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: 4
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in


posted on Sep, 18 2009 @ 08:58 PM

Originally posted by OmegaPoint

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)?

13 seconds is wrong to begin with. Add a few.

The building provided the additional resistance. It's as simple as that.

That's proof that nothing was "cleared out of the way". Sorry, but you have no clue.

posted on Sep, 18 2009 @ 09:10 PM
Since I work for the entertainment industry and so does National Geographics here is my scientific well thought out in my own mind theory (For entertainment purposes like National Geographic Only)

to building ---

I couldn't post the video so I guess hit the link for the visual representation

You will see an explotion right before the building starts to collapse, that is the satellite laser striking.

[edit on 18-9-2009 by Arsenis]

[edit on 18-9-2009 by Arsenis]

posted on Sep, 18 2009 @ 09:17 PM
IF you could generate enough heat to cause the steel to melt that would mean the collapse of a few floors - but that's all. It could not cause roughly 100 floors below those damaged floors to explode into powder without explosives pre-planted.

Ask kids who killed JFK and they will tell you, "Lee Harvey Oswald", even though the last official government investigations have declared JFK was killed by multiple gunshots committed during a conspiracy. Officially, LHO was not alone in the hit. Yet people believe that is the official stance because of the propaganda pieces shown constantly on cable.

Today, children think Lincoln was the victim of a lone nut despite the fact that several of the conspirators were hung for their part in the conspiracy.

So it will be with 9-11. The evidence is overwhelming that it would take more than a couple of planes to do what we saw on 9-11.

The idea is to keep pumping out carefully crafted baloney like that produced by "Creative Differences" for Nat Geo. After so many years of this it will be programmed into children's minds, regardless of reality.

Epic fail on the part of the weasels at Creative Differences, however, as today we have the means of getting info out to at least some of the people. And that may be enough.

They should be very careful with the next false flag b.s. People with cameras are watching.

[edit on 18-9-2009 by Whatthehell?]

posted on Sep, 18 2009 @ 09:23 PM
The national geographic video of the plane entering the building is impressive and no doubt took a lot of work and research.

I will not try to debate the un-debatable, that being that there was some substantial heat at the time of ignition of the fuel.

I will say that I do not believe there was uniform heat distribution throughout the entire area. There were many support columns that received less heat, and many of the ones that did get heated to the elevated temperatures, did not remain in that elevated condition for very long because the fuel supply would have diminished leaving a lower actual burning temperature of the office materials.

If the argument is as is stated in the national geographic link by John 124, and that is the fuel did the catastrophic damage, then my question to all who believe this to be a true factual cause of the fall of the buildings is Why did the second building hit fall first when a substantial amount fuel went outside the building in a witnessed ball of fire, and not throughout the building as in the first building hit.

This whole incident of 911 is beyond comprehensible. Common sense says that the fuel alone did not and could not have caused the complete collapse of the buildings, and if one believes this then they must account for the "ball of fire" from the second impact as something other than the fuel in the plane. Without the 'total and relatively equal distribution of the heating source, a balanced collapse could not have taken place.

posted on Sep, 18 2009 @ 09:45 PM
reply to post by Whatthehell?

IF you could generate enough heat to cause the steel to melt that would mean the collapse of a few floors - but that's all. It could not cause roughly 100 floors below those damaged floors to explode into powder without explosives pre-planted.

You are talking about an enormous weight - 15 (North tower) to 25 (south)
floors about the collapse zone being driven down by gravity. Each floor
weighs hundreds of tons - driven by gravity acts as giant pile driver
smashing down and crushing the floor directly under the collapsed
floor. The resulting debris adds to the weight being forced down onto
the floor underneath crushing it and so on. Each floor is smashed in

posted on Sep, 18 2009 @ 10:24 PM
reply to post by thedman

You are talking about an enormous weight

What weight?All I see in this photo is dust and debris being ejected outward.

posted on Sep, 18 2009 @ 10:39 PM
Reply to post by Wolfpack 51

Heat from a fire that agravated massive structural damage. Steel already holding up more then it safely can gets heated and it WILL warp, it NEED NOT melt. Are you famaliar with what blacksmiths do. They don't just shape molten metal.

Posted Via ATS Mobile:

[edit on 19-9-2009 by Watcher-In-The-Shadows]

posted on Sep, 19 2009 @ 12:13 AM
reply to post by Joey Canoli

Then go ahead and add your extra two or three seconds. But check this

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

And don't forget to review Newton's Three Laws of Motion.

For every action there is an equal and oppositve reaction, and an object in motion will remain in motion unless acted upon by a force of resistence.

Since free fall in air, is just over 10 seconds, even with a combined fall time from top to bottom of say 16 seconds, it would have to be only in the space of the difference, in this case 6 seconds, during which all welds, joints and bolts would have to break, across the entire remaining length of structure.

And as I and someone else has pointed out, once into the progressive "collapse", say around half way down the structure, there's little more than atmosphere remaining above, the majority of the mass explosively ejected in that cascading fountain of pulverized building material, but again, there was NO LOSS OF MOMENTUM, as the building continued to disintegrate, to within SECONDS of free fall, all the way to the ground.

Yours amounts to "the foot of God hypothesis".

And again, in the case of the north tower, you have the communications antenna and the upper 15 floor chunk moving yes in free fall, because it follows an acceleration curve, into and through the path of maximal resistence.

The 9/11 anniversary should be a physics holiday.

[edit on 19-9-2009 by OmegaPoint]

posted on Sep, 19 2009 @ 12:22 AM
reply to post by Watcher-In-The-Shadows

I just happen to work with metal almost everyday.

1500 degrees would only have "normalized" AT MOST the outer INCH or two of the beam that was exposed to the heat that was present for what....a couple hours? Lets go so far as to say it "Normalized" the first 6 inches of the steel and I'm giving it WAY more credit than 1500 degrees is capable of. Normalization is a term that refers to returning the steel to a "pre quenching" or pre tempered state.

Now lets scale it up to the actual beams on the towers. I can drive 30 minutes and measure the beam that is on display but for the sake of this discussion, I estimate that the beam is about 4 x 3 feet thick. I'm not dead on but I have a decent eye for measurement. To normalize this much steel would require it to stay heated for DAYS to penetrate FEET.

Now using the heat from an Oxy Acetylene torch (5,500 - 6,500 degrees) which we can all agree is WAAAAY hotter than the jet fuel that was burning, it would take a VERY long time to affect the temper on anything but the very outer few inches of the steel....PERIOD.

You see, steel is a lovely conductor. You may apply heat to a single spot but what will happen is that the heat will spread over the surface. This is why on a very thick piece of steel, you don't use a oxy torch or fire to manipulate it. You would have to use a Plasma torch or Thermite to physically remove the outer layers of the metal to expose the core. Even with the BEST equipment available it would take me a LONG time to weaken just ONE section of that huge beam to the point of catastrophic failure.....and what would I have to do? I end up CUTTING it!

Sorry dude but blacksmiths only work with "thin" steel. During the "height" of the fire, it would not have produced enough heat to even weld with much less affect the temper of that steel.

Now lets just for the fun of it, dive into fantasy and say that 1500 degrees normalized that much steel. What SHOULD have happened is that the beams SLOOOOOWLY started to bend. With the weight on top it would lean towards the beams that where the worst affected as they bent either in or out. The beams that where not affected by the heat would POSSIBLY snap and you would have seen a teeter totter affect as the beams snapped on alternate sides of the building. That DID NOT happen. What happened is that ALL of the beams catastrophically SNAPPED and failed at the same time and Im sorry but that just does not happen unless you RAPIDLY cool the steel making it very brittle or it was CUT!!!!

I don't give a flipp what you think you MIGHT know about physics and the WTC incident. But when it comes to metal, those who work with it day in and day out know that the official explanation is complete BS.

[edit on 19-9-2009 by bismarcksea]

posted on Sep, 19 2009 @ 12:27 AM
reply to post by crowpruitt

Can't you see the foot of God stepping down on it..?

posted on Sep, 19 2009 @ 01:02 AM
Another phony simulation to keep the sheep in their places.
I love how they didn’t show the basement blowing up and the lobby.
That steel was tested to last and to hold in any fire at 2,000 degree heat up to six hours yet, they fail to tell you all that. Airplane fuel burns at it hottest at 1500-degree fh, not hot enough to melt steel furthermore, even if there was no fire proofing on the steel. The WTC came down in one hour after being struck.

Anyone can make a simulation on a computer and write a program to do, as you want it to.
Would you all like for me to make the same simulation but mine will still show the WTC still standing. Now, we can add Thematic explosives on all the core columns and Thermite cutter chargers on the basement core columns to shift all the core columns and I can guarantee the WTC would come down just as we all witness that day.

They are praying on your ignorance, don’t fall for it.

The OS believers are the one they are trying to convince over and over and over…..
I think to many people are waking up to the real facts so, in desperation the real terrorist have their magician behind the curtains, pulling the wool over your eyes.

[edit on 19-9-2009 by impressme]

posted on Sep, 19 2009 @ 01:07 AM

Originally posted by OmegaPoint
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?

Welcome to 2006....same hackeneyed stuff, different day.

The narcissist in you wants to believe this stuff is fresh and mind-blowing, the harsh reality is...YAWN.

posted on Sep, 19 2009 @ 01:18 AM
reply to post by Taxi-Driver

It does not matter how much time has elapsed.

But you are right that it's not new or fresh information.

I once wrote an article on this aspect back in 2005 in fact.

And sure, I'll admit I'm a bit of a narcissist, aren't we all at some level.

But this issue trascends that.

And time won't change anything.

