How can I recreate a building collapse similar to the trade towers collapse using a scale model?

[Gerrard]

2 hours ago, Strange said:

Maybe a 1:1 scale reproduction of the building. (And the cause of the collapse.) I can see that easily costing a lot more than €1M.

Computer models are widely used in modern design. Perhaps supplemented, occasionally, with physical models. 

You are being taken for a ride by someone who has only proposed the (probably impossible) challenge so they can say, "see it never happened". Why pander to this sort of conspiracy theory? I would bet a million euros that the money does not exist and no one will ever win it. You would be better off buying a lottery ticket (which I often describe as a "tax on stupidity").

 

It doesn't have to be an exact scale model. Only that the damage occurring on sections have to be proportionate (1/9 of section) and the structure must be square or rectangle. When I said scale model, I didn't mean exact, just similar. Perhaps I shouldn't have used the word scale. 

Why not debunk any conspiracy theory?  Why use a computer model when you demonstrate it in real life. 

1 hour ago, studiot said:

That's what I said.

 

A real life demonstration rather than a computer simulation? If so was it documented? If so can you provide a link to it? 

[Strange]

4 minutes ago, Gerrard said:

Why not debunk any conspiracy theory? 

There’s not much point. Conspiracy nuts don’t believe their theories because of evidence so (more) evidence isn’t going to change their minds. 

It is better to just ignore them and let them fester in their own basements. 

Apart from the anti-vaxers who should be prosecuted for manslaughter. 

[Gerrard]

Still I think it is a project for general education. According to a poll, 53% of Americans believe that there was some sort of a conspiracy. That's pretty significant and may be a gateway conspiracy for other hard conspiracy beliefs. 

[StringJunky]

20 minutes ago, Gerrard said:

Still I think it is a project for general education. According to a poll, 53% of Americans believe that there was some sort of a conspiracy. That's pretty significant and may be a gateway conspiracy for other hard conspiracy beliefs. 

If their beliefs aren't based on facts then facts aren't going to convince them otherwise.

Edited February 3, 2020 by StringJunky

[Gerrard]

3 hours ago, StringJunky said:

If their beliefs aren't based on facts then facts aren't going to convince them otherwise.

I'd say they will accept the facts from a real demonstration rather than a computer simulation and reports. Seeing is believing. 

[zapatos]

7 minutes ago, Gerrard said:

I'd say they will accept the facts from a real demonstration rather than a computer simulation and reports. Seeing is believing. 

Why? They won't accept the facts from the real 9/11.

[Eise]

16 hours ago, Gerrard said:

Anders Bjorkman has put out an open contract for a 1 million euros to create a scale model simulation of the trade tower collapse. I’ve been trying to recreate it but unsuccessful so far. How do I create a pancake collapse? 

Don't go there. Unless you are a conspiracy theorist yourself. Then you can give your life a meaning, and join the tribe.

It remembers me of the one million dollar challenge of James Randi. The idea is simple: both (Bjorkman and Randi) know that the task is impossible, therefore they can safely bet their one million. Bjorkman can then say "See nobody can prove that buildings collapse like that, they can't even build a scale model!", not bothering that a scale model never can reproduce the real collapse. 

[studiot]

1 hour ago, Gerrard said:

3 hours ago, studiot said:

That's what I said.

 

A real life demonstration rather than a computer simulation? If so was it documented? If so can you provide a link to it? 

Have you  not read the information I have already provided ?

Did you try Google?

https://www.google.com/search?q=Ronan+Point&client=firefox-b&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwj3yevambXnAhUTesAKHcB-A8oQ_AUoAXoECBAQAw&biw=1366&bih=646

I have never heard of anders thingy and judging by the reports form other members here,  I don't think I particularly want to.

But I recommend against getting bogged down in discussions over conspiracy theories.

If you genuinely want to study the (structural) mechanics of what happened by way of testing a physical model  then you need to be discussing structural mechanics.

I have already outlined the SM of the Ronan Point, but I don't know the details of Twin Towers, you should provide these.

