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.

 

WTC collapse simulator illustrates "freefall"

page: 1
10
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 5 2009 @ 11:54 AM
link   
finally. someone with the skill set has risen up to the challenge.
here's the website of "femr":

WTC collapse simulator





simply mind-boggling how one man can achieve this, yet a twenty million dollar, 200 member team couldn't say anything beyond, "once collapse was initiated...".

notice also, that theses sims favour collapse by allowing the 'cap' or top 13 floors, to remain as a rigid body, as opposed to the reality that the top floors were the first things to break apart, and were weaker and less massive than the floors below.

cheers to femr!!




[edit on 5-5-2009 by billybob]




posted on May, 5 2009 @ 12:54 PM
link   
thought i'd bump this, 'cause i edited to be a little sexier. this is really important stuff!



posted on May, 5 2009 @ 12:56 PM
link   
reply to post by billybob
 


I like editing and sexiness and sexy-editing.

Interesting videos, thanks for posting.



posted on May, 5 2009 @ 04:40 PM
link   
thanks.
it should be noted that this is a rough simulation. it uses perfectly rigid bodies with perfectly inelastic collisions occurring instantly.
however, it is still an EXCELLENT illustration of the effect of the basic rules of physics as they apply to the towers' fall times.



posted on May, 5 2009 @ 05:10 PM
link   
Unfortunately I know little about physics and did not understand half of what was presented. That is the problem with these type of things. My instinct tells me that the freefall of 1 and 2 and 7 is not a natural effect of a burning building, heck, even history tells us this. But when people ask me to look at the numbers and ask me to understand what it means I am just lost. I think that most, physics-challenged people feel the same way. If what is presented is true, then it really is a smoking gun.

Having said that:

What I do not understand is, that if the physics are irrefutable, and the figures to make these equations add up, or don't add up in this case, to a free fall collapse of the three buildings after being hit by a plane and consumed for more than an hour; Why do not more physicists come out and refute the official findings? I mean, any self respecting physicist that knows his stuff would come out and say to the supporters of the official version of the sequence of events on that day:"There is something not right about these figures and you, sir, are a liar for saying that they are"

What's stopping them? Are they scared of their reputations? Physics is pretty much an exact science, so why would that be? If more and more physicists back each other up there would be a case to answer, don't you think?

It really mystifies me. As I said earlier, I feel it is not right that the towers fell in under 10 seconds without being aided by something other than a fire and a crash, but I really have nothing to go on except for the opinions of a few 'kooks' that no one seems to take seriously. It makes me want to take up physics.



posted on May, 5 2009 @ 05:53 PM
link   

posted by Lebowski achiever

What I do not understand is, that if the physics are irrefutable, and the figures to make these equations add up, or don't add up in this case, to a free fall collapse of the three buildings after being hit by a plane and consumed for more than an hour; Why do not more physicists come out and refute the official findings? I mean, any self respecting physicist that knows his stuff would come out and say to the supporters of the official version of the sequence of events on that day:"There is something not right about these figures and you, sir, are a liar for saying that they are"

What's stopping them? Are they scared of their reputations? Physics is pretty much an exact science, so why would that be? If more and more physicists back each other up there would be a case to answer, don't you think?



What is stopping thousands of reputable scientists from coming out publicly refuting the 9-11 OFFICIAL STORY official script? Because most of them work either directly or indirectly for the Military Industrial Complex which was behind 9-11. Their careers would be over. The multi-billionaires of the International Corporate New World Order hold tremendous influence and control over the scientists of the world. They have a lot to lose, and they will.

Also scientists too are influenced by the tremendous brainwashing exerted on the citizens by the boob tube and other disinformation devices. The majority of Americans including scientists, are too frightened and dependent to think their government god could possibly be their worst enemy, and that applies to most other nations too.

Furthermore, this information is almost completely ignored by the Mainstream News Media and unless the scientists spent a lot of valuable time on the internet, would be unknown to them also. Now that more and more foreign press is jumping on the 9-11 band wagon, more and more scientists will become familiar with the 9-11 fraud. Perhaps some day they will rebell. Perhaps not.



posted on May, 5 2009 @ 06:21 PM
link   
reply to post by SPreston
 


I understand what you are saying, and there may be truth to it, but I cannot believe that all physicists are under control of the Powers that Be. That could not possibly be right. That would mean that most or all scientists are dishonest and that just does not make sense as a scientist's reputation is their most precious commodity and is fiercely protected.

