WTC Simulation - World Trade Center Case Study - Blender Demolition (Demo 3)
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 4 ก.ย. 2011
- Demo video of the development of the Demolition feature for Blender 2.5x/2.6.
The main purpose of this video is to prove the capabilities of my physics system development, if any. It is not intended to prove or disprove 9/11 conspiracy theories. I'm deleting comments that include hate speech, so you better think twice before starting an argument about the reasons of 9/11 here. Instead, I recommend to read a neutral source like: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11_co... to get some pros and cons instead of watching videos on TH-cam like mine to come to a realistic conclusion about what has happened that day.
This test case scenario needed 10 minutes per frame to calculate geometry deformations and additional 5 minutes to render the image. The test system was an Intel Core i7-980X Extreme Edition with 3,33 GHz, 12 virtual cores and 12 GB of RAM.
Check here for a slowed down version:
• Blender Demolition - C...
WTC7 Simulation:
• Early Attempt: Collaps...
For more information see:
blenderartists.org/forum/showt...
kaikostack.com
FAQ:
Q: Is the core missing in your model?
A: No, it's just hardly visible because of the low camera angle.
Q: Why did the tower not tip over?
A: If one part of the supporting structure fails then a progressive process starts which makes neighbor supports failing as well due to increased load they have to bear and so on. This happens within seconds so that the building has literally no time to tip over. The larger a building the more immovable is it due to inertia.
Q: But I saw lots of demolition videos where high buildings tipped over, what now?
A: Reinforced concrete buildings with solid load bearing walls are not comparable to lightweight steel structures like the Twin Towers were. Also most certainly none of them were even half as high.
Q: The debris obviously didn't choose the way of least resistance by falling through the still intact structure, how is this even possible?
A: With the debris mass accumulating and accelerating over time also the momentum increases. It increases much faster than the resistance of the still intact structure could slow it down. In this case also the energy required to redirect the momentum to a path of less resistance would be much greater than keeping the original motion path throughout the intact structure. So it depends on the direction of momentum if the path of least resistance would actually be the most energy efficient way to go.
Q: What about Newton's third law? The collapse doesn't match up with my school physics calculations.
A: Classical Mechanics describes the behavior of idealized non-deforming objects, but steel isn't. In fact no known material in the universe is. You cannot reduce complex problems to simple formulas without iterative process, that's why we use computer simulations to understand the behavior of building collapses.
Q: Where's the rest of the building collapsing?
A: The whole building was basically too large at the time. I remember this to simulate about a day per run and the simulation time increases exponentially with increasing element count. Waiting a month per simulation to finish was just out of scope.
Q: I don't see my comment (anymore), do you censor?
A: No. TH-cam automatically marks comments as possible spam if they contain certain keywords such as bad language, links to unknown websites, or when they basically got reported by other users. Then I need to manually accept them in order to make them visible again. I usually do this for most marked comments periodically and sometimes it takes a while until I see them. - ภาพยนตร์และแอนิเมชัน
LOVE the wording. "Had little effect on initiating the collapse." Of course the building falling didn't initiate the collapse, the collapse was over 7 hours later. WTC 7's structure gave way from a combination of the damage it sustained earlier in the day and the resulting fires.
What? Are you talking about wtc 7? Cause the twin towers collapsed an hour or so after the impacts
@@Beavixiam Yes, I said WTC7
@@MichaelB769 alright just makin sure.
@@MichaelB769 also your still responding to this comment even though you commented on this vid 8 years ago XD
@@Beavixiam Well YT notified me lol
I see you already found your own answers and prefer to ignore what I'm telling you about this simulation as its maker. I'm OK with that. But I recommend to rethink your definition of 'chaos' since everything was chaotic during this collapse. You couldn't predict the exact motion path of each piece of metal and concrete, that's what complete chaos is. This is true for this simulation too, one minor change in the settings and everything looks completely different. Exemplary for chaotic behavior.
If you wanted to make it more realistic you should prevent clipping better.
@@CoolCademMAnimates-fz1uiyou mean add the bombs in the building
@@randymarsh9488 I mean if you look at the tower, some of the floors were clipping inside the walls.
Everyone knows it was demolition style collapse. The WTC was ment to take a nuke.
Hi! First, thank you again for your work. Perhaps I cannot predict the exact motion path of each piece of metal and concrete. However, what I was thinking or imagining was very close to the last simulation, maybe with a few more pieces falling off the sides.
In the case of WTC7, I was also very close - perhaps with a bit more movement of the external structure, a bit sooner. So, understanding mechanics and using one's brain can also be a great simulation method.
That shows something much closer to what should happen than what we saw. It is a fact, not a debate.
The design of the tower meant that each floor was supported/made up of light trusses instead of using heavier H iron beams - cost saving. Which meant after the impact it took less time to weaken the steel and then of coarse the structure. Who knows had H beams been used in the structure it might still be standing, if not it would at least have been standing for longer.
Coarse?
Sadly the towers could have stayed up a little bit longer if the hat truss was strongly connected, but no, the floor sagged, pressure was applied, the tower dented inwards and collapsed vertically
None of these simulations come close to showing what occurred. The exterior walls peeled outwards as the upper section crashed down and the stack of floors collapsed every floor in succession. The air between the floors was pushed outwards with hurricane force and helped push the exterior walls outward. The core columns below the impact zone largely stayed upright as the floors fell, shearing the connections of the floor trusses to the central core cleanly. Only after the stack of floors his the ground did the core columns entirely collapse. The steel exterior walls could NOT buckle inwards as the collapse progressed because of the thick stack of pancaked floors in the center, so they buckled outwards. Steel that bent over, broke free and fell from the top floors still hit the ground 2 full seconds before the collapsing stack of floors hit bottom. And falling steel DID carve out a large portion of the facade of WTC 7, seriously weakening the front curtain wall by destroying a large number of beam connections between columns, increasing the susceptibility of the structure to heat related progressive failure. Since 9/11, at least 3 steel frame structures around the world whose designs were inspired by the WTC buildings have collapsed due to fire.
so whens your model coming out genius
@@Duffieldproductionz As soon as your check clears. I get paid for doing that kind of work.
That a few guys with knifes could cause that much damage is the real tragedy of this day. Probably this is why there is such a great desire for many people for twisted and elaborate explanations over the simplest and saddest one, to give this event some deeper meaning even if there is none.
True. Btw I subscribed
Inside job...
I have a question why didn't the people on all th4 planes just bum rush them and take control
@@zachgriffin2333well the only reason they did on Flight 93 was bc passengers got calls on the ground and found out about the earlier attacks… on the other planes there was a great state of confusion and people had no clue what was happening
@@Eli-ss9gj oh that's just one thing I always wondered
If this is Blender physics, I'm a little more impressed with Blender than I used to be. About ten years ago trueSpace had one of the best, low end physics render engines around, but this simulation would have taken several days to run in tS. Blender has indeed come a long way in 10 years. Well done in setting this up; that was a lot of modeling!
I wish there was a blender for everyone who thought it was done by a guy in a cave.
Wow this simulation is fantastic. Did you use bullet constraints to hold it all together? I'd love to see this simulation rendered out with smoke and flame effects too. Great job man.
Laughable pimp!
Fantastically impossible
@@normansabel1850 No it’s possible to have a simulation, you just saw it
Catching this way later than the published date . Man, #1 and #7 variations seem to be the most real appearing to me. While I do not have a degree in SE, I did take architecture with the original goal of a Masters and had a couple courses in structural. I've always explained to people that no conspiracy is needed; just an understanding of the mass involved and steel physics. I can only imagine the render time (which you state above)!.
That’s the thing. People want to analogize it to like a grain silo or a Jenga tower or something. But the steel curtain was designed to stand up straight, not to be broken in any part of the curtain.
Except a collapse doesn't make the mass of the building disappear, or leave 2000 degree molten steel in the basement a month afterwards. The debris piles for each building were about 10% the size of the building, not because they were mostly air inside but because the concrete and steel were blown to dust and tiny fragments
@@LloydWaldothe original arcitech stated the building could with stand a hit from a 737 and still stand. There were enormous steel beams in the center holding the weight of the building, it wasn't the job of the outer curtain skins to bare the bulk of the load.
so true brother. these silly renderings didn't even show the top sliding off of the first building to be demolished, but being pulverized in mid air and its trajectory being changed before it could topple. @@mattb6646 they shoud start with the warren commission and nist and start making them accountable for not acknowledging evidence. rats will rat.
those two out of three buildings had a spine! a massive spine and exoskeleton....all three buildings were hit differently but were demolished the same way @@mattb6646 Hold Nist and the warren commission accountable.
I would love to see this re-made with more modern hardware.
Could you please plot the falloff velocity of your simulation to
compare it to the real one?
