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.

 

Simulation shows why World Trade Center towers fell: it's the heat

page: 1
12
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 18 2009 @ 03:12 AM
link   
www.guardian.co.uk...


National Geographic has a fascinating simulation of why the US World Trade Center towers collapsed after the planes hit them on September 11 2001.

It's part of a program investigating "science and conspiracy".

channel.nationalgeographic.com...-Videos/07095_00

Basically, it's because the fuel in the (nearly-full) tanks caught fire, which weakened the columns, which bent slightly, which meant that the roof - and other floors- fell in.

We know that from the real-life example, of course. But it's interesting to see it demonstrated here. Not, of course, that this will satisfy the wingnuts who think it was a conspiracy. Their loss.

But sometimes this is what engineering is about: figuring out why things happen after the event. (Other videos on the National Geographic site ask whether controlled demolition could have done the same job, and whether the hijacked planes were replaced by planes carrying explosives. Enjoy.)




posted on Sep, 18 2009 @ 03:28 AM
link   
reply to post by john124
 


National geographic? Come on gimme a break, why dont you watch the BBC's Story or maybe Channel 4, eh.

My friend i wouldnt take much notice of these mainstream TV channels, honestly.

They are payed tons of money to make these Documentarys to counter the real truth thats out there. Keep your mind open.



posted on Sep, 18 2009 @ 03:32 AM
link   
reply to post by john124
 


By the way, We are not wing nuts.. We just have the capability to use the full 9% of our brain that we are privy to, unlike you guys that bairly use 0.5% of yours..

Common sense my friend, you have none.



posted on Sep, 18 2009 @ 03:34 AM
link   
Yea sure, they just "fell in", and then plummeted in a disintegrating cloud of pulverized building material, all the way to the ground, through the path of maximal resistence, to within a couple of seconds of absolute free fall from that height.

It's not even the "collapse initation" hypothesis which is the worst part of the OS, but what ensured thereafter, something NIST simply called "automatic and inevitable" once conditions for collapse initation were reached "as seen in the videos".


I call it "the foot of God hypothesis" the OS about it. It's absurd on the face of it. The North Tower was hit at around the 96th floor, but it did the very same thing, in this case with the North Tower Communications antenna, and the upper section, following an acceleration curve of free fall, through the entire remaining structure, by the end of the descent of destruction, to within literally two or three seconds max of absolute free fall, in nothing but air.

Isaac Newton would have a problem with the OS in this regard.

[edit on 18-9-2009 by OmegaPoint]



posted on Sep, 18 2009 @ 03:34 AM
link   
I watched that show, they used a much smaller i beam with no insulation laid over a horizontal plain and weighted in the middle LOL

in science the experiment is supposed to represent what you are trying to demonstrate. that is like saying that a fork can cut through bone and using saw to demonstrate it because they both are metal and have teeth...

good luck tho!



posted on Sep, 18 2009 @ 03:36 AM
link   
It is focused SOLELY on a theory of collapse initation, but does not address the global near simulatenous destruction of the rest of the structure, as if they didn't just explode and go poof in 13, 14 seconds, where absolute free fall in air is just over 10 seconds for any freely dropped object from their height, whether it be a large steel safe, a car, or a grand piano.



posted on Sep, 18 2009 @ 03:39 AM
link   
6000 gallons of fuel ignited upon impact per plane. The other 4000 gallons ignited as the buildings collapsed causing the disinegration of everything in it's way. The hijackers made sure the planes were stocked full of gas, it was a priority of which planes were chosen.

Star and flag John, for bringing up the reality of 9/11.

[edit on 18-9-2009 by space cadet]



posted on Sep, 18 2009 @ 03:41 AM
link   
So Ok yeah sure.. heat why not... OK master minds now please explain where the heat came from the destroyed WTC 7. And for the love of god please give us a better answer than some isolated office fires.



posted on Sep, 18 2009 @ 03:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by space cadet
6000 gallons of fuel ignited upon impact per plane. The other 4000 gallons ignited as the buildings collapsed causing the disinegration of everything in it's way. The hijackers made sure the planes were stocked full of gas, it was a priority of which planes were chosen.

