It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Progressive Collapse Challenge

page: 1
1
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 17 2005 @ 02:58 PM
link   
This is a challenge that's being presented by 911Research.com. You can find the challenge as they present it here.

Basically, the challenge is to recreate a progressive collapse (the name given to the kinds of collapses unique to only WTC 1, 2, 7, and the Murrah Federal Building).

You can build a model using whatever you would like. Your objective is to meet the five requirements, which go from easiest to hardest, should they be possible at all by given explanations.

The Challenge:


THE PROGRESSIVE COLLAPSE CHALLENGE

The challenge is in 5 parts, from the easiest to the most difficult.

All five require building a structure that will undergo top-down progressive total collapse -- i.e.: when disturbed near the top, it will collapse from the top down to the bottom, leaving no part standing. The disturbance can include mechanical force, such as projectile impacts, and fires, augmented with hydrocarbon fuels. Explosives and electromagnetic energy beams are not permitted.

Your structure can be made out of anything: straws, toothpicks, cards, dominoes, mud, vegetables, pancakes, etc.

The designers of the Twin Towers were able to meet all 5 challenges using steel and concrete.



CHALLENGE #1:

Build an upright structure that will undergo progressive collapse.

CHALLENGE #2:

Build an upright structure with a square footprint and an aspect ratio of at least 6.5 (6.5 times as high as it is wide) that will undergo progressive collapse.

CHALLENGE #3:

Build a structure as required by CHALLENGE #2 which, in the collapse process, will throw pieces outward in all directions such that at least 80% of the weight of the materials ends up lying outside of the footprint, but their center of mass lies inside the footprint.

CHALLENGE #4:

Build a structure as required by CHALLENGE #2 which is also capable of withstanding a 100 MPH wind without collapsing. The structure has to be closed in the sense that it cannot allow air to pass through it.

CHALLENGE #5:

Build a structure that meets the requirements of both CHALLENGES #3 and #4.


This needs to be reproducible. That's the whole point here. If these kinds of collapses are really such imminent threats to buildings, they should certainly be easy to reproduce.

If you can submit unadultered video clips of each challenge, being met, then we'll consider the challenge (and thread) met. If you can do it, and submit to us how, so that we may reproduce your results, then you're at least giving us something to amuse ourselves with and try individually.

Good luck (and I would say you really will need it)!




posted on Aug, 17 2005 @ 04:26 PM
link   
electromagnetic beams!!!!
u know that aint fair not to add those as well to the disturbance on how the towers collapsed. i could try it. but then i have to go to some store and steal a couple of straws. or maybe i can just walk into a fast food restaurant and take some straws and toothpicks.

[edit on 17-8-2005 by deltaboy]



posted on Aug, 17 2005 @ 04:46 PM
link   
Isn't this exactly what the NIST did using computer models?

They didnt use straws and toothpicks so it's bunk?

NIST Section 6.6.2


Under contract to NIST, Leslie E. Robertson Associates (LERA) constructed a global reference model of
each tower using the SAP2000, version 8, software. SAP2000 is a software package for performing finite
element calculations for the analysis and design of building structures.
These global, three-dimensional
models encompassed the 110 stories above grade and the 6 subterranean levels. The models included
primary structural components in the towers, resulting in tens of thousands of computational elements.
The data for these elements came from the original structural drawing books for the towers. These had
been updated through the completion of the buildings and also included most of the subsequent,
significant alterations by both tenants and The Port Authority. LERA also developed reference models of
a truss-framed floor, typical of those in the tenant spaces of the impact and fire regions of the buildings,
and of a beam-framed floor, typical of the mechanical floors.
LERA's work was reviewed by independent experts in light of the firm's earlier involvement in the WTC
design. It was that earlier work, in fact, that made LERA the only source that had the detailed knowledge
of the design, construction, and intended behavior of the towers over their entire 38-year life span. The
accuracy of the four models was checked in two ways:

• The two global models were checked by Skidmore, Owings and Merrill (SOM), also under
contract to NIST, and by NIST staff. This entailed ensuring consistency of the models with
the design documents, and testing the models, e.g., to ensure that the response of the models
to gravity and wind loads was as intended and that the calculated stresses and deformations
under these loads were reasonable.

