Conflicting theories of fire-induced collapse 20 years after 9/11...

[psikeyhackr]

Your paper loop supports are BENEATH the floors. The washer floors need to be attached to the SIDES of the loops.

They are not floors they are masses. And you can ignore how the core is really constructed if you want. My model is a physics demonstration not a stupid attempt to visually imitate the North Tower.

Believe what you want. A really good physical model would be big, heavy, expensive and dangerous. Multiple engineering schools should have done it by now.

So the question is: Why haven't they?

 

[Gamolon]

My model is a physics demonstration not a stupid attempt to visually imitate the North Tower.

Really? It's not? Then why did you criticize Mick's model for not being accurate to the towers?

Look at that joke he calls a core. He is making something that sorta looks more like the towers than mine but in the building the core averaged half thr width of the building. His so called floors were not connected on opposite sides of his core.

But the major thing is that his components do not SUSTAIN ANY DAMAGE. He can rebuild with the same pieces. I can rebuild my model but I have to replace the damaged loops he is just putting undamaged blocks back.

DAMAGE TAKES ENERGY!

My model had to get stronger toward the bottom, single loops, double loops and triple loops. They had to get stronger to support the static load of more washers. Does he say his model is stronger toward the bottom? My paper loops cannot just fall over sideways giving no support.

Funny how you bring up accuracy with Mick's, but when your model is shown to be a farce for the same reasons, that accuracy suddenly goes out the window.

 

[Gamolon]

My model is a physics demonstration not a stupid attempt to visually imitate the North Tower.

So Mick's is it not?

Again, you bring up points of criticism for Mick's model to show it's not relevant, but ignore those same points for your model.

This is hysterical!

 

[Gamolon]

My model is a physics demonstration not a stupid attempt to visually imitate the North Tower.

Just to show that your statement above is complete idiocy:

1. Why do you refer to your components as a core (wooden dowel), floors (metal washers), and supports for those floors (paper loops).
2. Why is it constructed similar to the towers; core in the middle of the floors with supports?
3. Why does your model get stronger towards the bottom like the towers?
4. Why did you mention that Mick's floors were not attached to the core?
5. In your video, you state the following about Ryan Mackey's concept of a model "...but there is an obvious problem with his concept if it's supposed to be similar to the World Trade Center. His model has multiple levels below the impact point, but he has a solid block falling on those layers. That's not how the World Trade Center was constructed." You then go on to show your model of the towers to show that Mackey's model of the towers is incorrect.

Get your story straight...

 

[Gamolon]

My model is a physics demonstration not a stupid attempt to visually imitate the North Tower.

Please, for the love of God, tell me what your physics demonstration model is showing. And since you're not trying to imitate the towers in any way, you can't reference them.

Is your model demonstrating that a smaller upper section of a physical model cannot completely destroy a larger, lower, similar section of the same model?

 

[Gamolon]

What Mick are you talking about.

Calculations based on what data I told you that we do not have. There were horizontal beams in the core to prevent the columns from buckling.
Let's see you find some data on those beams.

Have a look through these...

Download & Streaming : Twin Towers Structural Drawing Books : Internet Archive

 

[psikeyhackr]

Your paper loop supports are BENEATH the floors. The washer floors need to be attached to the SIDES of the loops.

Your washer floors sustain no damage

Your core wooden dowel is SOLID and not composed of individual pieces

None of your components come apart. The "supports below the floors" just deform

Your paper loops are not composed of individual pieces

The upper section of the wooden dowel does not descend with your washer floors.

Need I go on?

Don't give me this crap about "model accuracy" when yours is complete garbage.

So you DIDN'T do any calculations whatsoever, yet claim there's a physics problem.

What a joke.

Really? It's not? Then why did you criticize Mick's model for not being accurate to the towers?

Funny how you bring up accuracy with Mick's, but when your model is shown to be a farce for the same reasons, that accuracy suddenly goes out the window.

So Mick's is it not?

Again, you bring up points of criticism for Mick's model to show it's not relevant, but ignore those same points for your model.

This is hysterical!

Just to show that your statement above is complete idiocy:

Why do you refer to your components as a core (wooden dowel), floors (metal washers), and supports for those floors (paper loops).Why is it constructed similar to the towers; core in the middle of the floors with supports?Why does your model get stronger towards the bottom like the towers?Why did you mention that Mick's floors were not attached to the core?In your video, you state the following about Ryan Mackey's concept of a model "...but there is an obvious problem with his concept if it's supposed to be similar to the World Trade Center. His model has multiple levels below the impact point, but he has a solid block falling on those layers. That's not how the World Trade Center was constructed." You then go on to show your model of the towers to show that Mackey's model of the towers is incorrect.

Get your story straight...

