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.


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

page: 2
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in


posted on Sep, 18 2009 @ 11:47 AM

Originally posted by Faiol
man .. its impossible for this building to fall freefall ...

the only way is with explosives

Yes, that's right, which is why I call the OS about it "the foot of God hypothesis".

Here in this post I made are a couple other ways of looking at the same issue.

Originally posted by OmegaPoint
Free fall in air would be about 10 seconds or so. Buildings went down in anywhere from 12 to 14 seconds, so to within a mere couple seconds or a few seconds of absolute free fall, all the while ejecting this fountain-like cascade of debris, all the way to the ground, without any loss of momentum.

The OCT (official conspiracy theory) as to what happened there I like to call "The Foot of God Hypothesis".

This post I made in another thread illustrates the point I'm trying to make here.

Originally posted by OmegaPoint

Originally posted by rogerstigers
A little digging got me this:

The real question is, how did all that implode and explode and go from top to bottom to within mere seconds of absolute FREE FALL in nothing but air..? with all the material blowing out in a plume of exploding debris, some firing large pieces of steel into the adjacent American express building and into the Winter Garden Atrium five hundred feet away - all the way to the ground WITHOUT ANY LOSS OF MOMENTUM???

Absent the use of explosives severing everything beneath the descending debris wave, that is..

[edit on 10-9-2009 by OmegaPoint]

Sir Isaac Newton's Three Laws of Motion

Another interesting aspect, is that the North Tower was impacted around the 95 floor (of 110), and yet precisely the same phenomenon occured, again, all the way to the ground, without any loss of momentum. Absent explosives, that is impossible.

Regarding the North Tower, here's a little graphic which further illustrates the point

And so, since the second case, is through nothing but air, or in short, nothing at all, it is ONLY within the DIFFERENCE (mere seconds) wherein every "breakage" would have to occur, throughout the remaining length of structure and that would be probably as fast or faster than the speed of sound, or in short ALL AT ONCE. This is absurd.

Here is yet another way of looking at it

Case 1: Free-fall time of a billiard ball dropped from the roof of WTC1, in a vacuum:

Case 2: Progressive free fall in ten-floor intervals:

Case 3: Progressive free fall in one-floor intervals

And in those cases, that is operating on the basis of floors being suspended in mid air, with no columnar support structure at all, such that the next fall time commences at the point of impact, like a series of dominos suspended in mid air one above the other.

Videos of destruction

Edit to add video of first hand eyewitness testimony of explosions

Google Video Link

There, I think that completes the picture.

So you see, the fundamental problem with the OS and the NIST report, is that it is a collapse initiation hypothesis ONLY.

In this context, any simulation about "it's the heat" leading to collapse initation, becomes moot.

Please be sure to take a close look at those graphics links posted above, thanks.

[edit on 18-9-2009 by OmegaPoint]

posted on Sep, 18 2009 @ 12:29 PM
this is probably the truth,
there are some seriously misinformed yet very vocal prople on this board who try to make out that they have the slightest understanding of basic physics concerning 911.
these people will be the very first to be rounded up and placed into the camps.
to these people i say............ "enjoy the soup"


posted on Sep, 18 2009 @ 01:08 PM

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.

Are you sure of that?

The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), which investigates the collapses, will say “The initial jet fuel fires themselves lasted at most a few minutes.”

Engineering professor Forman Williams will say the jet fuel “burned for maybe 10 minutes.”

Flight 175, a Boeing 767, had a capacity of 23,980 gallons, but was only carrying about 9,100 gallons of fuel when it hit the WTC. NIST will estimate that less than 1,500 gallons were consumed in a fireball inside the tower and 910 to 2,275 gallons were consumed in the fireballs outside the building. Approximately 6,100 gallons therefore splashed onto the office furnishings and started fires on various floors.


Does that look like only 2,275 gallons exploding in a fireball on the South Tower? Much much more? NIST claims the jet fuel fires lasted only a few minutes. NIST has been trapped in numerous lies haven't they; especially John Gross?

But you claim 4000 gallons waited to ignite when the buildings collapsed. That would be 102 minutes later for the North Tower, and 56 minutes later for the South Tower.

Where was this jet fuel waiting? Was it in a liguid state or atomized state? Why didn't it fall to the bottoms of the elevator shafts which would be far below the initial collapsing floors, depending on the elevator shaft height?

Why didn't the atomized fuel blow up right away? Why would it stay atomized for 56 or 102 minutes? If liquid, the jet fuel would not explode would it? Besides, except where it lay in the penetrated floors, gravity would have moved the extra fuel to its lowest available level down the elevator shafts or down the exterior wall on the exit side of the tower; far below the initial collapsing floors wouldn't it?

