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: 4
10
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 7 2009 @ 09:35 AM
link   

Some of the beams were already damaged if not severed in the collision and the ones that were not had to hold up the weight that those other ones were not holding up. Heat metal up it's ability to hold things up shrinks as the metal gets hotter.


The Statistics and the degrees the metal being heated to limited points is in question here. There is set conditions to be met, these conditions have values and are known of the materials we use. Setting a piece of the beam used in a oven at 450degrees, will make it hotter and have effects, but it will not meet the conditions for which it to bend. Not saying that the fire was 450, its a simple example to a statement that just said "hotter".


Doesn't change what I said earlier I am perplexed as to why you think it does. The damage and the fire starting happend in the collision meaning it happend at the same time. It does not matter that there was no structural damage caused by the 1975 fire as the elements are


I'm not here to change your opinion or views, though the article does not in my view give any real relavence that denounces serveral other claims.


Hate to tell you regardless of of if it was a airplane or c4 that made the holes the building will shudder.


I disagree that if the wieght of the planes was such an impact on the structure, more outer damage whould have been seen cleary down the side of the impact of the tower. All statements prove/disproveing are irrelevant to this unless the "person" Was an overseer of construction of the projects or assisted to.

any conspiracy theorist, scientist, goverment "tag", organization "tag" would be prone to question.


A simulation that does not approximate all factors in the collapse, gotcha.


the sad part is thats every simulation made to this event. this one gives you a start for your own research

[edit on 7-5-2009 by Bldrvgr]

Note: Have had Hard time loading this thread, esp pg1 and pg 2 for direct article linked. not sure why will check back later.

[edit on 7-5-2009 by Bldrvgr]




posted on May, 7 2009 @ 11:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
Seems to me it would painfully obvious that the top part would break up in the collapse. It wasn't some super structure impervious to crumbling after all. Why do you think it would require more energy to break up energy that you insist wasn't there? For someone who questions the science know how of someone else your own is showing holes.


no. yours is.
in the model it is not possible to break the 'cap. therefore, the energy required to break apart the cap is also absent in the sims.
the model is not interested in the reality of what happened to the cap, but rather in the reality of the effect of work done on collapse times.

and, as an aside to some of the other discussions, he DID add in the extra weight of the plane in some of the later sims, as well as 'mass shedding', or loss of potential crushing energy due to debris being expelled outside of the building footprint.

i only posted parts 1 and 2, but i see he has at least seven parts. i haven't even watched them all, yet. i will, for sure, though. 'femr' sees it like it is, and then shows the world.



posted on May, 7 2009 @ 11:41 AM
link   
reply to post by billybob
 

I must say that Watcher in the Dark's responses are a bit petulant to say the least. You make some strong arguments that persuade me far more than his ever does. Reason being is that you stay with facts and your answers are complete and to the point without getting personal. Great work!

I am also going to a bit more research and educate myself on this. I get that these calculations show that there was not enough energy released during the collapse to make it fall at that speed and that energy from a source other than the momentum must have caused it. Resistance would logically slow it down. But there are so many questions that come after that realisation. What is that source of extra energy? And more importantly, in the case of explosives, How would "they" do it? I guess that is for another discussion entirely and I am sure there are scores of threads where that has been done ad nauseam but the secretly placing of explosives is a conundrum that still makes me doubt that it could possibly be true.



posted on May, 7 2009 @ 01:25 PM
link   
Hi. Happy to answer any questions you may have about the simulations. I've recently updated the underlying calculations, which are conveniently housed in a spreadsheet. If you want to grab the spreadsheet and experiment, it's here:
Calculation Model

Updates include:

* Removal of focus on Greening paper, column usage replaced by values which are constant.
* Inclusion of conservation of momentum energy loss for usage in subsequent deformation of materials.
* Specific floor heights used, rather than an averaged constant.
* Concrete crush scale maximum removed. Unlimited scale permitted.
* Manual concrete crush scale ramping parameters removed.
* Impact KE based concrete crush scale calculation added. Switchable.
* Floor-by-floor concrete crush volume percentage added.
* Floor-by-floor mass loss (kg) added. Switchable.
* Per floor Impact KE based mass loss calculation added. Switchable.
* Calculated mass switchable to include/exclude cap mass loss.
* Initial cap drop height modifier added.
* Average Debris Lateral Ejection Velocity included.
* Debris Lateral Ejection Energy Requirement Added. (Applied to mass lost)
* Concrete mass inside core uses floor-by floor specific area percentage modifier to account for variation in usable floor area.
* Graphs for tracking Kinetic Energy, Mass and Velocity.



posted on May, 7 2009 @ 01:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by esdad71
And just what does the model show? Please explain if you could.


The one billybob posted? More work was done during the collapse than the available energy could have provided for. Now before even considering this idea or looking at the numbers, I bet you're going to come up with a reason why it's wrong.



Originally posted by Lebowski achiever
What is that source of extra energy?


That's the golden question. I could be mistaken but I think most people are in agreement here that conventional high explosives (like TNT or C4) weren't used in any case.



posted on May, 7 2009 @ 02:30 PM
link   
reply to post by femr2
 


hey,awesome! you're 'here'.

you've done a great service. awesome to know you're willing to keep running with it.

thanks!



posted on May, 7 2009 @ 07:01 PM
link   
reply to post by Bldrvgr
 


The Statistics and the degrees the metal being heated to limited points is in question here. There is set conditions to be met, these conditions have values and are known of the materials we use. Setting a piece of the beam used in a oven at 450degrees, will make it hotter and have effects, but it will not meet the conditions for which it to bend. Not saying that the fire was 450, its a simple example to a statement that just said "hotter".


The condition you leave out is have weight pushing down on that peice of metal. Which is rather simular to what a blacksmith does.


I'm not here to change your opinion or views, though the article does not in my view give any real relavence that denounces serveral other claims.


Didn't claim you did, merely as hoping you'd provide some clarification as to why you feel your statements have weight on this particular subject.


I disagree that if the wieght of the planes was such an impact on the structure, more outer damage whould have been seen cleary down the side of the impact of the tower. All statements prove/disproveing are irrelevant to this unless the "person" Was an overseer of construction of the projects or assisted to.

any conspiracy theorist, scientist, goverment "tag", organization "tag" would be prone to question.


The damage was extensive, were you expecting for it to blast out that entire facing? The mechanics of of such an event of that are not possible with our current understanding of physics. It was after all little more than a large aluminum cylinder moving at high velocity that hit the buildings. And of course everyone should question everything in my opinion regardless of what labels they apply to themselves.


the sad part is thats every simulation made to this event. this one gives you a start for your own research
Note: Have had Hard time loading this thread, esp pg1 and pg 2 for direct article linked. not sure why will check back later.


Cheers, not much to read on the first pages anyway beyond alot of childish bickering. Which I am admittingly guilty of a part in as well. *waits for it from certain other members*



posted on May, 7 2009 @ 08:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
The condition you leave out is have weight pushing down on that peice of metal. Which is rather simular to what a blacksmith does.


Do you know what the technical definition of a yield strength is, or a reserve capacity, or deformation?




top topics



 
10
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join