Monday, December 11, 2006

12/10/06

(click on pictures twice to enlarge)

Steel frame before loading. This has three outer walls intact revealing the inner core and a few floors. The fourth wall has not been attached yet:




Complete loaded tower. This is a 1:200 scale model-- 1 foot wide by 6.5 feet tall. It only has 22 floors though:

The frame is about 30 pounds of steel wire, it was loaded with 50 pounds of sand in bags and 35 pounds of ceramic tile-- the weight was fairly evenly distributed.


"Plane" damage-- severe case-- about 1/3 of the core is severed:

side view:



To mimic fire damage, all the columns on one side were cut along with all the columns of half of the core. The tower was quite stable with this damage:


I could get the tower top to lean over if I pulled on it VERY HARD:




The tower was NOT going to fall down on the "impact side"-- but I could tilt the tower on the other side of the "plane damage" more easily. The tower here was stable-- in no danger of collapsing:


I cut some more of the core columns, and the top leaned at a 90 degree angle:




I cut all of the core columns and the top fell some more:



A very unexpected result!!!!! This thing was stable as could be!



Finally I cut all the columns on one floor and the top fell to the ground. Surprisingly (joke), the top stayed intact after falling!

24 Comments:

Blogger Democrat said...

Yesszz! more tower power.

Spooked, I have the same results as you have. Some damage, but not complete and utter failure. Must be strong towers we build.

10:41 AM  
Blogger Conspiracy Smasher said...

You clowns are too stupid for words...but funny...I'll give you funny...

12:18 PM  
Blogger Jujigatami said...

So, how many columns are bearing the total load in your model?

How are those columns connected to the structure?

What is the scale of the total mass per floor in your model?

How thick is the wire and what is its tensile strength? How does that scale to the WTC?

12:27 PM  
Blogger S. King said...

That was good satire of the 9/11 "Truth" Movement. That group would actually take your model seriously.

12:59 PM  
Blogger Avery Dylan said...

Like hey man I mean, this is like the best special effects I've seen thi side of Oneonta!

Boxcutters, ha ha ha!

2:33 PM  
Blogger Critical_Thinker said...

Next time wear an airplane costume and run into it. Then set it on fire. If it doesn't collapse, then CONGRATULATIONS! you've debunked the debunkers :).

3:53 PM  
Blogger Ningen said...

Democrat, it seems that the impact energy of the bucket relative to the resistance of tower is far more than than energy of the top floors falling 3 meters.

NIST seems to give magical qualities to impact energy as opposed to static energy. Your experiment seems to prove that wrong -- as I would expect based on common sense is that upper block would remain intact and be deflected after a few floors (3-20?), rather than pushing the lower floors down to the bottom.

Spooked, have you dropped the upper block onto the lower block?

6:41 PM  
Blogger lawchick said...

How sad and pathetic at the same time.

I can't help but paraphase a well known quote here. This illustrates a moron, acting like an idiot, wrapped in tinfoil.

How sad and pathetic that you are incapable of rational thought, spooked.

I feel sorry for your family and I sure hope that you don't have children. They would never live down the embarrassment.

9:58 PM  
Blogger Democrat said...

as I would expect based on common sense is that upper block would remain intact and be deflected after a few floors (3-20?), rather than pushing the lower floors down to the bottom

Although my tower is hopelessly scientific rubbish if you want to compare it to the actual collapse of the WTC, your point is exactly my point: why through 80 untouched floors instead of falling down next to the remains after incurring resistance from the intact structure below? It puzzles me.

12:10 AM  
Blogger Ningen said...

"why through 80 untouched floors instead of falling down next to the remains after incurring resistance from the intact structure below? It puzzles me."

Especially since the upper blocks appear to have partially if not largely disintegrated before the "single gravitational collapse sequence" started moving downward.

"Single gravitational collapse sequence" is the phrase of Brett Blanchard, Protec demolition editor, in his paper. Blanchard says neither building failed "at any point in advance of the "Single gravitational collapse sequence" and that "all lower floors remained completely intact until they were consumed by the collapse above."

What I want to know is what energy was driving the collapse sequence once it began advancing downward, because until that point the lower block had offered enough resistance to destroy part if not most of the upper block, yet suddenly gave way to reduced weight, with the thicker floors below unable to halt the "collapse."

It just does not make sense.

12:46 AM  
Blogger Critical_Thinker said...