If the South Tower was collapsing at an average of one second per floor while overcoming the resistance of the next floor beneath it (remember the structure of the floor and building support became heavier and stronger progressing down the tower), it would take 80 seconds to collapse instead of the official 10 seconds according to seismic data. What could alleged exploding jet fuel accomplish in less than one second to increase disintegration (pulverization) of the floors and interiors?

How did the alleged hijackers have any say in the aircraft fuel load? They flew all over the northeast wasting fuel. Why should they care about the fuel anyway since a steel framed skyscraper had never collapsed due to fire at any time in history? Did the alleged hijackers not do their homework? Did you?

[edit on 9/18/09 by SPreston]

posted on Sep, 18 2009 @ 01:13 PM
reply to post by SPreston

Three words, fuel mist cloud. Or do you expect the cloud to be made up purely of fuel?

posted on Sep, 18 2009 @ 01:16 PM
It's interesting how I've only posted the source and a quote from there up until now, yet I've been called several names. Does a differing opinion make me a govt. spy suddenly?

Anyway the truth movement claimed there weren't a simulation of the towers being hit, and now there is.

For those who aren't indoctrinated into the truther cult, will understand perfectly how the irrational stances from many truthers refuse to accept any contradicting evidence, and will disregard anything at will, and yet accept a silly pixellated youtube video as evidence or an extremely tacky & modified photo which labels pockets of compressed air as meaning explosive charges

Not to also mention, those of us who understand science, will also understand that:

a). The collapsing mass increases after each floor collapse, thus increasing force, and kinetic energy of falling matter.

b). The collapse was never at freefall accelerations as truthers often suggest.

c). The resistance of materials below acting as an opposite reactive force decreases as time progress. (Obvious - since the mass below decreases!)

d). From a weakening of the structure, enough to cause a collapse on those affected floors, as shown in the simulation, leads to a total collapse because of a chain reaction effect of increasing KE vs reducing resistances.

e). The towers were designed to survive a passenger jet impact, and yes they did survive that initial impact. The supports did not survive the burning jet fuel, office equipment and melting aluminium from the plane itself, and was never designed to.

f). The top floors of WTC 2 did lean to one side as the supports collapsed more on one side, during its collapse. But due to its centre of gravity being approximately central, the larger component of of displacement was downwards, and since most adjacent floors below had mostly intact supports throughout, the tower could only fall approximately downwards. (see points a,c,d).

g). Nothing was exactly symmetrical in the collapse at all.

I've made my contribution, and I refuse to engage in meaningless arguments because some from the truther movement want others to do the thinking for them.

posted on Sep, 18 2009 @ 01:31 PM

posted by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
reply to post by SPreston

Three words, fuel mist cloud. Or do you expect the cloud to be made up purely of fuel?

Three words, top down demolition, or do you expect teensey little office fires to weaken massive structural steel? Don't forget the initial jet fuel fires were burned up in minutes according to NIST. Minutes is not much time to affect heavy structural steel is it?

And forget not that 503 WTC 1st responders ignored by the 9-11 Whitewash Commission would STILL like to testify under oath before the American people, along with their 19,000 pages of testimony describing explosions and demolition and molten steel at the WTC on 9-11.

posted on Sep, 18 2009 @ 01:35 PM
reply to post by john124

Pockets of compressed air - compressed by floors as they collapse - which are clearly seen ejecting prior to collapse, and you mentioned doing the thinking for us all.

posted on Sep, 18 2009 @ 01:38 PM
reply to post by SPreston

Eyewitness testimony you say? Go here and deny your ignorance please. Eyewitness Testimony is inherently faulty

[edit on 18-9-2009 by Watcher-In-The-Shadows]

posted on Sep, 18 2009 @ 01:38 PM
reply to post by spy66

They must have hijacked the jets while refueling on the tarmac to know this.

Yes, I know you were being sarcastic. BUT, with some of the disinfo and guesses going on regarding the fuel, let's clear up a few misconceptions, eh??

Any small amount of research and thinking will help one realize that a flight originating on the East coast, and expected to fly non-stop to the West coast (against normally prevailing headwinds) will no doubt understand that there will be more fuel in THAT jet, than in one destined, say, for Florida. MAXIMUM fuel capacity, and fuel actually regwuired for a trip are too vastly different things.

The hijackers COULD have selected flights originating in NYC destined for Europe...but that's also about six hours' time (depending on destination in Europe, could be eight) but there were A) far more West coast flights departing in the AM and, B) the flights were targeted on a TUESDAY because of historically low passenger load levels.

After refueling the pilot have to sign for the fuel. But the pilot dosent keep the signed papers.