An erie similarity with the actual collapse is how the outer structure buckled inwards. In some footage you can see the colums start to bend and deform before the actual collapse
The 9-11 truthers are making me think of those who proclaimed that Titanic was unsinkable... Look what happened...
HorseCrazieGirl15 smartest damn comment I've heard about this hole WTC conspiracy thing
Contrary to popular belief nobody proclaimed the titanic was unsinkable without a doubt until after it sank
It was unsinkable if titanic hit it straight but instead it made a massive hole in 1 to 5 but titanic capacity was 4
The creator of the Titanic claimed that the ship could withstand the impact of several icebergs traveling at cruising speed.
"The twin towers can withstand a plane!"
Not a 767.
PS: Notice on the video of the first collapse that the antenna seems to move down first, indicating that the central columns where the first one to go. Which is kinda weird to me, since NIST made us believe that the floors broke free from the central columns, thus resulting in a chain reaction, pulling the entire structure down. But that would mean that the center of the building would follow behind the out structure. Instead it was the other way around.
Actually both are correct, look at the placement of the planes, the reason the first tower collapsed faster was because the plane went through the building in an offset manner, causing more damage to the outer shell than the core, causing the outer shell to start the collapse, where in the second tower it was a direct hit, those buildings were built to withstand a 737 Jet but were hit by a 767, that being said the building did do as it was supposed to and not immediately collapse, but the raging fires below along with the shattered plane vaporizing the fireproof foam, the floor joists didn't melt but softened, causing them to sag, as we all know with sag comes exponential stress growth, unfortunately the extreme stress in the second tower was in the core, that's why you'll see in the second collapse the core went first, because the core was directly hit.
Old comment but in some angles of the collapse you can see a portion of the central core still standing for about 20 seconds before also giving out meaning probably a combination of both happened
It was NIST that refuted the pancake theory, so they did not support that the floors failing had a significant impact on the collapse of the towers.
While the aircraft crashes caused minimal earth shaking, significant earthquakes with unusual spikes occurred at the beginning of each collapse. The Palisades seismic data recorded a 2.1 magnitude earthquake during the 10-second collapse of the South Tower at 9:59:04 and a 2.3 quake during the 8-second collapse of the North Tower at 10:28:31.
If you still read replies, how many seconds did 7 WTC collapse? Im curious.
This looks great, in some of the footage of the collapse you can see the top of the building making its way down as what’s below it is destroyed
Exactly, so how is this great when it's showing the top half collapse first? In fact the middle disintegrated, crashing into the floors below, while the top half tilted forwards and survived for a few more seconds before sinking down.
@@Black.Sabbath Great as in accurate.
To Kostack Studios: Your video demonstrating the collapse of World Trade 7 is an excellent piece of content I was hoping I might find similar information in the north tower simulations, have you studied either of the towers in whole, to include the foundations and lower floors in your simulations? If so have you uploaded any of your results?
Nice.
It falling vertically is very interesting. The outer shell seems to have a lot to do with this in addition to the inertia.
What I find interesting is how Newton's 3rd law can be seen here. But, the momentum of the top seems to be enough for full collapse, even as some energy is lost destroying the upper floors.
My only critiques are these. The towers were very capable of standing with the crash damage alone. Local heat damage would be needed to initiate collapse. Thus, this model should remain standing unless you locally reduced the strength around the impact zone to account for weakening due to heat. If you reduced the strength overall to cause it to fail due to the crash damage, then the entire building would be much weaker than it actually was.
Regardless, I think this is a great preliminary analysis depicting the failure behavior! Nice work!
+Junk Mail Thank you. Indeed the building would stand without additional weakening near the impact zone, which is done in this simulation to initiate the collapse.
Kostack Studio oh, so, a supplementary weakening of the internal structure was needed to initiate the collapse? Like the real towers, I see. Guess that solidifies that the buildings were rigged to blow then.
Punching holes into the structures of the buildings would have caused them to twist when they fell. Like two giant hands with one holding the bottom of it and the other twisting the top. Also, during the time the building was on fire, the top of it would have baked by both radiant and atmospheric heat. This would have weakened the concrete floors above. One can see the floors quickly liquefying and pouring over the sides of the building. This pouring liquefying action over the sides suggests that the lower structure of the remaining building was offering resistance. It also seems as if beams were being carried away over the sides by the pulverized concrete.
So, by the laws of physics, one should have expected a large portion of the building to remain in tact.
yes, but a plane could not penetrate... a B25 hit the empire state in 1945 and caused minimal damage, a lot of the plane on the ground, because a flimsy steel and plastic plane cannot penetrate thick steel and concrete..
MoonManGalaXy Okay, forget about the shape of the plane and the material it is made out of. Instead, think in terms of energy. Image that a moose rams into a steel wall with a velocity of over 500 miles per hour. The velocity of the moose striking the steel wall is tantamount to strapping dynamite to the side of a bridge. This focuses the energy towards the bridge. Likewise, the moose striking the wall traveling at a velocity of over 500 miles per hour would focus the energy in the direction it is traveling. Depending on how thick the steel wall is, the energy produced would produce a hole. The size of the hole would depend on the density of the moose relative to the density of the steel door. So, it would be a small hole. Saddle diesel atop the moose and the phenomenon produced during the collision would be quite different. The explosion outside would punch a larger hole in the steel door. In turn, a projectile of moose would be shot through that hole at a velocity greater than the moose when it collided with the steel door at a velocity of over 500 miles per hour. This collision would have created an explosion of moose in the equal and opposite reaction of the direction the moose was moving.
I call this my Bullwinkle theory.
understandable, but the fact that there is video of the nose of the plane coming through the other side intact with no projectile leaving or left behind still raises large question.. one it could not pass through in a whole, two there was no hole left from those images, three no debris on the ground at least 200 feet away in the shape of the nose.. the planes could not have been controlled at such speeds in the ny winds, at 500 plus there is tons of lab experiment videos of the 767 shredding to pieces around 400-430mph, and the plane did not hit dead center, but way to the right missing most center supporting columns. many different color planes but the same plane in every vid, wings disappearing and reappearing... humans survived this and were lunging from the entrance hole.. cell phones could not make calls from above around 7000 feet in 2001 due to lack of tech but made multiple calls at 26, 27, and 30000 feet. not one phone call heard the clacker but picked up far terrosits voices. Russia claims it was micro nucs. the wings are not capable, maybe the hull, but the wings are not capable of penetrating no matter what speed and should have been left behind and fallen to the ground same as the b25 in 45. the list goes on. we can go back and forth, a lot makes since as to how this could be possible, but it's almost outweighed in how it can't be..
MoonManGalaXy I was looking at an old photo during construction of the world trade center buildings and they appeared to have less steel at the corners where they taper off. Looks like part of the plane could have exited out this corner of the building.
MoonManGalaXy
Concerning the cell phone calls, I have flown on many of these aircraft in that time period. While personal cell phones
would certainly be unreliable, the airlines actually provided a service of their own. It was called the "Airphone" There was a phone provided to each passenger mounted in the seat back of the person in front of them. They used some kind of a radio link into the telephone system on the ground. The price for using these "Airphones" was $15 per minute. Communication over telephone was certainly possibly although expensive.
Since I'm sure that you and the other high beam can't wait to run your own new and independent models to compare with NIST's results, what ANSYS & LS-DYNA input data can't you find in NCSTAR 1A, 1-9, and 1-9A? Please be specific.
good simulation. Are you using blender in unix or Windows?
Thank you for giving me a clear view of the collapse of the north tower. With that I mean no smoke and anythin else. Thank you :)
Where did the 47 core columns go? The plane turned into confetti when it penetrated the exterior columns, no way there was enough left to damage the 3'x5' ASTM building grade steel core columns,which supported 70% of the weight of the building.
+joe banana here are your 47 columns:
www.sharpprintinginc.com/911/images/photoalbum/9/wtc2core.jpg
+joe banana THERE IS ALSO NO FUCKING WAY A LIGHTER STRUCTURE COULD EVER BEAT ITS WAY THROUGH A MUCH HEAVIER STRUCTURE. THE TOP SECTIONS OF THE INTERIOR COLUMNS WERE 3/8 INCH THICK STEEL. THE LOWER PORTIONS WERE 6 INCHES THICK. NO FUCKING WAY
I work with steel for a living. When you heat up steel you change the hardness and tensile strength. Heating steel by only a few hundred degrees will reduce it's strength significantly. The jets had nearly full tanks when they flew into the towers. That fuel ignited. Jet fuel burns at extremely high temperatures. When the jets flew into the towers all the fuel tanks ruptured at once and the sparks resulting from the crash ignited the fuel. That jet fuel burned at above 2000 degrees F. Steel liquefies at around 2500 degrees f. At 500 degrees steel looses about 15% of it's strength. At 1000 degrees it looses about 40% of it's strength and at 2000% it loses about 90% of it's strength. Structures are required to be built at a strength of 5 times the breaking point of each component. So failure would take place when the steel is weakened by 80%. The continuing burning of the structures combined with the burning of the jet fuel eventually weakened both structures to the point where the the weak point at the impact level was too weak to hold the floors above. Buildings are not designed to have thousands of tons drop on them from above. To have the weight of the upper floors drop even just ten or twenty feet onto otherwise undamaged lower floors would have caused those lower floors to collapse in a chain reaction. This is what happened. Oh, and yes, six inch thick steal can be weakened in this manner to the point where it could not hold up the upper floors any more.
nunya biznez
Just how long does it take to heat 6" thick vertical steel columns to failure?
