"Im Mr. Newton, and I've something to say." "Im confused bcs u've tried to debunk the laws I have created." "First. When u watch the collapsing u can see it accelerates". "I've discovered that the acceleration is possible only when there's empty space below the falling object". "The other tip even tilted. That means the kinetic energy more or less moved away from the tower. Still the tower pulverized all the way down". "Now I go back to my grave and write new laws which work only in America".
Lighten up people, he's a teen & he gave it his best shot without facts. 'Research' is an art, a discipline, and requires patience! See this: (9/11: Explosive Evidence - Experts Speak Out, Full-length, Pre-Release-v1.3; Low-Res.) Watch and listen carefully! You will begin to understand better and your 9/11 animation Kung Fu will get stronger in time!
I cannot comment on that simulation, but the twins are a different issue. The towers were strong enough to actually hold to top coming down n the base easily. It has been calculated multiple times that there simply wasnt enough energy in the system to do nearly free fall and crushing all concrete. These 2 points dont work together. Your either have free fall where nothing is crushed or when things are crushed, not the speed wtc came down. Keep things simple stupid.
Almost all coverups are blaming the usual suspects: the US government and...of course...the Jews. One would suspect that, if 911 was planned by the US government, the desinformation would point into multiple other directions. This was the case when the german BND assassinated Uwe Barschel, a well known german politician.The official investigation claimed suicide and for the truthers the mossad was blamed. No one ever dared to name Barschels real murderers.
Really, do study before you post videos, the structural integrity of the WTC was weakend by the burning fuel from the plane, some theories even suggest that somebody even put more fuel in the plane to weaken the building.
Your simulation would have been more realistic had your inserted an elf waving a magic wand to bring your "building" down. Was that supposed to the one or both WTC towers? Or WTC 7? Where are the cross-connected core columns? The slabs of concrete flooring which were blasted into a fine dust? Please don't tell me you're an engineer. If so, please let us know what projects you're working on - so we can steer clear.
@datzfast No, I understand that. A computer simulation can be whatever you want. However, if one suggests that it's supposed to shed light on an actual event and its causes, then it has to be believable. What were the initial conditions, the assumptions, etc? What's happening on the screen has nothing to do with 9/11 or with the World Trade Center towers 1, 2, and 7. So, as I said, cowlover should have just inserted an elf to bring the building down. Would've been as believable...
@carmium i think the point being made is, in the real world buildings don't collapse with such symmetry, you only get symmetry with a controlled demolition!
First of all the twin towers were separate not touching so they didn't have any extra support. Secondly with the real twin towers there was so much force and pressure on the rest of the building and in this you probably have like barely any weight set. And thirdly the structure you have for this building is nothing like the twin towers, the twin towers have a central core structure and a little extra support from the outside walls. So do your studying before you post stupid videos
@ItsBrandonNow It was impossible for the 3 buildings to fall the way they did. It's impossible for 15 floors to destroy 95 floors by falling on top of them. 15 floors will only destroy 15 floors. It's Newton's 3rd law for christ's sakes. Everyone learns this when they're a child. Every action has an equal reaction force. For the building to be as destroyed as it was and to fall at the speed it fell, resistance had to be cut out from below.
The first thing I notice about your simulation is that none of the components of the building break. You're not simulating a large structure here you're simulating what amounts to putting plywood in stacks with chopped up 2x4 spacers.
Why wouldn't you think it was an inside job when your test so eloquenlty proves otherwise, it's right in front of your face. We as average US ciitizens need to start thinking on a whole 'nother level like our disloyaly government does!
Sample 17 girl USA location, page all 911 (7/8 when happened) dose she want to kill "no" is she effected yes in tanagent to the event of killing US and THEM
9 years of hammering home the message, Killing is the main subject here.
We are change, NO NO NO, time period says it, plane as day nothing has happened,
nobody in govs done a fucken thing, yet im told to behave myself and my actions, funny ant it. "govs kill thats the issue"
U see once apon a time ago a goup of people said no to war no nukes
and we gave up on that idea silly peace loveing hippies and thoses also sgreeing with them.
USA has nukes along with many others, just "who" are these threats coming from. a goup of people? maybe stoping war was a good idea. Shame we all cant all agree on the smiple things. Yet alone do any thing about them. Seams like this killing effects many. Best add ever seen in history... 4 killing BUY some trident/ layer chewing gum!
your 0n the right track/ people if he added more center columns it would only strengthen the building's ability to withstand the gravitational forces of the top portion of the building that is falling. also the stronger columns at the lower levels should have prevented a complete collapse into the basement levels, but that did not happen that day.
and you of course have a thorough understanding of the architecture, and have studied the blueprints of the WTC towers? I didn't realize that a simple "toy program", as dtroit so aptly puts it, bore ANY resemblance to the over redundant structures of the Twin Towers. But clearly you know better...
@organisten No, what is silly is that a so called toy physics program can expalin the such elementary law of physics with such truth. If your on the top step of a ladder. And the top step breaks. Do you just fall or does the whole ladder collapse because the one step at the top was holding it together?
@JimmyGunXD556 well, the toy program fails in its stated aim. It does NOT simulate the Twin Towers. To do that, the model must have the central steel beam supports - there were 47 of these running through the buildings from top to bottom and getting progessively wider as these descended. Let's see you factor these into the model, and let's see what happens then!
It's meant to show you simple physics. It's called energy and momentum. The top part does not have enough energy or momentum to affect the bottom structure unless the key supports in the bottom structure are removed. The same laws apply to the WTCs.
"Let's see what happens then"? The same thing would happen. Lighter, less dense material doesn't have the energy to break apart more dense material below it. Especially all the way to the ground and through the basement.
@bweazel exactly, but that was my point - this video is poor because many people understand just the opposite. There is NO way that this simulates what happened to the Twin Towers. Ergo it is also clear that the World Trade Centre complex was destroyed by forces other than those we were led to believe.
The WTC is build differently also far more floors should be upper still holding integral structurally since it did not get affected by the plane crash. It is basically a big hammer smashing onto the lower floors when the top floors combined mass gets attracted by gravity.
Nice video. And sad that something as simple as this devotes more time to looking at the actual collapse than NIST did. They stopped their study at the instant the top of the buildings started to fall. As if it is just obvious that the falling sections would crush to dust every floor below all the way to the ground rather that toppling off.
Well, this is just one more clue to what really happened to those buildings... But in the end, however advanced and accurate the simulation might be, people can always claim it's just that, a simulation. Maybe if IBM used its super computer to crunch some numbers, payed some top physicists and engineers, and sponsored the whole thing a la Kasporov vs IBM, people would say OK, total collapses are impossible without some serious help.
To yellow duck Weirdo10o4 Boo Boo Boy if you go to comments on your utube page sonny-boy, there is a little square box on left hand side that you can click-on than go up to upper left side boo, boo boy, than click delete, please click on yourself and delete yourselfe from this page thank-you boo boo boy, as i said please close the door behind you boo boo boy you have no friends here..In plane english fuck-off
Wow, plane english, than, what's that? I'm going boo boo boo, when you're crying, telling me to fuck off? It's so overwhelming for you to explain how a duck floats that you turn the entire comments section in to one giant ad hominem.
hey guys dont bother arguing with the debunkers,, alot of them are actually agents , and are doing it for work.. believe me i have 1st hand experience of this.. gud luck guys..
@bigbrother1994 I agree with you about gov. agents (they) troll internet including Youtube, (they) are the ones who keep story going. They HATE truthers...
@unillenium...That's right.....and what-ever turns you on is your opinion and i will respect yours thats democorcey so lets leave it at that....Hey, have a great day and enjoy...
@MrDoverben22 plz check the site " against the grain, the informer" or "John Harris - It's an illusion" for the UK. thats if you havent already.. peace.
