Posted: Dec 05, 2010 8:19 pm
amused wrote:If you want to pretend that you are building models with washers that have any relevance to the actual structure, then at least get the basic physics right. A toy 'model' that mimics the actual layout of the structure would not have anything between the washers. Buildings are mostly air because that's where the people inhabit them. Rather, the washers would be supported only at the edges......
.....The shelf angles in the blue circles were the only thing holding the floors up, and also held the building together. The angles in the red circles were for lateral support to the floor assembly. By your own admission at the CFI forums, you've been shown that picture numerous times, and yet you just don't get it. But you continue to pretend that you have great insight into how buildings are put together. You don't. Such a display of the arrogance of ignorance is otherwise known as Dunning-Kruger effect.
A good explanatory post amused.
The key probably in the phrase "...and yet you just don't get it."
When modelling a structural event the two essential steps are:
1 Understand the event you are modelling; THEN
2 Build a model which mimics that event.
Both of psikey's models seem to have either missed the first step OR grossly misunderstood the event. Neither model shows any understanding of the WTC Twin Towers collapse mechanisms and if you don't understand something you cannot model it. As stated previously his first model was a model of aircraft impact - not collapse - and therefore not relevant to the collapse. The second model, the washers and paper loops was in no way representative of the WTC Collapses. It was structurally "arse about" to put it colloquially in that it focussed on the column strength. The actual collapses of WTC1 and 2 in effect worked on column weakness - not by weakening the columns but by not allowing them to carry full designed loads.
Even in his words psikey keeps insisting on the strength of the columns. The strength of the columns was irrelevant in the actual collapse. The columns were bypassed by the falling mass in the office space area where the floor joist to column connectors were the weak link which failed. In the core the horizontal beams were the weak link.
The reality was directly opposite to the usual truther claim that the buildings fell through the path of greatest resistance. They didn't. They fell through the path of least resistance. And that "least" was very little.