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.

 

The Twin Towers: The Proofs Of Demolition

page: 7
10
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 28 2007 @ 06:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by earth2

Originally posted by Athenion

First of all, those squib looking explosions didn't occur on impact of the plane, they occured when the tower was collapsing, more than a half hour later. So it couldn't have been the energy from the impact.

I've heard people try to explain that the explosions were caused by the pancake collapse causing the air pressure to increase in the floors below and blowing out the weaker windows.

Unfortunately this arguement holds no water. There would be no air pressure building up, because the entire top of the tower had been destroyed, leaving a giant gaping hole where air could escape. For this air pressure explanation to be correct, the falling debris would have to fall in a completely airtight manner, which is, of course, impossible.

And so the "squib" explosions remain unexplained, and not debunked in any way.

Excellent post by the by.


You misunderstood me, I didnt say from the impact of the plane.
The tons and tons of building collapsing will cause some air pressure when it starts collapsing on it self. And the least amount of resistance will not be going through the collapsing top it will be through the elevator shafts ect that have clear open space.No resistance there and it will find all openings to escape.


I just debunked the squid theory in my earlier post... Earth2 is correct




posted on Jun, 28 2007 @ 07:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by AcesInTheHole

Originally posted by DisabledVet
You my find this interesting... Purdue university did a complete simulation of a plane impacting the WTC.


No sir I don't. An animation alone doesn't prove anything except purdue knows how to make an animation. You need to present the scientific data explaining how this video was made. That data then needs to be verified independently for it to mean anything. If it has, could you please post that material?


Sure..first part is here second part coming

Simulation codes and computing hardware are now sufficiently powerful to track with high fidelity complex interactions in large-scale digital models, shedding detailed insight into past or hypothetical real-world events. Visualization is an essential tool for collecting the information revealed by the simulation. Most simulation codes are enhanced with visualization modules which allow examining the simulation results visually. Such visualization modules excel at highlighting the quantities of highest relevance to the domain experts that designed the simulation, but they are typically quite limited when it comes to depicting the simulation results in a visual language accessible to the non-expert user. The post-processors called upon to visually render the simulation results are one or several steps behind the state-of-the-art in general purpose visualization.

This limitation is particularly severe when there is strong interest in the simulation beyond the narrow circle of experts that devised it. Such was the case for a high-fidelity simulation of the September 11 Attack on the World Trade Center developed by a Purdue University team of civil engineering and computer science researchers. Using detailed finite element analysis (FEA) models of the top twenty floors of the North Tower and of the airframe, the simulation tracks in great detail the impact over one second of real time. In order to overcome the post-processor’s general-purpose visualization limitations, the Purdue team developed a translator that automatically converts the simulation output data into a 3D scene amenable for high-quality visualization using a state-of-the-art animation system.

Driven by immensely popular entertainment applications such as 3D games and movies, animation systems define the state-of-the-art in computer graphics and general-purpose visualization. Although such animation systems do have simulation capabilities, precisely abiding by the laws of physics is of secondary importance compared to effective story-telling. Consequently, the approach of bridging the worlds of computer simulation and computer animation through a data translator allows combining the advantages of both worlds. A high-quality visualization is computed within the animation system while preserving the highest possible level of physical accuracy conferred by a rigorous state-of-the-art simulation code.

The translator implements two main tasks. First, simulation data with little visualization relevance is discarded. Examples include removing internal faces of structures modeled with opaque solid elements, discarding values of physical quantities not intended to be visualized, simplifying planar surfaces that are not affected by the simulation and are therefore excessively tessellated by finite elements, and removing intermediate positions for nodes with rectilinear and uniform motion.

The second task is to enhance or add detail that has high visual relevance but was only crudely approximated or even ignored due to its little simulation relevance. For example, once an element erodes, the simulation code simply eliminates it from subsequent computations. Assuming that the element breaks into many small fragments, eliminating the element is an acceptable approximation from the simulation standpoint, since the expense of tracking each fragment individually is not justified by the fragments’ impact



posted on Jun, 28 2007 @ 07:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by AcesInTheHole

Originally posted by DisabledVet
You my find this interesting... Purdue university did a complete simulation of a plane impacting the WTC.


No sir I don't. An animation alone doesn't prove anything except purdue knows how to make an animation. You need to present the scientific data explaining how this video was made. That data then needs to be verified independently for it to mean anything. If it has, could you please post that material?


And here is the formulation, techinal data, calibration and experimental data.

A direct link as well:

www.cs.purdue.edu...