@bigbrother1994 All ready have big bro, very refreshing this dude hit the nail right-on the head, its all about MONEY. Drone Planes, Pentigon and shanksville is all codswallop (Jeff Boycot, quote)...Towers came down to fast not one fire door was found 1100 still undentified out of 2712 allenged victims....Mr Silverstein and many of his buddies made plenty money on that day big bro
Yes, the truth movement is all about the money. All of Silverstein's money will go in to the new WTC complex. His insurance for the towers was MINIMUM, so when he should've MAXIMIZED his insurance he MINIMIZED it... it all makes sense... in Twooferworld.
@Weirdo10o4 Listen sonny, go and hop back into your bath-tub and carry on playing with your yellow rubber ducks, i pay no heed to debunkers. Good-bye and please close the door behind you....
@Weirdo10o4 ok where is your proof about his insurance policy limits? did he come and show his policy to you? you must be his close friend then? and if he owned the towers, wud that make him the owner /main share holder of the new complex??you seem to know , so let us know? and while you are iat it, tell us how much deposite did he purchase the buildings for? and where you got the info from?
Not limits, he under-insured it as well as he could, that way he'd have to pay as little as possible for insurance, go figure, it's not amazing...! He leased the buildings from the Port Authority.
.
No, the 'NIST models' had a lot of guesswork. I'm gonna wait till they actually simulate the buildings properly. They did get the structures to collapse in all simulations, they ended the tower simulations at collapse initiation. The collapse couldn't stop once started.
@bigbrother1994 You are right there are a lot of snitchers manipulating the Internet through comments. However this is done mainly by Germans. My brother Markus Bott had been tortured and assassinated because of our homepage linked on my channel. Try to discuss the content of this homepage with anyone from Germany and note his reaction....
Pause the video at 0:28 and look at the floor that the hand is on, now at 0:29 you can clearly see the floor being "Ejected" from the structure. Thanks for showing us how to bring it down.
What is your computer pointer doing in the test? and why does one of your "floors" get highlighted mid show, then the hand moves to the right and looks to pull a floor out to throw the structure out of balance? Need some help bringing those towers down? You just proved how to.
We can go back and forth on this for an eternity.
Give this some thought...Twa Flight 800 went down in a fireball after taking off from JFK Airport. It ended up in tiny little pieces at the bottom of the Atlantic ocean. A tenth of the amount of people were killed on that plane than were killed on 911. Why is it then that millions of dollars were spent diving to, and collecting every little piece of that aircraft to painstakingly reassemble it to determine what caused its break up....
....yet there were no independent inspections of the steel members in either wtc 1 wtc2 or wtc 7 to completely understand what caused such a catastrophic collapse - instead the steel was sold off as scrap as quick as possible
You really kidding me with this video. Do you even know how they built the World Trade Towers. YOU THINK YOU ARE SMART, yet couldn't even tell me how they are built? Wouldn't you want to know that before playing with the computer games.
Try making something worth teaching, or for that sake, don't make these stupid videos.
@papavalium plz check the site " against the grain, the informer" or "John Harris - It's an illusion" for the UK. thats if you havent already.. peace.
911 was an inside job and a media job. We are in big trouble. AE911Truth has excellent physics showing the problem We were also fed altered TV feed. Yes, "Planes" hit the WTC. they weren't Boeings and they weren't planes we are use to seeing. The WTC were demolished. And it wasn't diaper headed cave dwellers with rusty razor blades running amukl on a jumbo jet.
Right, only you morons can call that excellent physics.
Right it was the Kabul occupying terrorist organization with shiny new box-cutters and the WORD BOMB that got everyone on that flight to stay calm, has worked before, worked on 9/11 like before. A normal jet that is..
@Weirdo10o4 When diesel fuel can level 110 acres of steel and concrete that is when Demolition companies will use it to level hi rises.. At the WTC 100 gal of diesel per floor, (but concentrated on a few floors) was able to level a 500,000 ton steel/concrete building. type in "WTC construction". the WTC was a very well built structure. It was INTENTIONALLY LEVELED.
JET FUEL, 10,000 gallons torched 10 floors at a time, and the worst part with the extremely high speed impact, it dislodged fireproofing both from direct contact and shock wave. Acre is a unit of area. Usually fires need to spread, this started on nearly ten floors at once, usually fireproofing protects the structure, jet fuel didn't level the building, a "jet fuel ignited multi-floor office fire" did it. The WTC was built for a low speed collision the fuel load wasn't considered in the design.
@Weirdo10o4 The WTC was built to withstand an impact from a fully loaded 707 and a 707 has a higher GVW that a 7X7. The WTC was loaded with explosives.
Well it was a 767 and it's MTOW is 80,000kg greater than the 707's. It was built to withstand a low on fuel, low speed impact from a 707, a replay of the Empire State building crash, lost in fog landing aircraft. The 767-200ER that hit the North Tower was 20% larger, with a fuel load 60% of the fuel a fully loaded boeing 707 could carry, going at around 5 times faster than a landing aircraft. The Towers were built to withstand an accident, not a missile.
@Weirdo10o4 You are 100% in error. And your ESB issue is irrelevant. And the Architects responsible for its design are here on youtube talking about just this issue. and they say what I say. And the WTC sould take Multiple hits from aluminum beer cans. Did you know the Central Spine was encased in Concrete for over 10 stories? Wonder where all that mess went.....Where did the Central Spine go?
The Empire State building incident is the reason they made the tower withstand a 707 hit, New York has three major airports around it.
Like this: /watch?v=yicMyvf0BpA ?
Yes, hits, but the fuel wasn't considered in the design, Leslie doesn't even know how it could've. Shame they didn't finish replacing the fireproofing, solid sucks.
What the hell is a spine? Core? The cores remained standing after the collapses, they both tilted until the torque from the motion broke columns lower down.
Are here on youtube exaggerating the strength of their creation. The WTC took a hit from a 150t aluminum alloy, aluminum, titanium alloy, steel, 10,000 gallon Molotov cocktail thrown at it at somewhere around Mach .86. The designers planned for a 100t plane lost in fog after a long trip, they fill them only with as much fuel as they need for their trip and a 45 minute reserve.
@Weirdo10o4 the WTC was designed to take multiple hits from a 707, fully loaded and going top speed:: The top speed is 50 mph faster and it has a higher GVW. This is easy to verify.I didn't say it was a Larger plane. It should have taken Many such hits. Type in "WTC construction" and watch some Documentaries on it being built. I have Play lists with all these subjects. Have a go at it. If a 3000 lb car going 500mph hit 2 Cat D11's@ 100,000lbs (3/100 diff') what would happen to the Cats?
@IExposeMormonism Make that 230,000 lbs for the D11,or a 3/230 difference. 1/80. The WTC is 500,000 tons of steel reinforced concrete (Steel Rock) and Steel. The Boeing 140 tons, 40 tons of Fuel. Again, the car is a hollow Tin Can. Splat. The Boeing is a hollow beer can.
Well in the towers the structure was weakened to the point of massive failure after which it was the over 50,000t tops vs. 1,300t capacity floors.
The World Trade Center Towers used only steel for the core and exterior columns, they weren't reinforced concrete structures. The only concrete in the structure was on the floors, a 4 inch slab, and in the core, elevator shafts, staircases, etc.
Kinetic energy, the beer can wasn't what broke the structure, it was the fuel load, air, engines and gear
Except the widespread dislodging of fireproofing, which was even visible on the exterior columns, wasn't in the plans. Even a small damage to fireproofing can endanger an entire truss, not to mention the fireproofing in the towers was already, in some parts, in poor condition.
Not much would happen to the Cat D11's, but it's inapplicable.
@Weirdo10o4 how did the actual clapse happen,? the pancake theory? which can not happen in real life? and by the way NIST had a proper model built for their experiments, guess what? they cudnt get the model to clapse. so back to the computer model , which they can set the parameters,,YOU DID KNOW THAT??tell me you did?