"Jet fuel burns at extremely high temperatures". Jet fuel is kerosene, it doesn't burn that hot. The initial fireball burnt off in less than a minute. What weakened the lower undamaged part of the structures? Fire? I don't think so.
joe banana you can think all you want....
Nice . . cartoon. Are the aluminium beam covers being blown outward from the effects of another . . 'implied' force?
Could you please add explanations about the 7 tests and the results at the end? I see a result with figure 10 on "bend", what does this mean compare to others? Why did you tests mayny things, high stiff, low stiff, etc...? Nice videos but without explanations for the novice, it is pretty useless. Thanks for your work.
where's the complete building?
Most of the wall in the trade center were Sheetrock, not concrete. And people say melting steel or burning jet fuel didn't cause the collapse. I don't think it did either, the jet fuel most likely burned off within thirty minutes. But consider this... We're talking about an office fire of proportions we can't begin to imagine. That fire had enough fuel to last a VERY long time considering how many flammable things are in an typical corporate office. The steel on the outside of the building was very thick and rigid, but the steel on the inside was light and significantly thinner than that on the outside. That being said I think the fire caused the metal to bend to a point where weight couldn't be supported and the outer columns couldn't hold up the top 20 floors or so, however many were above the impact zone. Also for consideration. Think of the weight of a 20 story building, now imaging dropping said weight onto an 80'story building from a few stories up that's internally composed of lightweight materials. Everything going down... Look at how much dust was created. These buildings weren't steel and concrete fortresses. I think they would have fallen from any kind of explosion or fire that lasted more than an hour on any floor, except for the very top. It's like a tree that's almost hollow on the inside except for the core. Hit it with an axe and it's coming down on the first hit. Let me know what you guys think.
yesyes, but a plane could not penetrate... a B25 hit the empire state in 1945 and caused minimal damage, a lot of the plane on the ground, because a flimsy steel and plastic plane cannot penetrate thick steel and concrete..or sheet rock. an Iranian plane hit an apartment building carrying some 50-60 pple, the 20 story building still stand because it physically cannot penetrate.. cgi.. Russia has blamed us for using mini nucs on the world trade and many more.. just saying..
MoonManGalaXy The B-25 Mitchell Bomber only weighs about 30,000 lbs. The Airliner that hit the WTC weighed about 350,000 lbs. That's like 10 Mitchell Bombers. PLUS... the Mitchell that crashed into the Empire State Building was flying at very low speed because there was heavy fog and he was lost/off course so he hit at a very low speed. The Airliners were at full throttle when they impacted the WTC at over 300 MPH. There is NO comparison at all other than they were both planes. It's is exactly the difference between a Nascar Racecar hitting something at 200mph versus you hitting the guy in front of you in a fender bender. Which one does more damage? Duh... You are a dunce like the rest of the pretend twoofers. Also... It is totally true that an airliner can penetrate that building. You are not so intelligent. Maybe go through school again? I dunno.... unless you're still there....
there are enough facts to disprove this. no need in arguing. plastic cant emerge through the other side, explain those 11 plus videos.. then call me unintelligent, f* troll. the plane would have fallen apart around 400-430mph, that's proven.. cell phones couldn't ping above 7000ft, but calls were made at 26-27-30000 ft.. explain the questions that are there, all of them, please, stand up for something my people did while blinding the mass. think with your heart, not your mind. 7 through 6, wake up.. go hijack a plane and prove this to be true, then talk, cause like the clips from that day, you should survive as tons of people were jumping from the same exact floor of "penetration"
MoonManGalaXy Chicken brains.... most of the calls were made on Airphones. I made cellphone calls from planes before back then... and planes are not made of plastic. If you think an airliner cannot destroy a building... you obviously do not have the mental capacity to debate a complex situation like this.
***** so very true. LOL
Seeing the section view of the collapse and watching how fast everything is happening, imagining those poor souls who's last experience on Earth is hearing that deafening roar. It's terrifying to think about.
I'm wondering how the collapse starts because from what I see here it looks like the building should not collapse in the first place. What is it in the simulation that starts the collapse? Does the simulation simulate pieces being fastened as well? How many simulations were attempted to get this results? Is there a file available for download of the model to be able to experiment with the simulation?
Well in real life it's from structural instability but here I'm not sure
@@thebigsad5959 actually they fell in real life because of buckling. Search it up
Um, there was a massive fire in case you forgot.
They had a good reason for not showing the actual footage of the collapse next to this simulation; they're very different.
Of course they are, there were several variables that could not be inserted into the simulation; the force of the plane from the initial crash, the plane wreckage, various items (desks, computers, etc.) on all of the floors, fire location, fire duration, fire temperature, wind speed, wind direction, ect. Not to mention the building in the simulation was forced to be made out of a different material because the program did not have specific building materials with varying degrees of strength and durability.
That One Guy Video shows EXPLOSIONS. Simulation shows CRUMBLING.
Richard Veilleux Indeed, a factor I forgot to mention.
Richard Veilleux LMAO, the explosions didn't seem to even bust the windows, Moron.
How do explosions break core columns, but fail to break windows just 100 feet away?
Richard Veilleux Not explosions, debris shot out from a progressive collapse. When the top part of the building falls downward, where do the floors below go? Answer: Outward. The top part falls on the bottom part, the bottom part goes everywhere. Since there is so much energy released in the massive top floors crushing the floors below them, what you get looks like an explosion.
A February 27 1993 Twin Towers Engineered To Withstand Jet Collision
By Eric Nalder
Engineers had to consider every peril they could imagine when they designed the World Trade Center three decades ago because, at the time, the twin towers were of unprecedented size for structures made of steel and glass.
"We looked at every possible thing we could think of that could happen to the buildings, even to the extent of an airplane hitting the side," said John Skilling, head structural engineer."
Okay well the Titanic was also “engineered to be unsinkable” look how that turned out. Just because they say it was built to withstand something, doesnt mean it will for sure. You think they tested the buildings with real Jets before they were built or something? You forget they were built in the 70’s.
WOW. good work!, i cant do much with blender but i hope to get better soon!
Was the program free on your PC magazine ? Steel bends when it reaches it critical temperature. The temperature would not be the same on all the steel core and therefore the building would not go straight down it would bend over and be very uneven in its falling geometry. The heat never got anywhere near its critical temperature hence the thick smoke as the fires were not a concern. Have you programmed the explosives into your model, no ...... thought so.
What about the building 7?
"I guess about three minutes later you just heard explosions coming from building two, the south tower. It seemed like it took forever, but there were about ten explosions." [Craig Carlsen -- Firefighter (F.D.N.Y.)]
From a stressed and under pressure person. At that point in time the news of it being an attack was mostly known, so it makes sense that any loud noises afterwards would be associated with "explosions". Collapsing concrete and steel, plus windows being blow out is certainly not quiet.
@@AlphaWasSpotted Jumpers hitting the ground also made a sound that could be mistaken for explosions
Why does the weight not go to the sides when it hits the bottom when falling? Why is the fall straight? When colliding in a fall, the lower part can also resist something and cause what falls from above to go to the left, right, forward or backward, like a slide.
Very Informative, do you have a video where it isent zoomed in but wher eyou see the entire demolition? another quesion is, do you know if it is possible to digest the excisting videos of the event? to produce a algorithim that then can preduce a simulation of the event?
A very rudimental chain of thought is make an experiement in an Atom lab (Autonomous Tracking Optical Measurement Laboratory, this is a lab that is filled with cameras that track reflective objectives very precicely):
Build a physical Jenga Tower in the center of the lab and on the end of each beam, place reflective tape. so each beam can be tracked independantly. now break the tower, do this over and over, to get a bunch of data. Now do to things: make a model that only works off of the normal video footage, and then compare it to a model that works off of the Atom lab footage (if the resuslt is two very similar models) then apply it on the WTC videos.
