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

addition to post by Watcher-In-The-Shadows


Or even better, here is a excert of the information you decided to ignore.

"Contrary to the popular conception that most people would never forget the face of a clearly seen individual who had physically confronted them and threatened them for more than 30 minutes, a large number of subjects in this study were unable to correctly identify their perpetrator," said Charles Morgan III, M.D., associate professor of psychiatry at Yale School of Medicine.

The study included 509 active duty military personnel enrolled in survival school training. The types of stress were modeled after experiences of military personnel who had been prisoners of war (POWs) -- food and sleep deprivation for 48 hours followed by interrogation.

There were two instructors in the room, a "guard" and an "interrogator." The high stress interrogation included physical confrontation. During the low stress interrogation, the interrogator tried to trick the subject into giving away information.

Twenty-four hours after being released from the mock POW camp, the military personnel were asked to identify the interrogator and guard in a live line up, a photo spread, and a sequential photo presentation. Regardless of the presentation, recognition was better during the low stress rather than the high stress condition. In some cases, those interrogated confused even the gender of the guard and/or interrogator.

"The present data have a number of implications for law enforcement personnel, mental health professionals, physicians, attorneys and judges," Morgan said. "All professionals would do well to remember that a large number of healthy individuals may not be able to correctly identify suspects associated with highly stressful, compared to moderately stressful, events."

SOURCE:ScienceDaily:Eyewitness Memory Poor In Highly Intense And Stressful Situations

Originally posted by OmegaPoint

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:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/files/078735889fb727a7.jpg[/atsimg]

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

www.grc.nasa.gov...

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

911research.wtc7.net...

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]

Could someone please comment on this. I put a lot of work into it. Thanks.

I think it's the simplest, most straightforward proof that you'll find anywhere on the net. Plus, it exposes the ruse of the OS' focus SOLELY on collapse initation, while ignoring the ovbiously problem of the speed of "collapse" (destruction is the better word) relative to free fall (2-3 second difference), and the fact that NO RESISTENCE was encountered, and that the area of destruction continued to propogate down along the entire remaining length of structure, leaving little more than atmosphere in its wake, without ANY LOSS OF MOMENTUM.

reply to post by OmegaPoint


Heavy stuff fell on the stuff below. It's not that hard.

reply to post by Watcher-In-The-Shadows


You gotta be kidding. In the face of what I just posted, that's what you have to say. Did you take a close look at everything in my post?

reply to post by OmegaPoint


Largely because there are holes in your argument. Over discussed holes that even if I point them out it won't change anything because it has been gone over before.

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

reply to post by Watcher-In-The-Shadows


Yeah whatever you say.

Just a quick question though - what grade did you go to in school? I'm serious. Did you ever take any math or science in high school?

reply to post by OmegaPoint


Might not wish to start this ad hom bs with me. I do still respect you. But, you might wish to stop trying to line up math with observation via videos.

reply to post by OmegaPoint


There goes the insults! just can't help it can ya'?

It's a legitamet question, in light of the information that was presented. It's as if what I offered wasn't even taken into consideration.

"heavy stuff fell on stuff" doesn't appear to represent a very educated response.

It's plain as day to any rationally thinking person.

And to be honest, in the face of the evidence, I have trouble understanding what kind of person would, if well educated, rational, and thoughtful, respond in the way some do.

It's not just paranoid to suppose that some of these people may have a JOB to do, but oh what a heinous job that would be..

[edit on 18-9-2009 by OmegaPoint]

reply to post by OmegaPoint


Ok. So be it. Respect points fall. Friend no more.
Firstly, you are wantonly misinterpreting a video to get your "free fall speed" babble. Secondly, you VASTLY under estimate the weights we are talking about falling here. And THIRDLY you are way over estimating the strength of a compromised and falling structure.

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

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

 

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

How long are you going to maintain this childish game?

Police interrogation techniques really have nothing to do with the subject matter do they?

The 9-11 Whitewash Commission did not waterboard the 503 WTC 1st responders did they? No? The 9-11 Whitewash Commission did not subject the 503 WTC 1st responders to confusing questions did they? No? The 9-11 Whitewash Commission did not order the 503 WTC 1st responders to identify their interrogators did they? No?

The 9-11 Whitewash Commission IGNORED the 503 WTC 1st responders who were wanting to present their 19,000 pages of verbal testimony describing explosions and demolition in the WTC under oath to the American people didn't they?

The 9-11 Whitewash Commission PRETENDED the 503 WTC 1st responders who were wanting to present their 19,000 pages of verbal testimony under oath describing explosions and demolition in the WTC did not even exist didn't they?

They effectively censored the 503 WTC 1st responders who were wanting to present their 19,000 pages of verbal testimony describing explosions and demolition in the WTC, from testifying under oath to the American people didn't they?

The 9-11 Whitewash Commission prevented a complete and unbiased investigation into 9-11, by their illegal exclusions didn't they?

Do you think that was the proper method to conduct an investigation into the most terrible attack ever on the American people? Do you think that what passes for a justice system in the United States should spend far less money on an investigation into the most terrible attack ever on the American people than what was spent on investigating Monica Lewinski's semen-stained dress?

I have good news for you. It so happens the 503 WTC 1st responders who were wanting to present their 19,000 pages of verbal testimony describing explosions and demolition in the WTC under oath to the American people are STILL willing to testify under oath. Isn't that wonderful news?

So perhaps you should help initiate a real investigation into 9-11 and let the 503 WTC 1st responders have their say to actual real professional crime investigators, and let the chips fall where they may.

