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

[Soupnazi630]

People smarter than you.

Pop quiz Thurs kids.
Happy Yom Kippur.

You are not smarter.

You are dumber than anyopne else on this foruum and proven wrong.

 

[Soupnazi630]

 

[Soupnazi630]

Pop quiz tomorrow morning kids be there or be square

You have already failed the quiz silly boy

You are owned and proven a moron yet again

 

[psikeyhackr]

Why was there so much dust and not plenty of sizable pieces of concrete?

Each one of the standard floor slabs was more than 28,000 square feet of 4 inch thick concrete.

 

[Gamolon]

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

Once again, you didn't answer my questions so I'll ask them yet again. What criteria did you use/follow to create your model?

The nice thing about my model is that it is really inexpensive.

Was this one of the criteria in the guidelines you followed when building your model?

Two people have told me that they duplicated it.

Duplicated it in what way? Did they create the same model you did with a wooden dowel of the same size/wood, the same size/weight/number/material of washers, same size paper loops made of the same type of paper, etc.

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.

So what? What if I used glass "shelving" instead of wood for the horizontal components in Mick's model? Would that suffice for the "components have to be damaged" part of your model criteria? Is there a percentage of the components used that have to be damaged to satisfy the results of your test of what your trying to prove?

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.

It didn't take energy to break the "connections" of his model? Your model didn't expend energy to break ANY connections, just energy to deform a few paper loops. How much energy was used to deform your paper loops versus the amount of energy used to break the connections between components in Mick's model?

I tested my paper loops for maximum stress.

Meaning what? What was the "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.

So your definition of "maximum stress" is the number of washers a paper loop was able to hold up before deforming?

Any reasonable model will have to be somewhat inelastic and sustain damage.

Interesting.

So I could build a model using 2.5 lb. weight plates in place of your washers. Instead of paper loops, I could use 3 or 4 "columns" of toothpicks as supports. I could make each of those "toothpick columns" stronger towards the bottom by taping 3 toothpicks together, then 2 toothpicks higher up, and then eventually 1 toothpick towards the top.

My model would maybe would consist of 3 plates at the bottom with the "3 toothpick columns" between them, then 3 plates with 2 "toothpick columns", then 3 plates with 1 "toothpick columns" between those. Then I could raise the top three plates and drop them onto the bottom structure.

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

Why are you again comparing the North Tower to your model? Is that part of your criteria? That components of the model have to be damaged and not be able to be used to construct a new model? Again, what percentage of the components must be damaged to satisfy the result you are trying to obtain? What ARE you trying to prove anyways? You STILL haven't defined what your theory is what the results of your model are trying to prove.

Here's a link to an egg drop competition PDF that discusses exactly what I'm talking about. It's got an objective, rules, material allowances, etc.
Egg drop competition document

As it stands now, you're pulling rules and criteria out of your ass as you see fit. Hence the "components have to be damaged" rule you've added to Mick's model in order to disqualify it.

I want to build my own model, but I need to know what is trying to be proven and what the design criteria is beforehand.

 

[Gamolon]

Why was there so much dust and not plenty of sizable pieces of concrete?

Each one of the standard floor slabs was more than 28,000 square feet of 4 inch thick concrete.

Why don't you tell us what YOUR theory is as to why? Do you think thermite cutting charges on the core columns created a humongous blast wave at each level that pulverized each floor comprised of 28,000 square feet of 4" concrete?

 

[psikeyhackr]

The description of the model in the pulldown below the video is sufficient for anyone that wants to duplicate it.



Clicking "Show Ignored Content" merely affirms that Gamolon is not worth the effort.

 

[psikeyhackr]

Why don't you tell us what YOUR theory is as to why? Do you think thermite cutting charges on the core columns created a humongous blast wave at each level that pulverized each floor comprised of 28,000 square feet of 4" concrete?

I don't give a damn about theories. I point out to morons that they do not collect the relevant facts to bother speculating about theories.
Duh, do skyscrapers need more steel toward the bottom? Where is the data?

Theories without data are for pseudo-intellectuals with delusions of intellectual adequacy.

 

[psikeyhackr]

Once again, you didn't answer my questions so I'll ask them yet again. What criteria did you use/follow to create your model?

You are too stoopid to comprehend the problem to understand my answer to your question.

We are talking about a structure with multiple levels. It HAD TO BE STRONG ENOUGH TO SUPPORT THE STATIC LOAD.

But to test the possibility of collapse I deliberately made it AS WEAK AS POSSIBLE but still SUPPORT the STATIC LOAD.

So the supports at every LEVEL are AS WEAK AS POSSIBLE.

That is the CRITERION!

