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: 2
10
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 6 2009 @ 07:00 PM
link   
reply to post by Lebowski achiever
 


Too bad it's talking about other building codes...... Assumptions..... Assumptions. And you know what they say about ass-u-meing right?




posted on May, 6 2009 @ 07:01 PM
link   
reply to post by billybob
 


*translation*: Please let me put my fingers in my ears and refuse to even consider the information you provided.

Thank you for proving something for me *yet again*. Good day.



posted on May, 6 2009 @ 07:20 PM
link   
reply to post by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
 


well, you seem to have ignored the science provided as the topic of this thread.
hard science LAWS are used to illustrate the difference between freefall and falling while actually doing SOME of the work that was done, like crushing concrete.
sorry if i was abrupt, but like i said, you are doing EXACTLY what i said 'debunkers' do. you are bringing in outside information that has NOTHING to do with the hard science in the simulations.
the simulations prove that the only way the towers can fall in the observed times is with an external energy source. any additional work done besides just collaping, like crushing concrete, causes the fall time to be significantly longer than the actual fall times.



posted on May, 6 2009 @ 10:54 PM
link   
reply to post by billybob
 


Funny, an expert *an engineer from the University of Sydney none the less* in the information I provided had this to say:

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...
But of course I would be suprised if you bothered to read it or check my cited sources.



posted on May, 6 2009 @ 11:01 PM
link   
reply to post by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
 


Hey, what do you know? You're making arguments by appealing to authorities, instead of thinking for yourself. What an absolute shocker. Just forget the fact that appealing to authority is a logical fallacy and the even more obvious fact that just because someone, even a supposed expert, believes something, does not make it true. Take for example any number of the scientists or engineers that think the towers were demolished, the ones that you ignore. The logical fallacy would be obvious to you if someone simply posted you an excerpt of something one of them has stated. Just because they say it, does not make it true.

Now on the other hand, if there is objective information behind what this person is saying, that they have shared, and that you would then like to share by proxy, I don't see anything that's stopping you. Anything at all that could prove something objectively and scientifically. Anything?



posted on May, 6 2009 @ 11:03 PM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


Hello troll. Anymore lovely comentary from someone who doesn't really know me or my reasons? I am not inclined to justify myself to the likes of you. But I will say this, you are incorrect sir.
Now, do I get to look forward to being followed around now?

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



posted on May, 6 2009 @ 11:05 PM
link   
reply to post by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
 


i did read them. your source was speculating in 2001, and said he was not compelled to change his view since. he didn't do a mathematically accurate computer simulation to back up his OPINION, though. i would guess if he saw these simulations, he might think twice.
or perhaps he's just another shill for the shadows. there's no shortage of those types, watcher in the shadows, or can i call you catcher in the rye.



posted on May, 6 2009 @ 11:07 PM
link   
reply to post by billybob
 


How about leaving the childish name calling to children? You did not read the source material as you would see that the section in which I got the information was added in 06'.

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



posted on May, 6 2009 @ 11:09 PM
link   
[edit on 6-5-2009 by Watcher-In-The-Shadows]



posted on May, 6 2009 @ 11:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
Hello troll. Anymore lovely comentary from someone who doesn't really know me or my reasons?


I know as much as you've posted, and because you never post anything conclusive or objective, even though I constantly dog you to do so, I have to assume you don't really have anything of substance to contribute.

You say I'm incorrect but of course don't bother to explain how. I am NOT incorrect; appeal to authority is a logical fallacy:


Argument from authority or appeal to authority is a logical fallacy, where it is argued that a statement is correct because the statement is made by a person or source that is commonly regarded as authoritative. The most general structure of this argument is:

Source A says that p.
Source A is authoritative.
Therefore, p is true.


And what you see above is me offering evidence for the fact that appealing to authority is a logical fallacy. What do you know about logical fallacies? Look them up on Google.

en.wikipedia.org...


