It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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: 17
12
share:

posted on Sep, 23 2009 @ 05:41 PM

I think I've seen the videos of the collapse plenty of times.

As I understand the design....the "core" was like a spine in the building.

The concept was to have the "open spaces" on all floors, not intruded upon by structural members (columns). This gave the planners more room, per floor, uninhibited by immovable structural support.

This was unprecedented, in skyscraper design. Innovative.

Could have been an Achille's Heel.......given the damage from high-speed impact and subsequent fires.....

posted on Sep, 23 2009 @ 05:43 PM

Originally posted by weedwhacker
OK....I think I see the misunderstanding.

I'm not so sure considering you never mentioned what I am talking about in this post.

I asked if the towers accelerated at gravity, and though you didn't answer me directly, I assume you realize the answer is "no."

Acceleration due to gravity does not produce a linear rate of vertical velocity, obviously.

There is no reason to believe that the resistance provided by the structure should perfectly balance the acceleration of gravity all the way down, so as to produce a linear rate at which I am seeing rows of puffs coming out of the faces of the buildings in various videos. They don't speed up or slow down as they move along, but come out in regular intervals. Listen to witness testimony you will hear the same over and over, "boom boom boom boom boom," etc., not in an accelerating or "de-celerating" event, but in a linear sequence. That the forces would counter-balance to create the appearance of a linear sequence is extremely unlikely to me, and yes, it would be quite a coincidence.

posted on Sep, 23 2009 @ 05:45 PM
weedwhacker, your rushing off half cocked. slow down.

first of all i said VELOCITY (in all caps, even), not acceleration. it is surpising there was almost no acceleration once the collapse was well under way, but more of a constant speed.

the "sliding scales" i'm talking about are the accumulation of and momentum (which is also affected by "mass shedding", ie. the stuff that fell outside the footprint, which as the pictures from space show is A LOT) at the crushing front, vs. the tower which is stronger and more robust at the bottom than it is at the top.

so, that's accumulating mass and momentum vs. pyramid-style strength.

you'd would instinctively think that this clash of the titans would give a chaotic mix of accelerations and/ot deccelerations, and not a near constant velocity.

strengthwise, the towers were like pyramids, with all the core columns gradually tapering off as the tower went higher and higher.

anyway, the paper i linked to above explains it much more conclusively, and shows pretty graphs and everything.

posted on Sep, 23 2009 @ 05:52 PM

The problem is....when you see INTENTIONALLY planned CD...the buildings fall FASTER than the collapsing WTC Towers.

Not much faster....but a little bit, BECAUSE certain key supports are intentionally destroyed BY EXPLOSIVES. AT THE BOTTOM. AND IN SEQUENCE.

That is not seen in either of the WTC Towers' collapse.

IF those buildings had been of traditonal design, I.E., the steel girder box-frame design....then we would probably still see them standing today. Repaired, even.....

posted on Sep, 23 2009 @ 05:53 PM

Originally posted by weedwhacker
People seem to comprehend that stuff falling in WATER will show certain behavior....but they (because they live in air) don't realize that air also has an effect.

THIS IS WHY there are the "puffs" seen, as the buildings collapse. They are NOT "squibs"....it is just air. Being forced out, from collapsing above.

Just a question. Why would the air follow this narrow path to explode out into puffs outside at certain places instead of the windows which I have to imagine were easier to break than wall or even say the entirely open area to the top?

posted on Sep, 23 2009 @ 05:53 PM

Your post contradicts itself. Why do you not see that? You ask "do you know the weight of 1 floor of that building?" Since the floors have weight, i.e. mass, they have inertia. This means that it takes force to get them moving and their inertia resists whatever force is acting on them. They don't suddenly and without resistance accelerate to near free-fall speed as in the BS OS. This is the fatal flaw in your construct of what happened. For the sake of yourself, your family, loved ones, friends, and us all, I hope you and all those like you who cling to BS OS as though letting go will cause your entire reality to collapse like your fairytale belief about waht happened on 9/11 will someday pull your head out of that dark place and think this through a bit more thoroughly.

posted on Sep, 23 2009 @ 05:54 PM

Originally posted by weedwhacker

Could have been an Achille's Heel.......given the damage from high-speed impact and subsequent fires.....

Then how does 7 fit in to all of this? Built differently. Damaged differently. Fell straight down in a near symmetrical collapse just like the other two.

posted on Sep, 23 2009 @ 05:54 PM

No one who assumes the collapsing building was gaining energy instead of losing it to destroying itself (which outside of 9/11 would be an incredibly asinine thing to assume anyway), takes into account the following:

1) Most of the mass was sent outwards during the actual collapse, not straight down towards the base. A rigorous proof of this concept is offered to anyone who will take a 2-second glance at the footprint of either building after its collapse.