So 50,000t can't break 1,300t capacity floors? Welcome to Twooferland. No, their model wasn't proper, a lot of guesswork, and it was ended at collapse initiation. I'll wait a few years till we do have the means to simulate it, you'll whine about an incomplete simulation.
@Weirdo10o4 so you just proved yourself 2be a monster retard.U & the likes of U,quote the NIST report to be "the report "now you are saying that it involved alot of guesswork?so is that it?your lot stand and argue with guesswork?FACT,which your lot like 2say alot of.they cud not get the collapse to take place
What is this crap? A guy uses a crappy program to make a rectangular version of a square building and completely ignores it's unique architecture then asks why didn't the real-life incident happen like his completely-off simulation...what a joke
Here's an idea: correctly re-create the WTC in your program and do the same thing
I have maybe the first "intelligent" question to be presented to the maker of this simulation/ video, and that is: From all the information I've been able to gather, even given the weakening of the building, wouldn't the steel core still remain in tact in both of your simulations here? Did you indeed replicated the cores as they were in the WTC buildings? (this, of course, explains NOTHING as to why building 7 also 'controlled demolition style, free-fall collapsed", just as WTC 1&2 did!)
Yeah but how come buildings 1 and 2 can't destroy 4,5 and 6 yet just the top 1/10 portion of towers 1 or 2 can destroy its' bottom 9/10? The math and physics isn't making sense here. It's not the top 1/10 of the building versus one weak floor. It's 1/10 of the top versus the still intact frame of the bottom 9/10. It didn't pancake because there was no evidence of pancaked floors.
LoL, you think 1/10 of the building can destroy the other 9/10? If that 1/10 can destroy the bottom 9/10, wouldn't it have done so back when it was built? Look at it this way. If you say that 1/10 of the top portion destroyed the bottom 9/10 then how can towers 4,5,and 6 still stand when the whole towers 1 and 2 fell on top of them and they still stood? Just look at the pictures of 4,5 and 6. All cut in half and burnt to the frame, but still standing. Now go figure that one out, lol.
What the hell do you mean with the first part of your comment. Parts of the other towers collapsed as well, in a way they were stronger.
Are you telling me that the floor system in the WTC 1 and 2 could hold a force that equivalents multiple trucks crashing in to them? Since the floor system was the weak link, as we witnessed, the core an the outer columns weren't the first to collapse, they fell apart after the floors were gone.
"Are you telling me that the floor system in the WTC 1 and 2 could hold a force that equivalents multiple trucks crashing in to them? Since the floor system was the weak link, as we witnessed, the core an the outer columns weren't the first to collapse, they fell apart after the floors were gone."
Dumbass, the core was not freestanding columns. They were held together.
"The buildings have been investigated and found to be safe in an assumed collision with a large jet airliner (Boeing 707—DC 8) traveling at 600 miles per hour. Analysis indicates that such collision would result in only local damage which could not cause collapse or substantial damage to the building and would not endanger the lives and safety of occupants not in the immediate area of impact."
The fire coating was updated on most of the floors impacted by the planes. It wouldn't be required, either. Sprinklers and fireproofing were not a plan when the designers said that.
There had been updates on the fireproofing on the bottom 14 floors of the WTC. Rest of the building still had the original solid fireproofing. He said he didn't know how to account for the fires, he also said that he didn't know if the buildings were going to collapse or not, on 9/11.
The fire suppression didn't work since the pipes going up were severed, along with elevator cables and other things. The solid fireproofing was dislodged by the force of the impact.
you have no clue what you are talking about. There were no updated to fireproofing on the bases. All updates were towards the top. One tower had all effected floors updated while the other had a few.
Either way, the fires werent hot enough to significantly weaken the steel.. let alone melt it. [ Molten steel was found at the bases of ALL 3 TOWERS ]
The WTC fires would top out [ in perfect conditions ] at 1800F. Steel melts at 2700F.
Realistic conditions for the fires would be 800F - 1200F. Normal skyscraper fires max out at about 1100F. The max recorded temperature on any steel from the WTC was less than 300C. Assume that somehow it got 2x hotter than recorded. Still nowhere near hot enough to melt steel.
How do YOU determine it wasn't steel? They can study the make-up of the molten metal, look at the color, etc.
How f-ing dumb are you Wierdo? Molten steel would prove [ and already has ] proved thermite was used to destroy the towers.
Nothing has been debunked. If you had enough brains to research 9-11, you'd see there are debunkers for the debunkers. The failure anti-truthers never tried to debunk again.
Can you tell me how the hell they got thermite to cut vertical columns, and how much thermite was there in the building to release enough energy to create these pools of molten steel, furthermore can you provide any real proof of molten steel or thermite at the site? No.
There are zero good deb- debs, you're just living in a world inside your head, believing anything any member of the truth movement says not even realizing how fucking bad your double standards are.
Don't you wonder why all google comes up with when searching 9/11 stuff is conspiracy shit? No, that's not the real coverup there, twoofers to take attention away from the real crimes of the last administration and US support for Israel.
NIST and FEMA both found sulfour residue on the steel beams from wtc 1, 2, and 7. Sulfour lowers the melting point of steel, (wich would make the fireproofing useless) and when it is combined with thermite on a very small scale, you get thermate. unreacted thermate was found in the dust, and Steven Jones and Niels Harrit has looked into this for 18 months now, they estimate that up to 100 tonnes has been used.
So after all the BULLSHIT truthers talk about, it must be the THERMITE. Thats the only fucking thing you people even talk about now. Get head out of your ass.
fire, not hot enough, jetfuel making that fire, not hot enough, all you got is plane and collapse (and thermite, but lets just protend that didnt happen), so now show how a plane hitting it makes it collapse perfectly on itself and not off to a side.
Fire does not have to melt steel to collapse a building. All it needs to do is weaken it to the point of failure. And that it did.
The question you should be asking isn't "why" or "how"- but "where". The two towers collapsed from the point of impact where it sustained the most structural damage and where the fires were the fires were raging. You'll see in a number of videos and photos that the other columns were bowing.
No, it's not that simple. For example, tell me how in the hell a building that DID NOT receive any kind of plane impact collapsed and fell the same way the towers did.
Let me answer you: Because building 7 was intentionally destroyed. Now, if one building can be intentionally destroyed, why not the towers ?
FIRE AND SEMI-TRUCK SIZED CHUNKS OF STEEL AND CONCRETE smashed in the side of WTC7. The SW corner of WTC7 was missing about 15 stores from falling debris. They set up a transit and watched the building as it teetered MORE AND MORE to the SW every hour. It was only a matter of time until it fell.
It fell to the SW, not strait down.
There were no fucking bombs. It was a big as airplane fires and debris. THAT SIMPLE.
When you quote things, it is typically proper to use quote, like your clever mosquito netting quote.
It is probably also proper to take actual quotes from the actual people, not just a website that tries to piece together a conspiracy with the clarity of hindsight. Since you are an expert, what happened to the towers?
The problem is that most people must believe all buildings are built the same way. Do some research into the construction of the building. WTC 1 and 2 had a middle column that supported the building, while others buildings had the support spread out through the building. Nova did a great program called Why The Towers Fell...watch it.
The same Nova program that claimed the 47 steel core beams were freestanding, although they were very sturdy and interlocked? If NOVA also claimed the middle supported everything, then they are complete idiots.
The perimeter held a static load of 40%, and the core held a static load of 60%. The WTCs have upto 95% redundancy. Look the stuff up.
So, we should listen to you instead of the experts and the people who made the building? We should believe the truthers and go against all the evidence that supports what really happened on 9/11? The conspiracy that the truthers speak of is too complex. The government couldn't cover up a few people breaking into Watergate.
Uhh, the experts and people who made the building said it should have stood. But apparently I'm wrong about the core + load percentage? Look it up yourself idiot.