• The global model of WTC 1 was used to calculate the natural vibration periods of the tower.
These values were then compared to measurements from the tower on eight dates of winds ranging from 11.5 mph to 41 mph blowing from at least four different directions. As shown
in Table 6–3, the N-S and E-W values agreed within 5 percent and the torsion values agreed
within 6 percent, both within the combined uncertainty in the measurements and calculations.

• SOM and NIST staff also checked the two floor models for accuracy. These reviews
involved comparison with simple hand calculations of estimated deflections and member
stresses for a simply supported composite truss and beam under gravity loading. For the
composite truss sections, the steel stress results were within 4 percent of those calculated by
SAP2000 for the long-span truss and within 3 percent for the short-span truss. Deflections
for the beams and trusses matched hand calculations to within 5 percent to 15 percent. These
differences were within the combined uncertainty of the methods.


The worlds best computer modeling and prediction software isnt proof enough?

Sections 6.6.3 Show parts of the modeling, Section 6.6.4 show the effects of the impacts, Section 6.7 shows the modeling of the aircraft..

Hasnt this all been done before? Or is it that the results don't show your goal so instead, you're challenging people to prove a negative?

[edit on 8/17/2005 by QuietSoul]



posted on Aug, 17 2005 @ 05:19 PM
link   

The worlds best computer modeling and prediction software isnt proof enough?


What part of "reproducible" didn't you understand?

Go download the program, plug in all the info you need, and then reproduce their results and post them here, explaining to us the whole process so we might do the same ourselves. It doesn't matter how you do it, as long as it is an accurate recreation of the collapses and can be repeated. You did take middle school science, right? And know what the scientific method is, and the importance of repeatability?


Again, good luck.

Maybe you can finally explain those squibs while you're at it.



posted on Aug, 21 2005 @ 02:13 AM
link   
So has anybody got the computer simulations to work, following in NIST's footsteps with SAP2000? Or maybe recreated the scenario physically with a model, maybe?

How about it, DeltaBoy? You tried it yet?



posted on Aug, 22 2005 @ 12:46 AM
link   
I did, I've actually downloaded sap and tried to make a wtc tower.
I don't have to mention that I didn't get very far to replicate the tower exactly, but I was able to create a 110 story building and put some stress under it, together with a heighthened temperature of about 3000°C of some of the upper floors, just to see what would happen, Ofcourse the program doesn't show a progressive collapse, only the steel buckling outwards, instead of inwards. This is probably caused by the pristine interior and absence of the central columns.
I still have to figure out how to span successive events accross a timeline.

Still need to plow trough the manual but if I figure something out that is worth nothing I'll show it together with some screenshots.



posted on Aug, 22 2005 @ 01:24 AM
link   
Some infor on the computer modeling

www.mishalov.com...



posted on Aug, 22 2005 @ 01:53 AM
link   
After the 1st world trade center tower collapsed ....

Your scenario was reproduced, when the second world trade center collapsed.

reproducible?

build another wtc tower.



posted on Aug, 22 2005 @ 01:59 AM
link   
Nice, Shroomery!


Be sure to keep us updated, man. I don't think the sorry state of my computer would allow me to run SAP, so I'm especially curious as to how it'll go since I can't try it for myself until I get a new comp.

From the way the program works, do you think it would be possible to set up a progressive collapse yourself, event by event, or does the program show you the whole collapse as it would actually happen?



posted on Aug, 22 2005 @ 02:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by Esoteric Teacher
After the 1st world trade center tower collapsed ....

Your scenario was reproduced, when the second world trade center collapsed.

reproducible?

build another wtc tower.


You don't get the point.


Not reproducible = you can't recreate it yourself with models or accurate simulations.

After all, we're not asserting that one tower came down naturally, and the other was demolished. What sense would that make?


The fact that you can't reproduce these collapses with models, and that only four of them apparently have ever occured throughout history, and that those four were all controversial events (OKC Bombing, 9/11), the bs meter in my brain would be making some noise if I were you. If it's so easy for them to occur, we shouldn't have that much trouble reproducing them outside of computer models from government "labs."



posted on Aug, 22 2005 @ 03:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
Nice, Shroomery!


Be sure to keep us updated, man. I don't think the sorry state of my computer would allow me to run SAP, so I'm especially curious as to how it'll go since I can't try it for myself until I get a new comp.

From the way the program works, do you think it would be possible to set up a progressive collapse yourself, event by event, or does the program show you the whole collapse as it would actually happen?


