Your model isn't wrong because of its behavior. It's wrong because it's mathematically wrong. You can't scale gravity or the strength of materials. This isn't just something I'm claiming, or saying without backing up my claim. It's straight up mathematically proven. You were so close with this: You were right on the cusp of understanding the problem with your model. Why can't you figure out how to build a model of your model? Why does your design model of the behavior of the WTC, but you can't figure out how to build a smaller model that behaves the exact same way? On a related subject: What do you think happens to the strength of your paper loops if you reduce their scale, but cut vertical slits in the tube? (Like the drum of a zoetrope) Does that become a something that is weaker than paper?
Let's see you get Jenga blocks to damage themselves with the fall of their own mass. Are you saying components of the north tower were not damaged according to the official story of the north tower collapse? Moe "talk" on your part. psik
I never claimed my model was scaled. But strength of material can be tested relative to the static load it must support which is what I did. We already discussed scaling gravity. It is not my fault you were not smart enough to think of a centrifuge, of great physicist. You can put your models in a centrifuge and test them if you want. But as soon as you do that you must make them stronger to support the greater static load created by scaling gravity upward, so you will accomplish nothing. Scaling it downward would be a more difficult trick. psik
I demonstrate that my model behaves as any gravity only collapse should behave for a vertical structure capable of supporting its own weight, assuming it has crushable components. Of course a structure with more components will have more complicated details. I left my model standing for three days before the test. The WTC stood for 28 years. If it could be designed in the 1960s why can't we be given accurate data on the tons of steel and tons of concrete on every level 50 years later? So people claiming complete collapse was possible want to blame it on the open office space design but usually fail to say much about the horizontal beams in the core. The length of horizontal steel in the core had to be about 2.5 times as much as the vertical steel. Wouldn't that conduct heat? So how could fire make the south tower give way in less than one hour? Can a Jenga stack crush its own pieces when it collapses? But then Jenga is played by pulling pieces out below the top, Supposedly that is not what happened to the WTC. psik
the weight of the steel rebar and lightweight concrete and floor pan is very easy to figure out the total weight..i gave you the formula somewhere in the section here,..the size of the building 201 feet by 201 feet..
ah.... so they were solid slabs and people must have climbed out the windows of one floor and into the window of the next floor to go to the top. seems inconvenient to me
What a completely stupid and unnecessary post. Was there actually a reason you posted that, or do brain farts transfer directly to your fingers. Nevermind, I already know the answer.
I have not seen you post a correct answer yet, however it illustrated how completely stupid and unnecessary the previous post was, but thanks anyway k!
koko is a brain dead moron..find the square footage minus elevator shafts and emergency stairwells..then use the formula i posted earlier and that gives you the weight of the floors
Sometimes I think koko is the living embodiment of a roomful of monkeys with typewriters Just once it would be nice to get a straight answer from him about 9/11 without him being either insulting,cutesy,or using crappy GIF's
stop using brawndo logic then. [video=youtube;-Vw2CrY9Igs]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Vw2CrY9Igs[/video] lmao not my problem that I am the smartest man in these debates. when you start producing bonafide "stuff" and stop ducking every issue then things will change!
That is in the NIST report and is the same for every floor using that floor assembly. Code: NIST NCSTAR 1-1A PDF p47 (205.67 * 205.67) - (85.67 * 135.67) = 30677.3 sq ft Concrete Slab 36.5 psf 559.86 tons rebar in slab 1.5 psf 23.01 tons 582.87 tons steel deck 2.0 psf 30.68 tons Struct Steel 10.0 psf 153.39 tons 184.07 tons Total 50.0 psf 766.94 Ihave had that data in a file on my computer for years. Do you think the amount of steel in the core and on the perimeter was the same on the 5th level and on the 105th level? Data from before 9/11 says there was a total of 425,000 cubic yards of concrete in both towers. The floors do not account for that much so there is some kind of problem with the data. People who haven't investigated squat are so knowledgeable about this subject. /* sarcasm */ Notice you did not even get the width of the floor correct. Expert witness no doubt. psik
koko with his 'I win' is the living embodiment of an idiocracy And the delusions keep mounting...and he's funny accusing others of 'ducking the issue' when he does it constantly.