I'm an idiot, wow, so when you are wrong, you resort to ad hominem attacks. (That means in Latinl literally to the man)
The building did stand after it got hit with a plane, did it not? It wasn't the plane that brought it down as much as it was the plane crash weakened the supports and caused fires, which further weakened the structure. You think I haven't looked it up?
Before you call someone an idiot, make sure you don't fit the description.
"Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel (from the airplane) would dump into the building. There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed The building structure would still be there.
all the columns on one side of a Tower could be cut, as well as the two corners and some of the columns on each adjacent side, and the building would still be strong enough to withstand a 100-mile-per-hour wind."
Live loads on these columns can be increased more than 2,000% before failure occurs.
The building was designed to have a fully loaded 707 crash into it. That was the largest plane at the time. I believe that the building probably could sustain multiple impacts of jetliners because this structure is like the mosquito netting on your screen door—this intense grid—and the jet plane is just a pencil puncturing that screen netting. It really does nothing to the screen netting.
Actually they said it could withstand a low speed, low on fuel airplane impact. The designer also said that he knew if such a collapse would start it wouldn't stop.
"Actually they said it could withstand a low speed, low on fuel airplane impact. The designer also said that he knew if such a collapse would start it wouldn't stop."
Have you ever looked at a single thing about the WTC design specs? It was a 707 @ 600MPH. What hit was a 757 @ an unknown, but lower than 550MPH speed.
Have you ever listened to the designer of the building?
A Boeing 707 at landing speed, low on fuel, fire not considered since they were expecting the airplane to have low momentum and most of the fuel to burn outside the structure.
A 20 percent larger plane at 710km/h. SI units rule.
The government couldn't cover up Bill Clinton getting a BJ...but the 1000 or so people in this one is a perfect cover up? The gov't screwed up so badly with FEMA and Katrina, but this plot, they were able to pull off? Occam's Razor holds true in this...the official story is what really happened.
Come on. This is a ridiculous simulation. You could build an equally poor analog used Lincoln Logs and probably get the same incomparable results. In this ludicrous simulation, every single element is impervious to damage and can support an infinite amount of weight. If someone sees this simulation and honestly makes any comparison to the WTC collapses tells me that person must be less than 7 years old or is severely retarded.
Hmm... Interesting, but what you should have added combustibles like chairs, papers, and remembered that there was a fire spreading throughout the building as it fell.
WTC collapsed and when the top floors fell it created a domino effect. as 1 floor hits the other it collapes and keeps going. it shouldnt have came down but when the plane hit the 1st building the explosion blew off all the fireproofing on the frame. the frame heated up, melted, then collapsed.
This is not true. There was in fact molten metal in the rubble of the towers not only the twin towers but also WTC7. Explain that! Also this molten metal appears before the buildings collapsed in the south tower.
No its not unscientific, but this simulation doesn't represent the towers the least bit. (by that sentence cheese is scientific.) hoever i agree that NIST has to redo the sims.
This has been flagged as spam show
"Im Mr. Newton, and I've something to say." "Im confused bcs u've tried to debunk the laws I have created." "First. When u watch the collapsing u can see it accelerates". "I've discovered that the acceleration is possible only when there's empty space below the falling object". "The other tip even tilted. That means the kinetic energy more or less moved away from the tower. Still the tower pulverized all the way down". "Now I go back to my grave and write new laws which work only in America".
Scumbot404 1 month ago
Lighten up people, he's a teen & he gave it his best shot without facts. 'Research' is an art, a discipline, and requires patience! See this: (9/11: Explosive Evidence - Experts Speak Out, Full-length, Pre-Release-v1.3; Low-Res.) Watch and listen carefully! You will begin to understand better and your 9/11 animation Kung Fu will get stronger in time!
Go the temple and practice!!~
transientdreams 1 month ago
Why didn't the WTC do this? lol
blahdob 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Why is there so few computer simulations of the WTC on the Internet?
There should be hundreds made in advanced cad physics programs.
Why is no architects and engineers testing the collapse in programs to see what happens?
I think this is most disturbing.
M.Sc. in Engineering Physics
magi55 1 month ago
Sept 12, 2001 = (1/2) * (acceleration due to gravity) * [(time)squared] (2005)
Google That.
Watch the archived video and argue with Sir Issac Newton.
Mogtepyigsoloth 3 months ago
thi is google sketchup not an animating program but you can pass it off as one i guess
lotsoftrains123 3 months ago
I had no idea the WTC towers were made of lego. Informative.
SirRobertDole2 4 months ago
I cannot comment on that simulation, but the twins are a different issue. The towers were strong enough to actually hold to top coming down n the base easily. It has been calculated multiple times that there simply wasnt enough energy in the system to do nearly free fall and crushing all concrete. These 2 points dont work together. Your either have free fall where nothing is crushed or when things are crushed, not the speed wtc came down. Keep things simple stupid.
fisheye441 8 months ago
Almost all coverups are blaming the usual suspects: the US government and...of course...the Jews. One would suspect that, if 911 was planned by the US government, the desinformation would point into multiple other directions. This was the case when the german BND assassinated Uwe Barschel, a well known german politician.The official investigation claimed suicide and for the truthers the mossad was blamed. No one ever dared to name Barschels real murderers.
See my channel and homepage.
wwwtotalitaerde 8 months ago
Really, do study before you post videos, the structural integrity of the WTC was weakend by the burning fuel from the plane, some theories even suggest that somebody even put more fuel in the plane to weaken the building.
TheDARIEN54321 8 months ago
well they also had small bombs that went off and think of all they weight it also carried
electricude 8 months ago
ehm.... and the core?
markbeet 8 months ago
Your simulation would have been more realistic had your inserted an elf waving a magic wand to bring your "building" down. Was that supposed to the one or both WTC towers? Or WTC 7? Where are the cross-connected core columns? The slabs of concrete flooring which were blasted into a fine dust? Please don't tell me you're an engineer. If so, please let us know what projects you're working on - so we can steer clear.
2left4obama 10 months ago
@2left4obama i think you missed the point entirely, is a computer simulation you can make it collaspe into the sky if you want.
datzfast 9 months ago
@datzfast No, I understand that. A computer simulation can be whatever you want. However, if one suggests that it's supposed to shed light on an actual event and its causes, then it has to be believable. What were the initial conditions, the assumptions, etc? What's happening on the screen has nothing to do with 9/11 or with the World Trade Center towers 1, 2, and 7. So, as I said, cowlover should have just inserted an elf to bring the building down. Would've been as believable...
2left4obama 9 months ago
This vid is so primitive and inaccurate I don't know how anyone has the gall to compare to what happened to the WTC. You should be embarrassed.
carmium 10 months ago 9
@carmium i think the point being made is, in the real world buildings don't collapse with such symmetry, you only get symmetry with a controlled demolition!
korayek 4 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@IAmReallyAwesome0 Some things everyone needs to know to sort this out:
We (NIST) Have the Results and Only We Have the Results
watch?v=iQdJuQLNFCk
iBlindGame 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Some things everyone needs to know to sort this out:
We (NIST) Have the Results and Only We Have the Results
watch?v=iQdJuQLNFCk
iBlindGame 10 months ago
you have to weld the pieces together and where is the core ?
oooAndyooo 1 year ago
Plane+Building=U dead
VeyronBD 1 year ago
First of all the twin towers were separate not touching so they didn't have any extra support. Secondly with the real twin towers there was so much force and pressure on the rest of the building and in this you probably have like barely any weight set. And thirdly the structure you have for this building is nothing like the twin towers, the twin towers have a central core structure and a little extra support from the outside walls. So do your studying before you post stupid videos
ItsBrandonNow 1 year ago 13
This has been flagged as spam show
@ItsBrandonNow Some things everyone needs to know to sort this out:
We (NIST) Have the Results and Only We Have the Results
watch?v=iQdJuQLNFCk
iBlindGame 10 months ago
@ItsBrandonNow He spelled interesting wrong, did you really expect the simulation to be accurate?
