It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


Wire Model of WTC Bldgs. to Simulate Collapse?

page: 1
<<   2 >>

log in


posted on Sep, 10 2006 @ 07:48 PM
I don't know if anyone has already thought about this, but lemmy give it a try. I just thought it might be too easy, or too complicated or everybody would already have done it (or already has and I just didn't notice), so I never bothered posting this. But today I read a 2-page article in the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung about the various NIST and FEMA explanations for the failure of the WTC structure. It was nothing we don't know already, and nothing that hasn't been discussed and refuted by the sceptics of the "official conspiracy theory" a long time ago.

One thing disturbs me about all this. So far, the collapses have been simulated and analyzed with computer software again and again. The results have been interpreted as proof for the good architecture, since the towers actually did better than the were supposed to.

Now there's no way for the average media believer to check the facts, he's supposed to trust the simulations to be fed with the correct variables.

Some here on ATS and many others don't.

So I just wondered if it would be possible to obtain some numbers like the excact amount of steel and iron in each of the towers and the weight of the towers in total. And if we could bring together enough expert knowledge, ideas and opinions to answer the question whether it would be possible to build a small scale model of one of the towers with normal wire plus additional weight; and which issues we would have to consider.

Of course models are a difficult thing. A model is only an exxagaration of reality, so we have to focus on what we want to simulate. Certainly, there are many open questions that still are discussed and, for some, not answered thoroughly (smoke puffs, inward collapse, impact damage, weakening temperature of steel, iron pools etc). One of the most important ones is: did the weight of the upper floors really smite the whole tower's structure as if between the hammer and the envil? Most arguments pro and con are accompanied by something like "that's basic science", "this is trivial", "it's a fact." What's science? In school, most of us have been told to verify what our teacher tells us by experimenting ourselves. Let's show what we have learned.

How small can the model be? What do we expect? What materials should be used? How close to the original must the architecture be copied? Do we expect that all core colums have been weakened by the heat or just those close to the burning impact zone? How do we simulate the initial failure that started the collapse? What do we have to consider if we minituarize a macroscopic, but fragile object like the once-largest building in the world - espacially the ratio of structural stability to its weight?

I don't know if it's worth a try, maybe this idea is totally nonsense, but I've been thinking about this again and again and wondered if anyone else is curious whether even a fragile paper version of this model would be smashed if you let a medium-sized bible fall on top of it... or if it would just bend a few foors... or if it only works if you use some other holy scripture.

I apologize if some of you feel it's discourteous to bring up this topic on the fifth anniversary of the day that brought so many people so much pain. But it is only today that all the coverage on the anniversary in all newspapers and on TV just broke over me like a wave of whys. And some of the answers still can't satisfy.

[edit on 10-9-2006 by Akareyon]

posted on Sep, 10 2006 @ 07:51 PM
The blueprints of the WTC buildings are not public so its not possible for outsiders
to test their computer (distorted)simulated collapses...

posted on Sep, 10 2006 @ 07:59 PM
I know it sounds a bit far-fetched... but there's a lot we know and that is public knowledge even without the blueprints - we know how many core columns there were, how many floors, how thick some of the steel was... aren't there a few minimum and maximum numbers that we can estimate or deduce? Is it worth the research, math and work?

[edit on 10-9-2006 by Akareyon]

posted on Sep, 10 2006 @ 08:04 PM
Yeah, the construction drawings are under lock and key, for (from what I've heard, at least) "national security" reasons.

  • No one has actually ever done an accurate modeling of any of the collapses.
  • NIST did a computer simulation of fires but failed to confirm their hypotheses, ie failed to initiate an entire floor's failure as observed on 9/11.
  • NIST never released their parameters for these tests, so they cannot be reproduced.

posted on Sep, 10 2006 @ 08:07 PM
You know, I've wondered if we could try to test a similar structure that we know is weaker.

For example, we take a theoretical structure, make it have 47 core columns, make it have all the perimeter columns, the corner columns, the spandrel plates, the trusses, and the reinforced mech floors, and then try to make it collapse like the Towers did.

We can assume the fires had already done enough damage (just for the sake of argument), and we can intentionally make all of the columns weaker than they actually were whenever we lack specific information.

I would like to see someone do this and try to get a single collapse like we saw on 9/11, from either a Tower or WTC7.

posted on Sep, 10 2006 @ 08:18 PM
BSB, that's exactly what I mean. I'd even leave the trusses away and conceive a little mechanism to let the upper floors slam down on the rest of the tower with the acceleration of the height of one floor. Let's be as pessimistic as we can be concerning the stability of modern steel archtitecture. I mean, if buildings are really THAT fragile, I want to live in a tent. But this is only my personal view; as we are trying to be scientific, let's approach this as objectively as possible. Especially the hard core debunkers should be happy to provide their thoughts on this to ensure maximum objectivity (or whatever you call it) :-)

[edit on 10-9-2006 by Akareyon]

posted on Sep, 10 2006 @ 08:42 PM
I don't know; concrete slabs DO pancake, even if they would dramatically pause after each impact from momentum transfer. Taking out the steel trusses under each floor slab may be going a bit too far in giving advantages to the official theory.

posted on Sep, 10 2006 @ 08:45 PM
Well, the plans are unavailable as has been said, and scaling opens the project up to about a gazillion avenues of criticism, even if done right. Personally, I really appreciate Gordon Ross' theoretical approach, but have to concede it's not useful for convincing Joe Schmoe.