Hey 'lawchick', why don't you relax, the only sad and pathetic loser here is you, if you had any sense of humor you would tell that 'Spooked' is joking around. You sound like an angry chick with no bf and needs a real good fuck, I guess that's why you're mad, ain't that right?

3:38 AM  
Blogger Just Me said...

One time I had to make a tower out of pasta for my physics class in high school...anyone want to use that for a controlled demolition experiment...seriously, it held 5 lbs in the earthquake machine for 30 seconds, so really how different could it be from steel?? And hey, what the hell, it's loading, strcture, damage, etc. was nothing like what happened on 9-11, but it's close enough to draw the conclusion that the WTC shouldn't have fallen.

Please note, I am totally kidding...except I really did have to build a pasta tower :)

5:42 PM  
Blogger iamsaneareyou said...

This is one of the dumbest things that I have ever seen. If stupidity were a fatal disease you would be dead.

8:53 AM  
Blogger iamsaneareyou said...

Popular Mechanics has scientifically debunked all of the “truthers” 9/11 conspiracy theories. http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html

9:04 AM  
Blogger ShaneH said...

I hope this is some kind of parody. If not, you may want to consider a few classes in engineering, maybe a couple in architecture and a couple in physics.

To compare so little model to the millions of tons they real thing actually was is just stupid.

Its like the ant be impressive and 100's of times stronger than man by scale. If an ant was as large as a man, it couldn't live. It just doesn't scale.

The top of the building swings down, by chance lets say it does. It wieghs in the neighbor hood of 50,000 tons. As it accelarates down, lets just call it 100 feet to make it easy, how many million ft-lbs of force is the momentum?

Your structure does not come close to modeling that.

10:13 PM  
Blogger ShaneH said...

I hope this is some kind of parody. If not, you may want to consider a few classes in engineering, maybe a couple in architecture and a couple in physics.

To compare so little model to the millions of tons they real thing actually was is just stupid.

Its like the ant be impressive and 100's of times stronger than man by scale. If an ant was as large as a man, it couldn't live. It breaths through its exo-skeleton and can only do so because its so small.(I am a bio-chemist, this isn't an exact explanation but its close) It just doesn't scale.

The top of the building swings down, by chance lets say it does. It wieghs in the neighbor hood of 50,000 tons. As it accelarates down, lets just call it 100 feet to make it easy, how many million ft-lbs of force is the momentum?

Your structure does not come close to modeling that.

10:15 PM  
Blogger Smoov said...

Do you people have any clue how completely INSANE you sound to normal, rational people?

Has any of you ever been within 500 feet of a structural engineering textbook?

I really worry when I think about folks like you, because you clearly are not getting the mental health care you so clearly need.

Really, you're ill. Get help, please!

5:00 PM  
Blogger Octersarefullofhate said...

shaneh, perhaps English grammar and syntax lessons are in order for you.

12:24 AM  
Blogger google said...

I'd ignore the bluff and bluster of some of the more moronic and stupid comments posted here. Wire frame models are nothing new in the world of simulation except they're usually modelled on computers. Unfortunately "wire-frame" on a PC occasionally has undeserved kudos. Theoretical stress modelling quote often approximates and concentrates only on critical or "interesting" factors or uses rule of thumb (heuristic). A model is only as good as the rules and data input which pretty well rules out the official models such as those emerging from the US government which attempt to portray the strength of the building in the skin rather than the core. No one seriously putting forward any scientific model whether virtual or real wire-frame would claim it any more than a rough approximation within the bounds of it's own design. I doubt if any of the critics have been within 100 feet of a public library or English dictionary let alone a structural textbook. The model is interesting but clearly not intended as a 100% accurate stress model which makes any derision utterly pointless.

3:01 PM  
Blogger Dave said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

8:45 PM  
Blogger Dave said...

but now i think about it, your model would have to have denser concrete and denser steel than the wtc to represent the towers according to my idea! LOL.. There were bombs in those buildings, thats for sure. Perhaps you should get some c4 and see how it goes, i reckon you might get a more accurate simulation :D

8:48 PM  
Blogger psikeyhackr said...

My model isn't about the collapse. It is about distribution of mass.

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

psik

6:41 PM  
Blogger psikeyhackr said...

I didn't build my model to collapse, but to demonstrate the relevance of distribution of mass.

WTC MIT

psik

6:46 PM  
Blogger spam said...

Hey! I could really use your help in proving that the holocaust didn't happen. I like the way you think. With your help, everyone will start taking me seriously.

12:25 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home