NIST doesnt release their computer models (now they've done it!)

[T.A.M.]

The debris, as it hit the ground, became, effectively, the new "ground" for the debris above it to hit, and so on...come on man, this is common sense.

TAM

 

[Totovader]

Interesting link for you tabuere, found on google...

Take a look

http://www.uwgb.edu/DutchS/PSEUDOSC/911NutPhysics1.HTM

TAM

Hey, this guy stole my idea!

 

[slugmancs]

Yeah, If you want, but it must past the test, and for me, there's many leak in the theory and NIST play with the word to make sure we will accept their version.

Wait, you have a valid critique of NIST that presents facts to dispute it (without ad homs)? I believe many people here would love to see it.

 

[T.A.M.]

tabuere...did you read the info in the link I gave you? What do you think of what he has to say. he answers your questions.

TAM

 

[Totovader]

There's was testing made, I don't say that. But there was no real simulation with a scaled copy of the wtc, probably they've done that with a computer model, but a computer model depend of the math behind it and the data you provide to the model.

And i'm sure none of em take in consideration that most of the concrete will be blown in dust and small rock. The momentum of this debris falling is really different then the momentum of 10 floors falling in one solid block.

Scale models are not used in structural engineering for entire buildings because they provide no valid data. The forces at work on LARGE SCALE buildings are different forces than in scale models.

Structural engineers use computer models- plain and simple. If you don't believe me, ask any one of them. We have a few of them, here.

 

[NBachmann]

tab:

I suspect that the majority of the "powder" you see while the tower is collapsing, is from the gypsum wallboard. I suspect that while, obviously there was some pulversizing of the concrete during the early stages of collapse, most of the "pulverization", occured near the end of the collapse, from the concrete hitting the ground.

TAM

This does not look how you describe

 

[tabouere]

read what I said again. Your reply makes no sense, and does not counter what I have said in the slightest.

TAM

A pile of rubbles is not a solid ground, there's a lot of space of air in that.

If a floor of concrete fall in a pile of rubbles at a speed less than 9 m/s according to Greening, it won't break in powder as it hit the pile of rubbles, it will probably break, but not in small rocks like that.

Because the movement of the piles of rubbles will absorb the shock.

 

[Par]

This does not look how you describe

In what ways would those pictures look different if they did depict what TAM describes?

 

[tabouere]

Scale models are not used in structural engineering for entire buildings because they provide no valid data. The forces at work on LARGE SCALE buildings are different forces than in scale models.

Structural engineers use computer models- plain and simple. If you don't believe me, ask any one of them. We have a few of them, here.

I know that, the resistance and the force we will not be the same, but it's a good method to test how the building will react.

 

[T.A.M.]

This does not look how you describe

how can you tell. The upper portion is hidden by the smoke/dust, from about 3-4 seconds into the collapse. because you cannot see it, does not mean the top section, in some form, is not still falling,

...and I am not saying that the entirety of the top section reaches the ground in tact...far from it, I am merely saying that it is not pulverized early in the collapse, but rather much later in the collapse, and a substantial part of it likely was obliterated by it hitting the ground, or underlying debris.

tab, you still havent answered my initial question, of what you think happened to the concrete, or was that "little help" comment your answer?

TAM

 

[Totovader]

I know that, the resistance and the force we will not be the same, but it's a good method to test how the building will react.

Look at what you just said.

If the resistance and force will not be the same, and structural engineers do not use scale models because of that obvious fact, then why would it be a good method to test how the building would react?

Think about what you're saying, please.

 

[tabouere]

Sorry Dude, I have to leave to work, it's fun to talk with people who are able to do something else than insulting.

And i'm sorry too for my english.

 

[T.A.M.]

Sorry Dude, I have to leave to work, it's fun to talk with people who are able to do something else than insulting.

And i'm sorry too for my english.

You are welcome. being civil always helps. Most of us here try to be that way, despite the craziness of some of the theories brought to us here.