Problem Statement

Simulate as faithfully as possible the effects of crashing an air frame loaded with fuel (simulating a Boeing 767-200ER) into a steel and concrete structure similar to the structure of the WTC-1, North Tower, of the World Trade Center.

Purpose of the Effort

Use the simulation results to understand what the extent of damage done by the impact has been. Effects of the subsequent fire are not under consideration in this phase of the project.

Use the simulation results also to construct animations and visualizations that vividly reenact of the impact, as it plausibly has been. This work will be Phase IV.

Simulations

The fully configured impact simulations are runs 11 and 12. Earlier runs calibrated and refined the simulation setup.

The modeled airframe is loaded with the approximate amount of fuel and set to impact the WTC-1 building (the North Tower) at the speed, position and orientation published in official reports. Both the exterior building skeleton and the core support structure of the building have been modeled, as well as the concrete floors and supporting girders.

Simulation Parameters

The simulation uses adaptive time stepping which averages to approximately 0.000001 sec time steps. We generate snapshots of the simulation approximately every 0.0025 sec. The airplane arrives with an initial velocity of 470 mph. Penetration to the core structure of the building takes approximately 0.1 sec.

Animations and Stills

Simulation Animations and Stills Problem Size
(nodes) Compute Time
(nano-regatta)
North Tower
Simulation Run 11 327 K 100 hours,
8 processors,
0.5 sec
North Tower
Simulation Run 12 327 K 30 hours,
16 processors,
0.37 sec


Calibrations and Experiments

The aircraft model was constructed from publicly available data. The FEA model has been calibrated by computing mass distributions and evaluating the Riera curve.

From our modeling of the aircraft crash into the Pentagon building, we knew that a critical issue in defining the damage was the modeling of the fuel in the aircraft. Much of the mass of the aircraft is provided by the fuel; in this case about 27%. The energy imparted to the impacted structure is the initial cause of the damage. This time, we modeled the fluid-structure interaction using smooth particle hydrodynamics (SPH). To calibrate our approach, Dr. Pujol built a special test setup that made it possible to hurl 6-oz liquid containers at a steel target of varying speeds approaching 100 m/sec.

Support

This work has been supported in part by NSF ITR grant DSC-0325227; the PI of the grant is Dr. Sameh, the NSF officer is Frederica Derema. For the work of the larger ITR project see the project website.

Infrastructure support for the large-scale simulations has been provided by the Northwest Indiana Computational Grid (NWICG), and by Purdue's Network for Computational Nanotechnology (NCN).

Reading

A. Irfanoglu and C. Hoffmann, An Engineering Perspective of the Collapse of WTC-1, J. of Performance of Constructed Facilities, ASCE, 06/2007; in press



posted on Jun, 28 2007 @ 07:03 PM
link   
I really dont want this post to get swept under the rug, all I want is a formal intellectual discussion, no flames, no jokes, no insults. I simply want to know how can buildings perform a "natural gravity driven collapse" yet show all the characteristics of a controlled demoltion.......

[edit on 06/26/2007 by An Urban Legend]

When a JET AIRLINER going 500MPH slams into it !!! Jesus . You want to
ram this home and scream that , but just use your head . A friggin' jet
hit a building !!!! why is it so hard to believe that the building might just fall down ????????? What is sooooooo unbelievable about that ? NOTHING

edit - And people seem to forget that we see only the first 2-3 seconds of
the collaspe before it disappears behind a wall of dust and debris , so whoever says freefall speed is crazy , people just seem to blow right past that one . WE can not see into that cloud to see whats going on .
I just don't get that people refuse to think that a jet can bring down a building ? Simply amazing .
Ive said it before , i bet my life that no one will EVER prove a inside job .
NEVER . It'll never happen , cause it never happened . You give the bozo's
in charge WAY too much credit ..

Also , by the furvor of the 2 911 posts lately , i would guess that maybe , just maybe , that someone who was banned not long ago has wormed their way back in .. but , i could be wrong .

[edit on 28-6-2007 by gen.disaray]

[edit on 28-6-2007 by gen.disaray]



posted on Jun, 28 2007 @ 07:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by AcesInTheHole

Originally posted by DisabledVet
You my find this interesting... Purdue university did a complete simulation of a plane impacting the WTC.


No sir I don't. An animation alone doesn't prove anything except purdue knows how to make an animation. You need to present the scientific data explaining how this video was made. That data then needs to be verified independently for it to mean anything. If it has, could you please post that material?


And finally a link to the PDF of the engineering perspective of the collapse supporting the film.

www.cs.purdue.edu...

Any other requests or are you going to debunk Purdue's data?

Dont call bluffs if your not prepared to have your called.



posted on Jun, 28 2007 @ 07:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by DisabledVet
Any other requests or are you going to debunk Purdue's data?