Trust me it's not very smooth here either, especially when working with 110 stories, so I scaled it down in a couple of tests.

I'm not sure if the program allows to show a collapse event by event, that's why I need to dig through the manual, as of now, I just apply forces, materials, heat, then analyze it.

I then get a bunch of numbers and afterwards it shows the building in a state with those forces applied. I took some extreme temperatures just to see if it would actually show a collapse, or if it's just a graphical representation of the forces working in on the structure and not necessarily the entire effects.

I first want to be able to reproduce an actual collapse, no matter how much force I have to apply, just to know if the software is actually capable of showing it.

When I do, I'll be sure to post it.



posted on Aug, 22 2005 @ 06:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

You don't get the point.


Not reproducible = you can't recreate it yourself with models or accurate simulations.

After all, we're not asserting that one tower came down naturally, and the other was demolished. What sense would that make?


The fact that you can't reproduce these collapses with models, and that only four of them apparently have ever occured throughout history, and that those four were all controversial events (OKC Bombing, 9/11), the bs meter in my brain would be making some noise if I were you. If it's so easy for them to occur, we shouldn't have that much trouble reproducing them outside of computer models from government "labs."


Catherder is right, BSB, you are a troll.

A number of the best and brightest engineers and scientists this country has to offer spend countless hours working with the latest cutting edge computer and software technologies to accurately model the buildings and yet you complain that it is not reproducible because you can't do it on yourself on your e-machines Best Buy special.




Be patient, given the general pace of the growth of computer technology, you should be able to do this on a home computer some time in the next 5 years.



posted on Aug, 22 2005 @ 07:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark

Originally posted by bsbray11

You don't get the point.


Not reproducible = you can't recreate it yourself with models or accurate simulations.

After all, we're not asserting that one tower came down naturally, and the other was demolished. What sense would that make?


The fact that you can't reproduce these collapses with models, and that only four of them apparently have ever occured throughout history, and that those four were all controversial events (OKC Bombing, 9/11), the bs meter in my brain would be making some noise if I were you. If it's so easy for them to occur, we shouldn't have that much trouble reproducing them outside of computer models from government "labs."


Catherder is right, BSB, you are a troll.

A number of the best and brightest engineers and scientists this country has to offer spend countless hours working with the latest cutting edge computer and software technologies to accurately model the buildings and yet you complain that it is not reproducible because you can't do it on yourself on your e-machines Best Buy special.




Be patient, given the general pace of the growth of computer technology, you should be able to do this on a home computer some time in the next 5 years.



Computer sims can prove any out come the user wishes and especially when information is estimated to fill in the areas which are unatainable.
Did they ever do a sim for a demolition? i'm sure they could re-create that with much more ease (in fact i bet they did exactly that before 9/11 so they could place the charges in, ooo, say a week?)

Since the original WTC plans are not allowed to be viewed by anyone, it makes it hard to come out with a valid computer sim when information is missing from the begining and your WTC plans are a copy of "undated" plans supplied by FEMA, delayed for release after the event (as credited in the 9/11 Comission report).

Of course, when you have a bogus theory that needs to fit a story, you would alter original plans and supply your own new undated version so all government investigation is made a lot easier. Might leave the original engineers of the building saying it should of withheld but what do they know right?? The only real engineer with a worthy voice of opinion is the one that agrees with the government!

Detonition is much easier to explain as the cause. The only thing stopping people walking through that door is the disbelief their government would do that. Get over that and Occams Razor, usually a debunkers favourite fallback excuse, is the most logical explanation. Much more than see-saw post-event engineering hypothesis that needs to make a computer sim of their own guess work to convince themselves it could possible because all other logic and even history says it's impossible. If it was an uncontested fact that the government WOULD do this and patriotism didn't exist, the debunkers would NEVER allow a conspiracy stand that suggested muslims could achieve that result with planes, it would never happen, they wouldn't even accept the intelligence and defense failures to let it get to that point!

Spend more time focusing on the easiest way to bring those buildings down, ie. Bombs and look at the political, financial and global reasons for this day and you'll get the idea. The plane attack was the destraction so the cameras had a nice big hollywood explosion, just like Terrorists in Bruce Willis movies, something we could relate too. Understand the business and the politics which are flowing right now because of 9/11, realise the rewards for that attack happening. Add to that equation the fact that we are heading towards an energy crisis and put two and two together....

