WTC collapse simulator illustrates "freefall"

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

 

[Quote]Actually, no, the construction of the Twin Towers did not HAVE to follow New York building code due to the fact it was under the juristiction of the Port Authority. They claim they did, but I find reasons to suspect the validity of that. Even further can you not think of situations in which corners were cut to disastrous results? That walkway at a certain Hyatt hotel comes to mind. Also just because they claim there was a emphasis, doesn't mean there truly was, dishonesty being what it is.

did not refer to the that the buildings themselves restricted them to all the building codes guide lines. Esp due to the feat of these Buildings was in itself a special case. I'm not gonna deny that certain areas where cut around by the workers, However, I will not believe the Light weight Construction Myth as it was presented..

Agree dishonesty being what it is.. But This goes for all fields and aspects, not just one side.

But these changes were at the suggestion of that document certain individuals hate soo much.

Just because it is a change where change has happend before does not negate the reason for a change. Also, there is most certaintly not an inference that those particular buildings are perfect, they did fall down after all.

Changes does not directly imply or prove occurances are bound to happen if not held by. Speacial building contructions would negate these changes if the drafting proved that they where inconsequencial. Code changes are made to "Prevent" Possible happenings. Not Predict happenings. If it was guaranteed that code changes not upheld consistantly to all buildings would result in massive construction failures then every existing building would have to be modified. This obviously would never happen.

That did not have a cause in something that caused massive structural damage in a part of the building where materials were lighter due to it's height. But I do see a little incongruity in the statement I provided.

I simply do not buy the myth of the fires Weaking the beams in drastic ways that many wish to use to support the case of the Upper floors Bending in on itself. There should not have been white smoke on the lower lvls of the tower. There should not have been pin point blasts that Random cameras heard at the time.

If the structure was so weak, a 10 floor fire with restricted ventalation and no Water systems at the time would have caused massave damage to those supports and they would have been atleast Replaced. Compared to an Open hole in the side of a building that did not shutter at point blank impact other then the floors effected, and with a custom sprinkler system installed to not repeat the 1975 event.

Wasn't free fall speed. Mayhap percieved "free fall speed" but percieved doesn't equal fact.

This is exactly why we have computers and analysis to show the real numbers involved on completed certain events. Hence whats above.

reply to post by esdad71


bait and switch, bait and switch....

the NIST didn't analyse the collapse beyond 'collapse inititiation.
the purdue sim illustrates the plane impact only.
this is the only sim i know of (besides the chinese one, which clocked in a collapse time of 1:30), that actually models the collapse, and not the cause. the cause is irrelevent, really. the collapse time is the sole defining feature which PROVES demolition.
this sim COULD have EASILY been done by the NIST.
they didn't do it for a good reason, ie. anthrax, or suicide by multiple shots to the back of the head.

reply to post by Bldrvgr


It was not so much 'bending' of the steel as much as it was the stress of the steel weakening and bowing from the weight and redistributed weight that popped the inner floors from the outer perimeters structure.

There was no freefall. It looked like a demolition, yes, but a man in drag can look like a woman...you have all been fooled. Perception, understanding and acceptance. If believe something hard enough, you can make yourself believe anything. Anything.

reply to post by esdad71


did you watch the videos from the opening post? if so, do you understand the laws of the conversation of energy?

Originally posted by esdad71
reply to post by Bldrvgr

 

It was not so much 'bending' of the steel as much as it was the stress of the steel weakening and bowing from the weight and redistributed weight that popped the inner floors from the outer perimeters structure.

There was no freefall. It looked like a demolition, yes, but a man in drag can look like a woman...you have all been fooled. Perception, understanding and acceptance. If believe something hard enough, you can make yourself believe anything. Anything.

I know if i believe hard enough, I could believe that two planes by themselves actually collapsed the towers in this way.

If people do not like the data numbers of this simulation, Then they should pin point exactly the equation flaws to it. Not just pretend the numbers where not there and disregard it.

The ability is there, but majority will not take the effort and belive in what others told them just because of a "tag" name.

Originally posted by esdad71
Why do we not believe the computer analysis/simulations created by NIST but we believe this guy?

NIST never did the kind of simulation that he did. NIST never analyzed or simulated a global collapse sequence.

Frank Greening, and some other "JREF'ers," etc., have done theoretical models based on energy losses. But that's something different.

I mean, how about this video from scientist at Purdue that conclude that over 255 of the columns would be destroyed which would place undue stress when the support was redistributed.

What columns are you talking about? There were only 47 core columns, and you could count the number of severed perimeter columns from outside the buildings to a pretty small margin of error, so there's no need to simulate that damage.

reply to post by Watcher-In-The-Shadows


No I mean to say that it would not have mattered what fireproofing would have been used as it would have been blown away by the impact of the plane. That is less of an assumption then "if they used other materials more lives would have been saved" type crap.

reply to post by Bldrvgr

did not refer to the that the buildings themselves restricted them to all the building codes guide lines. Esp due to the feat of these Buildings was in itself a special case. I'm not gonna deny that certain areas where cut around by the workers, However, I will not believe the Light weight Construction Myth as it was presented..

Agree dishonesty being what it is.. But This goes for all fields and aspects, not just one side.

Oh I wasn't saying you did and I would have to assume the corners were cut by those designing and buying the materials for the buildings. I think I remember something about completeing under budget but I will not state that as fact. What exactly do you mean by "the light weight construction myth" just so I can be sure?
Oh, I apply it to all sides trust me. The sources I provide I only provide because they correspond with my opinions on the matter, but that is not were I got them from.

Changes does not directly imply or prove occurances are bound to happen if not held by. Speacial building contructions would negate these changes if the drafting proved that they where inconsequencial. Code changes are made to "Prevent" Possible happenings. Not Predict happenings. If it was guaranteed that code changes not upheld consistantly to all buildings would result in massive construction failures then every existing building would have to be modified. This obviously would never happen.

What exactly does this have to do with the assertion that certain code changes were introduced at the suggestion of FEMA due to 9/11?

I simply do not buy the myth of the fires Weaking the beams in drastic ways that many wish to use to support the case of the Upper floors Bending in on itself. There should not have been white smoke on the lower lvls of the tower. There should not have been pin point blasts that Random cameras heard at the time.

Some of the beams were already damaged if not severed in the collision and the ones that were not had to hold up the weight that those other ones were not holding up. Heat metal up it's ability to hold things up shrinks as the metal gets hotter.

If the structure was so weak, a 10 floor fire with restricted ventalation and no Water systems at the time would have caused massave damage to those supports and they would have been atleast Replaced. Compared to an Open hole in the side of a building that did not shutter at point blank impact other then the floors effected, and with a custom sprinkler system installed to not repeat the 1975 event.

Doesn't change what I said earlier I am perplexed as to why you think it does. The damage and the fire starting happend in the collision meaning it happend at the same time. It does not matter that there was no structural damage caused by the 1979 fire as the elements are different as I said. And I would like to see the proof for this statement:

Compared to an Open hole in the side of a building that did not shutter at point blank impact other then the floors effected

Hate to tell you regardless of of if it was a airplane or c4 that made the holes the building will shudder.

This is exactly why we have computers and analysis to show the real numbers involved on completed certain events. Hence whats above.

A simulation that does not approximate all factors in the collapse, gotcha.

reply to post by bsbray11


Sorry, I meant 25%..shift key must have stuck. I always thought the Purdue video was a good example of how the structure was damaged.

For Biilybob

I watched the video and there is no comparison to the collapse because the collapse was NOT straight down. One tower slid to the corner that was the weakest. The other also did not come straight down.

The video is bunk. NIST created computer models but of parts of the structure not the entire model. They were focused on why it collapsed and not how fast. The Report has screen shots....

Originally posted by Lebowski achiever
No I mean to say that it would not have mattered what fireproofing would have been used as it would have been blown away by the impact of the plane.

In fairness though, the idea that a large amount of fireproofing was knocked off by the shock of the impacts was suggested in the NIST report, but they only offered a hypothesis and didn't claim to have proof it actually occurred. There were also other forms of fireproofing on the columns that would have been better applied than the spray-on type that NIST focused on.

reply to post by esdad71


you're understanding of science is somewhere between non-existent and extremely low.

the simulation is illustrating momentum transfer, and the work that a gravity is capable of doing and the time it takes to do that work. it is not supposed to be a perfect reproduction of the actual collapse. just a simplified version which shows how work done increases collapse time, and the amount of work done couldn't have been done in that time could not possibly have been done by gravity alone.


[edit on 7-5-2009 by billybob]

Originally posted by esdad71
Sorry, I meant 25%..shift key must have stuck. I always thought the Purdue video was a good example of how the structure was damaged.

25% of what, exactly? Less than 15% of the perimeter columns were severed on the impacted floors in either building (figures in the FEMA report, I could get them for you), and NIST's own impact modeling showed a maximum of no more than 10 core columns (I think the number was more like 7 if you look it up) being severed or seriously damaged, and that's after they changed Flight 175's impact angle in one instance to maximize the damage it inflicted. In either case that works out to be less than 25%, and NIST had the structural documentation while Purdue did not.

NIST created computer models but of parts of the structure not the entire model. They were focused on why it collapsed and not how fast. The Report has screen shots....

I think we both know what you're talking about, but they're not calculating the same things so they aren't relevant to the actual physics being worked out behind the simulations. NIST was trying to model some kind of mechanical movements while this simulation is showing a series of energy calculations.

[edit on 7-5-2009 by bsbray11]

reply to post by bsbray11


We agree on one thing but as far as the columns, are we talking severed or damaged? You know I know the papers bray

Fact is we are here in an open forum to discuss the OP. I was attempting to introduce other modeling techniques is all. Take off the blinders. I mean, I would think we could create a tower in the CryEngine (Crytek) and see what would happen. Would be interesting to see models of jsut how you would demo the WTC.

reply to post by bsbray11

That may well be true (I am still on the fence on that one) None the less it was a bit of propaganda by the Asbestos Lobby.

The whole of what happened in those towers is conjecture and speculation and a total smoke screen. This is part of my frustration. There is no one theory that can be wholly be seen as definitive because we all work on assumptions and information provided by the PTB that is conflicting to say the least.

Originally posted by esdad71
We agree on one thing but as far as the columns, are we talking severed or damaged? You know I know the papers bray

Then you shouldn't have to ask. Remember that the columns that were considered by NIST to have taken light damage still had the vast majority of their structural capacity, so you would be more accurate to count those among the "saved" than the "damned." Even heavily damaged columns still had some capacity left. Euler's formula for buckled columns and all that. Yes, I know what they talk about, I just wonder how well of a grasp you have on what kind of damage we are looking at here vs what kind you would need to produce what happened to those buildings.

I was attempting to introduce other modeling techniques is all.

There's not much point seeing as how we can't look at the data behind NIST's model, temporarily ignoring the fact that it was attempting to model something completely different than what the video in this thread models.

[edit on 7-5-2009 by bsbray11]

reply to post by billybob


My understanding of Science came from Road runner cartoons and the occasional jump off the roof so I guess you got me. Better go crank up my Model T and light some candles to read by. Maybe I will have all of the pages to this book I just got from that thing called the library.

If something falls from a height or is falling back to earth, it falls according to the laws of gravity as well as the resistance it creates in the air. Correct? Think the old feather and bowling ball analogy.