Please, for the love of God, tell me what your physics demonstration model is showing. And since you're not trying to imitate the towers in any way, you can't reference them.


Is your model demonstrating that a smaller upper section of a physical model cannot completely destroy a larger, lower, similar section of the same model?

What's Love Got to Do With It? Especially about someone's delusion of a deity?

See after all of your blather you figured it out in the second paragraph.

Where did I ever refer to anything in my model as a CORE?

That is a fixation in your head. Strictly speaking the dowel is not part of the model. It does not move. But to understand why it is there you need to there you need to comprehend why it is needed. My objective was to make a model

AS WEAK AS POSSIBLE but still strong enough to support the STATIC LOAD.

What is weaker than paper? But without the dowel the stack leans to the side. That puts more pressure on one side of the paper loops at the bottom and it falls over. Of course this means that my model cannot do what could possibly have happened to one of the towers. The top falling down the side.

I NEVER call the washers FLOORS.

Mick does that with his silly horizontal pieces.

I said my model is as weak as possible but still support the Static Load. It HAD TO GET STRONGER toward the bottom or the greater number of washers would have CRUSHED the paper loops that were too WEAK. I said AS WEAK as Possible.

Do you suppose any engineers design skyscrapers to be AS WEAK AS POSSIBLE?

Oh sorry, that is not relevant. Must be a Farce!

Since Mick calls his horizontal pieces floors and has vertical pieces in the center that his FLOORS connect to then those verticals are HIS version of a CORE. He is trying to imitate the building. At least in the minds of a not too bright audience. If I remember correctly the CORES in the towers were 85 feet by 135 feet. Less than half in one direction and more than half in the other. Is Mick's CORE even 5% of the width of his model? His FLOORS on the same level on opposite sides of his core do not connect. Unlike the real buildings.


Now I don't know if you linked to that post about Lurid Larry and Frank Greening dividing the weight of the towers by 110 resulting in every LEVEL supposedly having the same weight. I then used a presumed stack of blocks to show how the weight distribution would change the Potential Energy of a vertical structure. Mathematics is not physics, it is just very useful to physics when all of you assumptions are close enough to correct. Like if components do not get damaged then they do not absorb any kinetic energy and just bounce around knocking other things over which bounce around.......

My washers were not FLOORS and I never called them that. They could not sustain damage if I stood on them. Maybe not even if I could put my weight on the edge. The way you say that it makes me think that you actually understand the model but want to do a hatchet job. The function of the washers was to be the mass supported against gravity and provide the kinetic energy to do destruction in the collapse.

I did not make this response for you. I made it for anyone else in this thread who might have their brains in gear.

You can get yourself a dowel and entertain yourself with it.

 

[Gamolon]

What's Love Got to Do With It? Especially about someone's delusion of a deity?

See after all of your blather you figured it out in the second paragraph.

Where did I ever refer to anything in my model as a CORE?

That is a fixation in your head. Strictly speaking the dowel is not part of the model. It does not move. But to understand why it is there you need to there you need to comprehend why it is needed. My objective was to make a model

AS WEAK AS POSSIBLE but still strong enough to support the STATIC LOAD.

What is weaker than paper? But without the dowel the stack leans to the side. That puts more pressure on one side of the paper loops at the bottom and it falls over. Of course this means that my model cannot do what could possibly have happened to one of the towers. The top falling down the side.

I NEVER call the washers FLOORS.

Mick does that with his silly horizontal pieces.

I said my model is as weak as possible but still support the Static Load. It HAD TO GET STRONGER toward the bottom or the greater number of washers would have CRUSHED the paper loops that were too WEAK. I said AS WEAK as Possible.

Do you suppose any engineers design skyscrapers to be AS WEAK AS POSSIBLE?

Oh sorry, that is not relevant. Must be a Farce!

Since Mick calls his horizontal pieces floors and has vertical pieces in the center that his FLOORS connect to then those verticals are HIS version of a CORE. He is trying to imitate the building. At least in the minds of a not too bright audience. If I remember correctly the CORES in the towers were 85 feet by 135 feet. Less than half in one direction and more than half in the other. Is Mick's CORE even 5% of the width of his model? His FLOORS on the same level on opposite sides of his core do not connect. Unlike the real buildings.


Now I don't know if you linked to that post about Lurid Larry and Frank Greening dividing the weight of the towers by 110 resulting in every LEVEL supposedly having the same weight. I then used a presumed stack of blocks to show how the weight distribution would change the Potential Energy of a vertical structure. Mathematics is not physics, it is just very useful to physics when all of you assumptions are close enough to correct. Like if components do not get damaged then they do not absorb any kinetic energy and just bounce around knocking other things over which bounce around.......

