Missed the edit window (didn’t seem to be 5 minutes to me), but as a follow up I wanted to insert this into my second paragraph on models and the collapse:
You simply need to know what the average load is on load bearing members (which the architects had and were in the original plans for the building), then show that under a specific event (say, oh, due to direct fire) they would lose sufficient structural integrity to deform sufficiently to begin collapsing. They had the average loading of the members. They knew and could model the range of heat possible due to the projected fires. They knew the tensile strength and failure point at which the steel would begin to deform due to fire, both protected and unprotected members. And they could plug in approximate weights of the total load above where the progressive collapse happened (again, from the original plans and submissions by the architects and engineers for the building, as well as the as built addendum). Not only that, they had film OF THE COLLAPSE AS IT HAPPENED. And they had the actual architects (including the lead architect who has signed off on these models) and engineers.
What do you have, again? Some links and your gut feeling that you need that level of minutia?
Well, I did specify “Evil” in my description. Do you consider “idiotic propagandists” in thought experiments “Evil”?
But seriously… that’s your response? “Oh, they only contained 10,000 gallons of jet fuel, not 24,000”?
You do understand the question had nothing to do with the amount of fuel in the plane but was more focused on the fact that you saw the exact same thing happen, twice, but still doubt the validity of what you saw.
Again, it was a science experiment, reproduced. We have enough evidence, overwhelming evidence, as much evidence as we can ever get (since there’s no third tower), that if you slam a plane into a building with the WTC’s design, it can collapse. There really should be no question here, other than filling in the details.
Good job on avoiding the issue though! I bet it made you glad that you had something pedantic to pick on.
I did up thread. I provided both the NIST report about WTC 7 and a YouTube video that showed their model being used. It’s not my fault that you don’t understand how models work and think that you are some sort of expert on this stuff.
As I’ve said, they don’t NEED to know the exact amount of concrete in the building to be able to model stuff like this. It’s like saying you need to know temperatures from every square foot of the earth to model climate change, or that you need to know every atom and its alignment to model a nuclear explosion. Models don’t work that way. All they really needed is what I told you…what’s the average loading on the load bearing members? Got that (from the original architects and engineers, the plans and as built addendum). What’s the tensile strength of the load bearing members? Got that. What’s the failure point of those members? Now, scale test the members for deformation at various temperatures over different time scales to see when they would lose 10% of their strength. 20%. 50% 75%. Now, calculate, based on the average load at what point the beam would deform sufficiently to fail. Wrap all of that up in a computer model, plugging in the required information.
That’s it. That’s all you need to model an event like this. It’s not going to tell you which beam went first…or how many angels stood on the head of a pin in the building and what effect they had. Forensic analysis might tell you which one went first, but it might not. But you then run your model against the actual footage. Does it show what happened? If yes then you are pretty close. If no then you need to figure out why. The NIST model DOES conform pretty well to what actually happened.
I’m sure you aren’t going to get this or believe it, but we are at a basic impasse at this point. No one is going to have what you want or think is necessary to convince you. Any additional evidence I can present is going to get the same handwave from you. So, there is no real point in continuing this. Was there anything else you wanted to discuss, or is this the sum total of your argument?
It was like we were watching this on TV as it occurred, but that must be fevered dreams. Given the complete lack of visual, audio, and scientific evidence and the fact that only one plane hit one tower, I can see the confusion here.
By my quick calculations, a 16-acre roughly rectangular area to be enclosed would be about 275 yards on each side, or 1100 yards of length. If it’s 20 yards tall and one yard thick, that’s 22,000 cubic yards in the slurry wall. There was probably a lot more in the underground area underneath the entire complex.
Reminds me of a line from one of his stories: “Intelligence is the diamond and intellectualism only the facets. I’ve known many a beautifully faceted rhinestone.”
Ah, sorry…the original discussion was about the mysterious WTC 7 collapse since it wasn’t hit by a plane and how could it have collapsed, oh my oh my. I didn’t see you shift the goal posts. Um, there are lots of models about both WTC 1 and 2 collapse. I didn’t even know that this was much of a mystery except to those who think it was fairy ninjas using magical explosives. However, it’s going to be the same thing. I can post some models of the North Tower collapse, but it’s going to be the same thing as the WTC 7 NIST report (in fact, that’s what I’d post first) and their model for the collapse. One was used in that NatGeo special I mentioned earlier (I don’t remember whether it was WTC 1 or 2 at this point). There are also several university models of both towers propagation collapse. They aren’t going to have the exact weight of the concrete, however, just what I’ve already told you is actually needed. Should I bother posting some links to those things, or is your argument about needing those exact weights still in force? Because I don’t see the point in posting stuff you’ll just handwave away, since you obviously feel you are making some point and it’s just making my eyes roll every time you bring it up.
