A scale model of the Twin Towers

Shrinker

Graduate Poster
Shrinker
Joined
Oct 25, 2004
Messages
1,441
I've been wondering this for a while. Perhaps someone with the relevant education can help me with it. Ultimately, perhaps it would be a good way to discuss this with the CD theorists.

Suppose we had an imaginary 1:100 scale model of the twin towers (41cm high) to demonstrate how the collapse occurred. What would we make it out of?

My guess is that 1:100 scale model would have 1/1,000,000th of the weight of the real thing, but if we used concrete and steel for the components, those components would be 1/100,00th as strong as the real thing. Therefore, our scale model would be 100 times more structurally sound than the real thing. Am I right about that?

If so, what materials could be 1/100th as strong as steel and concrete but with similary density? I'm thinking something like chalk and wax, but even chalk seems too strong.
 
You've already demonstrated a better grasp of the problem that the CTists are likely to ever develop. You know that material weight and strength both scale differently. Before you can get a CTist to understand why a model made of different materials is a good reprenstation you will have to get them to comprehend that first thing about scaling of weight and strength.
 
Yeah, but I'm not really trying to model it, just trying to find a way to discuss it, so that everyone understands how fragile a skyscraper really is.
 
Shrinker said:
Yeah, but I'm not really trying to model it, just trying to find a way to discuss it, so that everyone understands how fragile a skyscraper really is.
Click to expand...


Indeed. In retrospect, I'm very impressed and surprised that the WTC towers didn't come down immediately when the airliners hit them.
The energy in such an impact is massive.
 
B-Man said:
Indeed. In retrospect, I'm very impressed and surprised that the WTC towers didn't come down immediately when the airliners hit them.
The energy in such an impact is massive.
Click to expand...

Although a plane crash is focused into a much smaller area, wind loading (for New York winds) on a building that size is actually a larger amount of energy.
 
kevin said:
Although a plane crash is focused into a much smaller area, wind loading (for New York winds) on a building that size is actually a larger amount of energy.
Click to expand...


True, but wind energy doesn't do massive damage to a large number of structural supports of the skin and core of the building, not create extensive fires.
;)
 
B-Man said:
Indeed. In retrospect, I'm very impressed and surprised that the WTC towers didn't come down immediately when the airliners hit them.
The energy in such an impact is massive.
Click to expand...


The survivor accounts of the building swaying after the impact are really quite staggering (no pun intended). In a lot of floors furniture and people were thrown all over the place - not my impact itself, but by the oscilation of the towers.

-Andrew
 
Shrinker said:
I've been wondering this for a while. Perhaps someone with the relevant education can help me with it. Ultimately, perhaps it would be a good way to discuss this with the CD theorists.

Suppose we had an imaginary 1:100 scale model of the twin towers (41cm high) to demonstrate how the collapse occurred. What would we make it out of?

My guess is that 1:100 scale model would have 1/1,000,000th of the weight of the real thing, but if we used concrete and steel for the components, those components would be 1/100,00th as strong as the real thing. Therefore, our scale model would be 100 times more structurally sound than the real thing. Am I right about that?

If so, what materials could be 1/100th as strong as steel and concrete but with similary density? I'm thinking something like chalk and wax, but even chalk seems too strong.
Click to expand...
you are correct---
Remember the old "Square-Cube law"?
Stiffness and strength are a function of the area, mass a function of volume
but gravity (and resultant energy) do not scale very well. Energy is a function of velocity, and velocity is a function of distance. You'd have to do the testing in a centrifuge...
 
rwguinn said:
you are correct---
Remember the old "Square-Cube law"?
Stiffness and strength are a function of the area, mass a function of volume
but gravity (and resultant energy) do not scale very well. Energy is a function of velocity, and velocity is a function of distance. You'd have to do the testing in a centrifuge...
Click to expand...

Well, no I don't remember the square-cube law. I don't think I was ever taught it. Thanks for confirming my thoughts though. I'm a little more confident in discussing this with the kooks now.

And by the way, obviously I meant a 415cm high model...:o (Thanks to lurker Bell who pointed out my blunder)
 
You know, I've always wondered why my 1/72 scale model airplanes wont take off at 2 mph :D (even though the weight is about right - 2 ounces).

Does the air need to be 72 times denser, gravity 72 times weaker?
Am I a moron for asking this? :confused:
 
B-Man said:
Indeed. In retrospect, I'm very impressed and surprised that the WTC towers didn't come down immediately when the airliners hit them.
The energy in such an impact is massive.
Click to expand...

You see that's really the important point of it all.

I've seen people go on ad nauseum about the WTC having a poor design that allowed them to collapse when the exact opposite it true. It's truly a testament to the qualityof the design that they stayed up as long as they did after such a massive catastrophic event.
 
Supposedly, NIST already created a computer model of the towers . Can we all agree that they should release it?

a) It was paid for by US taxpayers, and ought to be public property.
b) scientific method requires repeatability and verification by independent scientists

How about a bipartisan (CT's and OCT's) call for NIST to release their model? Otherwise, I'm curious to hear reasons why they should continue to keep it secret.
 
TruthSeeker1234 said:
Supposedly, NIST already created a computer model of the towers . Can we all agree that they should release it?

a) It was paid for by US taxpayers, and ought to be public property.
b) scientific method requires repeatability and verification by independent scientists

How about a bipartisan (CT's and OCT's) call for NIST to release their model? Otherwise, I'm curious to hear reasons why they should continue to keep it secret.
Click to expand...

The people at NIST are apolitical. They are scientists.

Besides, you are talking about an hypothetical computer model that may or may not even exist. You're basically accusing the NIST of being involved in your Grand Conspiracy on absolutely nothing.
 
paralis bamboozled
The people at NIST are apolitical. They are scientists.