Then it was a test to see if it would collapse. The loops had to get stronger to support the static load of MORE WASHERS. The dowel is not part of the collapse model it is necessary to keep the WEAK MODEL from falling over.

Mick's model is dumb because it is trying to model an inelastic collision with elastic pieces that are not damaged but just bounce around.
Weak components that sustain damage are required for what happened on 9/11.

 

[Gamolon]

Once again, you didn't answer my questions so I'll ask them yet again. What criteria did you use/follow to create your model?

You are too stoopid to comprehend the problem to understand my answer to your question.

We are talking about a structure with multiple levels. It HAD TO BE STRONG ENOUGH TO SUPPORT THE STATIC LOAD.

But to test the possibility of collapse I deliberately made it AS WEAK AS POSSIBLE but still SUPPORT the STATIC LOAD.

So the supports at every LEVEL are AS WEAK AS POSSIBLE.

That is the CRITERION!

Then it was a test to see if it would collapse. The loops had to get stronger to support the static load of MORE WASHERS. The dowel is not part of the collapse model it is necessary to keep the WEAK MODEL from falling over.

Mick's model is dumb because it is trying to model an inelastic collision with elastic pieces that are not damaged but just bounce around.
Weak components that sustain damage are required for what happened on 9/11.

So I can use Mick’s model and use glass “shelving” for the horizontal components instead of wood right?

 

[psikeyhackr]

So I can use Mick’s model and use glass “shelving” for the horizontal components instead of wood right?

You can build and test a model of whatever material you like. When I see the video I will consider the appropriate comments.

 

[the other mike]

You are not smarter.

You are dumber than anyopne else on this foruum

Being the one who sticks my neck out against the ones who 'secretly' perpetrated the controlled demolition of 3 skyscrapers on 9/11 the most, you may have a point there .

Soon, three MOSSAD agents are going to come and taser me and my dogs as a warning.

 

[Soupnazi630]

Being the one who sticks my neck out against the ones who 'secretly' perpetrated the controlled demolition of 3 skyscrapers on 9/11 the most, you may have a point there .

Soon, three MOSSAD agents are going to come and taser me and my dogs as a warning.

You dont

Your an nobody and no one earth gives a fuck about you

 

[the other mike]

 

[the other mike]

Biden did it.

 

[Gamolon]

You can build and test a model of whatever material you like. When I see the video I will consider the appropriate comments.

I don't need you to "consider" anything.

You've already gave me the criteria to follow.

I'll use the same model Mick used except I'll use glass "shelving" for the horizontal components. I have no doubt that some/most of the glass shelving will shatter and the construct will completely collapse just like Mick's did. Yet my model will expend energy shattering the glass shelves and breaking connections. Your model only deformed paper loops.

How would you explain why your model didn't completely collapse, yet mine did?

 

[Gamolon]

Once again, you didn't answer my questions so I'll ask them yet again. What criteria did you use/follow to create your model?

You are too stoopid to comprehend the problem to understand my answer to your question.

We are talking about a structure with multiple levels. It HAD TO BE STRONG ENOUGH TO SUPPORT THE STATIC LOAD.

But to test the possibility of collapse I deliberately made it AS WEAK AS POSSIBLE but still SUPPORT the STATIC LOAD.

So the supports at every LEVEL are AS WEAK AS POSSIBLE.

That is the CRITERION!

Then it was a test to see if it would collapse. The loops had to get stronger to support the static load of MORE WASHERS. The dowel is not part of the collapse model it is necessary to keep the WEAK MODEL from falling over.

Mick's model is dumb because it is trying to model an inelastic collision with elastic pieces that are not damaged but just bounce around.
Weak components that sustain damage are required for what happened on 9/11.

I just noticed that you have a major problem with your model based on your own criteria.

You state that the model has to be as weak as possible, but still strong enough to support the static load. Yet you have to add a wooden dowel (which you state is NOT part of the model) to keep it from falling over!



Doesn't the fact that your model falls over show that it WASN'T strong enough to support the static load?!

You're too "stoopid" to understand your own criteria!!!

 

[Gamolon]

The description of the model in the pulldown below the video is sufficient for anyone that wants to duplicate it.



Clicking "Show Ignored Content" merely affirms that Gamolon is not worth the effort.

The more I look into this, the more it looks like you have no clue what you are doing.

Seems like you missed a very important piece in Mackey's video that may explain why your model's collapse arrested. In fact, I KNOW you missed it because you admitted you didn't perform any calculations. You didn't input any of your model's numbers into Mackey's formulas did you?

 

[the other mike]

I find it remarkable that so many Americans never heard of tower 7

 

[psikeyhackr]

I don't need you to "consider" anything.

Why you asked me about replacing Mick's "floors" with glass no doubt.