Star and flag John, for bringing up the reality of 9/11.

[edit on 18-9-2009 by space cadet]


Yes what ever you say, what about building seven eh.. I cant believe people are still arguing about this stuff. With people like this around, the world is truly [snip]!




Mod Edit: Profanity/Circumvention Of Censors – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 18-9-2009 by 12m8keall2c]



posted on Sep, 18 2009 @ 03:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by space cadet
6000 gallons of fuel ignited upon impact per plane. The other 4000 gallons ignited as the buildings collapsed causing the disinegration of everything in it's way. The hijackers made sure the planes were stocked full of gas, it was a priority of which planes were chosen.

Star and flag John, for bringing up the reality of 9/11.

[edit on 18-9-2009 by space cadet]


Mmm. How do you know this?

How can hijackers be sure that the jet they are hijacking is full of fuel?
They must have hijacked the jets while refueling on the tarmac to know this.
After refueling the pilot have to sign for the fuel. But the pilot dosent keep the signed papers.



posted on Sep, 18 2009 @ 04:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by space cadet
6000 gallons of fuel ignited upon impact per plane. The other 4000 gallons ignited as the buildings collapsed causing the disinegration of everything in it's way. The hijackers made sure the planes were stocked full of gas, it was a priority of which planes were chosen.

Star and flag John, for bringing up the reality of 9/11.

[edit on 18-9-2009 by space cadet]



hahahah... an all time new low... claiming that part of the fuel would have survived the initial impact, for an hour... hahahaha


It doesn't matter how you slice it, this is still the pancake theory. The already debunked pancake theory. There's no pancake model that can provide for the explosive removal of the matter below the descending portion.

Every single video of the collapse is proof against a pancake collapse, since there is practically zero resistance. And why was the steel that was 30, 40, or even 50 floors below damaged? Nothing had happened to it. Yet it provided zero resistance?

You guys are (Snip). Foe'd, until you end your intentional, delusional, ignorance.

[edit on 19-9-2009 by asala]



posted on Sep, 18 2009 @ 04:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by spy66
After refueling the pilot have to sign for the fuel. But the pilot dosent keep the signed papers.


Yeah, well do a little research on Anthony F. Mazza. That is still a little-known mystery of 9/11. Basically, that's the tech that had fueled Flight 93 on 9/11, and when he finished, went onto the plane and carried the paperwork to the cockpit. Some man took the papers, claiming to be the co-pilot.

All was fine until a couple of months later, when the FBI questioned him and showed him pictures of the pilot and co-pilot that supposedly flew the airplane to their deaths. The problem: Mazza swears neither one of them was the person he handed that paperwork to, by a long shot. Not even close.

And so where does that mystery end? It doesn't, the FBI had nothing further to say on the incident. And to me that is further indication of switched planes. Or switched pilots. Or something. But whatever it is, it stinks- just like so many other things about 9/11.

Ok, sorry for the devaition off-topic there, but you started it!


Now, as to this story, I watched that NG/Purdue simulation. And there are so many problems with it when compared to actual footage to me it's not even worth discussing. More propaganda lies from the people who have an interest. In lying. Remember, GREED MAKES LOYAL FRIENDS.



posted on Sep, 18 2009 @ 07:27 AM
link   
Jesus do people still actually belive this crap. Anyone with half a braincell can understand the official story is a crock.

I really hope and pray that one day the familys and workers get the truth and the help they deserve.

Peace



posted on Sep, 18 2009 @ 07:28 AM
link   
reply to post by OmegaPoint
 


Do you even realize the weight of 1 floor of that building? The design of the buildings were garbage, they were a new idea in architecture, they were untested by today's standards and created to provide the maximum amount of interior space by using the outer shell as the building support.

If they were destroyed by explosives people would have heard more than 1 to 3 explosions, there would have to be hundreds going off per floor. The poofs of smoke or dust were coming from the sealed environment of an office building when the pressure had no where to go, it blew out of the weakest point. You don't see that on demo buildings because the remove all the windows first.