Damn if only i had acess to my own atom lab.
I appreciate this was done back in 2011 but can the OP explain why (1) we cannot see the whole height of the building, and also, (2) what the timings were from onset of collapse to total collapse. It would be interesting to see the speed of collapse suggested by the simulation.
Also, has the OP released the simulation model(s) and metrics used for peer-review?
Thanks
(1) The whole building was too large to simulate. (2) Unknown. (3) No models or data has been released since this was not a scientific simulation.
looks good need to show the entire building though. the simulation must show nothing left to crush the remaining half of undamaged building
What do you think happens to the mass of 50 floors as they fall? You think it just floats away? Once the top floors pancake into the floors beneath them, it’s the weight of 50 floors dropping straight down.
You are wasting air Lloyd. You would think people would have enough common sense to realize that such an enormous mass of material moving at a fast speed that is only getting faster is like a giant battering ram, especially so with the architecture of the old twin towers. The kinetic energy of the upper floors falling onto the undamaged floors beneath was extreme to say the least. If you were to take the damage from the planes and the fire totally out of the equation, slice the upper floors off from the lower floors and drop those upper floors 2 inches, several studies have shown that alone would start a progressive collapse of the WTC. And that simulation didn’t take into account the impact damage or the fire, the buildings were fully intact. People also think of the towers as being very light in terms of weight. Compared to other super tall structures they were very light, but looking at the overall total weight of each tower, they still weighed a hell of a lot. I mean each floor was about one acre in size. The fluted steel decking supported by the trusses had 4” of concrete poured that made up the flooring for each tower. The core section had 5” of concrete poured for the flooring in that part of each floor. An acre of ground poured 4” deep (40% or so of that 5” for the core) with concrete is not light to say the least. Throw in the weight of the steel decking, trusses, perimeter columns, core columns, and all of the office equipment and physical plant items (electrical, a/c, associated motors, etc..) you start to see real fast that they were anything but light buildings. The weight coming down from above was extreme to say the least. But I’m making the same mistake that you did. I’m wasting my breath trying to convince complete fools that what they are believing in is total horse shit.
The softbody system works completely separate from Bullet internally, which is what I used.
When we see two buildings, what is the building on the right?
LOL, so coincidental that this only shows the top of the building and exactly where it falls off screen is where the debris would have lost its momentum and rolled off to the side leaving at least 2/3 of the building standing.
James smith physics does not work that way. Horizontal momentum takes energy. The resistance of beams and other structural elements snapping is not nearly enough to cancel the momentum of the 38000 tonnes of falling floors.
Exactly there is no way that the building would fall all the way unless it exploded from the bottom.
You hit the nail right on it's head. I have no trouble believing that something gave away inside of the structure.. after all it was a big explosion, and a big plane. You cannot expect a building to just take the impact without a partial collapse. But how 1 3rd of the structure could plunge itself through 2 3rd of the remaining mass below it is beyond me. You would expect the top to take the path of least resistance, which is not straight down into it's own mass, unless that mass was removed.
This is the North Tower. It isn't even 1/3rd of the building... it's 1/7th of the building. 1/7th of the building completely pulverized and demolished 6/7ths of the building. Healthy steel structure untouched by fire.
I've seen many people saying that the "momentum" was what caused it. This is - of course - garbage.
Even if that was possible - it would still take longer than 10-11 seconds to bring the whole thing down. 30 - 35 seconds.
I don't know what happened that day - but I know that physics didn't take a day off.
@@DPMusicStudio There are more columns on the outside of the building then the inside, likely in casing the debris as seen in this simulation, so the path of least resistance is, funnily enough, down.
As for a 7th of the building taking the rest down? its simple, hundreds of tons of material were on support columns, then they were on the floor, i highly doubt they were designed to hold anything close to that. I'd be really impressed if you could fit something that heavy in such a small space anyway. I'm not an engineer so thats just my take on it
@@Surrenitie I don't think you were thinking this through.
1. The core columns supported 60% of the building's weight, the external columns were supporting 40% of the building's weight. Thus - in the case of how the building "should" collapse - it should have slid off the side on which the most columns were cut... not STRAIGHT down through perfectly healthy steel.
2. "I highly doubt they were designed to hold anything close to that."
Think about this... THOSE SUPPORT COLUMNS WERE DESIGNED TO HOLD IT! They had been holding up that same material for 28 years prior!
What was the difference? Well, now a new force was being applied... momentum. But, momentum isn't some unexplainable, unpredictable force that can demolish 6/7ths of a building. The laws of physics were violated. There is actually a video about this... I'm going to link to it here. Just watch through the END of the section called "Law of Physics Violated" (it's only about 6 or 7 minutes I thnk):
th-cam.com/video/ti4gLuZLkCg/w-d-xo.html
@@DPMusicStudio Like i said, i'm far from an expert on this topic so just bare with me.
1: Yes, the inner columns are stronger then the outer ones, but there is still space in between the inner and outer columns witch is mostly taken up by the floors. Because of the floor's higher surface area, they take the brunt of the force. I would imagine that the floors are still easier to break through then the columns, so, once again, the path of least resistance is down
2: I was talking about the floors bearing the weight of the tower, not the columns, sorry if i made that confusing.
Not sure how relevant it is here but i feel the car crash analogy as used in the video you linked doesn't make sense, (Assuming they're the same car) all forces in a car crash are equal, a building is vertical so gravity will take one side (witch the video also downplayed the effects of) and are not taking into account of the columns breaking (as i mentioned in the previous points)
@@DPMusicStudio th-cam.com/video/vzInIjD6nKw/w-d-xo.html
There's an inverse relation between your mass and the Earths gravity that varies over distance squared.
what happened to the steel core on the way down?
You'll notice hundreds of steel beams aren't being ejected laterally like canonballs from an upward trajectory. Thanks for disproving gravity collapse with your animation :)
Do you have any idea on how steel beams work?
The collapse itself is probably not the big mystery amongs scientists. It's the speed at which it came down that seems to point to the fact that most if not all all resistance was removed during the collapse. I believe it was about 1 second slower than actual freefall within an atmosphere. Note that real free fall does not occur on planet earth. I cannot see how fire, or "softened steel" can produce such a result. It still bugs me to the day...
me too.
Free fall would’ve been like 8 seconds. Debris hit the ground first way before the top floors did
Did you simulate the entire collapse or just the top bit?
Can we see how big the debris pile is at the bottom please?
Only the top has been simulated back then, however, it's planned to redo the full building.
Interesting that actual footage shows the top debris and subsequent floors falling outwards, not inwards as the simulation shows. Is there a reason for this? I only ask because two thirds of the debris landed blocks away and can clearly be seen falling outwards and away from the building once the collapse began when viewing the actual live footage.
I've also always noticed that LOTS of debris can be seen falling away from the tower. That means that weight and mass was NOT accumulating to cause a supposed "progressive collapse", as according to the official version of events. Also the upper sections of both buildings disintegrate rapidly seconds after collapse initiation, most noticeably the North tower. Which if the upper sections disintegrate...it would mean there was nothing left to cause a complete collapse of the lower structure. Instead we see the buildings being demolished from the top down, not collapsing in on themselves.
This is visual evidence for anyone with eyes to see for themselves. It's not a theory or speculation, just hard visual evidence. These following 2 linked videos show the disintegration of the North tower upper section very well: th-cam.com/video/-ib93ktc454/w-d-xo.html
th-cam.com/video/b9YpEA4Sy34/w-d-xo.html
That's it? I guess we just have to continue imagining the rest of the collapse
Could you do an animation for the wtc7 tower?
I already did:
th-cam.com/video/MSlIFXw3EGg/w-d-xo.html
Kostack Studio Great work, by the way. Blender physics is just a little tricky. Try to contact me, please.
I am working on a building simulation project, for OpenSource Building Information Modelling servers.
He did, and it is just as garbage as this one.
Very, very cool use of software!
Did you make the building with soft bodys only or with constraints too ? Are there any cell fracture attributes ..?
Back then I used a modified soft body system that allowed destruction of the mesh. Today more accurate simulations can be done using Bullet Constraints Builder which is based on the Bullet physics engine. It performs discretization and builds constraints from actual material properties.
