New WTC 3d collapse model

This is a must see if you haven't, a nice little win here for the OS I'm sure, if you're prepared to accept it.



The theory is very reminiscent of that NASA guy Ryan Mackey who talks about the collapse occurring due to the columns coming off their seats and impacting with the floors, as the floors were never designed to take the load above them, only the columns where able to take the load (which to me actually makes a lot of sense). It sounds like a rehash of the pancake collapse idea. I still don't see how this model explains squibs and molten temperatures and the guy who made it doesn't claim to know what caused the initiation, but his model was based on the removal of columns which he speculates the intense heat weakened them enough for the collapse to begin.

Either way I think it's pretty clever, but it could be considered an either extremely deceptive and misleading visualisation or a very revealing simulation to the nature of the collapse. I still can't see how a collapse like this could pulverise so much concrete and building material though, and it was admitted that tiny specks of steel were found in those dust clouds where portions of the hardest elements in the building were vaporised, and I can't see how a collapse would vaporise large portions of steel.

Opinions?

reply to post by Insolubrious

WTC 1 and 2 had a 5 story hat section at the top linking all 47 columns together. If a column was cut anywhere below, its load would pull down on the crossmembers in the hat, transferring load to nearby columns. furthermore, the column or columns cut below will be held in position by the floors (22 guage steel with 4 inches of cement) and their crossmembers. some of that load will be distributed to the exterior columns.

the simulation fails to incorporate the actual structure. the steel design can be located and downloaded. i have it.
it can also be seen in pictures taken at the time of construction.

the vid is disinformation.

Look at the right side of the building it concertinas as the "collapse" happens.
Not what i see on any footage from that day of colums being thrown hundreds of feet away, this is utter tosh and does not fit the collected evidence of the collapse.

All the parts of that building are falling straight down, what i do not see is the explosive ejection of steel beams.
This actually does more to prove the OS is a fraud, this is what should have happened had the OS been the truth, it does not fit the collected evidence, only the blind or dim witted could think that it does.l

I don't need a model to tell me what I seen with my own eyes. The buildings were demolished as they imploded at free fall speed. The only buildings in history to collapse top to bottom due to fire.

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.

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.

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

Originally posted by Insolubrious
This is a must see if you haven't, a nice little win here for the OS I'm sure, if you're prepared to accept it.

The theory is very reminiscent of that NASA guy Ryan Mackey who talks about the collapse occurring due to the columns coming off their seats and impacting with the floors, as the floors were never designed to take the load above them, only the columns where able to take the load (which to me actually makes a lot of sense).

Opinions?

Except that the WTC was not that well put toegether. There have been reports of sagging floors well before 911 and they did not collapse the building, because they were built to be able to transfer some of the load.

Also for this theory to work the floors would have to pull down on the vertical trusses that were designed to hold up the floors to begin with. The trusses that were build with a safety margin, to hold up the floors would have had to be destroyed by those floors. How can that work out? Also the vertical columns did not survive. After the collapse only a handfull were left standing and only for a couple of seconds. And in the case of WTC 7 everything collapsed at the same pace.

But there is plenty of information avaiable on this forum alone. People who want to hold on to the OS will do so. I think its more interesting to look into who did it, who were the handlers of alquaeda. Who trained alquaeda who funded them, etc. .

Originally posted by Cassius666
There have been reports of sagging floors well before 911 and they did not collapse the building

Got a source for those claims? And by the way, concrete doesn't sag. It will crack and break at the slightest bit of resistance.

Its something I heard on tv I think. Might have been just a rumour though.

reply to post 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.

One - The WTC towers were 110 stories - got it

Two - the debris filled up the basement which was 7 stories deep, Did you forget that ? So that is why the
debris pile was only 5 stories ABOVE street level. In actually was 12 stories AKA 120 feet

Blender is a 3D animation/ 3d modelling software, developed in an opensource model, by volunteers.

The software is not designed to perform physically accurate simulations of steel structures, but rather is more oriented to making animated movies and games.

The video is a test of the software's ability to animate a collapse that is lifelike in appearance. It's very cool software, but not something that we can use to debate any facet of 9/11.

The upper part of WTC1's lean was far more dramatic than that, and a major portion of the upper part was intact as it fell and did reach the street. Along with that, a significant part of the core remained standing for some moments (not just 'the spires') In effect there were two collapses, first the perimeter, then the core.

Originally posted by DrEugeneFixer
Blender is a 3D animation/ 3d modelling software, developed in an opensource model, by volunteers.

The software is not designed to perform physically accurate simulations of steel structures, but rather is more oriented to making animated movies and games.

The video is a test of the software's ability to animate a collapse that is lifelike in appearance. It's very cool software, but not something that we can use to debate any facet of 9/11.

EXACTLY!

In a collapse Potential Energy would get converted into Kinetic Energy which would then be absorbed destroying supports. If the energy was not sufficient then the collapse should arrest or the top fall down the side. So without knowing the energy required to destroy the core level by level this is nonsense.

psik

Originally posted by thedman

Two - the debris filled up the basement which was 7 stories deep, Did you forget that ?

The basement was not 7 stories of empty space.

What a nonsense claim when you can't even explain correctly how the towers could have completely collapsed themselves from gravity in the first place.

Tell me thedman, how do you explain why the antenna fell before the floors did? Did you forget that?

Here's a reminder, watch closely as your 'pancake collapse' hypothesis is proven to be wrong by evidence...

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.

Originally posted by smurfy
In effect there were two collapses, first the perimeter, then the core.

Not true, the antenna fell first.

Which means the core collapsed first, as the antenna was attached to the hat truss on top of the core. Collapsing floors would have had no effect the core so early in the collapse, if at all.

Where they failed is having both towers fall the same way.



ooooops.




Simplicity is infinite

omg this simulation from a downloadable 'game' is a joke and quite juvenile.

THE SIMULATION IS AN EPIC FAIL

1st. The building has to lose it whole side fascia to collapse.

2. The collapse in the second example falls very slowly.

This video just proves what stupidity and some time can achieve.

Nothing to see here... move along... fo-reallyYo