How could you possibly be against that?

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.

[edit on 9/18/09 by SPreston]

reply to post by SPreston


Read the article. You don't even know what you are arguing against.

Originally posted by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
And THIRDLY you are way over estimating the strength of a compromised and falling structure.

This is the point that all troofers miss.

The columns got stronger, but they relied on the floors to brace them. The strength of the floor connections was the same from top to bottom, except for the technical floors.

reply to post by Joey Canoli


Sure, and every weld, bolt and joint, all along the entire remaining length of structure, in the north tower 95 floors, all failed in three seconds. One two three.

What is most interesting there, in the case of the north tower, is the motion of the top section and in particular the communications antenna.

Another thing is that, once it started, no large chunk was falling. No, instead it practically blew up right off the top of the building, with the debris ejected very explosively, forming a fountian-like cascade of pulverized building material, such that half way through the 13 seconds of destruction, there was quite literally half less building above the remaining half, and yet the destruction and pulverization continued, unabated and without any loss of momentum, all the way to the ground. "Foot of God hypothesis", that's what I would call it, absent the use of explosives, removing the structure ahead of the descending debris wave.

Originally posted by OmegaPoint
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

911research.wtc7.net...

Again, those graphics are based on floors suspended in MID AIR, commencing their free fall at the moment of impact from free falling floors above, without any loss of mass, like vinyl records falling down a spindle.

Sir Isaac Newton's Three Laws of Motion

www.grc.nasa.gov...

So how did the buildings get down to the ground in 13 seconds or so (when free fall in air from the same height is just over 10 seconds, factoring in terminal velocity due to air resistence)?

Only if the structure, which is "in the way" is removed AHEAD OF the descending debris wave..



It's elementary Dear Watson.

The plane strikes as the causal mechanism was therefore a ruse, used to "sell" the top down demolition with explosives of those towers, and thus the whole thing was a false flag operation and cover up, perpetrated by unknown operatives.

The only question remaining is "who would have the means, the motive and the opportunity"?


[edit on 18-9-2009 by OmegaPoint]

Originally posted by Ignorance Denied

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]

The towers didn't fall straight down in their footprint. I don't know why people think that. They collapsed, the sides of building peeled off and all that debris came crashing down on the surounding buildings. Look at the areial photos. Look at all the damage.

WTC 7 sustained major damage there are pictures where you can see a huge chunk missng from the corner.

Just because it looked like a control demolition doesn't mean it was one.

Did any of the people tossing off Purdue's simulation actually watch it?

The experiment with the beam is not 100 perfect but it shows how a scaled down beam with a scaled load would fail when exposed to jet fuel.

It wasn't the same size true, they didn't have fireproofing because a good amount was dislodged by the impact. ( i think they should have done a test with 50 percent of fireproofing intact and 100 percent intact to see the time difference.)

The point was that it is possible for steel under a load exposed to 1200-1500 degree fire to fail and to fail rapidly.

Under those conditions the steel failed in UNDER 4 MINUTES!!!!

The towers with some insulation left and larger beams lasted what an hour, hour and a half? They only needed a few beams to fail ( not even taking into account the damaged beams by the aircraft collision)

Lets be civil and stop with the personal attacks on both sides

All we ask if for people to look at what is being presented rationally and objectively.

Oh my god are you serious?Why not get popular mechanics to give their theory..lol i can not believe anyone believes the lies that spew out of the govt's lips.Nano thermite plane and simple..pardon the pun.There are more holes in your,their explanation than swiss cheese.

reply to post by Watcher-In-The-Shadows


Those videos, of what actually occured, along with groups like Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, are future history's saving grace when looking back on this horrific event, because then, in the rear view mirror of 20/20 hindsight, when based in truth and reality, 9/11 can serve future history, as a point of learning, and in so doing reclaim a modicum of justice for all the many victims, both on 9/11 and in the wake of 9/11.

And films like 9/11 revisted, which preserved the first hand accounts from that day, which were never played again on mainstream media.

May the 9/11 truth movement, move over fifty percent of the American population into demanding answers, and at the very least questioning the OS.

"But we all SAW the planes hit the buildings!"

Yes, we did and no one denies that, but we also saw the buildings disintegrate and self destruct from top to bottom in about 13 seconds, and that is the truth and the reality and what the videos recorded, and they are perserved, forever.

Therefore the OS cannot hold up under rational scrutiny and analysis.

In time we'll get this history right, and it won't be the history given by the 9/11 Comission or NIST, which is the story that is full of holes.

Originally posted by drock905
The towers didn't fall straight down in their footprint.

No, they quite literally exploded, from the top down, explosively ejected debris and large steel beams neatly severed, 100's of feet from the perimeter of the building, to impale the American Express Building across the street, and crashing half way through the Winter Garden Atrium up to 500 feet away. What they did not do was "collapse".

But the descending debris wave did move down uniformly, and in the case of the North Tower in particular, straight down, and along a free fall acceleration curve, along with the communications antenna.

I fail to understand why people cannot see that there is something seriously WRONG with the official story about what happened there.

reply to post by john124


Star and flag for you and don't let the negative replies upset you. Unfortunately, your view is supported by a select few on these boards, whereas the majority seems to subscribe to the inside job theory.

As for nano thermite and super nano thermite, does it even exist? And more importantly can the people who propose that prove that it exists? Or will the answer just be: "Yes, it exists, but it is so super-duper secret that nobody can prove it exists?" And how much of that super-duper secret nano thermite would one need to destroy a building like the WTC. And how long would a crew of how many demolition workers and experts need to rig a building like this?