@@KaiKostack ok thank you for your answer
Nice try, no one noticed that the fassade, the front all around, is heavily connected to the parts next to them. Thats because there is something like a "wave". So this Demo Video is not realistic.
this demo is a shit!!! its fake... its kindergarden
@@cosmeticpollution6952 You idiot read the description this was merely to show off the physics capabilities of blender
@@cosmeticpollution6952 idiot
The steel in the portion of the building above the impact site constituted less than 2% of the steel used in the construction of the buildings. Please explain how 2% of the overall steel can cause the remaining 98% to collapse. That's for tower 1. In footage of the tower 2 collapse, it clearly shows the portion of the building above the impact site tilt over to the side. If the top portion of the building tipped over to the side, please explain how it would cause the rest of the building to experience a total collapse into its own footprint
"Can a Steel Building Topple Over Like in the Movies?"
th-cam.com/video/_Kd_OPH9c0c/w-d-xo.html
First of all, it did not collapse "into it's own footprint". It completely destroyed many buildings that were totally outside of its own footprint. Stop saying "it's own footprint" please. Second of all, the floors were made of 4 inch slabs of concrete resting on metal trusses that were bolted to welded angle brackets at the perimeter columns. When the mass of just one of these floors hits the floor below, it causes forces in excess of an order of magnitude (ten times) stronger than those joints were designed to hold on the floor below. It immediately severs these connections, and the process repeats. The towers did not shear through their columns. The floors gave way, and pancaked down, and unzipped the columns. However, there were times that this left very tall columns intact for as much as 10 more seconds before they finally gave way because they had no more lateral support tying them together. It's like trying to stand a tape measure up on end too high. Eventually the tape measure gives way and buckles under it's own weight if you don't have additional hands spaced every few feet to keep it from folding over on itself. The same thing happened to the perimeter columns as the floors gave way and smashed through each other, severing all of their lateral connections. You can even see some of the core and elevator shafts somewhat intact inside of building 1's collapse video captured from the north I believe.
For a controlled demolition, as you would claim, there wasn't very much control over collateral damage below. It looked very much like a nuclear holocaust.
The collapse was nowhere near in its footprint
Very impressive that Blender was already capable of that 12 years ago.
None of the simulations came close to approximating the video record of the tower collapses. Several large sections of the outer walls fell outward, and hundreds of steel beams were hurled outward for distances of over 300 feet, some impaling nearby structures.
The simulations looked more like implosions, with the central core falling at the same rate as the outer walls, with no resistance from the undamaged structure below.
Maybe more memory and a better processor is required for an accurate simulation.
The walls starting falling outwards from floors 40-80, which isnt shown much here
I'm not even sure how one would go about making an accurate sim.
You'd have to know the exact design (ie building plans) of the buildings and select the exact materials used in the construction.
Then comes the difficult part, approximating the damage the planes did to the towers.
But you are right, more processing power is at the very least required.
You forgot all the 2+ ton sections that blew 100 feet up and up to 300 yards out! One steel beam was blown across the Hudson river and landed in NJ!
Woah
+Geo K
No, 2+ ton sections did not blow 100 feet up. Watch any video of the collapse for yourself. Do you see any steel beams being blown over a mile away across the Hudson or 100 feet up?
That being said, gravity alone along with the potential energy of the building structure could easily cause debris to be propelled very far distances. A quick example would be to grab a ziploc bag, blow it up about halfway to 3/4 of the way and close it, put a small object into the outside corner of the bag (not a zipped corner) and drop even a small object like a wallet onto the bag. That object will shoot out using only the potential energy of the wallet and no explosive forces. The potential energy of the WTC far exceeded that of a wallet dropped from a few feet which is why you see steel being propelled outward slightly. What you don't see is 2+ ton sections blowing up and out over a mile out in order to cross the Hudson.
+Willy Whitten a "straw man" argument is an intentional misrepresentation of your opponent's argument in order to make it sound unreasonable and easy to attack. Watch how you use that term, or people with law degrees will after you.
+Willy Whitten
Geo K: "You forgot all the 2+ ton sections that blew 100 feet UP" "One steel beam was blown across the Hudson river and landed in NJ!"
Irfan Khan: "Really?"
Willy Whitten (That's you): "Yea really."
Willy Whitten (That's you again): "Yes 2+ ton sections were blown LATERALLY from the towers, NO they didn't fly across the Hudson (now you are disagreeing with yourself). These are straw man arguments."
I really don't think you have any idea what you are talking about now. My ziploc analogy was to show how potential energy can propel objects laterally without any explosive force. It's any easy experiment even you can do. Instead of giving your reasoning why it is impossible you just state that I'm a shill or at least taking a "shilly course". This is more evidence that you don't have any clue what you are talking about.
Watch a video of the collapse again. Look for any evidence that an explosion starts the collapse. Look for the tiniest puff of smoke. Look for the tiniest flash of light. You will not find it. The smoke and debris are only propelled laterally following the start of the collapse when the gravitational potential energy is converted to kinetic energy.
+Willy Whitten "National Institute of Standards and Technology abandoned the "Pancake collapse""
Why is this relevant to the current discussion? Why do you keep interjecting random points into every discussion? These loose associations along with your continued use of a signature in youtube comments make me seriously question your mental status.
Anyway, that link states, under point #8, "the NIST investigation showed conclusively that the failure of the inwardly bowed perimeter columns initiated collapse and that the occurrence of this inward bowing required the sagging floors to remain connected to the columns and pull the columns inwards. Thus, the floors did not fail progressively to cause a pancaking phenomenon." So, I guess that settles it. I don't understand the point you are trying to make.
Having worked underground primarily as charge up crew. I have turned large volumes of rock into pebbles for years. I can say that there is always detonators and det cord leftover. Even huge underground Stope explosions leave evidence. Even so I have never over blasted any end or stope that it turned to dust. Even in a confined space there is not enough energy to destroy the evidence. If i drilled more holes and overcharged i could turn the hard underground rock to fine gravel.
But dust?
I 100% agree
@KaiKostack: Please don't take my other comments about Blender as a negative comment on your work in this animation. Even if Blender's physical simulation can't take all real world parameters into account, it's interesting to see the models collapse into themselves every time. I present a challenge (well, it's where I would go with this) add an environment and particle effects for a rising dust cloud. See how realistic a rendering you can make of this.
Do you have a tutorial on how this was done?
If you look around on some of the other videos you can see what programs he used also sorry you had to wait
7 years
Did you know the core structural beams(not the outside shell) in the trade towers were made of Delicious biscuity pastry(with a mouth watering dark chocolate center) held together with rum and raisin fudge fasteners, that's why it collapsed on its own footprint at free fall speed....
HAHAHAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!! OUTSTANDING!!!
I love you man, how about that soft pastry center!!!
Not much talk about the majority of the buildings strength, you know, literally a double the weight of a Yamato class battleship standing inside the center of the thin outer shell. Rum and raisin fudge fasteners . . priceless!
Ha, ha. Thats hilarious.
I find hope for humanity once again xD
Ah I get it... So people only got sick because they had too many sweets afterwards. Yeah, that many sweets would probably give me diabetes too.
Got Milk?
9/11 was explosive job
You sir are a fucking Moran
don't be abusive shit brain. see videos at justice party uk
see photos at Arshad Khan justice on face book. you will see miracle photos
Greatest miracle since birth of Universe have taken place in England. Moon changed into signs of prophet Moses. See photos @ Arshad khan justice on face book. See videos @ justice party uk on face book
Holy Crap!
It's a wild Spammer!
And he set up BAIT!
GREAT JOB, TROLL!
BTW this is to justicepartyuk
You didn't mention which graphics card you were using in your system. Which one was it?
Why did you cut off the bottom of your "Low Bending Siffness" simulation?
How does asymmetrical damage cause almost symmetrical collapse? That's what I don't understand.
rhoadnaroahs damage caused by impact was not the primary cause of collapse. It was the burning fuel, which was likely well-distributed.
Also the structure does not magnify asymmetry in the damage into larger asymmetry in the collapse, so moderate asymmetry in damage will not cause completely-asymmetric collapse. The buildings simply crush under their own weight once they begin to fall.
I'm curious of the time it took for the building to go completely down in your simulation. it looks as though it would take a lot longer than what had happened in reality.
ok so where did all the twisted iron and steel and concrete go .if the building collapsed stands to reason there would be ten stories or more of debris.can you show a model please ..
On the wtc 7 collapse video you made, I tried leaving a comment to ask about the music and the time it took to make that video. But, the comments were disabled...
Tj Smith Entertainment Studios That's strange, all my videos should allow commenting. Sometimes when comments are marked as spam for whatever reason, I have to accept them explicitly but there are no comments left to check from what I can tell. Maybe it takes a while to update.
To answer your questions, it took a few hours per simulation and the music is an own composition.
Kostack Studio Can I get a copy?
Every time I see the towers fall u think of the guy above the impact who was on the phone with 911 when the tower fell
Buildings are not collapsing this style .
AldaKokrhell
Oh? How are they actually collapsing?
Yes you idiot
How? Do you have an engineering degree? If so, explain
Why they keep repeating the first 15 floors below the hit? Why not show the whole building? Is it because it's not possible to collapse the building down to it's ground floor?