Besides, you are talking about an hypothetical computer model that may or may not even exist.
Click to expand...

The people at NIST are selected and paid for by the executive branch of the US government. It is not reasonable to assume they are apolitical.

It is NIST which says they made a computer model, and their conclusions are based upon it. What are you talking about paralis??
 
TruthSeeker1234 said:
paralis bamboozled

The people at NIST are selected and paid for by the executive branch of the US government. It is not reasonable to assume they are apolitical.

It is NIST which says they made a computer model, and their conclusions are based upon it. What are you talking about paralis??
Click to expand...

First off Truthseeker, it's pardalis.

Do you think all postmen are politically biased just because they are paid by the government? How many scientist are funded by the government do you think? Are they all guilty by association as well?

Also, where did you learn that the NIST had a computer model of the towers they kept a secret?
 
TruthSeeker1234 said:
.

It is NIST which says they made a computer model, and their conclusions are based upon it. What are you talking about paralis??
Click to expand...

What would be the point of releasing it to the public?

I strongly suspect that it's not anything that you could run on your home PC under Windoze...
 
sorry to misspell your name Pardalis. I got the idea that NIST created a model upon which they based their conclusions because NIST stated that they created a model upon which they based their conclusions.
 
TruthSeeker1234 said:
sorry to misspell your name Pardalis. I got the idea that NIST created a model upon which they based their conclusions because NIST stated that they created a model upon which they stated their conclusions.
Click to expand...

I don't think it was a full model, at least from what I've seen in the report. They focused on the impact floors.

Besides, even if they did have a full 3D tower model, why would it matter to you?
 
Timble wondered
What would be the point of releasing it to the public?
Click to expand...

I have answered that. Repeatability is required for science. Without repeatability, it is not science. Right everyone? Will anyone go on record here and say that independent repeatability is not required for sceince?
 
Suppose einstein had simply claimed "there is an equiavlence between mass and energy trust me!". Would we have believed him? No. He released his equation, E=mc2, and other scientists made predictions based on that, which were then confirmed experimentally. Only then did Einstien's idea become accepted.
 
What would be the point of releasing the computer model? Who on your side is qualified to interpret it?

Exactly the same thing would happen to this data as all the other data released. Some armchair amateur will get a hold of it, find some item that seems anomalous to the layperson, and publish that as evidence of fraud. Just look at what happened to the Flight 77 FDR data.

If that fails, there's an easy fallback. Computer models require data. If you don't like the outcome of the simulation, claim the data is false.
 
TruthSeeker1234 said:
Suppose einstein had simply claimed "there is an equiavlence between mass and energy trust me!". Would we have believed him? No. He released his equation, E=mc2, and other scientists made predictions based on that, which were then confirmed experimentally. Only then did Einstien's idea become accepted.
Click to expand...

Suppose someone were to claim Europe didn't exist. What would be the point of giving them a London Underground map?
 
TruthSeeker1234 said:
Timble wondered

I have answered that. Repeatability is required for science. Without repeatability, it is not science. Right everyone? Will anyone go on record here and say that independent repeatability is not required for sceince?
Click to expand...


Since you cut off the rest of the post. The point was what's the point of releasing it if it's something that no-one can run on their home PC?

Now, if say the University of Podunk had a computer capable of running the simulation and asked to use it for a research program, and NIST refused then you could probably legitimately ask whether it should be released.

Has anyone who's capable of using it asked if they can see the model?
 
There were several models. Some for modeling fire, others for modeling structural forces.

The fire models were:
  • Eight floors were modeled in WTC 1 (92 through 99) and six floors were modeled in WTC 2 (78 through 83). Each floor was modeled separately, since examination of the photographic collection indicated little evidence for floor-to-floor fire spread in the short times that the towers survived. Heat conduction through the floors was included.
  • Detailed floor plans were available for the eight modeled floors in WTC 1 and the 80th floor of WTC 2. For the remaining floors in WTC 2, the layouts were estimated from the architectural drawings of the core space and from recollections by Port Authority staff and workers from the
    tenant spaces.
Click to expand...
Note: detailed floor plans mean partition/desk layouts. This was for modeling available fuels.
 
Yes, repeatability is a hallmark of the scientific method. See

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

Shrinker querried
Who on your side is qualified to interpret it
Click to expand...

It isn't about "sides", it's about science. Science requires repeatability. There are many engineers, on all "sides" who would like to have a look. Who else wants to go on record as stating that repeatability is not needed for science. This is going to be great. Kent, you around? Mackey??
 
The NIST doesn't seem to have a full scale model of the towers. Why don't you make one yourself?
 
Arkan has sent us a computer drawing of a plane sticking out of a grid. Arkan, should NIST release their computer model, or not? Do you argee or disagree that correct science requires independent verification?
 
Yes, in addition to the petition which has been signed by thousands, I personally have requested from NIST that they release the model. No response. I personally requested that Jonathan Barnett obtain them. He did not answer.

I'd like to get answers from all of you alleged science-minded people here on this educational forum.

SHould NIST release the model that they claim to have made? If not, why not?
 
Yes, repeatability is essentail in science. But what would be the point of using the same computer model in your repeated experiments? That's like videotaping an experiment and playing it back in different labs. Correct me if I'm wrong here but if you want to check NIST's findings you need to run your own unique experiment. In the case of computer simulation that means going back to before the creation of the model. You need to go back to the raw data and create your own model. Don't you?

BTW, yes I believe they should release it, if it's 100% public property, which it might not be. But, it will serve no purpose whatsoever, so I guess it's a cost/benefit thing.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom