New WTC 3d collapse model

Here just made a video using a simulator. I debunked all the debunkers and the official story in ten minutes.

You're welcome.

Originally posted by ANOK


Not true, the antenna fell first.

Not true, the South wall failed first.

After the South Tower collapsed, NYPD helicopters relayed information about the deteriorating conditions of the North Tower. At 10:20 a.m., the NYPD aviation unit reported that "the top of the tower might be leaning," and a minute later reported that the North Tower, "is buckling on the southwest corner and leaning to the south". At 10:28 a.m., the aviation unit reported that "the roof is going to come down very shortly." The North Tower collapsed at 10:28 a.m., after burning for 102 minutes.

Are you going to come back to the nose flash thread and explain what happened to the 19500 cu ft of air ?

reply to post by Shadow Herder


Its not meant to be a simulation I dont think. The author tried to visualize what happened in his opinion. Its the same with animations released by NIST or similiar organisations.

reply to post by waypastvne


Wheres your links and sources. I told you to put more thought into your posts. Geez!

I dont want to see any Wikipedia links... Thanks.

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
It's hilarious that the OS-theory believers are continuously brainwashed to think that those buildings, and any other steel-structured highrise, are put together with toothpicks and are ready to crumble at any sign of local damage or collapse.

Steel-structured highrises do not crumble, nor do they completely collapse from fire. Concrete structures crumble. The core columns were assembled with horizontal reinforcements, and in many places had diagonal reinforcements. The cores were a nearly-indestructible fortress of steel.

edit on 23-10-2011 by _BoneZ_ because: (no reason given)

Well BoneZ , a typical truther answer IT WASN'T JUST FIRE WAS IT!

Impact damage from the plane.
Damage from the fuel explosion
Fire
Last and certainly not least the impact of 15 floors falling on the NT and 30 on the ST.

Would you care to calculate the loads of these types of impacts the other truthers on here DONT!
I can give you links to work it out or at least a good idea of the amount!!

As for your horizontal steel on the core, its on this image bottom right of the drawing the welded channel!



Care to show the diagonal bracing?

You do know that the core steel was thinner the higher up you went, were was the North Tower struck? in case you have forgotten mid elevation about 16 floors from the top. So what would have taken a fair hit,why the core steel and were it was thinner!!!!

Originally posted by brokedown
This is very interesting. A 3d simulation showing how the plane strike removed the support for the upper floors which caused the building to pancake.

105 story building, pancaking to the ground, the debris pile must have been huge, maybe 20 or 30 stories high, OH, wait that not how tall debris pile was.

The debris pile was less than 4 stories tall. So, the weight of all that falling debris must have had the force to turn everything to dust, TOO.

Wow, that is really amazing, it goes against all known physics, but wait it is the Government and its lap dogs who are telling me this occurred in this manner so I must not really understand that on 9/11 the world of known physics stopped operating as it always had in the past, and has since.

Satire aside, the facts are, a 105 story building was reduce to dust in freefall speed, which translates to NO Resistance of the mass below.

3000 plus bathrooms, every file cabinet, every wire, everything except the paper was turn to dust in just over one minute.

No matter how many times we see some propaganda simulation, until the facts of how everything turned to dust is addressed it will always be a lie.

Well since the walls were 1360+ feet high and fell/were knocked by the collpase forces and the simple fact that as the concrete of the towers floors was only 41/2 inches thick have you worked out how high the concrete would be if GENTLY laid on top of each other(with no damage) around the 40ft mark. Now since the floors fell from 1360 + feet max with each floor below 12ft less for each floor level what size of pile would you expect to see?

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
It does not show the lower 2/3rds of the building. How is the energy required to crush the lower levels of the building computed? How can that be done without knowing the distribution of steel?

The trouble with a physical model is that it runs on physics instead of data and calculations based on ASSUMPTIONS.

How can a computer model be correct without the data being correct? Where is the data on the horizontal beams in the core all of the way down the building? How much heavier did they get?

psik

THATS good coming from you, have you got the calculations on how your model represents the wtc events DONT THINK SO!

Originally posted by wmd_2008

Originally posted by brokedown
This is very interesting. A 3d simulation showing how the plane strike removed the support for the upper floors which caused the building to pancake.

105 story building, pancaking to the ground, the debris pile must have been huge, maybe 20 or 30 stories high, OH, wait that not how tall debris pile was.

The debris pile was less than 4 stories tall. So, the weight of all that falling debris must have had the force to turn everything to dust, TOO.

Wow, that is really amazing, it goes against all known physics, but wait it is the Government and its lap dogs who are telling me this occurred in this manner so I must not really understand that on 9/11 the world of known physics stopped operating as it always had in the past, and has since.

Satire aside, the facts are, a 105 story building was reduce to dust in freefall speed, which translates to NO Resistance of the mass below.

3000 plus bathrooms, every file cabinet, every wire, everything except the paper was turn to dust in just over one minute.

No matter how many times we see some propaganda simulation, until the facts of how everything turned to dust is addressed it will always be a lie.

Well since the walls were 1360+ feet high and fell/were knocked by the collpase forces and the simple fact that as the concrete of the towers floors was only 41/2 inches thick have you worked out how high the concrete would be if GENTLY laid on top of each other(with no damage) around the 40ft mark. Now since the floors fell from 1360 + feet max with each floor below 12ft less for each floor level what size of pile would you expect to see?

edit on 23-10-2011 by wmd_2008 because: (no reason given)

a much bigger one than what was there .... how did these "terrorists" know where to hit the towers ? how did they rig building 7 for controlled demolition ? and............. why was controlled demolition inc hired for the clean up ? ........ you know how to count right ? well .... put 2 and 2 together.

Originally posted by wmd_2008
Well since the walls were 1360+ feet high and fell away and the simple fact that as the concrete of the towers floors was only 41/2 inches thick have you worked out how high the concrete would be if GENTLY laid on top of each other(with no damage) around the 40ft mark. Now since the floors fell from 1360 + feet max with each floor below 12ft less for each floor level what size of pile would you expect to see?

LOL this again, did you not read my post where I explained that there would be more than just 40ft of concrete?

You have the steel floor pans, the trusses, the steel core, the office contents, everything that was inside the walls.

But regardless, claiming all the mass stayed in the footprint goes against known physics. What was keeping any of the rubble from moving sideways when it impacted lower floors? Try dropping a plate and see what happens to the pieces.

Concrete was in the dust, and probably made up the majority of it.

They identified high levels of coarse particles, above, which included powdered concrete and glass with a coating of combustion products, in size range of 5 to 12 micrometers diameter. Very fine particles were found at levels not previously seen in ambient air samples.

911research.wtc7.net...

Originally posted by wmd_2008

THATS good comming from you, have you got the calculations on how your model represents the wtc events DONT THINK SO!

More proof that you guys either don't listen, or simply can't comprehend what is being said.

That is not a representation of the towers, it is a representation of the laws of motion.

Laugh on, the ignorant usually do.

reply to post by ANOK




Do you honestly think that tens of thousands of tons of material falling would not have crushed the items you mention. (desks )





What exactly is round your plate to stop the debris going sideways? please tell me!

What was round the WTC floorslabs to stop debris going sidways? NOW LET ME THINK!

More to the point you think a floorslab should shatter like a china plate?

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by wmd_2008

THATS good comming from you, have you got the calculations on how your model represents the wtc events DONT THINK SO!

More proof that you guys either don't listen, or simply can't comprehend what is being said.

That is not a representation of the towers, it is a representation of the laws of motion.

Laugh on, the ignorant usually do.

No he said on a post that it was his represention of the columns and the forces they were subjected to!
I had asked if it was to show the floors slabs his reply was the columns.

It cant represent the events because the material strengths and properties are not correct!

So if I replaced the washers with house bricks and the card with marshmallows would that be the same
NO it would not, would it?

Originally posted by ANOK
reply to post by psikeyhackr

 

You have to know how much pressure the floor trusses, connections etc., could withstand before anyone can claim that the force of the falling floors was enough to cause those connections to fail.

No one has that information, so the OSers have nothing to support their claims at all. They can waffle on all day about how much Pe or Ke the falling floors had, but without knowing how much force the connections could withstand those claims are meaningless.

The floor trusses and connections outside of the core do not explain what happened to the core so I don't pay a great deal attention to them. When has anyone explained how fire could make them all fail simultaneously? When has anyone done an analysis of how the floor slab would tilt if they did not fail simultaneously? The trusses and their connections are just a magical excuse for the people who prefer to believe collapse was possible.

Most of the mass of the buildings came down in less than 18 seconds and that cannot be explained without accounting for whatever happened to the core which should have resisted any downward force.

Even if airliners were responsible for the destruction the physics profession should have been demanding accurate distribution of steel and concrete data on the towers in 2002. Of course they will look ridiculous if they demand it now. But 9/11 has become a scientific travesty no matter what happened. Why can't anybody build a physical model that can completely collapse if 1360 foot buildings supposedly did it? When has any engineering school even discussed trying? When has Purdue explained why the core columns don't move in their impact simulation?

The 9/11 Religion needs to ignore too many facts.

psik

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
The floor trusses and connections outside of the core do not explain what happened to the core so I don't pay a great deal attention to them. When has anyone explained how fire could make them all fail simultaneously? When has anyone done an analysis of how the floor slab would tilt if they did not fail simultaneously? The trusses and their connections are just a magical excuse for the people who prefer to believe collapse was possible.

Our resident OS supporters want us to believe the core couldn't stand without lateral support from the floors.

Everything they come up with is an excuse, they don't seem to care if it makes sense, or even contradicts the OS they claim to believe is the truth.

Most of the mass of the buildings came down in less than 18 seconds and that cannot be explained without accounting for whatever happened to the core which should have resisted any downward force.

Even IF the truss connections all simply failed, as they claim, the core should have stayed standing, thus their reason to need to claim the core could not stand without the floors. A claim there is absolutely no basis for.

Even if airliners were responsible for the destruction the physics profession should have been demanding accurate distribution of steel and concrete data on the towers in 2002. Of course they will look ridiculous if they demand it now. But 9/11 has become a scientific travesty no matter what happened. Why can't anybody build a physical model that can completely collapse if 1360 foot buildings supposedly did it? When has any engineering school even discussed trying? When has Purdue explained why the core columns don't move in their impact simulation?

Without knowing the pressure the floors trusses, connections, or any of the load bearing structure, could withstand before failure there is no way anyone can claim there was enough weight in a floor to able to collapse another floor, or even fifteen floors causing floors to fail one after another, if you want to follow 'OSer' logic.

The 9/11 Religion needs to ignore too many facts.

That is why they always refuse to answer the 'silly elementary school' psychics questions I ask them. I do that to prove a point, they refuse to answer because if they do it would contradict there claim, and they obvioulsy know that. The couple of posters that did answer got it wrong, proving they simply do not understand the physics.
It's easy to pretend you do when you're anonymous on teh web.

reply to post by ANOK


Why would the core stay standing when thousands of tons of material was hitting it on the way down

Your logic beggars belief most of the time ANOK do you think all that collapsing material misses the core?

Oh with regards to the loads most engineers are happy with a 3 times safety factor for structural fixings we know the floor slab weighed around the 700 ton mark how much do you want to add per floor for people desks etc etc if we say 100 ton would be plenty thats now 800 ton safety factor 3 then thats 2400 ton lets round it up to 3000 ton.

