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

I can see that we're going to have to go through this step by step. One question at a time.

1. You know that there's more types of metal than "iron and steel", right?

 

Because nothing had to break for the model to oscillate.

Are you demonstrating that you are not smart enough to figure that out? Breakage would mean that the strength was exceeded. Hence the relevance of the square cube law.

I wish we got more feedback from your "audience". Maybe I am all there is.

Please proceed with more dumb questions.

psik

 

yes yes me too!

1) so what?

 

his question was why did they build a model to show oscillation if it could never have been like the real bridge?....you're the one talking about 'collapse'

 

Oh no. You didn't just say that the model oscillated. You said the model replicated the oscillation of the real bridge. How could it have done that if the model did not have a scale strength and mass of the real bridge? Don't you have a Youtube video that demonstrates how mass affects oscillation? Does mass not effect the oscillation of the bridge model? What about strength? Strength dampens the oscillation. Doesn't the strength have to be the same so that the dampening is the same? If the strength and mass aren't the same, how could the oscillation be the same?

If you'll finally notice. I'm asking the same dumb question you keep asking about building a model of the tower collapse. You still haven't realized that your model of the tower is no different at all from the model of the bridge. It doesn't have the same mass distribution because it can't, and it doesn't have the same strength because it can't. The model of the bridge didn't collapse in the same way as the real bridge, and your model didn't collapse in the same way as the real tower.

Yet you'd come here and try to claim that the bridge model is an example of a physical model that duplicates the behavior of a full size structure.

 

1) You agree that there's more than one type of metal.

2) Do you agree that the Draper point is the approximate temperature above which almost all solid materials visibly glow as a result of blackbody radiation? (525˚ C)

 

If you are going to comment on the frequency of oscillation of the model versus the bridge then why don't you do it? Of course the film of the model could have been shot at a speed to compensate for that. I have not seen any mention of that.

Like I said, anyone can watch the video and judge for themselves. If they want to get excited about your verbal BS they can do that also.

psik

 

All this talk about physics, and when you're actually asked to defend your argument with some we're told to watch a video and guess.

How disappointing.

How is the model of the bridge different from your model of the tower?

The model of the bridge cannot model the correct mass, and it cannot model the correct strength.

Doesn't your model of the tower suffer exactly the same limitation?

 

You keep saying, or more like implying, that the model can't do this or that, but you have not specified how the video of the model fails to match the video of the bridge other than that the model did not collapse. what would have been the point of running the model until it collapsed, if it could, after the bridge had collapsed?

Anyone can watch the video and judge for themselves whether they match. But I suppose some people need you to tell them what to think. Or maybe you just believe that they do.

If there is an "audience" out there you are free to comment. LOL

That is true. You are not playing.

You appear to think it is a brilliant statement that a 1/00th scale model is not going to have the same mass as the real bridge. How did you ever figure that out? Of course if models had the same mass as what they were modelling there would be hardly any point in modelling. They would be a real pain in the ass to work with.

psik

 

The reason I do not discuss the collapse of the bridge is because there is nothing under the bridge but the river.

There is no mass falling on mass that is supposed to be strong enough to support the falling mass under static conditions. I only brought up the bridge as an example of modelling for structural engineering. There were not 90 levels below the roadbed to be destroyed.

You are telling us that you are not capable of noticing that difference?

psik

 

All I said was exactly what you said. You said the model duplicated the oscillation of the bridge. I asked you if the model duplicated the oscillation of the bridge, then why didn't the model collapse? You said that because of square cube law, the model could not have the same strength and mass characteristics as the real bridge. I merely pointed out, using your own logic, that if the model did not have the correct distribution of mass and strength, then mathematically the bridge could not possibly have replicated the oscillation of the real bridge. Do you deny that oscillation is dependent on mass and strength? Is modelling the mass of a oscillating bridge not as important as modelling the mass of the towers? Why then do you have this Youtube video?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z0kUICwO93Q

You're just not willing to admit that your own argument destroys your claim that it should be possible to build a model of the towers that replicates the collapse of the tower if only we knew the exact mass distribution within the tower. We simply can't build a model with the same strength and mass characteristics because of square cube law.