When there's an energy crisis affecting the population, the population will turn on the government and make it responsable when the cost of EVERYTHING goes up and fuel for their cars drains their pay cheque each week so they can get to work in the first place. When people can't afford to keep up, they'll get desperate and desperate people cause crime to increase. The governments need an excuse to legally introduce new laws which can restrict the populations freedom so they have more control when things get desperate.

First step, make a biometric database of everyone that should be here. If they won't comply or shouldn't be here, lock them up and make them work or send them to another country. When you know who is in your country, you can start fencing them in, herding as farmers call it.

What better way of acheiving this than by encouraging small groups that have always existed, to becoming large groups which you can give a name, a figure head and some key words and promote as being anyone, anywhere at anytime in any country!

The double edge sword is the fact that this enemy also lives ontop of the power shift the energy crisis will generate across the world, what a perfect excuse for entering that land. Who ever holds the depleating supply, controlls demand and becomes powerful. Why spend trillions investing in free energy when you can bleed the fossil dry, make money and gain national and global power at the same time?

Sure people will die, but hey, the world is over-populated anyway right?
They certainly won't come after you will they??
You'll be spared right?

Wait, what's the prerequisites for not having to live under Big Brothers thumb??



posted on Aug, 22 2005 @ 12:04 PM
link   
Nicely put Shroud. The problem is that none of this is ever shown in the media.
There are many intelligent people in the US talking about this. Take Noam Chomsky, you can say he made it his life goal to inform the people of what is really happening without even touching the so called 'conspiracy theories'. Alas, most of the people who should be listening to his stories often don't want to take the time or effort to sit through one of his readings.
Not to mention that most of the people who try to speak up are often kept silent in a very subtle manner, just don't give them any attention, this is very easy when you control the media.

The effect of that is that the only FREE media left in the country is so marginalized and narrow that it is automatically percieved as source of false information. If 10 people tell the same story, and one person tells another, who are you gonna believe ?



posted on Aug, 22 2005 @ 05:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark
Catherder is right, BSB, you are a troll.


Coming from you, dear Howard, that's just priceless.



A number of the best and brightest engineers and scientists this country has to offer spend countless hours working with the latest cutting edge computer and software technologies to accurately model the buildings and yet you complain that it is not reproducible because you can't do it on yourself on your e-machines Best Buy special.


Not the best "the country has to offer", rather the best the government has offered. Important difference.


But the critical difference you're missing here is that NIST produced models and simulations of the buildings and the planes in order to describe the impacts, the fires and the loads and stresses on the structure. Did they even produce a simulation to describe the global collapse at all, and not just a truss failure? If so, please point it out to me, I'd love to see it, with all that concrete turning to dust and pieces of steel flying everywhere. And even if they did, I'm sure they didn't produce a simulation that could reproduce:
  • Entire collapse to the bare ground of all three buildings, WTC1, 2 and 7.
  • Snapping of the large majority of the steel beams into 12 foot lengths.
  • High-energy jettisoning of the steel beams and aluminum covers up to distances of 600 feet.
  • Pulverization of all of the concrete into



posted on Aug, 23 2005 @ 12:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark

Catherder is right, BSB, you are a troll.


Cowardly.


Howard, I suppose you still let on the fantasy that the squibs were caused by compressed air that, magically, does not equalize.

And my last posts on what has unofficially become CatHerder's Pentagon thread are still completely unaddressed as well. Instead of responding, he calls me a troll.

. . .

You could at least admit that you do not know what caused the squibs, Howard, insteading of posting such nonsense as air that does not equalize as it shoots across floors hard enough to blow solid debris over a hundred feet out into the sky. Or CatHerder could admit that what he alleges to be wing damage can not possibly be by the fact that wings are mostly below the fuselage of a 757, and yet his theory would require the exact opposite be true. (And just to be clear, I'm still not sure what happened at the Pentagon on 9/11, but that doesn't mean I can't pick up on b.s. when I read it.)

But no! Instead of addressing such info, you two just call me a troll and leave it at that. Deny ignorance my foot. It's becoming disgusting.


Originally posted by HowardRoark

A number of the best and brightest engineers and scientists this country has to offer spend countless hours working with the latest cutting edge computer and software technologies to accurately model the buildings and yet you complain that it is not reproducible because you can't do it on yourself on your e-machines Best Buy special.