Now if 15 floors of concrete fell thats 15x700 = 10500 ton thats just concrete and with no allowance for STEEL or the force generated by an 18mph impact does it really look far fetched NOW!

Originally posted by wmd_2008
reply to post by ANOK

 

Why would the core stay standing when thousands of tons of material was hitting it on the way down

Your logic beggars belief most of the time ANOK do you think all that collapsing material misses the core?

Oh with regards to the loads most engineers are happy with a 3 times safety factor for structural fixings we know the floor slab weighed around the 700 ton mark how much do you want to add per floor for people desks etc etc if we say 100 ton would be plenty thats now 800 ton safety factor 3 then thats 2400 ton lets round it up to 3000 ton.

Now if 15 floors of concrete fell thats 15x700 = 10500 ton thats just concrete and with no allowance for STEEL or the force generated by an 18mph impact does it really look far fetched NOW!

edit on 24-10-2011 by wmd_2008 because: (no reason given)

edit on 24-10-2011 by wmd_2008 because: (no reason given)

People are saying the the floors outside the core are being sheared off and pretending that these floors remain parallel in the process. So every time a floor sheared off that was 350 fewer tons plus the live load that the core would not have to support.

If a man had a pack on his back that contained 20 5 pound bags of sugar and you took the bags out one at a time would the man get weaker and fall down once you took them all out?

Did these 15 floors detach from the core or did the core come down with them?

psik

reply to post by psikeyhackr


This is FOI No 27 released from NIST It shows the substantial core remaining in WTC2, (around 30 seconds from collapse) it does not show it falling, but a fleeting glimpse of the core, it also shows quite clearly the extreme tilt and twist of the upper part of the tower, which in turns demonstrates that far less of the upper part of the building impacted on the lower section than is so often supposed. The view is from an architect's office and the left facing wall of WTC2 is where the 'plane entered and the far right is where the 'heavy' fire zone existed. viewing this video does away completely, any kind of uniform collapse that could be caused by an intact mass crushing on everything below, most of the mass at top was carried away in a disintegrating lateral fashion and no pancake force from above, so what initiated the collapse of the lower part of the building/s, and then the collapse of the core?

WTC1 was probably heavier damaged from the collision, and if you believe NIST, had very little support left at the point of impact, yet it too managed to heel over in a even more extreme angle such as to bring down the upper part to the street, and its core stood momentarily, only to come straight down. This is what should be discussed.
At the moment I see it as two separate events for each tower, others see it as the second event the result of the first.

www.youtube.com...

Just to add, you may in fact just about see the core drop down at 1.39 although difficult to see.

Another view of the core standing to an estimated 68th floor, well below the impact zone.

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

People are saying the the floors outside the core are being sheared off

Yes.

and pretending that these floors remain parallel in the process.

No.

So every time a floor sheared off that was 350 fewer tons plus the live load that the core would not have to support.

Yes.

But the core floor beams/floors would have been removed also by the falling core columns and core beams/floors.

Meaning that the core columns lose their stabilizing beams. And since the remaining core floor beams didn't use moment connections, there was zero stabilizing going on there.

Did these 15 floors detach from the core or did the core come down with them?

psik

Well, since the roof, ext columns, etc all fell as a unit, it can be reasonably assumed that it all came down together.

Originally posted by ANOK

Even IF the truss connections all simply failed, as they claim, the core should have stayed standing, thus their reason to need to claim the core could not stand without the floors. A claim there is absolutely no basis for.

There's plenty of basis for it, since the core columns would have needed moment connections between them and the core floor beams in order to resist sway.

There weren't any of these connections, unless you can show otherwise.

Without knowing the pressure the floors trusses, connections, or any of the load bearing structure, could withstand before failure there is no way anyone can claim there was enough weight in a floor to able to collapse another floor, or even fifteen floors causing floors to fail one after another, if you want to follow 'OSer' logic.

It's in the NIST report.