So the outer shell of the building would and did act like a tube with each floor collapsing down on the one below it, that much weight compounded by each addition floor and the outer shell acting like a tube is what made them pancake to the ground.

Lastly, I though ChimpyGeorge Mc idiotBush was too stupid to even think clearly? If you don't blame him, whom do blame? Cheney?



posted on Sep, 18 2009 @ 07:37 AM
link   
So if 6,000 of fuel can bring down three skyscrapers, then a tanker truck should never be allowed in teh city again.


+3 more 
posted on Sep, 18 2009 @ 07:45 AM
link   
COMPLETE AND UTTER BS!

Have you actually stood in front of one of those beams?

I have.


With my metal working knowledge, it would take me at least a DAY to even make a dent in that beam with an Oxy Acetylene torch. It would take HOURS to cut using a plasma torch.

Yet we are supposed to believe that it was weakened by jet fuel?

I don't think so.



posted on Sep, 18 2009 @ 08:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by nixie_nox
So if 6,000 of fuel can bring down three skyscrapers, then a tanker truck should never be allowed in teh city again.


The problem being that the capacity of a typical 18-wheeler tanker is 8000gallons, and the capacity of a 767-222(3) ER is 24000 gallons. So in your example you would have to link three tanker trucks together to create the same amount of force as just a single aircraft. Now take that times two aircraft in close proximity.



posted on Sep, 18 2009 @ 10:22 AM
link   
1). Air Squibs popping before collapse, your government state these are caused by compressed air as the none pancake collapse, starts collapsing and pancakes before any floors have collapsed.


(click to open player in new window)


3). Why in any government report does it not state the explosions clearly seen exiting every face of WTC1 the North Tower, plus the two faces visible more explosions around the hat truss sections, kept this quiet didn`t they? yet another miraculous feat from the Kryptonite hating Boeing super planes.



4). Why, milliseconds after the initial explosions (make sure to note the difference in debris between the two explosions, another huge clue)........



Seen exiting South (wtf a blast heading back over 80 metres where a plane travelling around 550 mph has just been) east and north faces respectively did all hell brake loose with this?, orange flames and white smoke to red and white flames with black smoke.



Apparently not all the fuel ignited, oh no, only a 3rd or two 3rds ignited, the rest of it had to somehow spread over 110 storeys and weaken 90,000 tons of tempered steel, and reduce to dust 110 acres of concrete, how embarrassing for NIST having to tell the whole world that the explosion seen that covered over 100 metres in height and 200 metres in length (including a back blast of 80 metres????), was caused only by part of the fuel, here to scale is a cube that is exactly 36 cubed metres (even though there was only around 34 cubed metres of fuel left.



Anyone else see a few things happening here other than 34 cubic meters of jet fuel exploding?, my money is on the 100 metre high 200 metres wide explosion that followed the initial jet fuel pop.

Over at the Pentagon it took firemen a few minutes to quell the blaze, here we have some fuel that spread over 110 storeys (in both towers..wow) and set fire to none combustible office furniture (due to insurance policies regarding high rise residency, if it burns no insurance cover) so that leaves a few tons of A4, for just over an hour and weakened 90,000 tons of tempered steel, and reduced 110 acres of concrete to dust, a 3rd of the fuel done all this 12 cubic metres = two concrete lorries full, are you guys trying to take our tin foil hat status away from us here?
.

EDIT: P.S.

P.S.

Forget to mention the small factor in these raging infernos the brave fireman who made it to level 78 and described in intense detail the huge hell like apparition before him `We have two isolated pockets of fire, we can knock them down with two lines`.

Fires brought the towers down you say?, what`s that?, oh sorry, NIST theorycraft stated it, after Bush science applied it

[edit on 18-9-2009 by Seventh]

[edit on 18-9-2009 by Seventh]



posted on Sep, 18 2009 @ 10:47 AM
link   
reply to post by Stinkhorn1
 


And I hope you realize that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction, and that an object in motion will remain in motion unless acted upon by a force of resistence.



posted on Sep, 18 2009 @ 11:01 AM
link   
man .. its impossible for this building to fall freefall ...

the only way is with explosives



new topics

top topics



 
12
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join