+Yaser Farid Yes, these towers are huge buildings with a lot of elements. A full simulation is extremely difficult.
+Kostack Studio But that's what most people are interested in... Everybody out there could agree that a few stories might have collapsed but the miracle happened when the whole building went down to the bottom pulverising everything and nothing was left.
+Willy Whitten Don't be dishonest, I have addressed his question by stating that it is too large of a structure to be simulated as a whole. This is why nobody has ever done it before. But the time will come someone will do a full simulation, I promise :)
+Willy Whitten How do you know that NIST didn't use real parameters for their simulations?
+Willy Whitten A simulation of this scale is a great technologically challenge even today. The assertion of NIST maliciously changing parameters to hide anything from the public is pure speculation at best. One can say a simulation will never reach accuracy of reality but you can still learn from it. I don't see the point why some people prefer to talk every simulation attempt to death instead of acknowledging the effort to learn something.
I want to know how the third building fell. And if it is this easy to bring a skyscraper down y does it take months and months to get one to fall like thes did
What happened to the core beams? Did they also sypport the trusses? How come they werent visible giving any resistance during collapse?
The Towers collapsed at 2/3's G. There was plenty of resistance.
@@timshea4279 1g or 2/3g does not make key difference. What matters is we don't have reference of comparable scale collapse of steel frame building. This is one in history. Important: try google steel frame building collapse. You will see how different this is.
It's interesting how a few floors collapsed, and the rest of the undamaged structural building couldn't carry the weight of the crumbled floors. Detonators or explosives had to play a role. Both Towers Collapsed from Top to Bottom while WTC 7 which was untouched collapsed from Bottom to Top.
According to the NIST report "word for word"
..."However, the reader should keep in mind that the building and the records kept within it were destroyed, and the remains of all the WTC building were disposed of before congressional action and funding was available for this Investigation to begin. As a result, there are some facts that could not be discerned, and thus there are uncertainties in this accounting."
They did not do a forensic examination...WHY because of funding??
So, the richest country in the world with a sky high emergency budget following 9/11 can't afford a forensic examination with bomb sniffing dogs to sniff out potential explosive residues. This has every sign of a COVER-UP!
al murphy Well, gee, Moron, why release a 2004 FAQ as your source, when it's 2014?
The reports came out 3 years later.
Kinda deliberately white trash SKANKY on your choice of quotations, aren't you?
Why not this one: NCSTAR 1A, Chapter 3.3, Hypothetical Blast Scenarios.
"Considerable effort was expended to compile evidence and determine whether Intentionally set explosives might have caused the collapse of WTC 7. ...
Six combinations of explosives location, column / truss combinations, and TWO implementation Scenarios were considered.
al murphy By the way, Moron, the WTC and PANY had the largest bomb dog squad, in the ENTIRE US. They were on the debris pile from day one, and over 300 strong doing so, as they had to clear dangerous pockets of gases from the debris for SAR dogs. The WTC had the biggest dog operation in US History, with over 500 dog TEAMS searching for over 3 months. Didn't find ANY explosives, since they were not there.
WTC, RESCUE / BOMB DOGS OF 9/11
dogsinthenews. com/issues/ 0209/ articles/ 020911a. htm
al murphy actually the building sat for almost an hour derm derm. thank you and goodbye
al murphy Who said it was "Fire Alone". It wasn't. Nice try.
"why do we see NONE of these?"
That's the question you should ask yourself. I don't know why you're unable to see it, because I can :)
Maybe you should start reading instead of commenting here everyday the same questions which have been answered already several times by other users. I'd suggest to start with the Wikipedia article about Chaos theory.
WTC meteorite
I use blender, please post the file.
To add to your comment, most people forget about the 395,000 pounds that constituted the weight of the 767. That, coupled with the heat and fire could easily cause the buildings to collapse.
+Willy Whitten +Kostack Studio - I had to sleep on it before it occurred to me; but... I've been learning Blender and recently studied a tutorial about the function used to make this animation. Now, let me say, it seems we all have been working through our own confirmation bias. That shouldn't be a surprise; I care about the truth here and I'm sure it is important to you guys, too. But let's look at this simulation and just how it works. It works because every element in the construction is a separate object! So this simulation (nice work, by the way) demonstrates how the building would fall if all of the connections between the different construction elements suddenly ceased to exist and each part began to fall by itself and started to collide with the other falling parts. This is the same if, in the real building, all of the connections were removed by timed demolition charges and thermite cuts. Get it? In fact what this is a simulation of is the precisely controlled and complete demolition of the building's structural support. The simulation looks very much like how the building fell, as it should; because the simulation assumes that each part is separate and not fastened in any way with the rest of the parts and that is a close approximation of the real building's condition immediately after the demolition charges and cuts. So this simulation establishes that - like the Blender algorithm - all of the building was taken apart at once by a skillful demolition job. As they say: QED. Thanks Kostack Studio for the good Blender work and thanks Willy Whitten for keeping after it and getting me to actually think about what the simulation demonstrates. Well... I'm glad we got that one settled, eh?
+Jade Emperor Actually the elements of this model are only topologically separate but not simulation-wise. The solver treats the elements as connected until the forces reach the predefined breaking threshold and only then they will be detached. I'm afraid that these videos don't allow to draw conclusions the way you did.
+Kostack Studio +Willy Whitten - That what was used is the Blender Demolition Simulation is enough to allow me to draw conclusions the way I did. It is a simulation of a demolition... it is hard to try to dance around that. And I do know what "topologically" means so what you've indicated is that the elements of the simulation are separate objects that bump into each other in the simulation animation. I put together my first try at a graphics kernel and GUI from Professor Edward Angel's pseudo-code in his book "Computer Graphics" in 1992 using Borland C++ and Windows API on a 486 architecture desk-top machine on a CGA monitor. I do know how to code matrix transforms on complex data sets. But let's look at broad strokes not details. Forget that the building came down at free-fall acceleration and that in the bottom of the buildings were lakes of molten steel. You should be able to glance at the news videos and immediately know the buildings came down as a result of a very skillful demolition job. If you can't and you are honest then you are hypnotized into not seeing what is before your eyes. That is a real possibility, the official story has been drilled in enough. If this were the case you would not be expected to know or feel like your perception and thinking had been manipulated - you would unconsciously supply the mechanisms of rationalization to prevent having to confront the cognitive dissonance of believing something that cannot be true. Before you wonder, yes, I've made a study of psychology, propaganda and hypnosis, too. As a matter of fact, I'm a regular effing renaissance man. So, there is a third possibility here, but I really don't like to think of it or accuse you of it. But your puzzling intractability recommends it for mention. That would be that you know full well what happened but choose to be an agent for the official story. But I have to observe that if that should be the case one who would do that would be at the very least culpable for treason against the people and nation of the United States of America and at least an accessory after the fact for the crime against humanity of the planning and execution of a war, or wars, of aggression. You may recall the US hung a large part of the German Army's high command on that exact charge at the Nuremburg War Crimes Trials. I think there could be yet another option and it is something that I've worked through myself about all this stuff. And that would be that you are an honest and sincere person and in the back of your mind you know how upset you would be if the lies and crimes committed more of less in your name got up and smacked you in the face. If this last is the case it is not really so bad as it may seem. The powers have always lied and murdered to maintain their position and stand down challengers; what is changing is their ability to get by with it - we are perhaps nothing less than approaching Teilhard de Chardin's fabled Omega Point where consciousness collectively becomes a reflexively self-aware process. In short a process where we look and we see life like unto ourselves and not exploitable resources. I used to work with Paolo Soleri casting and chasing his personal fine art bronze sculpture and his Arcosanti Project in Arizona is all about de Chardin's Omega Point theories... not waiting for it but creating it. You may or may not be conversant with the idea often expressed by the late Terence McKenna of history not being driven by the past but pulled forward by the possibility of the future. In essence this is the Omega Point concept, but Terence wasn't a Jesuit like de Chardin was. Neither was Ken Kesey and the Merry Pranksters but their famous axiom of "You're either on the bus or off the bus" is essentially Omega Point compatible. Oh, another thing about all of this with the WTC... this wasn't only an one-off event; and we need to be able to see the pattern or risk getting seriously blind-sided.www.amazon.com/Omega-point-Teilhard-Chardin/dp/B0006CTQAC/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1444372817&sr=1-2&keywords=teilhard+de+chardin+omega+pointwww.amazon.com/Piltdown-Man-Point-Omega-Evolutionary/dp/0820445886/ref=sr_1_4?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1444372817&sr=1-4&keywords=teilhard+de+chardin+omega+point
+Jade Emperor I meant what I said, the elements are connected as in "hanging together" and are treated by the simulation as such. They are only visually disconnected. You can drew whatever conclusions you like, I just wanted to clearify that point as I have done these videos and therefore I have to know.