TAM

 

[kookbreaker]

Scale models of buildings are pretty much useless for anything other than determining the effects of wind flow in multi-building environments. They are useless for determining fire spread, structuring failures, or anything else.

This is another useless demands by troothers.

 

[tabouere]

Look at what you just said.

If the resistance and force will not be the same, and structural engineers do not use scale models because of that obvious fact, then why would it be a good method to test how the building would react?

Think about what you're saying, please.

Look, the test is simple, really simple, do a(many) scale model of the building with the same architecture and materials than cut the upper part and let's see what happen when it fall on the lowest part.

It's like the computer model, it's not reality but it's an aproxymation.

Why you focus on the detail?

Do you think shatered concrete can make building fall?

Take look at the photo of the rubbles

http://www.time.com/time/photoessays/shattered/2.html

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Do I say wtc was vaporized?

I say the big part of it weight was concrete, this web site say it's was about 80% of the weight of the WTC but I think he's wrong. A mass of 2400 kg/m3 is too heavy. But it don't contradict me, it's show what i'm talking about.

http://www.uwgb.edu/DutchS/PSEUDOSC/Image127.jpg

The concrete was blown in powder and small "rock". Powder, small rock and steel beam falling don't bring down a building completly.

Unsubstantiated opinion noted.

 

[beachnut]

The ground is below, not on top of the rubbles.

You should study the WTC before talking about the WTC. Do you have any idea how thick the wall board was on the core steel in the WTC? Do you have any idea how friable the insulation was on the underside of the WTC steel sub floor supports? Did you know lots of samples of dust had glass fibers in them? Did you know the ceiling tiles contain glass fibers, do not forget the window were pulverized by during each 250 tons of TNT collapse energy events turning the glass into dust, the ceiling tiles to dust, the wallboard to dust, the insulation to dust?

Did you know the main floor on most floors were light weight concrete?

Did you know the wallboard also has material that is chemically concrete?

What is your conclusion and what facts have you to support them? My conclusion is all truther are lacking facts, and you have none to support any ideas you can come up with that are from the 9/11 truth movement. What do you have on 9/11 and why? Tell us your conclusions and facts please?

 

[tabouere]

Scale models of buildings are pretty much useless for anything other than determining the effects of wind flow in multi-building environments. They are useless for determining fire spread, structuring failures, or anything else.

This is another useless demands by troothers.

It's was not for a wind effecttest , but for an impact test.

My point is really simple, but believers(the people who always insult peeps who don't believe what they believe) can't understand it.

NIST model is theory, speculation based on simulation and "law of physics" not fact or proof.

And powder and little rocks don't bring down building.

 

[Totovader]

Look, the test is simple, really simple, do a(many) scale model of the building with the same architecture and materials than cut the upper part and let's see what happen when it fall on the lowest part.

It's like the computer model, it's not reality but it's an aproxymation.

Why you focus on the detail?

Do you think shatered concrete can make building fall?

Take look at the photo of the rubbles

http://www.time.com/time/photoessays/shattered/2.html

This is not an answer to my question.

In order to build a scale model which would glean any useful information as to your question, the scale would have to be 1:1 and cost just as much- if not more- than the towers themselves.

We focus on the details because according to you, the details are unimportant- yet it's those details that are proving that your statements are invalid, and your thinking is erroneous. You cannot simply dismiss details because you do not like them.

In one breath you concede that the scale model of WTC would not provide any useful information as to how it reacts with these forces, and then in the next breath you will demand that it be done anyway. That's not rational.

 

[kookbreaker]

It's was not for a wind effecttest , but for an impact test.

As I said. Scale models are useless for anything besides wind modelling. What part of 'useless' do you not get?

My point is really simple, but believers(the people who always insult peeps who don't believe what they believe) can't understand it.

So we should make a model that won't work?

NIST model is theory, speculation based on simulation and "law of physics" not fact or proof.

Except for all that practical application that computer models have been used for everyday things.