With that in mind, what I have the most problems with; if there are blatant lies being told and numbers fixed in the official version, would it not damage the reputation of the scientist that supports it? Would not more scientists 'Out' him for fixing the numbers?

Again, I am really not helping my own argument here with the free falling buildings and that it goes against all instincts to believe that could happen without some extra help. However, the missing supporting scientists, besides the kooks, is really the fly in the ointment as far as I am concerned.



posted on May, 5 2009 @ 06:25 PM
link   

posted by billybob

simply mind-boggling how one man can achieve this, yet a twenty million dollar, 200 member team couldn't say anything beyond, "once collapse was initiated...".

thought i'd bump this, 'cause i edited to be a little sexier. this is really important stuff!


We need legible; not sexy.

Interesting

The first time I viewed the videos, they seemed speeded up and hard to read

The 2nd and 3rd time with the videos in memory, they seemed much better and slowed down some


Hmmmm. . . .

44.36 seconds to collapse as a natural gravity induced collapse

14.89 seconds with the support structure removed out from under the falling floors

I vote top-down explosive demolition



posted on May, 5 2009 @ 06:43 PM
link   

posted by Lebowski achiever
reply to post by SPreston
 


I understand what you are saying, and there may be truth to it, but I cannot believe that all physicists are under control of the Powers that Be. That could not possibly be right. That would mean that most or all scientists are dishonest and that just does not make sense as a scientist's reputation is their most precious commodity and is fiercely protected.

With that in mind, what I have the most problems with; if there are blatant lies being told and numbers fixed in the official version, would it not damage the reputation of the scientist that supports it? Would not more scientists 'Out' him for fixing the numbers?



It is not necessarily dishonest to remain silent and protect your livelihood. Families must come first. Sticking one's neck out a mile is not conducive to raising a family. It is not hard to imagine risking one's future and finding out it was in vain because still nothing was accomplished. The New World Order Elite are very powerful. According to Revelation Chapter 18 Verses 9-20, only GOD Almighty Himself can bring about their total destruction.

There are far more scientists coming out publicly and demanding a new investigation into 9-11 then there are scientists coming out publicly and staking their reputations that the 9-11 OFFICIAL STORY is on the up and up. I do not count the NIST scientists because they are paid by the government for their faulty research. Silence is not an automatic support of the official script.

Even most military officers and government officials dare not demand a new investigation until after they retire.



posted on May, 5 2009 @ 07:46 PM
link   
scientist HAVE been coming out against the official story since 2001. they are marginalized by 'the system'.
there are millions of people who do know enough about physics to realise the truth, without a fancy computer simulation to 'prove it'.
and, therein lies another rub. the simple truth can be obscured by more arcane, nebulous, debatable truths. the simple truth is that the towers fell too fast, ...the intact portion offered nearly no resistance, and the destruction was complete. a gravity driven collapse would not leave most of the towers powderized. the simple truth is all the witnesses reported hearing explosions.
the bait and switch truth is that "once collapse initiated, the intact tower was unable to resist the falling mass". the explosions are explained away as either the noise of the collapse itself, or as exploding transformers.
anyone who studies the news footage from the day can decide for themselves wherein the truth lies. (that's funny, the truth lies, lol!)

[edit on 5-5-2009 by billybob]



posted on May, 6 2009 @ 01:44 AM
link   
reply to post by billybob
 
They did fall fast. There is no argument here. There is also no precedent and ,besides the few wayward scientists, no support for the notion that they were demolished. I personally believe it is because it flies against the motto that most scientists would uphold: The simplest solution is always the correct one.
I am sure many demolition experts have already stated what it takes to demolish a building of that magnitude. It would completely blow away the meaning of the motto. There is nothing simple about all of what it would take to bring them down.

But they did fall so fast. It did look like they were demolished. It makes my head hurt.



posted on May, 6 2009 @ 02:13 AM
link   
reply to post by Lebowski achiever
 


Add to it you can see the architectural community taking lessons from the collapse as a way to strengthen designs to avoid the collapse of future designs.



posted on May, 6 2009 @ 02:33 AM
link   
Cases in point:

When the Twin Towers were constructed in the 1970s, the builders were granted some exemptions from New York's building codes. The exemptions allowed the builders to use lightweight materials so the skyscrapers could achieve greater heights. But, the consequences were devastating. According to Charles Harris, author of Engineering Ethics: Concepts and Cases (compare prices), fewer people would have died on September 11, 2001 if the Twin Towers had used the type of fireproofing required by older building codes.

SOURCE:architecture.about.com...


In September 2008--seven years after the collapse of the World Trade Center--the International Code Council (ICC) approved 23 wide-ranging building and fire code changes that will impact the way tall structures are planned, designed, and built. The code changes reflect the recommendations from the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) investigation of the collapses of New York City's World Trade Center (WTC) towers on 9/11, which resulted in the deaths of about 3,000 people.

SOURCE:www.entrepreneur.com...


‑ Steel bar joist truss construction. The lightweight steel bar joist was used to support floors in the World Trade Center. This floor support is another form of lightweight floor and roof construction used throughout the country that has the fire service alarmed and is mistakenly blamed on architects, engineers and code officials. When unprotected, lightweight bar joist beams can fail within five to 10 minutes of fire exposure. The World Trade Center, constructed by the Port Authority, was the only high‑rise office building in New York City to use lightweight bar joist construction in high‑rise office building construction.

SOURCE: vincentdunn.com...&e/buildings.htm
*Cut and paste sorry the url tags seems to break for this one*

This pertains to the conversation above:
*Please note this is an outside US source.*

Why did the building fall so quickly?
The buildings did fall quickly - almost (but not exactly) at the same speed as if there was no resistance. Shouldn't the floors below have slowed it down? The huge dynamic loads due to the very large momentum of the upper floors falling were so great that they smashed through the lower floors very quickly. The columns were not designed to carry these huge loads and they provided little resistance.

SOURCE:www.civil.usyd.edu.au...

[edit on 6-5-2009 by Watcher-In-The-Shadows]



posted on May, 6 2009 @ 03:28 AM
link   
Always wondered why no one used rendering software to do this on this site. Very interesting but they did not fall straight down. Would that not affect the resistance applied to the falling top floors?



posted on May, 6 2009 @ 03:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by Lebowski achiever
What's stopping them? Are they scared of their reputations? Physics is pretty much an exact science, so why would that be? If more and more physicists back each other up there would be a case to answer, don't you think?


There are a lot of scientists, engineers, etc. that have been writing articles, publishing papers, forming organizations, but there is no good way to mathematically prove what happened to the towers, only good ways to mathematically eliminate certain aspects of theories.


This is the low-down for all scientists/engineers who've been trying to crack this nut:

-- Structural documentation necessary to calculate how much "resistance" the structure should have provided are not in public domain, though the NIST team had access to them, so assumptions and inferences have to be made which put limits on this kind of work. You could either assume little enough resistance to keep the collapse going, or enough to stop it, and it really could go either way based on who's doing the assuming. It really makes one wonder why the government doesn't just release the structural documentation and let the public look at it themselves.

-- Steel impact-loading is a little-studied phenomenon. In other words, even with the power of mathematics, the actual physics of steel buildings collapsing down into themselves as seen on 9/11 is lacking. This would be common sense considering buildings have never collapsed that way before or since. There are only a handful or less of actual lab studies done on impact-loading on steel-framed structures. One of the most-referenced studies was done by Calladine and English in 1984. Curiously, an engineer that would work with FEMA on their 9/11 report was studying steel impact-loading in August of 2001. Neither of those studies provided much information or anything remotely similar to the shear failure mechanisms hypothesized by NIST in their report.

-- No one knows exactly how much the buildings weighed. This goes back to federal agencies keeping the relevant documentation locked-up since Sept. 11 2001. There are two or three different figures that are usually used back and forth, from various public sources, but they vary significantly from one another.

-- There are no easy formulas for how fast a collapse should accelerate. What is going on inside of the buildings as they collapse is technically a system involving large amounts of chaos, and no real internal failure mechanism was described in federal reports (including a mechanism by which the entire core structure could have failed the way it did). A specific failure mechanism was hypothesized for the perimeter/truss connections, but it was never actually tested, and that was all NIST offered in those regards.

-- Most analyses (like the ones in the videos) try to estimate amounts of energy being "spent" (used to bust up concrete, fail connections, move through air, etc.) and compare it to the theoretical amount of potential energy (PE) available from a mass the size of the top 13 floors or so "hanging" that far up in the air. Supposedly the top 10-13 floors have enough mass that, when it is somehow set into a free-fall downwards (how the deformations and buckling translated to kinetic energy, NIST never explained), the structural below can't overcome it. Videos like the above set out to prove that way more energy was used to destroy the buildings than could have been available from the PE of the falling mass, which was being thrown out in all directions, busted up, etc. the whole way down.