Why do you keep telling me to watch a video? Are you arguing that the video shows a reality that cannot proven mathematically? Also, after running successful tests on the model, they installed a cable system that failed within days on the real bridge. What was the point of that? Obviously the cables did not fail on the model despite attempts to cause failure, or they would not have installed them on the real bridge.

And their judgement would be a guess. Is that all you can do? Guess?

 

i am kinda amazed this discussion goes on and on

i did watch the video
hoping for something relevant or new
and sadly found neither

it seems to be modeling the impact of the physical plane collision
only from the perspective of mass and momentum

but clearly the initial impact did not bring down the towers.
so that analysis seems pointless

also it is clear the video does not model building damage which was obvious in 9-11
which i note the wtc design relied upon the external wall for structural strength

the video also does not model the effect of the fire
most conspiracy theorist dismiss any impact from fire
as does the presenter in the video
this issue had an unplanned real world demonstration in the san Francisco area
where a fuel tanker crashed and burned under a freeway over pass
the question is
did this fuel fire weaken the steel in the overpass?
some say that it could not do that because of yada yada yada

but the steel was weakened and the overpass destroyed
by a fuel fire similar to 9-11

 

Just to be clear, that was Psikeyhackr's video. He believes that we need to know the exact mass distribution of the building in order to confirm that momentum was conserved during the collapse. Otherwise it was space aliens or something. He's not too clear on that part.

 

by the way here is the link to the overpass story

i gotta think a concrete and steel overpass is stronger than a building that has had a plane crash through it's walls

http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Tanker-fire-destroys-part-of-MacArthur-Maze-2-2575285.php

 

That commentary is truly brilliant. One would think I did not explain what the video was supposed to demonstrate. Then you don't mention how well it did or did not demonstrate what I said. You know something to do with how the mass and mass distribution affected the oscillation and therefore why we need that information about the real building.

It is also interesting how the people who make a big deal about the overpass collapse fail to notice that the vertical supports do not seem to have been affected. The overpass fell off the supports. But then skyscrapers are somewhat vertical structures with multiple levels that would have to fail.

The defenders of the 9/11 Religion are so brilliant!

The idiotic debate goes on and on because some people can't figure out the obvious. A multi-level collapse would have its speed affected by the distribution of mass. But that mass distribution would also affect the building's oscillation so there are multiple reasons for needing to know that data.

But some people pretending to be scientific can some how maintain their beliefs without data. If I am wrong a good model would just demonstrate that I am wrong. So why don't the people who accuse me of being in error want good models?

psik

 

How sad...reduced to insult...

 

We have good models. They just don't meet your unmeetable criteria of being a scale physical model. I've explained why multiple times, and I just got you to explain one of the reasons why in our previous discourse. Not that you would admit it. But how ironic, after demanding I watch an old video to prove the model bridge replicated the oscillation of a full scale bridge that you would now b*tch about maintaining belief without data. Where's your bridge oscillation data? How could you claim that the model replicated any behavior of the full scale bridge without any data?

How about another data point? Gravity. Gravity affects the oscillation of the bridge. How should they have scaled gravity to a 1:200 scale bridge? 1 inch of acceleration in the model is more than 16 feet of acceleration in the full scale bridge. Do you see a problem here?

 

You keep coming up with stuff to b!tch about but so far you have not specified anything wrong in comparison between the videos of the bridge model and the real bridge and the model was operating under normal gravity so you just want to resort to innuendo. But you found the quote about the model:

So b!tch at him about gravity. The bridge collapse did not have mass falling on mass falling on mass. That is why I don't talk about the bridge collapse.

psik

 

John Schroeder did provide a good testimony.