Yes, as I asked before who independently verified that this data is correct?



posted on Jun, 28 2007 @ 07:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sparky63
I keep seeing posts and threads commenting on the melting point of steel.
So many are assuming the Steel has to reach that point before it fails.

This is far from the truth
Steel melts at about 2,700 degrees, and granted the burning jet fuel most likely did not reach that temp.

However the temp did not even have to get close to that for the structure to start to fail.
Notie this statement by the American Institute for Steel Construction (AISC)


The strength of steel remains essentially unchanged until about 600°F. The steel retains about 50% of its strength at 1100°F. The steel loses all of its capacity when it melts at about 2700°F. However, for design purposes, it is usually assumed that all capacity is lost at about 2200°F.
www.architectureweek.com...://www.aisc.org


www.architectureweek.com...://www.aisc.org



Sparkysixthree thx for the info I learned something i did not know. With all the other structural fuel the heat was up for quite awile i would guess.

I guess my next question would be would the Bldg. have fallen pretty much straight down. I keep coming back to the base giveing way beacause if the base held integrity then im not sure the whole thing would have come down. i would think there would have been a stump so to speak.

I am hard pressed to discuss this topic knowing so many people died that day. I would never want to make the event seem trivial just would like to know who, why, and how.



posted on Jun, 28 2007 @ 07:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by DisabledVet
Sorry but it takes more than 5 days to prep a building of that size for demolition.


If you think an agency with inside help couldn't plant explosives in the buildings then you have no imagination.

How do you know the explosives weren't put in place over a period of yrs before 9-11. There is always maintenance going on in these huge buildings.
It could have been done easily by people disguised as maintenance workers,
a bit at a time, upgrading internet cables, which was witnessed not too long before 9-11.
Another time they could go in saying they were upgrading, or repairing electrical cabling. There is a thousand ways to get that job done without anyone paying any attention to what they were doing, especially by your own government. Who would question them if they had the paperwork and permits and stuff, especially if the owner of the building and the head of security (a Bush relative) were helping?...


We decided to 'Pull It', and we watched the building collapse...



posted on Jun, 28 2007 @ 07:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by AcesInTheHole

Originally posted by DisabledVet
Any other requests or are you going to debunk Purdue's data?


Yes, as I asked before who independently verified that this data is correct?


Yawn...jeez you read threw everything that quick!!!

You obviously don't know how major university's handle publishing findings such as this. Purdue published all of its findings for peer review and made them public...which is why i can post them here.

Why don't YOU find a peer review from a recognized and accredited source that debunks Purdue's findings.



posted on Jun, 28 2007 @ 07:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by geemony
Sparkysixthree thx for the info I learned something i did not know. With all the other structural fuel the heat was up for quite awile i would guess.


Problem with his story is that just because temps might have been 600 degrees in the fire it doesn't mean all the steel is going to reach 600 degrees. It doesn't work that way. Massive steel columns would have to be subjected to direct heat far higher than the temp you want the steel to get too. They weren't subject to direct heat for one, for two the fires burned no where near long enough to heat up all that steel to the point of failure.
Also note the black smoke, that's a fire starved of oxygen and thus cooling, not getting hotter.

As for the fuel well that was all gone within seconds of the impact. You see that big fireball, that's the fuel burning up buddy. You think any of it would have escaped combustion?..lol



posted on Jun, 28 2007 @ 07:28 PM
link   
I've seen some clips of mini explosions that occur before the building collapses could someone explain this to me. Another thing that was odd was the testimonies the janitors in the sub levels made that heard multible explosions after the planes hit.



posted on Jun, 28 2007 @ 07:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by DisabledVet
Why don't YOU find a peer review from a recognized and accredited source that debunks Purdue's findings.


Simple. You make the claims, you provide proof.

I'm not claiming that they are wrong, I just asked you to provide me with a peer review that has been done on this animation.



posted on Jun, 28 2007 @ 07:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by DisabledVet
Sorry but it takes more than 5 days to prep a building of that size for demolition.


If you think an agency with inside help couldn't plant explosives in the buildings then you have no imagination.

How do you know the explosives weren't put in place over a period of yrs before 9-11. There is always maintenance going on in these huge buildings.
It could have been done easily by people disguised as maintenance workers,
a bit at a time, upgrading internet cables, which was witnessed not too long before 9-11.
Another time they could go in saying they were upgrading, or repairing electrical cabling. There is a thousand ways to get that job done without anyone paying any attention to what they were doing, especially by your own government. Who would question them if they had the paperwork and permits and stuff, especially if the owner of the building and the head of security (a Bush relative) were helping?...


