It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


What would you consider an accurate re-enactment?

page: 1

log in


posted on Sep, 16 2009 @ 12:55 AM
After all these years, I’m surprised that one of the most common arguments surrounding 9/11 is whether or not the heat produced could have had the destructive effects on the structural steel columns required to initiate the collapse of all three WTC buildings.

So why has no-one bothered to create a re-enactment?

Obviously, everything would need to be scaled down. I’m sure there are some people in these forums with an appropriate understanding of mathematics, physics, engineering, construction or chemistry (amongst other important disciplines, of course), who could calculate a scale version of the events for a re-enactment to test the theory that fire weakened the steel structures to the point of failure.

Imagine we take four of the steel structural support columns and stand them up. Then we put a reinforced concrete slab on top, so it resembled a very large table. A very basic structure, of course, but stay with me here…

How much weight would we need to add on top of this smaller structure to simulate what the WTC steel columns would have had exerted on them by the undamaged floors above?

How much jet fuel would you be allowed to use, both as an aerosolised explosive and as a fuel source for longer burning fires, in order to be a suitable scale re-enactment?

How much office furniture and paper could you stack against the columns in order to recreate the ‘fuel’ which existed in the offices, to continue feeding the fire?

How much time would you allow for this fire to reach the necessary temperatures (particularly given that NIST admits in its Final Report, “the initial jet fuel fires themselves lasted at most a few minutes”)?

After all this time, much of the argument surrounds the theory that the fire could have weakened the steel support structures of the WTC buildings to the point of catastrophic collapse, yet it seems that it would be remarkably simple to reconstruct a scale re-enactment of the heat stresses these structures would have been exposed to, using as identical fuel source to do it.

So… what would YOU accept as a re-enactment? Could YOU create a re-enactment such as that above and get just ONE of the steel columns to bend, weaken or fail?

Does anyone know the boys from Mythbusters?


posted on Sep, 16 2009 @ 03:06 AM
reply to post by Rewey


I had this same exact idea for over a year now. I even posted a reply to a YouTube video of some douche who build a 5ft high tower of SNOW. That's right, SNOW. This moron actually tried to compare a steel skyscraper to SNOW. And theres another twit out there who used a 3ft tower made of plastic paper trays.

Someone should get architects and engineers to build a scaled down model (with scaled down steel, concrete, etc.) and recreate 9/11.

OR a more simpler experiment would be to build just a few floors of a building the EXACT SAME WAY the floors that were hit was built, fill it with office equipment, add the FIRE-PROOF ASBESTOS to the building the same way it was for WTC 1,2 and 7, and mimic EVERY SINGLE ASPECT OF THE CONDITIONS that occurred in those buildings and then...


That should dispell the theories of the "Truthers" AND the "Non-Truthers" about 9/11.

I've always looked at 9/11 with a very objective view, as well as every other current event that happens on this earth. It's hard and not everyone out there has the stomach for it.

Like Kevin Costner's character Jim Garrison says in the movie JFK:

"We're through the looking-glass here people. Y'all gotta start looking at everything the same way the CIA does. Black is white. And white is black."

posted on Sep, 16 2009 @ 03:14 AM
reply to post by Rewey

A few more things I want to add:

1) Not trying to say I had the idea first or anything - it doesn't matter - but that this should be the new topic of conversation between people when discussing 9/11.

2) I doubt that the Mythbusters would go for something like this and not botch the experiment, like they've done a few times (can't remember with what though, but watching that show sometimes is just excruciating from an intellectual standpoint). Not only that, but I truly believe the MSM outlets have been placed under a secret gag order about 9/11. No MSM news reporter, journalist, or TV Host will ever admit it himself or let it be the consensus of an entire panel on a talk show.

This should be done independently. I get sick of hearing some "truthers" out there call for the trial and prosecution of "those involved" - as if the judicial system isn't corrupt or even corruptible.

It's kind of a strange that people attack the system and then ask for it's protection. It doesn't make any sense.

posted on Sep, 16 2009 @ 11:18 AM
reply to post by Rewey

The problem is that you can't scale gravity. That is why they use computer models. That is the real question - with all the so-called architects, scientist, and engineers in the "truth movement" why have they not created a computer model that proves what they call the official story inoperable?

posted on Sep, 16 2009 @ 11:50 AM

posted on Sep, 16 2009 @ 07:30 PM

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by Rewey

The problem is that you can't scale gravity.

But given that gravity is a constant, would you need to in this case?

Or would it be a matter of simply adjusting how much weight sat on top of our newly-created structure in order to simulate the same stresses the WTC structure had on it from the undamaged floors above?


new topics

top topics

log in