I said I thought Twin Towers wast post and beam and that seems to be borne out by references to steel framework members.
We have had a detailed thread here from someone who was convinced that material failures were a large contributor to the collapses.
There were also too many suspicions of conspiracy in that thread and not enough enginnering facts.

I think it was this one

So the choice is up to you.

Do you want to discuss Engineering or Conspiracy ?

Edited February 3, 2020 by studiot

[between3and26characterslon]

12 hours ago, Gerrard said:

Still I think it is a project for general education. According to a poll, 53% of Americans believe that there was some sort of a conspiracy. That's pretty significant and may be a gateway conspiracy for other hard conspiracy beliefs. 

In any given population an IQ of 100 is defined as the average and marks the 50th percentile. This means that in any given population 50% are below average intelligence! Also I don't think 53% is statistically significant where you have a 50/50 choice i.e. it was a conspiracy/it wasn't a conspiracy.

Building a model that replicates the collapse of the buildings is a great hobby and will offer great rewards but the rewards will be educational not monetary.

[Gerrard]

4 hours ago, studiot said:

Have you  not read the information I have already provided ?

Did you try Google?

https://www.google.com/search?q=Ronan+Point&client=firefox-b&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwj3yevambXnAhUTesAKHcB-A8oQ_AUoAXoECBAQAw&biw=1366&bih=646

I have never heard of anders thingy and judging by the reports form other members here,  I don't think I particularly want to.

But I recommend against getting bogged down in discussions over conspiracy theories.

If you genuinely want to study the (structural) mechanics of what happened by way of testing a physical model  then you need to be discussing structural mechanics.

I have already outlined the SM of the Ronan Point, but I don't know the details of Twin Towers, you should provide these.

I said I thought Twin Towers wast post and beam and that seems to be borne out by references to steel framework members.
We have had a detailed thread here from someone who was convinced that material failures were a large contributor to the collapses.
There were also too many suspicions of conspiracy in that thread and not enough enginnering facts.

I think it was this one

So the choice is up to you.

Do you want to discuss Engineering or Conspiracy ?

Finally someone with useful info rather than conspiracy. Now let’s create an Ronan point like structure. 
looks like two of the four walls collapsed. Why didn’t the other two walls collapse? 

I’m thinking to use wooden walls with paper joints. Just enough to hold it up. 
 

I have some sort of an idea now. Thanks.
 

[StringJunky]

This is the general pattern, apparently.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collapse_of_the_World_Trade_Center#/media/File:NorthWTCcollapse.png

[studiot]

Just now, Gerrard said:

Finally someone with useful info rather than conspiracy. Now let’s create an Ronan point like structure. 
looks like two of the four walls collapsed. Why didn’t the other two walls collapse? 

I’m thinking to use wooden walls with paper joints. Just enough to hold it up. 
 

I have some sort of an idea now. Thanks.
 

Before deciding on you model it would be wise to collect some data.

1) The impact energy can be estimated from the mass of a laden aircraft and its approximate airspeed (say 200  mph). this site has useful data.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_airliners_by_maximum_takeoff_weight

2) Another picture from the  referred to by StringJunky might be more useful (the one pictured above is one of a series). This other one shows the floor construction.
      Further information would also be necessary because it does not readily explain the final collapse mechanism in SJ's picture or the structural members in the outer walls.

3) The outer walls were definitely of framed construction (there was a large window area). I am not sure how wooden walls would model this.

 

Ronan Point collapsed due to an internal gas explosion the blew out the supporting panels (note here the outer walls were heavy panels with small windows).
That building acted like a pack of cards when one edge card is removed.
The modelling was easier because, as you can see from the pictures, much of the block remained standing.
So (part of) six stories were taken down  and re-erected in the BRS 'catherdral'  lab.
There tesing was carried out by jacking to determine the sort of pressures required to knock out a wall section.
So the model was full scale, but only of part of the structure.
That was all that was needed.

How much of the full structure would be required to model the twin towers would be a matter of structural engineering, and it would suprise me if that has not already been done.