We decided to 'Pull It', and we watched the building collapse...


How do I know? Simple... those explosive charges would need to be placed on the outside of the columns "oh well what if there were holes drilled in the columns and then painted over" well again, the amount of holes needed to be drilled would have brought the building down itself...lol

Support columns of the WTC strength and magnitude require more than just a little stick of dynamite taped to the column... we're talking in an 8 foot section at least 3 horizontal taped levels of dynamite or even C4 if you want to be silly to be able to create an large enough explosion to fracture the column enough to allow it to fail completely.



posted on Jun, 28 2007 @ 07:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by steve-o
If the buildings' collapse was only caused by the impact why did it fall in pancake fashion ,rather than the top half fly off and hit another building or the street. another thing that makes no sense is how building seven collapsed the same way with a "little fire" that was'nt enough to make it fall.


Thats my next question to Steve-o... if the top slide becasue of structural damage then i would think it would slide off to one side and fall. But we didnt see that, its why I think it very important to consentrate on the base of the towers. They had to give way inorder for the bldg. to fall the way they did. And this will make me decide when its proven one way or the other that it was explosives. thx man



posted on Jun, 28 2007 @ 07:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by AcesInTheHole

Originally posted by DisabledVet
Why don't YOU find a peer review from a recognized and accredited source that debunks Purdue's findings.


Simple. You make the claims, you provide proof.

I'm not claiming that they are wrong, I just asked you to provide me with a peer review that has been done on this animation.


Because one isn't found on the net doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

But if you have a shred of common sense don't you think if Purdue;'s simulation was incorrect or flawed at least you could find ONE ?

There IS NO DEBUNKMENT BY A RECOGNIZABLE AUTHORITY OF PURDUE'S SIMULATION.

Now how about that claim? Why don't you find me one.



posted on Jun, 28 2007 @ 07:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by steve-o
I've seen some clips of mini explosions that occur before the building collapses could someone explain this to me. Another thing that was odd was the testimonies the janitors in the sub levels made that heard multible explosions after the planes hit.


If you look at some of the videos of North Tower where people like to point out squibs, you notice that the building collapse first before squibs even started.



At the bottom right, you will see a squib AFTER the building is collapsing, NOT before. Unless it defies the passage of time, buildings don't drop faster than explosives do its work.



As you can see that "squibs" are shown until AFTER the building is starting to collapse. NOT before.



posted on Jun, 28 2007 @ 07:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by DisabledVet

Because one isn't found on the net doesn't mean it doesn't exist.


Well I suggest you get searching somewhere else then. As I said before, you claim this is an explination, I'm still waiting for proof from someone other than Purdue University scientists.


But if you have a shred of common sense don't you think if Purdue;'s simulation was incorrect or flawed at least you could find ONE ?


If you couldn't find one supporting your own view, what makes you think I will find one online?



posted on Jun, 28 2007 @ 07:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by DisabledVet

Originally posted by AcesInTheHole

Originally posted by DisabledVet
You my find this interesting... Purdue university did a complete simulation of a plane impacting the WTC.


No sir I don't. An animation alone doesn't prove anything except purdue knows how to make an animation. You need to present the scientific data explaining how this video was made. That data then needs to be verified independently for it to mean anything. If it has, could you please post that material?


And finally a link to the PDF of the engineering perspective of the collapse supporting the film.

www.cs.purdue.edu...

Any other requests or are you going to debunk Purdue's data?

Dont call bluffs if your not prepared to have your called.


I'd like to know if the University tested any of the steel?

If not, then the information you provided is USELESS.

BeZerK



posted on Jun, 28 2007 @ 07:50 PM
link   
Thanks for the correction deltaboy, but I'm still speculating why these flashes occur and the testimonials from these janitors of other explosions, and the moltin metal or whatever that was in the bottom.



posted on Jun, 28 2007 @ 07:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by steve-o
Thanks for the correction deltaboy, but I'm still speculating why these flashes occur and the testimonials from these janitors of other explosions, and the moltin metal or whatever that was in the bottom.


How do you explain squibs that are present 50+ Floors below the collapse initiation?




As you can see from the pictures there are a few squibs present. How is this fundamentally possible for air compression to occur 50+ floors below the collapse initiation, thats just absurd.

Also, what force is needed to throw tons of steel hundreds of metres away straight into buildings like a hot knife slicing butter?

If a pancake collapse did indeed occur the building and the rest of the steel should have went straight down not throwing steel left, right and upwards.

BeZerK

[edit on 28-6-2007 by BeZerk]



new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join