I'm not "following" you, don't flatter yourself. I don't know if you realized this or not, but ATS is a discussion forum, where people discuss things like conspiracy theories, and very often people are asked to support the things they say with FACTS. You won't see me crying about it if someone asks me to prove something; I either can or I can't and I happen to know the difference. Simply asserting that what you believe is factual doesn't make it so, neither does ranting or responding emotionally or insulting me while hypocritically accusing me of the same. Maybe one day you will realize what I'm asking for and stop taking my posts so seriously, but I'd say you have some things to work out personally before that day rolls around. Just my two cents. Take it easy dude.



posted on May, 6 2009 @ 11:19 PM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


Too bad it wasn't an appeal to authority, and like I said, I am disinclined to justify myself to you. No go ahead and rant all you please, it will probly make you feel better. And yet you show up where I post on the topic of 9/11 with something to say something about what I say, imagine that. Flattering myself indeed.


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



posted on May, 6 2009 @ 11:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
Hello troll. Anymore lovely comentary from someone who doesn't really know me or my reasons? I am not inclined to justify myself to the likes of you. But I will say this, you are incorrect sir.
Now, do I get to look forward to being followed around now?


It's not nice to call people names especially when they were trying to explain something to you.

The poster is not incorrect. All you supplied was an opinion, with no evidence to support it, from a source that cannot be verified as real. That could have simply been made up by anyone.

In fact if you did think for yourself, and educate yourself on some simple physics, you'd realize that the comment you posted was nonsense and explains nothing.



posted on May, 6 2009 @ 11:25 PM
link   
reply to post by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
 


Only a few minutes ago you posted this:


Originally posted by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
Funny, an expert *an engineer from the University of Sydney none the less* in the information I provided had this to say:


So now that we're apparently in agreement that appeal to authority is a logical fallacy, you're saying this post ISN'T an appeal to authority? That's great, but you sure had me fooled.

Since you say you weren't appealing to authority, you must realize that this engineer's opinion is irrelevant, unless he happened to show his work, and we could talk about that work here. But I happened to know there is no work to show, because the opinion he expressed is not a rigorous fact, has never been demonstrated, etc.


And yet you show up where I post on the topic of 9/11 with something to say something about what I say, imagine that. Flattering myself indeed.


Wow, you really are, and it's starting to make me feel sick to my stomach. Look at my post history. The majority of my posts are in the 9/11 forum. I must be stalking Griff, billybob, bonez, miichael and all these other guys, too. Seriously, why do you keep derailing from the things I try to emphasize just to insult me and accuse me of this and that? Do you really not see how much vitriol you are posting at me?

[edit on 6-5-2009 by bsbray11]



posted on May, 6 2009 @ 11:25 PM
link   
reply to post by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
 


sure thing, poopy pants.
i hardly think catcher in the rye is a childish reference, LOL!



When this article was first written on 9/11, the only evidence Was photographs and television footage.



Other Theories?

This section added 14 January 2006


i did read it, dude. same weak, non-quantitative arguments, except with an australian accent.

the computer simulation which this thread is about, however, is one hundred percent quantitative.

we all know fire is hot. however, according to the physics, the entire tower would have to be simultaneously heated to the failure point of the steel, AND the concrete would have to destroy itself with no help from the collapsing building.

get physics.


[edit on 6-5-2009 by billybob]



posted on May, 6 2009 @ 11:37 PM
link   
These actually make me believe they are covering up by adding paperwork and allegations after the fact, They should look before adding contradictions to the event.


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...


"Tower" in the 70's First Tower was opened in 1970 ... Construction was highly monitored at the time, There was emphasis on the strength of the towers withstand impact from the highest points.. Out 10k+ workers building these, over 60 actually died dureing construction. More on the fire thing down further.



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...