Those being a few of the major issues... You begin to see why technical scientific discussion about these events is hard. That, the fact that these discussions usually just turn into petty arguments and don't get anywhere, and the fact that the media and academia both are heavily lobbied in this country explain why you don't hear anymore than you do.

[edit on 6-5-2009 by bsbray11]



posted on May, 6 2009 @ 05:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11




This is the low-down for all scientists/engineers who've been trying to crack this nut:

-- Structural documentation necessary to calculate how much "resistance" the structure should have provided are not in public domain, though the NIST team had access to them, so assumptions and inferences have to be made which put limits on this kind of work. You could either assume little enough resistance to keep the collapse going, or enough to stop it, and it really could go either way based on who's doing the assuming. It really makes one wonder why the government doesn't just release the structural documentation and let the public look at it themselves.


Wow! Never knew that. What reason does NIST give as to why this information isn't made public?

Excellent Post that enlightened me. Thank you!



posted on May, 6 2009 @ 05:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
Cases in point:

When the Twin Towers were constructed in the 1970s, the builders were granted some exemptions from New York's building codes. The exemptions allowed the builders to use lightweight materials so the skyscrapers could achieve greater heights. But, the consequences were devastating. According to Charles Harris, author of Engineering Ethics: Concepts and Cases (compare prices), fewer people would have died on September 11, 2001 if the Twin Towers had used the type of fireproofing required by older building codes.

SOURCE:architecture.about.com...


I think this is not completely correct and a little disingeneous. Asbestos was used to fireproof the buildings up to floor 40 or 64 (some even say it was used throughout as vermiculite, the alternative material contains it too). It was at that time about to be banned. Asbestos, although highly toxic, is what most older buildings used for fireproofing and is higly effective. However, it was also a flimsy material and it would have been blown away just as easily as the alternative materials used in the construction. It was a bit of propaganda for the Asbestos lobby and it failed miserably.

www.foxnews.com...



[edit on 6/5/09 by Lebowski achiever]



posted on May, 6 2009 @ 09:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by Lebowski achiever
What reason does NIST give as to why this information isn't made public?


I don't think they gave a particular reason, but I've heard things like, they don't have the resources to publish all of the documentation, they aren't legally required to do so in the first place, etc. NIST also has thousands of photos and video clips in their possession that they never released because they said they didn't have the resources to do so. I don't think the documents are actually in their possession, they just had legal power to get access to them during their investigation and so they give bits and pieces of relevant information but not the whole picture. I remember once reading in an article somewhere that Rudy Giuliani's office had taken all the original documentation from the Port Authority and locked it up on the day of 9/11. I've also heard anecdotes about the PA being temperamental about sharing access to those documents even before 9/11, for security reasons I guess, but that's obviously not a real issue anymore. That's about all I can say about it.



posted on May, 6 2009 @ 10:51 AM
link   
Thanks to the OP for posting. It's nice to see this kind of work being done. It bolsters the Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth as well as anyone else with common sense and insight into these matters who might lack technical education.

Doing a truly accurate simulation of the collapses is virtually impossible, but one thing is very clear, there is not enough potential energy in the building to do the damage done in the time required. This is simple fundamental physics, complicated by a complex structure in question, but the bottom line remains the same.

Where did the extra energy come from and who put it there?

[edit on 6-5-2009 by ipsedixit]



posted on May, 6 2009 @ 02:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
Cases in point:


blah, blah, blah.

you're doing that exact thing i said 'debunkers' do. you are baiting and switching.
the simple fact is the towers fell to fast for there to have been no external energy source.
fall times are not affected by your floor joist speculation. if the floor joists are weak and easy to destroy, that makes a demolition that much easier, doesn't it.
i actually surmised this as a possible demolition mode, recently at another forum.
cut the floor joists with, say, nanothermite spray-on 'fireproofing', and the when they are blown, the columns buckle much more easily (due to the effective increase in their length).
another method is to only cut the four bolts at each joist seat, although that doesn't explain the communition of concrete, wood, and people as well as spray on nano-thermite.
but, without getting into too much speculation about how it was done, the simple physical LAWS show that the towers fell too fast for there to have NOT been an energy input besides potential energy from gravity alone.




top topics



 
10
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join