2) Dust, dismembered structure, etc. does not provide the same force upon impact to the lower structure than intact mass does. The simple reason for this is because smaller mass is more easily deflected. 50 pounds of dust dropped onto a car will never produce the damage a 50 pound rock will dropped from the same distance. Yet as the tower is collapsing to dust and individual columns, which, again, are mostly flying outwards in all directions, the system is (for some bizarre reason) assumed to be gaining potential energy.

3) All number of "energy expenditures" to the amount of heat, fine-particle dust, including a significant amount of iron/steel being turned to small particles, the energy required to laterally eject large chunks of mass out of the system, etc., which is all taxing on the PE and would have added up to be an insane amount of energy to itself, aside from just shearing connections and allowing the collapse to continue unarrested by the intact structure below.

posted on Sep, 23 2009 @ 05:58 PM

...or even say the entirely open area to the top?

The "top" was not 'entirely open'!!!

I'm puzzled by the question...the windows are WHERE some of the 'puffs' are seen in video.

I just don't understand why people can't realize how gravity, and force, affects a large mass in a collapse.

Also....EVERY floor had different internal arrangements, walls and offices and such....you cannot assume that the path of the escaping air is the same on every floor!!!

posted on Sep, 23 2009 @ 06:04 PM

Originally posted by weedwhacker

I think I've seen the videos of the collapse plenty of times.

As I understand the design....the "core" was like a spine in the building.

The concept was to have the "open spaces" on all floors, not intruded upon by structural members (columns). This gave the planners more room, per floor, uninhibited by immovable structural support.

This was unprecedented, in skyscraper design. Innovative.

Could have been an Achille's Heel.......given the damage from high-speed impact and subsequent fires.....

Ok, that just seems like groping in the dark to me. Did you actually read the linked paper studying the physics of the collapse and that showed how the observed collapse CANNOT be brought into line with any model of a natural collapse, unless the mass of each floor is "distributed evenly throughout it's area", i.e.: that each floor was reduced to dust before the falling upper structure hits it. Even these models which suggest a controlled demolition assume an intact 12 story portion of the building which remains intact throughout the collapse which cannot have been the case. As much damage must be done to the falling top section as is done to the sections that it impacts.

The mass of each floor is accurately ascertained, taking account of your "open spaces". Please read the document, and then argue with it if you can.

Here it is again, in case you missed it: zkt.blackfish.org.uk...

[edit on 23-9-2009 by Karilla]

posted on Sep, 23 2009 @ 06:05 PM

Originally posted by weedwhacker
The problem is....when you see INTENTIONALLY planned CD...the buildings fall FASTER than the collapsing WTC Towers.

Not much faster....but a little bit

You are talking about two of the most massive buildings in the world collapsing completely to the ground at a rate which is only slightly slower than free-fall in a complete and absolute vacuum. "Free-fall times" are assumed in a vacuum, not taking air into account (drag), which automatically tacks on a couple of extra seconds.

So you have the time it takes to fall from a tower's height in a complete vacuum. A vacuum! NOTHING THERE AT ALL!

Now you take air into account, and since air is not very dense, it does not change the time much, but still by a significant couple of seconds or so.

Now this is where it stops making sense to me. In addition to the air, you also throw in 1000+ tons of steel, concrete, office materials, etc., all right in the way, and you still have basically the same time you did when you only took air into account. That is NO different than a controlled demolition.

posted on Sep, 23 2009 @ 06:11 PM

Originally posted by weedwhacker
The "top" was not 'entirely open'!!!

How were multi-ton pieces of steel flying out of the "collapse wave" if it was airtight?

I'm puzzled by the question...the windows are WHERE some of the 'puffs' are seen in video.

I'm puzzled to why you think that means it was a violent depressurization from an over-pressurized air-tight container, as opposed to something else blowing through the windows. Can you explain?

I just don't understand why people can't realize how gravity, and force, affects a large mass in a collapse.

There is more than that that you are not understanding. Simply listing off the words "gravity," "force," and "mass" does NOT establish what in the hell happened to those buildings. Yes, there is a lot you are leaving out, that you apparently do not realize.

posted on Sep, 23 2009 @ 06:33 PM

Originally posted by weedwhacker

...or even say the entirely open area to the top?

The "top" was not 'entirely open'!!!

I'm puzzled by the question...the windows are WHERE some of the 'puffs' are seen in video.

I just don't understand why people can't realize how gravity, and force, affects a large mass in a collapse.

Also....EVERY floor had different internal arrangements, walls and offices and such....you cannot assume that the path of the escaping air is the same on every floor!!!

How was the top not open? It was all disconnected pieces of building. How would that be anywhere near as airtight as a window or a wall. I do not understand why you are puzzled by the question because some of the puffs come from windows because some of the puffs are not coming from windows. I have a feeling that I understand far more about gravity and mass relate to each other in a collapse. For starters, gravity is a force so you are already just being redundant which is a good sign of someone who has the words, just not he meaning behind them.