Actually nothing of real note, the NEC is updated every 3 years and revised. Same with every building code. Haveing buildings to 1970's codes exactly would never happen. Regardless if the towers still stood or not. this is like trying to say some particular building is perfect, inwhich it is not, majority of our codes is from mistakes or issues found after the fact.



‑ 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 is the most alarming, They can't sustain 10mins of a fire but yet the fire of the WTC building in 1975 spread through 10 floors and lasted 3-4 hrs and did not collapse..

guardian.150m.com...


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]


I will be with the simulation, The Tower free fall should have been slowed.



posted on May, 7 2009 @ 12:00 AM
link   
reply to post by Bldrvgr
 


"Tower" in the 70's First Tower was opened in 1970 ... Construction was highly monitored at the time, There was emphasis on the strength of the towers withstand impact from the highest points.. Out 10k+ workers building these, over 60 actually died dureing construction. More on the fire thing down further.


Actually, no, the construction of the Twin Towers did not HAVE to follow New York building code due to the fact it was under the juristiction of the Port Authority. They claim they did, but I find reasons to suspect the validity of that. Even further can you not think of situations in which corners were cut to disastrous results? That walkway at a certain Hyatt hotel comes to mind. Also just because they claim there was a emphasis, doesn't mean there truly was, dishonesty being what it is.


Actually nothing of real note, the NEC is updated every 3 years and revised. Same with every building code. Haveing buildings to 1970's codes exactly would never happen. Regardless if the towers still stood or not. this is like trying to say some particular building is perfect, inwhich it is not, majority of our codes is from mistakes or issues found after the fact.


But these changes were at the suggestion of that document certain individuals hate soo much.
Just because it is a change where change has happend before does not negate the reason for a change. Also, there is most certaintly not an inference that those particular buildings are perfect, they did fall down after all.


This is the most alarming, They can't sustain 10mins of a fire but yet the fire of the WTC building in 1975 spread through 10 floors and lasted 3-4 hrs and did not collapse..


That did not have a cause in something that caused massive structural damage in a part of the building where materials were lighter due to it's height. But I do see a little incongruity in the statement I provided.


I will be with the simulation, The Tower free fall should have been slowed.


Wasn't free fall speed. Mayhap percieved "free fall speed" but percieved doesn't equal fact.

And I appreciate the form of your response, just as a BTW.



posted on May, 7 2009 @ 12:14 AM
link   
reply to post by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
 


for one who accuses me of not reading your links, you have the audacity to claim it wasn't freefall, after watching the youtube videos, and visiting femr's site?

the videos show it WAS 'freefall', except, as per reality, freefall through a pile of loose falling debris, as opposed to the 'debunker's' freefall, ie. freefall through a vacuum.



posted on May, 7 2009 @ 12:31 AM
link   
reply to post by billybob
 


Wasn't free fall speed. Mayhap percieved "free fall speed" but percieved doesn't equal fact.

Might want to debate what I say as opposed to something simular but not what I said but you wish I did sir. You are going off observed or percieved data. And I assume you meant FEMA?



posted on May, 7 2009 @ 12:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
And I assume you meant FEMA?


no. i 'm pretty careful. i meant 'femr'.

from the opening post, which you seem to have no recognition of...


WTC collapse simulator illustrates "freefall"

finally. someone with the skill set has risen up to the challenge.
here's the website of "femr":





posted on May, 7 2009 @ 12:47 AM
link   
Lets get back to the OP, and that is showing a collapse with a software program. Couple of questions.

Why do we not believe the computer analysis/simulations created by NIST but we believe this guy?

I mean, how about this video from scientist at Purdue that conclude that over 255 of the columns would be destroyed which would place undue stress when the support was redistributed. This further emphasizes the fact that the towers did not fall straight down but at an angle and sheared the rest of the tower as they collapsed.



This is another very good computer simulation.


What we need to do is raise the money to build one in the Nevada desert and use one of those secret military planes to hit...


Mod edit: Fixed YT links.

[edit on 5/7/2009 by Hal9000]



new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join