When was msdos64 last seen round here? He was doing real-life experiments, if only to prove pancaking was viable.

posted on Sep, 10 2006 @ 09:59 PM
So can people generally have access to the floor plans to most buildings? Could i access the floor plans to the empire statebuilding or anything like that if i wanted to?

posted on Sep, 10 2006 @ 10:17 PM
Do you think we could contact the Myth Busters and see what they come up with? I know it might be controversial to do this, but is there a way we could get these guys to do it? They seem like the type that would... but, what do i know, i'm just spouting out an idea, thats all.

posted on Sep, 10 2006 @ 10:27 PM
In my opinon, a model wouldn't work. There would be too many control factors and variables in the experiment. I say the best way would be to reconstruct the towers and crash planes into them. But that of course is strictly fiction.

posted on Sep, 10 2006 @ 10:51 PM
I'd like to know why the blueprints are locked up if thats true. I mean the buildings arent standing anymore so there's no danger of say someone getting ideas from them on how to do damage, and if anything it might allow engineers, architchets, even firefighters etc.. learn things that could save lives and prevent similar incidents

posted on Sep, 10 2006 @ 11:07 PM
There is a lot involved but it could be done with some programming and opengl. The complicated part is the physics with an almost infintesinable amount of fragmentations and particulates generated.
We know the basic structure of the tower, that was already enough for the souless killers to carry it out. First constructing the towers with known elements of steel and concrete components you could build the model. Next step is inflicting the damage to start the timer on losing structural integrity on several floors over time due to heat from burning contents. Initial deformation occurs which allows the outer perimeter wall to buckle exceeding the load stress on the inner columns. This drops the upper structure onto the floors below sheering the floor joists away from the perimeter wall causeing that floor to give way while peeling away the outer wall. At this point mass takes over with kinetic energy cascading the entire structure. A desent desktop could run a simple simulation with simple geometry and some simple physics math applied to give believabilty to the simulation. To truely simulate this would require a server farm.

If someone were to take on this project what would it be used for?

posted on Sep, 10 2006 @ 11:23 PM

Originally posted by AlabamaCajun

If someone were to take on this project what would it be used for?

To build better buildings that don't fall down as easily, and to find the truth about what happened on 9/11

posted on Sep, 11 2006 @ 12:33 AM
A real model would be A LOT easier than a computer regeneration. A computer simulation is also not as rigorously subject to actual laws of physics as a real-life model would be.

We wouldn't have to build something exactly like the WTC Towers. We would only have to build something with a similar structure, that's also weaker and that would be more prone to what we were told collapsed the real WTC Towers.

In these regards, Jim Hoffman has had something called the Progressive Collapse Challenge for months, if not years. No one has met it yet.

[edit on 11-9-2006 by bsbray11]

posted on Sep, 13 2006 @ 06:43 PM
If you don't know this one yet, watch it now: the World Trade Center Towers

Peace be with you!

I strongly believe that even had the fires weakened the steel, the steel (only in the hot floors of course!) would merely have bent slowly, maybe tipping the top of the towers a bit, if things went really wrong let it slide down, but NEVER crashing down on the base, with only this impulse, making it look like somebody from beneath the earth was pulling the rooftop through hundreds of meters of steel on a long string. It's just a feeling that the structure was not that feeble.

We would only have to build something with a similar structure, that's also weaker and that would be more prone to what we were told collapsed the real WTC Towers.

You are very right. Okay, let's be very generous then. What we need then is a roughly cylindrical object, and it has to be weaker than the original. Good! The original towers crumbled, so our object will have to fail too! Still, it must be strong enough to withstand minor impulses: wind, maybe even a small „earthquake“. Let's say it shouldn't fall to pieces by merely staring at it menacingly.

In short, we will have to find some material and a very basic way of copying that architecture: a core, and a perimeter wall. These were allegedly responsible for sensible stability of the towers. Fine.

It must be possible to lift the top ¼ of the object up. When we let it drop from a certain height (let us find a very generous way to simulate the impulse ( = mass * velocity; verlocity can be derived from earth g = 9,81 m / s² [generous because it assumes the columns have „disappeared“ instead of bent])), it must smash the whole model beneath it.

Logically, it now depends on only a few parameters wether it succeeds or not: is the top heavy enough? Is the structure strong enough? Does it fall fast enough (dependent on height only, not weight)?

