a big deal of, don't cha think?

The problem with the official story is that there are just far too many incoherences involved for it to explain how this event unfolded. But I will say this. If there was other involvement, that would mean that the US is not a free republic anymore...wait, the Princeton Study already had evidence that we had turned into an oligarchy. And oligarchies are apt to do anything to press forward an agenda, like The New American Century, which required us to tear the hell out of several middle eastern nations, including Syria, Iraq, Iran, Lybia...and what has happened or is happening as we speak over there? Coincidence? The Bush Admin even tried to tie the anthrax attacks a few days later with Iraq, and there is a lawsuit now by an FBI agent who calls the investigation into that anthrax attack a total sham. There are so many dots here, that a detective, a good one would have little trouble connecting. Is it also a coincidence that Tom Dashle(sp?) was one who received one of those letters, with anthrax with death to America written on it, and who coincidently was against the patriot act, that changed our nation forever? I don't know if that letter that looked to be from radical muslims made him change his mind, but that could have been the intent. So our fine FBI could never solve that case. LOL. Well, it was a sham investigation according to the litigant, so that too is kinda weird, don't you think/

 

How do you know? You are constantly pretending that you know what you can't know. I am not saying it would collapse. I am saying I don't know and you don't either. They did not know the bridge would collapse until it happened. The model was built before the collapse. Once the real bridge collapsed, why would they run the model until it collapsed IF IT COULD?

Your only argument is trying to put words in my mouth.

My point of bringing up the Tacoma Narrows Bridge was just to show that scale models could be made to duplicate the physics of full sized structures.

So why can't a model be made or the North Tower to duplicate the collapse if it could happen. Of course if a good model is made and it will not collapse then you have a problem. So you need to come up with excuses to not do it.

psik

 

The problem isn't something that I cannot know. It's an issue that applies to all physical models. It's widely known. Except I guess among people who interviewed at MIT.

Here's what one engineering student said about the model.

www.engineering.uiowa.edu/sites/def...acoma Narrows - MatDL_ Failure Cases Wiki.pdf

Why did cables that were successful on the model snap just a few short weeks after installation on the real bridge?