speedbird1123 8 months ago
@ItsBrandonNow It was impossible for the 3 buildings to fall the way they did. It's impossible for 15 floors to destroy 95 floors by falling on top of them. 15 floors will only destroy 15 floors. It's Newton's 3rd law for christ's sakes. Everyone learns this when they're a child. Every action has an equal reaction force. For the building to be as destroyed as it was and to fall at the speed it fell, resistance had to be cut out from below.
corruptedsilence 4 months ago
The first thing I notice about your simulation is that none of the components of the building break. You're not simulating a large structure here you're simulating what amounts to putting plywood in stacks with chopped up 2x4 spacers.
sikofu2 1 year ago
this explains everything!
plavins1 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@plavins1 Some things everyone needs to know to sort this out:
We (NIST) Have the Results and Only We Have the Results
watch?v=iQdJuQLNFCk
iBlindGame 10 months ago
Why wouldn't you think it was an inside job when your test so eloquenlty proves otherwise, it's right in front of your face. We as average US ciitizens need to start thinking on a whole 'nother level like our disloyaly government does!
daxeboy9 1 year ago
Not effected by this...Psychological Damage,
Sample 17 girl USA location, page all 911 (7/8 when happened) dose she want to kill "no" is she effected yes in tanagent to the event of killing US and THEM
9 years of hammering home the message, Killing is the main subject here.
We are change, NO NO NO, time period says it, plane as day nothing has happened,
nobody in govs done a fucken thing, yet im told to behave myself and my actions, funny ant it. "govs kill thats the issue"
deadmanzen 1 year ago
U see once apon a time ago a goup of people said no to war no nukes
and we gave up on that idea silly peace loveing hippies and thoses also sgreeing with them.
USA has nukes along with many others, just "who" are these threats coming from. a goup of people? maybe stoping war was a good idea. Shame we all cant all agree on the smiple things. Yet alone do any thing about them. Seams like this killing effects many. Best add ever seen in history... 4 killing BUY some trident/ layer chewing gum!
deadmanzen 1 year ago
your 0n the right track/ people if he added more center columns it would only strengthen the building's ability to withstand the gravitational forces of the top portion of the building that is falling. also the stronger columns at the lower levels should have prevented a complete collapse into the basement levels, but that did not happen that day.
wizerdx 1 year ago
hehe rofl. next theories will based on crytek engine^^
EasyStu007 1 year ago
and you of course have a thorough understanding of the architecture, and have studied the blueprints of the WTC towers? I didn't realize that a simple "toy program", as dtroit so aptly puts it, bore ANY resemblance to the over redundant structures of the Twin Towers. But clearly you know better...
organisten 1 year ago
@organisten No, what is silly is that a so called toy physics program can expalin the such elementary law of physics with such truth. If your on the top step of a ladder. And the top step breaks. Do you just fall or does the whole ladder collapse because the one step at the top was holding it together?
JimmyGunXD556 1 year ago
@JimmyGunXD556 well, the toy program fails in its stated aim. It does NOT simulate the Twin Towers. To do that, the model must have the central steel beam supports - there were 47 of these running through the buildings from top to bottom and getting progessively wider as these descended. Let's see you factor these into the model, and let's see what happens then!
organisten 1 year ago
It's meant to show you simple physics. It's called energy and momentum. The top part does not have enough energy or momentum to affect the bottom structure unless the key supports in the bottom structure are removed. The same laws apply to the WTCs.
"Let's see what happens then"? The same thing would happen. Lighter, less dense material doesn't have the energy to break apart more dense material below it. Especially all the way to the ground and through the basement.
bweazel 1 year ago
@bweazel exactly, but that was my point - this video is poor because many people understand just the opposite. There is NO way that this simulates what happened to the Twin Towers. Ergo it is also clear that the World Trade Centre complex was destroyed by forces other than those we were led to believe.
organisten 1 year ago
this is a joke right?
you just based your entire theory off a toy program?
wow
dtroit2 1 year ago
Some of the comments disparaging this video defies even my most pessimistic assessments of the state of the American educational system...
DarkwingScooter 1 year ago
@DarkwingScooter well you might start with spelling. This is an "interisting" simulation...
organisten 1 year ago
@organisten Well that too, but I tend to view bad reasoning in a much more negative light than bad spelling.
Think about it this way, most of the people who invested with Bernie Madoff were probably good at spelling...
DarkwingScooter 1 year ago
For the one who didn't watch the video and want to save time:
"Lol I simulated a lego tower in a 3d program and it didn't fall like the real WTC did, therfore it's a conspiracy."
vava54own 1 year ago
It didn't due that due to weakened beams from a flaming inferno.
Jet fuel + fire = get the fuck out.
Mattkips 1 year ago
LOL so as the force of the collapsing building increases... the collapse suddenly stops. Oh and the floors dont break apart atall....
Simplified to the point of pointlessness.
neverfearchrisishere 1 year ago
What would happen if the weight of the floors above was increased. Would you be able to see the weight required to make it collapse.
Tzimnewman3 1 year ago
This simulation does not represent the WTC.
The WTC is build differently also far more floors should be upper still holding integral structurally since it did not get affected by the plane crash. It is basically a big hammer smashing onto the lower floors when the top floors combined mass gets attracted by gravity.
obaeyens 1 year ago
Nice video. And sad that something as simple as this devotes more time to looking at the actual collapse than NIST did. They stopped their study at the instant the top of the buildings started to fall. As if it is just obvious that the falling sections would crush to dust every floor below all the way to the ground rather that toppling off.
kkkaldav 1 year ago
not interesting that's just bogus !
irobot2009able 1 year ago
Well, this is just one more clue to what really happened to those buildings... But in the end, however advanced and accurate the simulation might be, people can always claim it's just that, a simulation. Maybe if IBM used its super computer to crunch some numbers, payed some top physicists and engineers, and sponsored the whole thing a la Kasporov vs IBM, people would say OK, total collapses are impossible without some serious help.
jmminu 1 year ago
hahahaha
Tonkiem1969 1 year ago
Did you take this into effect: THIS IS A COMPUTER SIMULATOR.
TheNp42 1 year ago
To yellow duck Weirdo10o4 Boo Boo Boy if you go to comments on your utube page sonny-boy, there is a little square box on left hand side that you can click-on than go up to upper left side boo, boo boy, than click delete, please click on yourself and delete yourselfe from this page thank-you boo boo boy, as i said please close the door behind you boo boo boy you have no friends here..In plane english fuck-off
MrDoverben22 1 year ago
Wow, plane english, than, what's that? I'm going boo boo boo, when you're crying, telling me to fuck off? It's so overwhelming for you to explain how a duck floats that you turn the entire comments section in to one giant ad hominem.
.
Not while you're destroying the world, twoofer..
Weirdo10o4 1 year ago
hey guys dont bother arguing with the debunkers,, alot of them are actually agents , and are doing it for work.. believe me i have 1st hand experience of this.. gud luck guys..
bigbrother1994 1 year ago
@bigbrother1994 I agree with you about gov. agents (they) troll internet including Youtube, (they) are the ones who keep story going. They HATE truthers...
MrDoverben22 1 year ago
@MrDoverben22 That's right, anybody who disagrees with you is an undercover agent of the secret commitee on leaving comments on youtube
unillenium 1 year ago
@unillenium...That's right.....and what-ever turns you on is your opinion and i will respect yours thats democorcey so lets leave it at that....Hey, have a great day and enjoy...