Wrong. Every airline has a similar system, just different-looking forms. They are triplicate or my company, the top copy (pink in color) is required to be onboard for dispatch, NOT required to be signed by the Captain. MUST be signed by the fueler. Fueler keeps the other copies, one goes to the contracter providing the fuel for their records, one goes to the Airline's Accounting Deopartment for their records, one goes to the Airline's Maintenance Department for their records.

ONLY time an Airline representative must sign the fuel slip(s) is when an airplane is dispatched for an extended over-water flight. AND, for twin-engine jets on long over-water flights (ETOPS) the mechanics also VERIFY the fuel by not only noting the amount uploaded, compared to what was recorded at the gate after the last flight parked, but the mechanics ALSO perform a manual quantity check, using the "drip-sticks" installed under the tanks, at various locations under the wings and fuselage. (Modern devices are now 'dripless', unlike earlier designs).

Oh, and I hate the 'word' "tarmac"! Short for 'tarred macadam'...hardly applies anymore, as most airport aprons and ramps are concrete.....

posted on Sep, 18 2009 @ 01:40 PM
reply to post by Seventh

Yea. And he is right. Or did you think all that air blinked out of existance?

posted on Sep, 18 2009 @ 01:41 PM
reply to post by TrueAmerican

reminds of this story. i don't have a link, i just remember reading it.
someone interviewed the guy who sold the tickets to two of the hijackers. the ones that were shown in the published airport CCTV videos.
he said, those were the guys, but they were wearing different clothes.

just another mystery like the state department car bomb, the van with arabs and remote control planes about to hit towers painted on the side, the wollworth building missile, the underground explosions, mosear caned.....

posted on Sep, 18 2009 @ 01:50 PM
The computer simulation seems accurate.

However, one aspect is conspicuously missing:

The collapse of the entire building

Did they try to simulate that?

I think that they can't, because there is no way for the top section of the building to reach the ground in an amount of time similar to falling through thin air, when there is a huge building standing in the way. Not with the laws of physics as everyone knows them.

posted on Sep, 18 2009 @ 01:51 PM
why does the fireball explode out the side of impact on wtc1, while it explodes out the opposite side of impact on wtc2?

why does the "scientifically accurate" simulation by purdue of the first impact (wtc1) show the fuel going into the building, while it is clear in the video of wtc1's imapct, that the fireball is mostly on the outside of the building?

posted on Sep, 18 2009 @ 02:12 PM

posted by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
reply to post by SPreston

Eyewitness testimony you say? Go here and deny your ignorance please.

Oh really? So you are denying the testimonies of 503 firemen, policemen, and paramedics who were up in the towers putting out fires and rescuing people, and near the towers rescuing people; all experiencing the multiple explosions by hearing and feeling and seeing the flashes, and being thrown about by the explosions. They testify to explosions out of the street from the sub-basement levels, multiple explosions when there should be no explosions, explosions damaging stairwells and elevators far below the damage. Many policemen and firemen spent time in the military and know explosions and the sounds and effects of explosions.

I will take their word any day over corrupt fatcat political hacks working a whitewash and desperate people trying to protect them and the status quo.

And forget not that 503 WTC 1st responders ignored by the 9-11 Whitewash Commission would STILL like to testify under oath before the American people, along with their 19,000 pages of testimony describing explosions and demolition and molten steel at the WTC on 9-11.

posted on Sep, 18 2009 @ 02:12 PM

Originally posted by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
reply to post by Seventh

Yea. And he is right. Or did you think all that air blinked out of existance?

Ah Shadow, where you been?, my point however is squibs are clearly seen prior to collapse = no compressed air.

posted on Sep, 18 2009 @ 02:21 PM
reply to post by Seventh

Maybe you should ask him how air compresses with that big, giant, boeing-sized hole in the side of the tower?

posted on Sep, 18 2009 @ 02:32 PM
reply to post by Seventh

Topical burn out and a computer that decided to give up the ghost and lack of replacement. Thanks for asking. And you only see the squibs during the collapse.

[edit on 18-9-2009 by Watcher-In-The-Shadows]

posted on Sep, 18 2009 @ 02:33 PM
reply to post by turbofan

Um, that part was gone by the time the building after the collapse started.
Not sure where you are going with that.

posted on Sep, 18 2009 @ 02:35 PM
reply to post by SPreston

You obviously didn't read the article. I suggest you read it and see how silly you just sounded.

posted on Sep, 18 2009 @ 02:37 PM

Originally posted by Ignorance Denied
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.

Common sense my friend would tell you that whole 9-10% of our brain theory is rubbish.

It's an outdated and illogical theory that originated in primitve western neurological research in the very late 1800's.


Back on topic. I do believe the towers were 'allowed' to fall down.

new topics

top topics

<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in