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.

 

"Progressive collapse" challenge: 4+ years and still no takers

page: 1
6
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 12 2009 @ 11:27 PM
link   
This is an open challenge, open to anyone who believes the WTC Towers collapsed under their own weight after only fire and impact damages. It has been around for at least 4 years to my knowledge but I have yet to see a single model of the collapses that satisfies it. It is based on plainly observed facts.


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.


911research.wtc7.net...


Challenge #5 can be completely ignored until someone gets that far, as far as I am concerned.


To reiterate:


The challenge is simply to build a model structure, any model, that can

a) undergo a progressive collapse,

b) is at least 6.5 times as tall as it is wide,

c) 80% of the debris has to land outside of the footprint (which is square).


The requirement, that the model be able to withstand 100 mph winds, something about that does not sound right to me. I agree it's important to remember that the WTC buildings themselves could support significant lateral loading, hurricane-force winds even, so that they were NOT just a literal house of cards, but I'm not as certain that the force would scale to the building materials effectively. Like I said, I doubt anyone will even manage to get to part 5.



People always say the reason NIST never modeled the global collapses, or attempted to analyze them in any way whatsoever, was because the collapses were much too complex to analyze. Well here is a way to reproduce things that both WTC Tower collapses accomplished, in a simple way yet in a way that simultaneously proves that all of these features are indeed possible!

And also to reiterate, it still has yet to be accomplished. I think, because it is impossible, because there was more to the collapses than just fire and plane impacts. But I would love to be shown any model that accomplishes these things.



So can anyone come up with any sort of model at all, that undergoes progressive collapse while shedding at least 80% of its mass to outside of its footprint? It's been some number of years and the answer appears to be NO.


No evidence that a building can withstand a progressive or 'pancake' collapse while still meeting this condition, because the theory and the facts contradict each other. This theory says most of the PE/KE (mass) went to crushing the building below, while facts tell us that the clear majority of the mass was being ejected outwards. And apparently no one can demonstrate that both are possible simultaneously. This is not surprising to me, like many other people, because the theory was counter-intuitive in light of this information in the first place.



Edit to add, Bhazant, Greening and others did an energy calculation that assumed so much mass was lost over the sides of the buildings as they collapsed. They were not able to allow the ~80-90% mass ejection indicated by photographs of Ground Zero without throwing their calculations off and giving collapse times longer than reality. So they assumed a much smaller amount of mass was ejected, suggesting that 50% or more of the total mass of either tower was STILL in its footprint when it was done collapsing. So here we even have theoretical/mathematical evidence to support the idea that ejecting so much mass and still maintaining a "progressive collapse" is impossible, aside from the fact that no one has been able to physically demonstrate it in the simple terms provided on this thread. Bhazant, Greening, etc. had to assume half of each building was still within its footprint, among a lot of other hairy assumptions, just to get a theory to work out on paper. Red flags should be going up for anyone who likes theories to fit with the actual data...

[edit on 12-8-2009 by bsbray11]




posted on Aug, 12 2009 @ 11:43 PM
link   
I have a challenge for you.

1. Take control of 4 planes full of fuel.
2. Fly them in any way you see fit into two skyscrapers of similar design to the WTC.
3. Destroy the buildings any way you see fit.
3. Do it while the world is filiming and watching.
4. Crash a plane or blow it up in mid air.
5. Crash a plane into the pentagon while its full of people.
6. Make all the people listed to be in the planes disappear forever.
7. Do all of this within an hour or two of one another.
8. Make sure nobody on the team of people behind this ever told anyone about it.
9. Leave no irrefutable evidence of your crimes.



posted on Aug, 12 2009 @ 11:43 PM
link   
DP.

[edit on 12-8-2009 by HotDogNoBun]



posted on Aug, 12 2009 @ 11:49 PM
link   
reply to post by HotDogNoBun
 


Ok, well my personal challenge to you is to either tell me how that satisfies the OP, or to go start your own thread.

I understand there are things you don't understand about 9/11, but there is a point to this thread and you missed it by a long shot.



posted on Aug, 13 2009 @ 12:08 AM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


Hi i did some research into this about a year ago and after a long time searching i was able to find at least 1 good (IMO) example of that kind of collapse.

This one is not the best example youll be able to search out more.


The challenge is simply to build a model structure, any model, that can

a) undergo a progressive collapse,


b) is at least 6.5 times as tall as it is wide,


c) 80% of the debris has to land outside of the footprint (which is square).


I doubt i could build it though , do i still win ?