MrDoverben22 1 year ago
@MrDoverben22 plz check the site " against the grain, the informer" or "John Harris - It's an illusion" for the UK. thats if you havent already.. peace.
bigbrother1994 1 year ago
@bigbrother1994 All ready have big bro, very refreshing this dude hit the nail right-on the head, its all about MONEY. Drone Planes, Pentigon and shanksville is all codswallop (Jeff Boycot, quote)...Towers came down to fast not one fire door was found 1100 still undentified out of 2712 allenged victims....Mr Silverstein and many of his buddies made plenty money on that day big bro
MrDoverben22 1 year ago
Yes, the truth movement is all about the money. All of Silverstein's money will go in to the new WTC complex. His insurance for the towers was MINIMUM, so when he should've MAXIMIZED his insurance he MINIMIZED it... it all makes sense... in Twooferworld.
Weirdo10o4 1 year ago
@Weirdo10o4 Listen sonny, go and hop back into your bath-tub and carry on playing with your yellow rubber ducks, i pay no heed to debunkers. Good-bye and please close the door behind you....
MrDoverben22 1 year ago
CRHM... That's a prime example of being close-minded and honest about it. Moron.
Glad to see someone has been trapped in the CIA scam to divert attention away from real problems!
Weirdo10o4 1 year ago
PS. That comment went to my wall of Twoof.
PPS. I bet you don't even know why a rubber duck floats.
Weirdo10o4 1 year ago
@Weirdo10o4 ok where is your proof about his insurance policy limits? did he come and show his policy to you? you must be his close friend then? and if he owned the towers, wud that make him the owner /main share holder of the new complex??you seem to know , so let us know? and while you are iat it, tell us how much deposite did he purchase the buildings for? and where you got the info from?
bigbrother1994 1 year ago
Not limits, he under-insured it as well as he could, that way he'd have to pay as little as possible for insurance, go figure, it's not amazing...! He leased the buildings from the Port Authority.
.
No, the 'NIST models' had a lot of guesswork. I'm gonna wait till they actually simulate the buildings properly. They did get the structures to collapse in all simulations, they ended the tower simulations at collapse initiation. The collapse couldn't stop once started.
Weirdo10o4 1 year ago
@bigbrother1994 You are right there are a lot of snitchers manipulating the Internet through comments. However this is done mainly by Germans. My brother Markus Bott had been tortured and assassinated because of our homepage linked on my channel. Try to discuss the content of this homepage with anyone from Germany and note his reaction....
wwwtotalitaerde 1 year ago
Pause the video at 0:28 and look at the floor that the hand is on, now at 0:29 you can clearly see the floor being "Ejected" from the structure. Thanks for showing us how to bring it down.
stapledshut0908 1 year ago
What is your computer pointer doing in the test? and why does one of your "floors" get highlighted mid show, then the hand moves to the right and looks to pull a floor out to throw the structure out of balance? Need some help bringing those towers down? You just proved how to.
stapledshut0908 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
We can go back and forth on this for an eternity.
Give this some thought...Twa Flight 800 went down in a fireball after taking off from JFK Airport. It ended up in tiny little pieces at the bottom of the Atlantic ocean. A tenth of the amount of people were killed on that plane than were killed on 911. Why is it then that millions of dollars were spent diving to, and collecting every little piece of that aircraft to painstakingly reassemble it to determine what caused its break up....
chazhaz1000 1 year ago
....yet there were no independent inspections of the steel members in either wtc 1 wtc2 or wtc 7 to completely understand what caused such a catastrophic collapse - instead the steel was sold off as scrap as quick as possible
chazhaz1000 1 year ago
Comment removed
chazhaz1000 1 year ago
You really kidding me with this video. Do you even know how they built the World Trade Towers. YOU THINK YOU ARE SMART, yet couldn't even tell me how they are built? Wouldn't you want to know that before playing with the computer games.
Try making something worth teaching, or for that sake, don't make these stupid videos.
papavalium 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@papavalium plz check the site " against the grain, the informer" or "John Harris - It's an illusion" for the UK. thats if you havent already.. peace.
bigbrother1994 1 year ago
Hey GREAT JOB!
Simple and to the point.
guesswhotoo6 2 years ago
Except in the towers the floors' capacity was 1,300t and both tops weighed over 21,000t.
Weirdo10o4 2 years ago
@Weirdo10o4 Yup, heaven forbid this guy that made this video, actually use real data. Also building construction might have something to do with it.
papavalium 1 year ago
911 was an inside job and a media job. We are in big trouble. AE911Truth has excellent physics showing the problem We were also fed altered TV feed. Yes, "Planes" hit the WTC. they weren't Boeings and they weren't planes we are use to seeing. The WTC were demolished. And it wasn't diaper headed cave dwellers with rusty razor blades running amukl on a jumbo jet.
IExposeMormonism 2 years ago
/watch?v=DFVoencqfZw
Right, only you morons can call that excellent physics.
Right it was the Kabul occupying terrorist organization with shiny new box-cutters and the WORD BOMB that got everyone on that flight to stay calm, has worked before, worked on 9/11 like before. A normal jet that is..
Weirdo10o4 1 year ago
@Weirdo10o4 When diesel fuel can level 110 acres of steel and concrete that is when Demolition companies will use it to level hi rises.. At the WTC 100 gal of diesel per floor, (but concentrated on a few floors) was able to level a 500,000 ton steel/concrete building. type in "WTC construction". the WTC was a very well built structure. It was INTENTIONALLY LEVELED.
IExposeMormonism 1 year ago
Diesel
...
Weirdo10o4 1 year ago
JET FUEL, 10,000 gallons torched 10 floors at a time, and the worst part with the extremely high speed impact, it dislodged fireproofing both from direct contact and shock wave. Acre is a unit of area. Usually fires need to spread, this started on nearly ten floors at once, usually fireproofing protects the structure, jet fuel didn't level the building, a "jet fuel ignited multi-floor office fire" did it. The WTC was built for a low speed collision the fuel load wasn't considered in the design.
Weirdo10o4 1 year ago
@Weirdo10o4 The WTC was built to withstand an impact from a fully loaded 707 and a 707 has a higher GVW that a 7X7. The WTC was loaded with explosives.
IExposeMormonism 1 year ago
Well it was a 767 and it's MTOW is 80,000kg greater than the 707's. It was built to withstand a low on fuel, low speed impact from a 707, a replay of the Empire State building crash, lost in fog landing aircraft. The 767-200ER that hit the North Tower was 20% larger, with a fuel load 60% of the fuel a fully loaded boeing 707 could carry, going at around 5 times faster than a landing aircraft. The Towers were built to withstand an accident, not a missile.
Any idea how the eplosives got there?
Weirdo10o4 1 year ago
@Weirdo10o4 You are 100% in error. And your ESB issue is irrelevant. And the Architects responsible for its design are here on youtube talking about just this issue. and they say what I say. And the WTC sould take Multiple hits from aluminum beer cans. Did you know the Central Spine was encased in Concrete for over 10 stories? Wonder where all that mess went.....Where did the Central Spine go?
IExposeMormonism 1 year ago
The Empire State building incident is the reason they made the tower withstand a 707 hit, New York has three major airports around it.
Like this: /watch?v=yicMyvf0BpA ?
Yes, hits, but the fuel wasn't considered in the design, Leslie doesn't even know how it could've. Shame they didn't finish replacing the fireproofing, solid sucks.
What the hell is a spine? Core? The cores remained standing after the collapses, they both tilted until the torque from the motion broke columns lower down.
Weirdo10o4 1 year ago
Btw, you don't just declare things, you send me a source that says a 707 is bigger than a 767 if you want to convince me, etc.
Weirdo10o4 1 year ago
Are here on youtube exaggerating the strength of their creation. The WTC took a hit from a 150t aluminum alloy, aluminum, titanium alloy, steel, 10,000 gallon Molotov cocktail thrown at it at somewhere around Mach .86. The designers planned for a 100t plane lost in fog after a long trip, they fill them only with as much fuel as they need for their trip and a 45 minute reserve.