Actually the amount of steel in the core or perimeter is irrelevant to the collapse mechanism, since the collapse mechanism is the separation of the floors slabs from both. Would you happen to have data for the predictable failure loading for the floors? That is what matters most at this point. Some of that concrete was inside the cores, thus did not contribute to the total of the floor slabs, nor to the cllapse mechanism prior to the removal of the cross-bacing offered by the floors and perimeter columns. A lot more concrete was used in the basement levels where weight and flexibility were not issues or were needed to keep the assemblage standing upright. That would be my baileywick. I majored in Special Education in college and had dealings with a lot of people like Kokomojojo and RightWingFraud and 7Forever.
that amount of concrete also includes the footings and the sub garage area..this is the area that will eat up almost half of the coincrete..and it isnt the same mix used on the floors..much larger rock in the mix..for added strength
Can a Jenga stack still stand if turned upside down? My demonstration model could not. Single loops can only hold a static load of 12 washers. Turned upside down the 11 single loops would be on the bottom and have to support 22 or more washers each and would thus all be crushed. psik
The volume of the basement of one tower was only 110,000 cubic yards and that is not allowing for any empty space. You are just making an empty claim. No source has specified where that 425,000 cubic yards was. psik
110,000 yards times 3950 lbs will give you the weight of that lower level..one yard weighs 3950 lbs..how long have you been in the building trades? i have bben in it for 35 years...i dont make chit up..
if you want ot really inderstand how much just a little 110,000 yards is..each ready mix truck carries 9 1/4 yards..divide that into 110.000 and that will tell you how truck loads for just that one level
There were vertical concrete elements in the basements, not in the above-ground structure. We are talking about great volumns of concrete downstairs.
The NIST said the concrete was 110 and 150 lb per cubic foot. So you can multiply. I'm impressed. So what? psik
What makes you think that the vertical structure of the WTC crushed? Have you ever seen a steel column fail due to crushing? You keep saying you never said your model was scaled and then you keep comparing its scale to the WTC. Do you know what scale means? Your model does not model the behavior of the WTC. It doesn't model the behavior of the WTC for the simple fact that you CAN'T scale it to the WTC. Every time you tell me that you never said it was scaled I laugh. I know it's not scaled. You don't have to keep telling me. You do have to tell yourself though, because you keep trying to make comparisons between it and the WTC. They are comparisons that are meaningless because the model is not scalable. I've come to the conclusion that your unwillingness to learn simple concepts of structure and design precludes your understanding of this. Your model is not "as weak as possible" It's possible to make your model hold even more mass using less mass of paper. Does that mean such a model would be "weaker than possible?" I know you won't answer that question, because you don't understand it. You don't understand why you can't make a model of your model, and you don't understand why the tower collapsed. That's okay. Your question is incomprehensible. You're trying to ask how long it takes to bake a pie based on how many bars there are on the oven rack. The heat has to have some place to conduct TO. Structural systems work in tandem. Individual parts are connected so their behavior depends on their global shape, and the strength of their connections. Jenga pieces don't crush, and neither did the WTC steel. Jenga structure buckles, and so did the WTC. Long slender members have inherent instability. The longer and more slender they are, the greater the instability. This instability is a moment within the member that makes it want to twist. Those horizontal members you were talking about before are there to help restrain this twisting. They don't hold themselves in their air, though. They are dependent on their connections to the columns. Break those connections, and the columns will twist and buckle. Those connections can be broken when something crashes into them like an aircraft, or falling debris. They can also be broken when the member they hold in place expands and contracts due to heating.