[edit on 13-8-2009 by VitalOverdose]

[edit on 13-8-2009 by VitalOverdose]



posted on Aug, 13 2009 @ 12:50 AM
link   
reply to post by VitalOverdose
 


Ok, you get 2 and 1/2, what about the center mass?

Now will it withstand 100 MPH winds?

No?

Oh, well keep looking then.



posted on Aug, 13 2009 @ 01:08 AM
link   
reply to post by breakingdradles
 


my mom will be so proud.


I dont know what finding this means. Maybe it could mean that there were no bolts holding everything together at the time the towers collapsed. I mean because its the only example of that kind i could find when i went looking a while back.

I always said that finding out this bit of info led to more questions than it answered. Im not trying to use it to prove any personal beliefs.

[edit on 13-8-2009 by VitalOverdose]



posted on Aug, 13 2009 @ 01:10 AM
link   
reply to post by VitalOverdose
 


I did specifically point out that the WTC Towers weren't a literal house of cards, to be fair, and the original challenge excludes them too since they have so little strength for lateral loads. But good effort in the video anyway.



posted on Aug, 13 2009 @ 01:27 AM
link   
lol..to be fair you stated ANY model. you cant have it both ways.

like you said there is no lateral strength..so maybe thets the key here.



posted on Aug, 13 2009 @ 01:48 AM
link   
Maybe a good starting point for the final challenge is not being able to blow it down, blowing on it as hard as you can. Nowhere near a 100 mph wind but still takes SOME strength to hold the structure together (unlike card houses).



posted on Aug, 13 2009 @ 08:12 AM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


your right but i think you might be missing the important point here.

I spent a LONG time looking for any kind of pancake collapse and this was the only example i could come up with. That would indicate that whatever happened to the towers must have some link to the way a card house is setup.

You correctly identified the cause to be no lateral strength in the structure so that would indicate that the same conditions must have been present on 911 in the WTC towers. But like you said the building couldnt stand without lateral strength during high winds. So this would indicate that something happened to the overall integrity of the towers on that day.

[edit on 13-8-2009 by VitalOverdose]



posted on Aug, 13 2009 @ 03:12 PM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


Maybe you should ask "the Amazing Randi"?

Kidding. Second line.



posted on Aug, 13 2009 @ 06:29 PM
link   
I'd get together a group to do it as soon as troofers get together and post a say, $5 milion bond to construct it.


That shouldn't take too long now, should it?



posted on Aug, 13 2009 @ 06:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Joey Canoli
 


I think it would be a lot easier just to make a small-scale model with just a little strength holding it together.



posted on Aug, 13 2009 @ 06:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

I THINK it would be a lot easier just to make a small-scale model with just a little strength holding it together.



IOW, you know nothing about scaling issues.

Correct?



posted on Aug, 13 2009 @ 09:15 PM
link   
reply to post by Joey Canoli
 


No, I understand the scaling issues, but are you trying to say we should have a literal house of cards as a scale representation of the towers? You don't think anything is wrong with assuming that?



posted on Aug, 13 2009 @ 09:26 PM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


No.

TM idiots want a real structure built.

Fine. Pay for it.



posted on Aug, 13 2009 @ 09:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by HotDogNoBun
I have a challenge for you.

1. Take control of 4 planes full of fuel.
2. Fly them in any way you see fit into two skyscrapers of similar design to the WTC.
3. Destroy the buildings any way you see fit.
3. Do it while the world is filiming and watching.
4. Crash a plane or blow it up in mid air.
5. Crash a plane into the pentagon while its full of people.
6. Make all the people listed to be in the planes disappear forever.
7. Do all of this within an hour or two of one another.
8. Make sure nobody on the team of people behind this ever told anyone about it.
9. Leave no irrefutable evidence of your crimes.



Awe how cute, he joined just so he could become a debunker. Ignore button.


Anyways, something I found interesting that I had never noticed before is that 80% of the debris landed outside the footprint.

Ok, ok. So official story, the top of the building crushed down, well then all of that weight shot every direction but down... so how did the bottom 30 storeys get pulverized into dust? And the 47 core columns split into kindling?



posted on Aug, 13 2009 @ 09:29 PM
link   
reply to post by Joey Canoli
 


Alright, good for them. So do you have anything to add about any scale models that have a little more internal strength than a house of cards does?

[edit on 13-8-2009 by bsbray11]



posted on Aug, 13 2009 @ 10:04 PM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 



Yeah.

Get your money together.

Then maybe somebody will take the challenge seriously.



new topics

top topics



 
6
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join