My washers were not FLOORS and I never called them that. They could not sustain damage if I stood on them. Maybe not even if I could put my weight on the edge. The way you say that it makes me think that you actually understand the model but want to do a hatchet job. The function of the washers was to be the mass supported against gravity and provide the kinetic energy to do destruction in the collapse.

I did not make this response for you. I made it for anyone else in this thread who might have their brains in gear.

You can get yourself a dowel and entertain yourself with it.

What are you trying to prove with your model? That a smaller upper section of a construct cannot destroy a larger, lower, section of similar construction?

 

[Gamolon]

My objective was to make a model

Of what?!?!

 

[psikeyhackr]

Of what?!?!

Chop up sentences all you want. You just get boring real fast Gamolon. I have been going back through this thread reading your childishly idiotic ridicule. Maybe I wiil respond when you say something meaningful, if you can do that.

 

[Gamolon]

Chop up sentences all you want. You just get boring real fast Gamalon. I have been going back through this thread reading your childishly idiotic ridicule. Maybe I wiil respond when you say something meaningful, if you can do that.

You can't even explain what your damn model is supposed to represent or what it's supposed to prove?

You say this in your video about Ryan Mackey's concept model:

"...but there is an obvious problem with his concept if it's supposed to be similar to the World Trade Center. His model has multiple levels below the impact point, but he has a solid block falling on those layers. That's not how the World Trade Center was constructed."

You then go on to show your model of the towers to show that Mackey's model of the towers is incorrect. Then you sit here and tell me that your model doesn't represent the Twin Towers in any way?!

Let me see if I understand this. You built a model to show that Mackey's model is incorrect in the way he represents the Twin Tower's construction, but your model doesn't reflect the construction of the Twin Towers? No core, no floors, no connections, etc.

Talk about idiotic...

 

[Gamolon]

I have been going back through this thread reading your childishly idiotic ridicule.

Don't get all high and mighty on me like you've never childishly ridiculed someone. Did your feelings get hurt? I love when truthers say things like this and don't look in the mirror.

Pot, meet kettle.

 

[psikeyhackr]

All we want is a new investigation ○○○or an actual investigation☆☆☆since there never was one.

Who is WE? Shouldn't most engineering schools be able to analyze the physics IF THEY HAD THE DATA. But there are lots of skyscrapers around the world shouldn't some designers be able to make good estimates.

Eiffel didn't have electronic computers in 1887.

 

[psikeyhackr]

I thought you were unclear. The architect designed the airport in Dhahran.. built in 1962. It was beautiful with soaring arches.. a take on a mosque. After 25 years it began to crack.

I was thinking of the Johnson Wax building.

Skylights at Johnson Wax. Built to leak. - Wright Chat

 

[the other mike]

Who is WE?

People smarter than you.

Pop quiz Thurs kids.
Happy Yom Kippur.

 

[psikeyhackr]

People smarter than you.

Pop quiz Thurs kids.
Happy Yom Kippur.

So the potential investigators shouldn't have wondered about how steel has to be distributed in skyscrapers over the last 20 years?

 

[Gamolon]

Maybe I wiil respond when you say something meaningful, if you can do that.

Who cares if you respond or not.

Your model has been shown to be completely useless. You used no specific criteria whatsoever to create your model and have no idea what it's supposed to prove. If anyone wanted to create their own model to test your gibberish, they couldn't.

I'll ask again. What criteria did you follow to build your model and what supposed to prove?

 

[the other mike]

 

[psikeyhackr]

. If anyone wanted to create their own model to test your gibberish, they couldn't.

I'll ask again. What criteria did you follow to build your model and what supposed to prove?

I told you. The model is AS WEAK AS POSSIBLE but still support the static load.

The nice thing about my model is that it is really inexpensive. Two people have told me that they duplicated it. I asked Mick in the comments after his video if the components in his model suffered damage. He said minor damage and mentioned the square cube law. You can check yourself.

Was the tower collapse an elastic or inelastic collision?

In an inelastic collision the masses deform and energy is expended. Mick built his model of parts that are elastic at this scale, they just bounce and do not behave like tons of steel subjected to thousands of tons of pressure.

I tested my paper loops for maximum stress. The reason that there are 11 single loops at the top is that 12 is the minimum number of washers that would crush a single loop and 14 was the maximum it could take. I used the same test method for double loops. I don't know the maximum triple loops could take.

I have you set on ignore so I did not see that you ever asked a vaguely reasonable question. Any reasonable model will have to be somewhat inelastic and sustain damage. But that gets more difficult as the models get smaller because of the square cube law. Perfect models the size of Mick's or mine made of steel and concrete could not possibly collapse because they would be too strong relative to their weight.

Weren't components of the North Tower damaged in the collapse? The pieces of Mick's model were not.

 

[the other mike]

Pop quiz tomorrow morning kids be there or be square