I must admit ignorance on some of these subjects. For example: How do we measure stability in physics? I know there are a few engineers here who could help us out on this. It is totally okay if we have to make some very generous estimations here. We wanted to be generous.

What else is important? The density, i.e. the ratio of weight to volume? It may be useful. Do we have to make estimates on the weight of the towers? The volume should be easy, I bet I'd find the height and length of them if I weren't too tired to google already – 'll do tomorrow).

In the meantime, try to build that model in your head. Visualize it. If you play guitar with steel strings, take a piece of string and try to bend it. It's easy, right? Cut it in half and notice it getting harder to bend the shorter it gets. We're not surprised. Try to imagine it being so short that it fits the original weight/height/width ratio of the perimeter wall segments. Watch the video again for reference, and take into consideration that the original segments were hollow. Now try to imagine our model being made of such „guitar string segments“ (that'd be a lot of glueing). Reduce it to 20 or so floors, a small segment. For the core columns, let's generously assume the thickness of small paperclips or a needle. And for the trusses, let us do a lot of weaving – with a thin string of silk. I hope that's generous enough.

How large would the segment be now? As big as your room? Hardly. Your table? Maybe.

Now ask yourself: how heavy would any object have to be that we let drop on top of our beautiful model segment to flatten it totally?

Very heavy? Try a few things in your mind – a book, a loudspeaker... does it work? Or does it just deform here and there, bend maybe? Try something heavier, your PC, for example. Be generous.

I really wonder if it's just me or if I'm making wrong assumptions.

[edit on 13-9-2006 by Akareyon]

posted on Sep, 15 2006 @ 06:04 PM
I'm sure you're all aware of the computer models on youtube?

It's a re-enactment of the collapse, not a sequential model if that is the correct term.

But perhaps one could be made from those models.

posted on Sep, 15 2006 @ 10:29 PM

Originally posted by Shroomery
I'm sure you're all aware of the computer models on youtube?

Yeah, we should be generous in terms of those things, but not so generous as to make this stuff probable.

Jim Hoffman's challenge seems fair, in my opinion.

It would also seem fair even if a much stronger independent core structure is added to any models. After all, the Towers had them.

posted on Sep, 18 2006 @ 11:39 PM
Anyone interested in the technical details of building this model on a computer this is what I've estimated until I dig further into the general plans. This is a rundown of the graphic/structural elements totaling from 250-300 per floor in a simple model.

Each floor above lobby includes (estimated) 88 truss joists, 47 interior columns, decking and 3 - 4 inches of lightweight concrete. Using data from the NIST reports we can estimate the loading capacity of the load bearing columns and number of webs, this changes from bottom to top. Including 80-90 cross support girders in the core block. To model the perimeter wall I will use the 19 columns of panel sections that span three floors in an offset interlocking grid and corner sections. Each panel consists of 3 box columns and three spandrels.

The whole design will consist of modeled objects with mostly line and fills using OpenGL for visual.
Engineering will start with simple conditions for max loading, applied deadload to start. This will be to prove the undamaged structure was capable of staning. I'm not a structural engineer so the physics will be more mathmatical for effect. Then using a feature in the programming, I will apply the damege to structural elements similar to NIST reports. At this point the structure should still remain standing. All columns will have to update loads and take on loads from damaged or severed neighbors. At this point the second feature of the program would apply distortion to remaining columns until failure again using the NIST info for heat parameters. At failure the cascade should begin by moving down the framework applying weight of collapsed sections onto sections below. This from that data should mean the loss of floor trusses (lateral bracing) leaving unsupported columns which in turn overstress and fail. This is where the data will show that the lateral brace girders in the main load bearing columns failed and caused the columns in turn to fail.

Ideas welcomed, I will be monitoring this thread for ideas of modeling, load dispersion and equalization. I'll post progess as it moves along. I ask that we use the other threads for the explosives arguments as we are just looking for the science here. I may not be able to get an accurate model nor enought data to get anymore than a representation of a simple demo for observation. Either way if it works, it should be interesting to watch.

Current status:
Main elements for a tower identified such as interior columns, wall column panels, shafts, main lobby tree columns, floors, floor joists, cross girders, floor decking, windows (for effect) and corner column panels.

Currently modeling floor joist and interior columns.

posted on Sep, 19 2006 @ 12:28 AM
Considering NIST couldn't even get a computer sim to work (ie, support their conclusions), I don't think that'd be the best route to take. If anybody could do it fairly, surely they would be able to.

I've seen others on the net attempt programming modeled collapses, and they always make bad assumptions, like all of the mass fell straight down, all floor resistances came only in 12.5-foot intervals as per the trusses, etc.

My only suggestion would be this for a computer model: it should recreate the collapse features almost exactly. About 90% or more of the mass should land outside of the footprints. The cores should sink straight down after the perimeter/truss failures. The collapses should not slow down as they descend.

If you're going to be that thorough, you might as well get something useful out of it.

new topics

top topics

<<   2 >>

log in