Weirdo10o4 1 year ago
@Weirdo10o4 the WTC was designed to take multiple hits from a 707, fully loaded and going top speed:: The top speed is 50 mph faster and it has a higher GVW. This is easy to verify.I didn't say it was a Larger plane. It should have taken Many such hits. Type in "WTC construction" and watch some Documentaries on it being built. I have Play lists with all these subjects. Have a go at it. If a 3000 lb car going 500mph hit 2 Cat D11's@ 100,000lbs (3/100 diff') what would happen to the Cats?
IExposeMormonism 1 year ago
@IExposeMormonism Make that 230,000 lbs for the D11,or a 3/230 difference. 1/80. The WTC is 500,000 tons of steel reinforced concrete (Steel Rock) and Steel. The Boeing 140 tons, 40 tons of Fuel. Again, the car is a hollow Tin Can. Splat. The Boeing is a hollow beer can.
IExposeMormonism 1 year ago
Well in the towers the structure was weakened to the point of massive failure after which it was the over 50,000t tops vs. 1,300t capacity floors.
The World Trade Center Towers used only steel for the core and exterior columns, they weren't reinforced concrete structures. The only concrete in the structure was on the floors, a 4 inch slab, and in the core, elevator shafts, staircases, etc.
Kinetic energy, the beer can wasn't what broke the structure, it was the fuel load, air, engines and gear
Weirdo10o4 1 year ago
Except the widespread dislodging of fireproofing, which was even visible on the exterior columns, wasn't in the plans. Even a small damage to fireproofing can endanger an entire truss, not to mention the fireproofing in the towers was already, in some parts, in poor condition.
Not much would happen to the Cat D11's, but it's inapplicable.
Weirdo10o4 1 year ago
@Weirdo10o4 how did the actual clapse happen,? the pancake theory? which can not happen in real life? and by the way NIST had a proper model built for their experiments, guess what? they cudnt get the model to clapse. so back to the computer model , which they can set the parameters,,YOU DID KNOW THAT??tell me you did?
bigbrother1994 1 year ago
So 50,000t can't break 1,300t capacity floors? Welcome to Twooferland. No, their model wasn't proper, a lot of guesswork, and it was ended at collapse initiation. I'll wait a few years till we do have the means to simulate it, you'll whine about an incomplete simulation.
Weirdo10o4 1 year ago
@Weirdo10o4 so you just proved yourself 2be a monster retard.U & the likes of U,quote the NIST report to be "the report "now you are saying that it involved alot of guesswork?so is that it?your lot stand and argue with guesswork?FACT,which your lot like 2say alot of.they cud not get the collapse to take place
bigbrother1994 1 year ago
god your an idiot. the WTC wasnt made up of 50 pieces
Billycheezit 2 years ago
nice vid whats the name of the program
7249xxl 2 years ago
That looks like Blender!
jazzfan5000 2 years ago
yeah. interesting my ass!
Andersthefc2sniper 2 years ago
What is this crap? A guy uses a crappy program to make a rectangular version of a square building and completely ignores it's unique architecture then asks why didn't the real-life incident happen like his completely-off simulation...what a joke
Here's an idea: correctly re-create the WTC in your program and do the same thing
CrazyRay7979 2 years ago
Collapse of lower portion not completely vertical. Debris field 2x to 3x size of original footprint and shifted from center.
lvm1980 2 years ago
that's right!!
nicemtv 2 years ago
Call me when you find a program in which the pieces break, that's the key here.
Weirdo10o4 2 years ago
I have maybe the first "intelligent" question to be presented to the maker of this simulation/ video, and that is: From all the information I've been able to gather, even given the weakening of the building, wouldn't the steel core still remain in tact in both of your simulations here? Did you indeed replicated the cores as they were in the WTC buildings? (this, of course, explains NOTHING as to why building 7 also 'controlled demolition style, free-fall collapsed", just as WTC 1&2 did!)
JamesSCameron 2 years ago
47 interconnect steel cores? where?
gunthaarz 2 years ago
you can't spell "interesting" your argument is invalid
evilspedmonkey 2 years ago
Yeah but how come buildings 1 and 2 can't destroy 4,5 and 6 yet just the top 1/10 portion of towers 1 or 2 can destroy its' bottom 9/10? The math and physics isn't making sense here. It's not the top 1/10 of the building versus one weak floor. It's 1/10 of the top versus the still intact frame of the bottom 9/10. It didn't pancake because there was no evidence of pancaked floors.
Yerizzo 2 years ago
LoL, you think 1/10 of the building can destroy the other 9/10? If that 1/10 can destroy the bottom 9/10, wouldn't it have done so back when it was built? Look at it this way. If you say that 1/10 of the top portion destroyed the bottom 9/10 then how can towers 4,5,and 6 still stand when the whole towers 1 and 2 fell on top of them and they still stood? Just look at the pictures of 4,5 and 6. All cut in half and burnt to the frame, but still standing. Now go figure that one out, lol.
Yerizzo 2 years ago
What the hell do you mean with the first part of your comment. Parts of the other towers collapsed as well, in a way they were stronger.
Are you telling me that the floor system in the WTC 1 and 2 could hold a force that equivalents multiple trucks crashing in to them? Since the floor system was the weak link, as we witnessed, the core an the outer columns weren't the first to collapse, they fell apart after the floors were gone.
/watch?v=yicMyvf0BpA
Weirdo10o4 2 years ago
"Are you telling me that the floor system in the WTC 1 and 2 could hold a force that equivalents multiple trucks crashing in to them? Since the floor system was the weak link, as we witnessed, the core an the outer columns weren't the first to collapse, they fell apart after the floors were gone."
Dumbass, the core was not freestanding columns. They were held together.
aSASa45454 2 years ago
?
I know, the core couldn't stand alone, remove any of the three and it would collapse, core, exterior columns or floors.
Weirdo10o4 2 years ago
Look up a picture of the WTC CORE.
ITS NOT FREESTANDING COLUMNS.
THEY ARE ALL CONNECTED TO BE A SOLID STRUCTURE.
aSASa45454 2 years ago
It couldn't have stood alone, regardless if it's connected and a solid structure.
Weirdo10o4 2 years ago
"The buildings have been investigated and found to be safe in an assumed collision with a large jet airliner (Boeing 707—DC 8) traveling at 600 miles per hour. Analysis indicates that such collision would result in only local damage which could not cause collapse or substantial damage to the building and would not endanger the lives and safety of occupants not in the immediate area of impact."
aSASa45454 2 years ago
Most probably presuming the fire suppression would work.
/watch?v=yicMyvf0BpA
Weirdo10o4 2 years ago
The fire coating was updated on most of the floors impacted by the planes. It wouldn't be required, either. Sprinklers and fireproofing were not a plan when the designers said that.
On 9-11, they had both.
aSASa45454 2 years ago
There had been updates on the fireproofing on the bottom 14 floors of the WTC. Rest of the building still had the original solid fireproofing. He said he didn't know how to account for the fires, he also said that he didn't know if the buildings were going to collapse or not, on 9/11.
The fire suppression didn't work since the pipes going up were severed, along with elevator cables and other things. The solid fireproofing was dislodged by the force of the impact.
Weirdo10o4 2 years ago
Weirdo10o4
you have no clue what you are talking about. There were no updated to fireproofing on the bases. All updates were towards the top. One tower had all effected floors updated while the other had a few.
Either way, the fires werent hot enough to significantly weaken the steel.. let alone melt it. [ Molten steel was found at the bases of ALL 3 TOWERS ]
aSASa45454 2 years ago
There were updates done on the bottom floors. And actually yes, it was just thicker, but still solid fireproofing. 1800 degrees.
Molten metal was found at all the buildings, if you have any real proof for molten steel then go ahead.
Weirdo10o4 2 years ago
As usual, you fail to actually look anything up.
