Welcome back. As I recall you participated in (and perhaps even started) a thread on this exact same subject months ago, complete with questions about the “exact distribution of concrete and steel” and videos of a bit of dowel with some washers on it which were supposed to accurately model the behavior of a couple of 1000+ foot tall skyscrapers. I can’t find the thread but the questions were thoroughly answered. Perhaps someone with better search skills (or with the time to wade through some of the WTC threads with 25+ pages of posts) can throw the links up.
As with Ivan Astikov’s questions wouldn’t it be far simpler to refer back to the previous discussions with their excruciatingly detailed responses and if there’s actually something new to discuss to raise those points? Otherwise we just wind up responding to the same question with the same factual answer every so often - not that you necessarily said this but something along the lines of “Steel doesn’t melt at 1000F” doesn’t change the 17th time somebody asks about it.
ETA - Ah, I see that you just reposted your youtube video of your model which is nifty if you’re discussing how that model behaves but has little to do with how a building behaves.
Let me explain. Cube, square. That is, a material’s weight increases by volume, which is length x height x width. But a material’s strength increases with cross-sectional area, or width x length.
So if you have a block of a material, the strength of the block changes with the size of the block, it does not remain constant. If you have a block that is 1 ft x 1 ft x 1 ft, it has a certain strength. If you make a block that is 2 ft x 2 ft x 2 ft, that block is 4 times as strong, but 8 times heavier. See how that math works? That means the larger block has half the strength of the small block. And this is why you can build a model of a skyscraper with tinkertoys, but you can’t build a real skyscraper with giant tinkertoys. And tests against the model skyscraper will give different results than if you ran the same tests against the real skyscraper.
If a perfect 1/100th scale model of the WTC was constructed then it would be 13.6 feet tall. The 36 ft box columns would be 4 inches long. But because of the inverse square law it would be 10,000 times as strong in proportion to its mass as the real building. It could not possibly collapse.
So any small physical collapse simulation would have to be constructed of different materials to reproduce what SHOULD HAVE HAPPENED in a true collapse.
What could I use weaker than paper but strong enough to support the weight? The washers are 1.7 oz. The total weight is 3.5 lb. The top 11 loops are singles, the next 17 are doubles and the bottom 5 are triples. The entire model can be built for less than $30 and it can be redone as many times as the experimenter wants to make paper loops.
I guess it is too difficult for our engineering schools, including the one I attended.
But it cannot be made more accurate if the distribution of mass of the towers is not correct. I am certainly not going to believe we have correct info if we haven’t even been told the weight of a standard floor assembly. There were 84 of them in each tower.
You need to replicate the arrangement and attachment of the beams to solve the strength-with-weaker-materials problem. That’s the whole point of architecture - overcoming weakenesses in the materials by clever arrangement thereof. So get started - and don’t forget the 1/100th scale rivets.
And rememember, as you’re collecting your 1/10000 strengh material analogues for steel, concrete, plaster, wood, etc - that these materials also need to alter in rigidity and strengh in a manner analogous to the original materials when set on 1/100th scale fire.
It’s utterly and completely inaccurate and completely worthless as a model of the collapse, but at least it’s cheap!
Not without computer models, anyway - but it’s understandable. 1/100th scale materials are notoriously rare.
Similarly, you cannot even be confident that the towers even collapsed, without those precise measurements. After all, what if it turns out the floors were too light/heavy/both after all? Then clearly the towers must still be standing - or at least it’s impossible to be absolutely sure they aren’t, due to the uncertainty introduced by the unknown floor weights.
Also, was there, or was there not, a rubber duckie in the lav on the 44th floor, and if so, how much did it weigh? The unknowns here are innumerable and of staggering import.
When I was younger, friends would often tell stories that tiptoed between truth and fiction. These often were constructed so as to confuse or to get a rise out of the listener.
The trouble with computer models is that you have to trust the math and the code and it would be extremely difficult to track down an error either deliberate or accidental. So it really comes down to trusting the people that made the computer model. Computer models are really funny when they have obvious stupd errors. Look at that Purdue simulation of the north tower impact. Skyscrapers sway in the wind. How could the plane impact without the core columns moving. The NIST hasa graph of the oscillation of the south tower due to impact but Purdue says the north tower didn’t move.
ROFLMAO
So much for computers.
My model moved.
But where has ANYBODY made a self supporting physical model where the top 15% can destroy the bottom 85% with a drop of less than 10% of the height. If it can’t be done then something else had to be involved in the destruction of the WTC.
As I recall you really danced around the “engineering school” question in the first thread where you posted your model until finally admitting that you had no actual education in structural engineering or materials science.
I’ll say the same thing now that I said then:
Your model shows how your model behaves. It does NOT show how an actual building behaves.
Do you really think that every structural engineer out there is going to look at your model, slap their head and say “My goodness, that’s how we should have been analyzing buildings all along”?
Either you’re talking nonsense, or Bazant is talking nonsense. Oddly enough, all of the people out there who actually design and build skyscrapers for a living don’t have the problem you do with Bazant. Which means you’re either the single most brilliant engineering mind on the planet, or you don’t know what you’re talking about.
That is about as convincing as me moving my arm back and forth. That model doesn’t move anything like a skyscraper. Even the WTC’s wind sway wasn’t anything close to the amazing elasticity of your model, and your objects bounce off the surface instead of breaking up inside them and exploding.
Are you joking? Are you suggesting the towers WEREN’T hit by airplanes?