Hmm.. Disinfo tactics... #2..


2. Become incredulous and indignant. Avoid discussing key issues and instead focus on side issues which can be used to show the topic as being critical of some otherwise sacrosanct group or theme. This is also known as the 'How dare you!' gambit.

Example: 'How dare you suggest that the Branch Davidians were murdered! the FBI and BATF are made up of America's finest and best trained law enforcement, operate under the strictest of legal requirements, and are under the finest leadership the President could want to appoint.'

Proper response: You are avoiding the Waco issue with disinformation tactics. Your high opinion of FBI is not founded in fact. All you need do is examine Ruby Ridge and any number of other examples, and you will see a pattern of abuse of power that demands attention to charges against FBI/BATF at Waco. Why do you refuse to address the issues with disinformation tactics (rule 2 - become incredulous and indignant)?"


Well, Howard,

You are avoiding the issue of the collapses on 9/11 being unreproducible with disinformation tactics. Your high opinion of NIST is not founded in fact. All you need do is examine the aspects of collapse such as the squibs, the perfect symmetry of collapse and speed, the utter destruction of concrete, etc., and you will find collapse characteristics related to controlled demolition and not gravity-driven collapses. Why do you refuse to address the issues with disinformation tactics (rule 2 - become incredulous and indignant)?

Also, I might add - why resort to weakly trying to discredit me by calling me a troll?


The challenge, of course, is that anyone reproduce a progressive collapse as they occured on 9/11. The challenge was discussed in the first post. It still stands. I'm not surprised that you raise hell over it, but unfortunately for your case, it has yet to be met, and I doubt that it ever will be. Hell, I'll even accept computer simulations, as long as they're based accurately in physics and instructions for reproduction are provided.

So, put up or shut up?


[edit on 23-8-2005 by bsbray11]



posted on Aug, 23 2005 @ 06:32 AM
link   
Bull,

The computer simulations are completey reproducable. Whats more is that you can play with them and tweak various variables as much as you like. That is what they did at NIST.

wtc.nist.gov...

I challenge you to do better, or to at least prove that the the NIST models are inacurate.



posted on Aug, 23 2005 @ 07:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark
The computer simulations are completey reproducable. Whats more is that you can play with them and tweak various variables as much as you like. That is what they did at NIST.

wtc.nist.gov...


Rubbish. "What's your major malfunction, soldier?" Those models, as I already stated, project impact damage from the planes, and wind load on the structures. Nowhere do they reproduce, project or show collapses, let alone collapses with all the phenomena that I listed (+ the squibs, thanks bsbray). Just in case you missed them, here they are again:
  • Entire collapse to the bare ground of all three buildings, WTC1, 2 and 7.
  • Snapping of the large majority of the 36-foot steel beams into 12 foot lengths.
  • High-energy jettisoning of the steel beams and aluminum covers to distances of up to 600 feet.
  • Pulverization of all of the concrete in the structure into



posted on Aug, 23 2005 @ 06:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark
Bull,

The computer simulations are completey reproducable.


Have at it then! Quit telling us about how possible you think it is and show us.



posted on Aug, 23 2005 @ 09:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by wecomeinpeace

Not the best "the country has to offer", rather the best the government has offered. Important difference.



It only makes a difference to people who suffer from an excess of dopamine in the limbic system.

I suppose you have better engineers on your side of the argument? Please present them.



Originally posted by wecomeinpeace
Snapping of the large majority of the steel beams into 12 foot lengths.


Wow, first it was 30 foot lengths, then they were 24 foot lengths, now they are 12 foot lengths. Please present detailed data showing that the majority of the columns and beams were snapped into 12 foot lengths. It doesn't count if the bolted connections on either end of a prefabricated length of steel failed, you have to show that one or both of the ends was "snapped."


Originally posted by wecomeinpeace
  • High-energy jettisoning of the steel beams and aluminum covers up to distances of 600 feet.


  • Given the forces involved, why do you find it hard to accept that some of the debris was thrown out as the steel warped, twisted and bent when the massive bulk of the building collapsed? Also, give that he buildings were well over 600 feet high, the distance that the debris traveled doesn't seem that far to me.


    Originally posted by wecomeinpeace
  • Pulverization of all of the concrete into




  • top topics



     
    1
    <<   2  3  4 >>

    log in

    join