So, in the case of the WTC we suddenly have TONS of extra weight that is collapsing on top of the failing tower. All of that force suddenly drops a few floors and hits structure...what should happed at that point? Please explain this to me.

reply to post by bsbray11


And just what does the model show? Please explain if you could.

reply to post by esdad71


put it this way. bowling balls don't fall through bowling balls as fast as they fall through air. nor feathers through feathers as fast as feathers through air.
the videos are quite self-explanatory. the buildings must encounter SOME resistance from themselves EVEN IF all structural support has been removed.
add in the extra work (a physics term for energy required for a certain task, like crushing concrete or breaking strong connections, or making sound or heat) that was done, and the fall times are increased with every addition of things that actually happened. the only time the fall times match the observed times, is when the towers have absolutely no structural support.
that's not just the top of the towers where the fire and damage was, bu the entire tower.
the science does not claim that the collapse would have been arrested, or that the top would have slid off to the side. that is not the point of these sims. the point is to show that even if the towers had no support, they would still take longer than the time it takes for an object dropped from the top of the towers through air to hit the ground. this is because of the resistance of a big pile of steel and concrete is greater than the resistance of air, even if the concrete and steel is more like a house of cards than a building.
take into account mass shedding and communition of concrete and the collapse times increase dramatically.
notice, too, that the sims FAVOUR a "crush down" collapse by modelling the top floors as an unbreakable object, rather than as the first thing to break apart (as is seen in the videos). notice that the unbreakable cap is sitting on the ground,post collapse, and the energy (and mechanism) to destroy IT would demand even more energy, and energy which is not available, as it has already fallen.



[edit on 7-5-2009 by billybob]

reply to post by billybob

notice, too, that the sims FAVOUR a "crush down" collapse by modelling the top floors as an unbreakable object, rather than as the first thing to break apart (as is seen in the videos). notice that the unbreakable cap is sitting on the ground,post collapse, and the energy (and mechanism) to destroy IT would demand even more energy, and energy which is not available, as it has already fallen.

Seems to me it would painfully obvious that the top part would break up in the collapse. It wasn't some super structure impervious to crumbling after all. Why do you think it would require more energy to break up energy that you insist wasn't there? For someone who questions the science know how of someone else your own is showing holes.


[edit on 7-5-2009 by Watcher-In-The-Shadows]

Oh I wasn't saying you did and I would have to assume the corners were cut by those designing and buying the materials for the buildings. I think I remember something about completeing under budget but I will not state that as fact. What exactly do you mean by "the light weight construction myth" just so I can be sure?
Oh, I apply it to all sides trust me. The sources I provide I only provide because they correspond with my opinions on the matter, but that is not were I got them from.

There is no lack of information on these buildings construction Dateing the time period in the 70's - 80's.. Something so tall, was therefore seemed to be fragile, why would i want to step into the largest constructed tower and not think that any moment the thing could fall. Hence these buildings where made to be assured of this not happening.

Undercutting corners and misc areas in which only specific trades would only notice is one thing. I expect no reporter, documentists, etc. would know the plumber routed some areas against code, or due to unforseen design one area's exact measurement could be in question. But clearly exchangeing out Materials that would be visibly seen and remarked on, and never commented about is a huge pill to swallow. You would have to tell me, that there was intervention in Reports/documenteries in preventing a whistle blower.. This would be prime thing for a conspiracy theorist to come up with as well. (Blatant material swapping)

911research.wtc7.net...

What exactly does this have to do with the assertion that certain code changes were introduced at the suggestion of FEMA due to 9/11?

Just stateing that the FEMA changes have no bearing to the event. Nor does it prove or deny the happenings of the rade centers.

wtc7lies.googlepages.com...

Some of the beams were already damaged if not severed in the collision and the ones that were not had to hold up the weight that those other ones were not holding up. Heat metal up it's ability to hold things up shrinks as the metal gets hotter.

The Statistics and the degrees the metal being heated to limited points is in question here. There is set conditions to be met, these conditions have values and are known of the materials we use. Setting a piece of the beam used in a oven at 450degrees, will make it hotter and have effects, but it will not meet the conditions for which it to bend.