+Kostack Studio While I'm not yet as accomplished as you are with Blender you do understand that I also use that software and have worked with computer graphics from when the TSR-80 was considered a hot computer. But thank you for permission to think for myself. My concern is that we individually and collectively come to be respected for our perception and discernment to the point the truth is shared with us instead of the current situation of being treated like mushrooms... you know; kept in the dark and fed bullshit? Maybe I'm expecting too much, but I feel I should make the effort. Again, that Blender project is amazing, isn't' it. And open source free-ware in the bargain. It is things like that which give me hope that the good guys may yet win the day.
Nano thermite was used to cut the steel columns. Discovery went ahead short after and claimed that its impossible for any type of thermite to cut trough steel, however there is a video on youtube with a man showing that even home thermite can cut them. Whilst gravity is the main factor to the collapse, the thermite was used to weaken columns in order to create the implosion effect and have a safer demolition.
For those who don't know nano thermite is used only by military personal as its composed of illegal materials not available for free purchase. It creates a bright white light and flame and melts the steel. It can cut without an explosion sound, and excess of nano thermite was found at the crash site.
Go look for the video and see the unbelievable amount of proof generated by 1 engineer at home. Clearly knocks away Discovery's claim that "no type or variation of thermite can cut or melt steel beams".
Wow, you're really resistant to advice. You can also buy a book about Chaos theory if you fear Wikipedia that much. That's just a name of a field of mathematics. BTW, even if Wikipedia is free to write into it's not free of rules. You could use some knowledge about their rules too, then you might be able to recognize even some sense in how they're doing things :)
Do you skeptics understand that when the structure started collapsing into itself, the falling floors added up gaining more and more weight and momentum. How do you people suggest the buildings should have reacted? You can hold a brick on your head, but if I drop it from just a small distance it really hurts. It may not need that much to start a chain reaction.
I should have been an architectural engineer, this is awesome
Firefighter Schroeder recollects in great detail how he was one of the first firefighters to rush to the complex. ... As they were making there way up the floors, Firefighter Schroeder heard a huge explosion. “The elevators just blew right out. We couldn’t believe it. The plane hits 80 floors up but the elevators explode at least five minutes later? It was unreal.”
It should just show Bush with a detonator.
Do you know about surface tension? The plane can not enter the sea at high speed, how can you enter the building?
Of course we're discussing the theory of chaos since you brought it up without even understanding what chaos is.
Granted... steel does not have to reach it's melting point in order for it to lose it's structural integrity. However; This argument is moot and desperately inadequate, in it's attempt to justify the global collapse, at near free-fall speed, of both Trade Center Towers. Even with the tremendous impact of the planes and the structural deformation of the steel in both the core and outer "shell" taken with the fires hot enough to soften the steel, we are left with the undeniable truth that, at least two thirds of the structures mass remained beneath the points of impact. There was no possible way for the relatively isolated fires and structurally compromised upper floors to have enough gravitational force to overcome the resistance of two-thirds the mass of the Towers underneath the impact zone. Considering these irrefutable facts... the only way the Trade Towers could have possibly collapsed in the way that they did would require the addition of energy into the system. So... In order to justify the observed outcome, we must conclude that somehow, there was additional forces applied to obliterate the lower two-thirds of the structures. There is absolutely no way to get around the laws of physics, lest you be willing to assume some non-provable set of circumstances, none of which when held to the scrutiny and rigor of the Laws of Motion will bare any credibility, simply because these types of arguments disregard, obfuscate, and manipulate facts in order to make the data fit with a prescribed, foregone account... In other words... A myth... Perpetrated against the masses to establish an impetus through which political agendas are more easily justified. When Human Beings are TERRORIZED and under constant unpredictable threat from seemingly intractable enemies and when Human Beings live in fear and in anger... the ability to make rational, informed judgments becomes severely impaired. It is with these catalysts that those who wish to assert their will over the majority, are able to receive the tacit approval of the people to enact and exercise that will.
Actually you are wrong. No structure can withstand 75,000 tons suddenly dropping on it from a height of ten feet. The weight of the upper 15 floors was approx. 75,000 tons. There was roughly ten feet between levels. Roughly 5 floors were engulfed in jet fuel fire for long enough duration to cause over 90% loss of structural strength. Once that happened the vertical support snapped like twigs. The upper floors didn't fall perfectly straight. They did tilt slightly due to the unevenness of the softening of the structural steel. Once this happened, 75,000 tons very suddenly dropped at first, ten feet. Structures are not designed to withstand sudden drops of thousands of tons on them. They are designed to hold thousands of tones of weight but not have it dropped on them. The difference in stress between a static weight and a dropped weight is huge. In fact depending on the circumstances, a dropped weight can cause ten times the stress of a static weight and buildings are only designed to withstand 5 times the static weight imposed upon them. In other words, what fell on the lower levels was more than double what they should have been able to withstand.
Try this experiment. Place a cinder block on your bare foot. Note that your foot can easily take the pressure of that cinder block. It will be hard and rough but your foot should withstand it without injury or even any real discomfort. Now pick up that cinder block and drop it from one inch. Let me know how much pain you were in. Note that was only an inch. Note the difference in what your foot can withstand. Now imagine the difference between one inch and ten feet. Or try this. The roof of your house should be as strong as any floor which should be able to withstand 100 pounds per square feet. If your house is say one thousand square feet, that means your house should be able to withstand 50 tons of static weight sitting on it, evenly spread out of course. Now lets put a crane in your backyard and lift that 50 tons to a point ten feet above your house. Now according to your logic, it is perfectly safe for you to be inside that house when the crane releases that 50 tons of concrete on top of your house. I challenge you to try this. If you believe your conspiracy theory as devoutly as you imply, then you should have no problem sitting in your living room while that 50 tons of concrete drops on top of your roof from ten feet above it. That's only 50 tons. No try your choice of any building while 1,500 times that amount drops on it from ten feet above.
Lets describe it another way. 21 tons dropping from ten feet on each square foot of structure.
Now keep in mind, you cannot count anything under that one level. vertical strength of a structure does not multiply with added height so it does not matter if the building is one story or a thousand stories high. The only thing that matters is what one level of any building can withstand. The 85th level of the WTC was designed to withstand 75,000 tons of static weight. But dropping that 75,000 tons ten feet would be a greater stresser than a static weight of 750,000 tons which it was not designed to hold.
So again, no matter how you calculate it, no building ever made can withstand 21 tons per square foot dropped on it. The exact same thing will happen every time. It will collapse one floor at a time pancaking each one until you have a pile of rubble below.
You will never be able to convince these people, as they have no understanding of mathematical truth, only their emotions and what they 'feel' must have happened. These people you're arguing with are not engineers and will therefore never understand the truth of this matter. You might as well argue with a fence post, you'll get the same result. But, I have to say that I, too, have made the mistake of thinking that everyone is smart, but it's just not the case at all.
+nunya biznez Suddenly dropping? There were 47 steel support columns. Most no where near any fire. For an entire multi-acre floor to 'fall' 10 feet, those 47 thick, hardened steel supports, would have to all vanish Instantaneously, Poof! ( or, Boom..). Ridiculous at so many levels. No matter what you say, if this above were even possible, the overall collapse should have Decelerated considerably, NOT Accelerated. Physics is not Harry Potter.
That is very important to say "near freefall speed" At exactly same free fall speed thats imposible but only few miliseconds slower than freefall thats very likely.
When I heard these reports, I wondered. How could a tiny undamaged passport be found in the rubble of two skyscrapers, each more than 100 stories tall, when bodies, office furniture and computers could not be found? How could airport security fail so totally that four airliners could be hijacked within the same hour? How could authorities know so conclusively and almost immediately the names of the perpetrators who pulled off such a successful attack on the world’s only superpower, when the authorities had no idea that such an attack was planned or even possible?
I have an answer but only for the passport one, things like bodies and furniture are large things that will get pulverized and grinded by debris but a passport could’ve slipped through or been caught in a crevice in the concrete
When the planes initially hit, there were thousands of pieces of paper blowing in the wind, they had been blasted through the building and straight out the other side. Pretty much all of them were basically undamaged. You often see the same of fires or explosions at office sites.
Paper, despite it's propensity to tear, is quite durable. It doesn't smash when dropped like ceramics and glass. When bent, it returns to a close to perfect state. It doesn't deform permanently like steel.
Your point about furniture is a good way of describing the difference. If paper meets a wind current, it's blown away from the source. Furniture is too large, heavy and dense to escape in a rush of air, so remains to be obliterated by the collapse of cremated by the fire.
@@sloeginandsleep1170 And how would the passport fly out of the window when the cockpit went straight into the core?