Why do you think I am assuming the air would flow the same on every floor? What out of the things that I said even hint at that?

posted on Sep, 23 2009 @ 06:56 PM

That is NO different than a controlled demolition.

That pretty much sums it up.

posted on Sep, 23 2009 @ 07:03 PM

How was the top not open?

(sigh)

EVERY floor was a concrete pan, right? That means, IF you are on floor 55, and the building above is collapsing above you....the CEILING above your head, the bit that separates floor 55 from floor 56...is SOLID!!!!!

In the progessive collapse sequence, SOME air will escape upwards, through the jumbled mass above...of course.

BUT, not all of it. Air will be forced out every which way....horizontally and vertically.

Path of least resistance, usually...but in the chaos of destruction....

Sorry, but people want to see something that IS NOT THERE!!!!

posted on Sep, 23 2009 @ 07:20 PM

Originally posted by weedwhacker
Path of least resistance, usually...but in the chaos of destruction....

Sorry, but people want to see something that IS NOT THERE!!!!

So what about the resistance of the intact floors below the impact zone? The only way it can be modelled to match the observations of the actual collapse is if those floors have all been turned to dust before the upper section hits them!!!

How do you explain this?

posted on Sep, 23 2009 @ 07:30 PM

BUT...other than that, your post has no merit whatsoever.

What part of a crushing massive weight from above is difficult to comprehend?

It's the EXACT method used in CD...EXCEPT, in CD there are very, very obvious explosive charges...detonations that make visual and audible effects, NOT seen in any of the Tower collapsing videos.

ALSO. in CD...there are WEEKS of intense preparation and plannign involved. AND, usually, the structure is rigged to 'implode'....from the bottom, or mid, NOT from top down.

AND....a true CD would not want all of the debris to go flying about, and damage nearby buildings...as was seen.

posted on Sep, 23 2009 @ 07:43 PM

Originally posted by weedwhacker

BUT...other than that, your post has no merit whatsoever.

Please read the linked file, to which I'm referring, which you obviously haven't, and then tell me my post has no merit. It lays it out plain and simple. The observed collapse does NOT match a gravity driven collapse, no matter which way round you work it. The mass of the lower floors has to be EVENLY distributed throughout the area occupied by that floor to explain the speed of collapse. That's real engineering know how, please refute it, if you can.

What part of a crushing massive weight from above is difficult to comprehend?

Um, the part where the structure below this falling weight offers little more resistance than empty air, perhaps? If you actually read that report (yet again:zkt.blackfish.org.uk...) it examines the speed of the collapse, the acceleration of descent, the velocities and the masses involved, and every other pertinent fact, and comes to the inevitable conclusion that ONLY a CD explains the collapse of the towers.

It's the EXACT method used in CD...EXCEPT, in CD there are very, very obvious explosive charges...detonations that make visual and audible effects, NOT seen in any of the Tower collapsing videos.

Well that is a matter of interpretation. You say over-pressure, I say demolition wave with obvious squibs.

ALSO. in CD...there are WEEKS of intense preparation and plannign involved. AND, usually, the structure is rigged to 'implode'....from the bottom, or mid, NOT from top down.

How do you know there wasn't months or even years of preperation for this? And if you think there are alot of people shouting "CD!" now, imagine if it had started from the bottom.

AND....a true CD would not want all of the debris to go flying about, and damage nearby buildings...as was seen.

What, so the same people who killed hundreds of innocent people, including fire-fighters in those buildings would be worried about the clean up bill. Have you been smoking the weed you've been whacking? It wasn't meant to look like a controlled demolition. It obviously worked on the more indoctrinated members of society.

posted on Sep, 23 2009 @ 08:01 PM

Originally posted by weedwhacker

How was the top not open?

(sigh)

EVERY floor was a concrete pan, right? That means, IF you are on floor 55, and the building above is collapsing above you....the CEILING above your head, the bit that separates floor 55 from floor 56...is SOLID!!!!!

That is quite an assumption considering the very fact that it is not possible. For one thing, we can all see the top is nothing but crumbling building, no solid floors. For another thing, do you have any idea what coming apart and collapsing downward would actually mean for those "solid" floors? Unless you are suggesting that every single support column in the building suddenly just disappeared, the floors are not falling 100% intact. There is no possible reason to believe that they even could.

This is the internet. If you are exasperated by me, instead of writing out the word 'sigh' in some vain attempt to get me to feel little and for you to look and feel superior then I suggest you just go outside for a while because there is no need for that. If you want me to take you seriously, you will have to see if you can pry yourself away from verbalizing your bodily functions.

posted on Sep, 23 2009 @ 08:36 PM

I've read through the 'blackfish' junk.

Poppycock.

The same sort of rubbish could be applied to ANY event, in ANY way that is biased towards a pre-determined 'conclusion'.

There is NOTHING in that 'study' to address the specifics of the construction mentods of those buildings. It's just more noise, designed to infect minds of the people who already "believe"......

new topics

top topics

12