3000 people were murdered for a ruse to wage an unjust war. YAWN.

I find your response infuriating I have to say.

And when you mention 2006, perhaps you are referring to this

NIST's World Trade Center FAQ
A Reply to the National Institute for Standards and Technology's
Answers to Frequently Asked Questions
by Jim Hoffman
On August 30, 2006, the National Institute for Standards and Technology (NIST) posted on their website a list of fourteen frequently asked questions (FAQ) and answers to them. NIST should be commended for at least addressing a number of the serious questions that have been raised with regard to its investigation. However, NIST's new FAQ avoids answering the central charges of its most visible critique

[edit on 19-9-2009 by OmegaPoint]

posted on Sep, 19 2009 @ 01:24 AM

Originally posted by Ignorance Denied
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..

Well that wasn't egotistical in the slightest.
With the full extent of your 9% brain power, it should be no problem to argue against the data rather than resort to childish attacks.
Perhaps that's asking too much?...

I don't claim to know the truth of 9/11, but yourself and other 'truthers' on this thread certainly aren't putting the movement in a good light...

posted on Sep, 19 2009 @ 01:53 AM
reply to post by Watcher-In-The-Shadows

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.

Watcher-In-The-Shadows what do you have to say about SPreaston statement of the 503 eywittness that went on record and ALL saw explosions and all heard explosion and saw FLASHES going around the WTC’s. The FBI hid these statements from public view until the New York Times sued the NYC government to release this information to the public, and guess what the New York Times WON their law suit under the F.O.I.A
Here read them for yourself and deny your ignorance.

After reading the truth from some very creditable people perhaps, you may want to restrain your sarcasm, and insults.

After reviewing these statements, you will see as most of us has already that this video in questions is a false representation of what really happened.

posted on Sep, 19 2009 @ 01:59 AM
Explosive Testimony: Revelations about the Twin Towers in the 9/11 Oral Histories

by David Ray Griffin

9/11 Revisted - were explosives used

Google Video Link

Videos of destruction

It's all so obvious, it really makes you wonder where some people are coming from..?

Patriotism? Incredulity because of the magnitude of the "Big Lie"..? Maybe even yes, some "Cointelpro" who's JOB it is to spin everything towards the OS..? It's hard to say.

[edit on 19-9-2009 by OmegaPoint]

posted on Sep, 19 2009 @ 02:35 AM

Originally posted by impressme
Watcher-In-The-Shadows what do you have to say about SPreaston statement of the 503 eywittness that went on record and ALL saw explosions and all heard explosion and saw FLASHES going around the WTC’s.

Could transformers or other electrical equipment explain some of what the firemen saw and heard? What about an acre of concrete floor slamming into another? Would steel bolts snapping under tremendous tension make a pop or explosive sound? Assuming the towers weren't in the vacuum of space, we can be fairly safe to say the things I mentioned are good candidates to explain what the firemen heard. Even they think so...

Assistant Fire Commissioner: "I thought . . . before . . . No. 2 came down, that I saw low-level flashes. . . . I . . . saw a flash flash flash . . . [at] the lower level of the building. You know like when they . . . blow up a building. . . ?”

But if you read on...

"I don't know if that means anything. I mean, I equate it to the building cowing down and pushing things down, it could have been electrical explosions, it could have been whatever."

Also, I don't know much about this subject...
But I thought the theory was that the explosions happened all at once to bring the towers down?

posted on Sep, 19 2009 @ 02:42 AM
reply to post by TruthParadox

It's not a theory if there WERE explosions, as the reports indicate, and so the record states that there were explosions at different times, even just prior to the north tower being impacted, down in the sub-basement. Explosions in the basement, in the lobby, at different levels, some blowing firefighters off their feet in stairwells. Explosions in WTC 7 before the north tower "exploded", and of course the entire destruction of the buildings was also an explosive event, with demo squibs at varying intervals well below the debris wave, so it was BOTH, explosion prior, and explosions during destruction. Some even appears to have been timed to coincide with the plane impacts.

were all these uh, transformers? things in kitchens? what?

I think it's absurd the lengths to which some will go to deny the obvious.

Did you watch the video I just posted - "9/11 Revisted, were explosives used"?

posted on Sep, 19 2009 @ 02:54 AM
reply to post by TruthParadox

argue with this...

how much work can a freefalling body exert to do work other than falling?

'cause, the data says wtc7 was in freefall for 2.23 seconds. that means, the exterior columns were not breaking apart due to the force apllied by gravity, so what force is causing the lower portion of the building to move out of the way for 100 feet of freefall?

'kay? data says, freefall equals external energy input.

maybe a janitor left a vacuum cleaner on, yeah? and that vacuum sucked gthe whole building down, yeah?

posted on Sep, 19 2009 @ 03:44 AM
2 words

building 7.

2 more words

no jet-fuel

2 more words

bull [expletive]

new topics

top topics

<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in