@@Black.Sabbathlike other parts of the planes were found sorrounding the crash site even before the towers collapsed. E.g. a part of the landing gear was found a few streets away. The passport was found by a pedestrian before the collapses and given to a police officer.
If you look at pictures taken during the attacks (before the towers collapsed) you can see a lot of debris coming from the planes.
Let's not forget US security forces just so happen to be running hijack scenario drills that accurately emulated the events of 911 that same day
as the collapse progresses, the upper section disintegrates. is there enough mass left in the top section once youre, say, 30 stories down, to collapse the rest of the building to the ground?
Yes, the added floors contributes.
@@Frontier327 If you look at these simulations carefully, even at the beginning of the collapse, the upper section isn't nearly as intact as it looks on the outside. You can also see evidence of this in some collapse photos of the South Tower, in which you can see part of the top section a few floors from the top (I believe around the 106-107th floor) "bulging out" from the rest of the top as it tilts (and there are other videos that show "kinks" in other areas of the top section as well). But it doesn't matter since none of that weight is going to fall off to the side: the building was over 200 feet wide on each side, and the falling top section / debris had too much inertia to fall in any direction other than straight down. I think a better term here is "dismantled": the upper section isn't undergoing mutual crush-up as it crashes down on the floors below (and its mass certainly isn't disappearing), but because of the different timing of when different parts of the top hit the floors beneath, there are slight differences in when different parts of the upper section encounter resistance from below. This causes the components within the top to fall at slightly different rates, and these differences keep adding up until the trusses/beams within the top break apart from one another, and the top section simply ceases to be an integral structure. But by that time, 20-30+ floors have already been crushed, and even the top section's floors don't magically disappear once the top section is "dismantled". Not to mention most of the falling debris is landing on the floors, NOT the columns (which according to the FAQs of the NIST WTC Towers Investigation page could only hold up to 29,000,000 pounds, even when added STATICALLY, and the North Tower's top section weighed 38,000 tons!). So the collapse is going to continue at the same rate whether the mass of the top section is well-organized or not (the total weight hitting the floors below is still roughly the same in both scenarios). Though this would probably explain why you had sections of the cores still standing for a few seconds after the main collapse. It will be interesting to see what the full simulation looks like...
how long you got left?
0:35 “lady there is two of us in this office. We are not ready to die but it’s getting bad. **north tower collapses** OH GOD!!!!! AAAAHH-“
Fairy tales. I didn't know that the building was made of pasta.
3,200,000 pounds would certainly make anything look like pasta when it's falling at that speed.
do you know what ablaze means?
Buckling. If the entire support structure is buckling under the weight then there is indeed almost no resistance anymore until the falling debris hitting the next still standing structure parts. No removing or disappearing is necessary.
And then it fell at near to free fall speed with no resistance from the rest of the structure right !!!!! dont ask to many question just move along.
because thats how gravity works. once something starts falling down, it will require more and more and more resistance to make it stop.
Since the tower is pretty much same at the bottom and the top theres nothing that could have slowed it down after it started going through. :P
This is evident in everyones car, the faster your car rolls downhill, the more braking force you must apply to stop it.
Otakahunt No, gravity only works like that if nothing is in the falling path.
Seeing as the top floors weighed less than the bottom majority of floors, and those floors(top) took the path of most resistance, there HAD to be a top down 'removal' of floors( eg.explosives) If the top floors that started the fall had been met with an upward force, which would of been equal to the downward force, the top floors would of met with equal force, cancelling out the momentum.( Newton 3rd law.)
Side note- The top of both towers had much less materials(steel,concrete) than the bottom, stabilizing floors.
Dripfade The bottom floors still are only offices with desks and chairs.... that is how gravity works, believe it. The removal of the floors was done by the force at which the top floor fell down carving its way through the tower... you see, theres roof ontop of the top floors, that alone is heavier than a regular floor and also theres no such roofs midway thro the tower... and as we can see in the real video the walls of the tower (aka the big steel beams on the outer wall) are pushed outward from the force of the momentum, its easy to see huge chunks of the tower fall to the streets which are pieces of the wall being detached from the rest of the tower by the momentum of the mass of the top floor.
You are thinking as if the tower is squished in a massive box and it falls inside that box... but that is not the case in reality, theres tons of space outside the tower and since the tower is not imploding (which is impossible) it is asploding outward by the forces which are created by the falling mass of the top floors... it keeps crushing the lower floors and sending the outside walls to the streets....
Think about a banana, the peel/skin of the banana is barely attached to the "meat"... thus it can be removed easily, now think about the tower... its outer walls are attached to the office floors and other interior by attachments (bolts and so forth)... these attachments are the points of break and not the midparts of the strong beams... these attachments are equal to what is in between the banana peel and its innards, albeit in far bigger and stronger manner.
They are still not enough and not even made to withstand tons of mass being pressured on top of them after the given mass has gained momentum... and the floors where the planes hit were severely damaged, and the fires obviously heated some of the attachments aswell making them even weaker... and once the top complex crushed the damaged floors it had too much momentum to stop... as you said by the newtons 3rd law there was no upward force to stop it. Especially when half of the given floors are being flung out away from the tower like a snow-blower.
These physics work with everything... a small rock cant make a scratch on a cars windshield right? because its 100 times smaller in every way... but when it has enough speed it will make a scratch and maybe even a small shatter. People do this all the time, you can cut stone with pressurized high speed water cutter.
If there were explosives in the tower, we would have seen explosions prior to the fall all the way from the top to the bottom... but we didnt. Explosions arent invisible especially to thousands of cameras.
@@Dripfade So at some point, the collapse would have halted and would been a stump of the building left. Just like the stump of tree.
This can't be very accurate - in many views of the collapse, a considerable portion of the side of the north tower is seen still standing after the initial collapse. After emerging from the dust plume, this large section of building, appearing to consist mostly of exterior columns, remains standing for about 10 seconds before collapsing itself. I'm no engineer, but this seems to indicate to me that the north tower, at very least, did not "implode" in an entirely vertical or symmetrical manner. The initial collapse appears to have manifested in a downward shearing motion, with angular momentum gathered from the initial teetering of the top section of the north tower as exterior columns failed. After the initial collapse ended, I'd suggest that a wedge shaped section of building, perhaps extending to a height of 50 or more floors, remained, but soon failed due to the absence, or near absence, of structural bracing by the core columns, which were mostly destroyed by the initial collapse. To me, this dispels any claims of controlled demolition or any sort of secondary explosions initiating the final collapse sequence of either building.
+Ferrariman601 but since the falling upper part of the building is destroying itself as well, there must be a point where there's nothing left to push down on the intact lower part of the building, so the collapse eventually stops. Unless you keep putting energy into the system, to keep this process running on and on, to the bottom.
As we can see from the videos, at a certain point, the upper half part of the building is missing, pulverised and partly thrown aside in debris. At THAT point, the lower section is supporting about 50 % LESS weight than in the starting moment, since the upper part is gone. So, again, where is the energy to crash that lower part down to the bottom ?
"destroyed" does not mean weightless. a falling column (or anything) destroying a floor slab now leaves columns unbraced. they can no longer support themselves.
% on top and % below are vaguely related to the ability for everything to collapse. its more about connections. Look at all the blender simulations of keva blocks or whatever; without connections anything can crush anything. steel truss floors arent much better than nothing
also the part left standing was the core, not perimeter. the perimeter could not support itself more than a few floors, let alone 50.
Colliding objects lose momentum against each other in equal time, regardless of design, because momentum's always conserved. The standing structure could never "liberate" momentum through itself longer than it takes for the upper block to be completely demolished against it.
We can't scale the towers down to working models that completely collapse through themselves from gravity, but we can fly and maneuver scaled down models of any plane against gravity and repeatedly smash into them.
what minecraft mod is this?
That's why they use the planes because they couldn't have just used explosives if they did they would have had to show how they ended up in the building this way they can just say that the planes brought the buildings down and blame it on the terrorists, how could they possibly have explained how explosives would have got in the building
#jetfuelcantmeltsteelbeems
+Liuxah #noonesaiditdid
+KoopaSteve #MeltedSteelWasInTheRubble
+Supreme_Court Yes, for MONTHS afterwards. Also, they kept bringing in trucks of dirt, laying it down, then removing it for fresh dirt. Soaking up some, residue of the directed energy weapons they used to turn the buildings to dust in mid air.
#nooneknows
excuse me but what does this have to do with the collapse of the 2 towers?
You....*sigh*
Many accounts from people on the ground that day report explosions just before and as the buildings came down.
Recovery operatives couldn't find a single intact object ( chair, desk etc. ), everything was pulverised
a falling building can definitely do that to a chair