Look up pictures of molten metal at world trade center. Listen to firefighters and other people talking about molten metal.
aSASa45454 2 years ago
Molten metal, it's not necessarily steel, how do firemen determine if it's steel or something else? Besides what would molten steel even prove?
Steel loses 50% of its strength at 1300F.
Weirdo10o4 2 years ago
The WTC fires would top out [ in perfect conditions ] at 1800F. Steel melts at 2700F.
Realistic conditions for the fires would be 800F - 1200F. Normal skyscraper fires max out at about 1100F. The max recorded temperature on any steel from the WTC was less than 300C. Assume that somehow it got 2x hotter than recorded. Still nowhere near hot enough to melt steel.
How do YOU determine it wasn't steel? They can study the make-up of the molten metal, look at the color, etc.
aSASa45454 2 years ago
Glad to hear that there was no molten steel at the site.
Weirdo10o4 2 years ago
Wow you are one damned stupid motha fucka. I just proved it to you, but being the all too typical sheep that you are, you won't admit it.
You fail.
9 11 was an inside job.
aSASa45454 2 years ago
you are the sheep following a video made by 18 yearolds....
mahnameiswin 2 years ago
Debunkers are failures.
And then theres you people..who just have no intelligence.. or validity.
aSASa45454 2 years ago
Again, what would molten steel prove?
Weirdo10o4 2 years ago
How f-ing dumb are you Wierdo? Molten steel would prove [ and already has ] proved thermite was used to destroy the towers.
Nothing has been debunked. If you had enough brains to research 9-11, you'd see there are debunkers for the debunkers. The failure anti-truthers never tried to debunk again.
aSASa45454 2 years ago
Can you tell me how the hell they got thermite to cut vertical columns, and how much thermite was there in the building to release enough energy to create these pools of molten steel, furthermore can you provide any real proof of molten steel or thermite at the site? No.
There are zero good deb- debs, you're just living in a world inside your head, believing anything any member of the truth movement says not even realizing how fucking bad your double standards are.
Weirdo10o4 2 years ago
Damn you're dumb.
Look up pictures of molten steel on google. Not enough? Listen to the many firefighters and other eyewitnesses speak of molten STEEL specifically.
Oh, but let me guess, they lied.. for no reason.
aSASa45454 2 years ago
You'd figure you'd've pointed me to Steven Jone's fraud by now.
Weirdo10o4 2 years ago
You are pathetic.
aSASa45454 2 years ago
You seem to be unable to answer a few simple questions regarding your cult's beliefs.
Weirdo10o4 2 years ago
I answered everything, but you seem to lack the intelligence to understand anything.
aSASa45454 2 years ago
You didn't answer shit.
Weirdo10o4 2 years ago
Don't you wonder why all google comes up with when searching 9/11 stuff is conspiracy shit? No, that's not the real coverup there, twoofers to take attention away from the real crimes of the last administration and US support for Israel.
Weirdo10o4 2 years ago
You have no clue what your talking about.
Google bases its results off of how often its searched.
Get a brain, loser.
aSASa45454 2 years ago
You have no proof to back up shit... Its all been debunked by people with an education.. Truthers are fucking common day JFK conspiracy nut cases.
mahnameiswin 2 years ago
Need proof? :)
NIST and FEMA both found sulfour residue on the steel beams from wtc 1, 2, and 7. Sulfour lowers the melting point of steel, (wich would make the fireproofing useless) and when it is combined with thermite on a very small scale, you get thermate. unreacted thermate was found in the dust, and Steven Jones and Niels Harrit has looked into this for 18 months now, they estimate that up to 100 tonnes has been used.
GSGDarkSide 2 years ago
So after all the BULLSHIT truthers talk about, it must be the THERMITE. Thats the only fucking thing you people even talk about now. Get head out of your ass.
PLANES
JETFUEL
FIRE
COLLAPSE.
Its that simple.
mahnameiswin 2 years ago
And what about building 7 genius?
GSGDarkSide 2 years ago
fire, not hot enough, jetfuel making that fire, not hot enough, all you got is plane and collapse (and thermite, but lets just protend that didnt happen), so now show how a plane hitting it makes it collapse perfectly on itself and not off to a side.
icedcougar 2 years ago
The fire WEAKENED the steel and the building could not support itself anymore.
watch?v=DhHzMttUKO0&feature=fvw
mahnameiswin 2 years ago
@mahnameiswin Pls gtfo!
Moerdarvalen 1 year ago
Fire does not have to melt steel to collapse a building. All it needs to do is weaken it to the point of failure. And that it did.
The question you should be asking isn't "why" or "how"- but "where". The two towers collapsed from the point of impact where it sustained the most structural damage and where the fires were the fires were raging. You'll see in a number of videos and photos that the other columns were bowing.
This was not controlled demolition.
diggingforgold 2 years ago
No, it's not that simple. For example, tell me how in the hell a building that DID NOT receive any kind of plane impact collapsed and fell the same way the towers did.
Let me answer you: Because building 7 was intentionally destroyed. Now, if one building can be intentionally destroyed, why not the towers ?
Mezcaline24 2 years ago
FIRE AND SEMI-TRUCK SIZED CHUNKS OF STEEL AND CONCRETE smashed in the side of WTC7. The SW corner of WTC7 was missing about 15 stores from falling debris. They set up a transit and watched the building as it teetered MORE AND MORE to the SW every hour. It was only a matter of time until it fell.
It fell to the SW, not strait down.
There were no fucking bombs. It was a big as airplane fires and debris. THAT SIMPLE.
mahnameiswin 2 years ago
Yeah, and a 707 hit the towers...oh wait.
When you quote things, it is typically proper to use quote, like your clever mosquito netting quote.
It is probably also proper to take actual quotes from the actual people, not just a website that tries to piece together a conspiracy with the clarity of hindsight. Since you are an expert, what happened to the towers?
slatchem2016 2 years ago
The problem is that most people must believe all buildings are built the same way. Do some research into the construction of the building. WTC 1 and 2 had a middle column that supported the building, while others buildings had the support spread out through the building. Nova did a great program called Why The Towers Fell...watch it.
slatchem2016 2 years ago
The same Nova program that claimed the 47 steel core beams were freestanding, although they were very sturdy and interlocked? If NOVA also claimed the middle supported everything, then they are complete idiots.
The perimeter held a static load of 40%, and the core held a static load of 60%. The WTCs have upto 95% redundancy. Look the stuff up.
aSASa45454 2 years ago
So, we should listen to you instead of the experts and the people who made the building? We should believe the truthers and go against all the evidence that supports what really happened on 9/11? The conspiracy that the truthers speak of is too complex. The government couldn't cover up a few people breaking into Watergate.
slatchem2016 2 years ago
Uhh, the experts and people who made the building said it should have stood. But apparently I'm wrong about the core + load percentage? Look it up yourself idiot.
aSASa45454 2 years ago
I'm an idiot, wow, so when you are wrong, you resort to ad hominem attacks. (That means in Latinl literally to the man)
The building did stand after it got hit with a plane, did it not? It wasn't the plane that brought it down as much as it was the plane crash weakened the supports and caused fires, which further weakened the structure. You think I haven't looked it up?
Before you call someone an idiot, make sure you don't fit the description.
slatchem2016 2 years ago
Look, if you want to see the quotes, google WTC engineer sais towers should have stoof.
Its that simple. I am correct. 47 core columns, load was split between core + perimeter.
aSASa45454 2 years ago
Where are their quotes?
The experts who said this, lets hear from the people who built them...
slatchem2016 2 years ago
"Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel (from the airplane) would dump into the building. There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed The building structure would still be there.
all the columns on one side of a Tower could be cut, as well as the two corners and some of the columns on each adjacent side, and the building would still be strong enough to withstand a 100-mile-per-hour wind."
aSASa45454 2 years ago
Live loads on these columns can be increased more than 2,000% before failure occurs.
The building was designed to have a fully loaded 707 crash into it. That was the largest plane at the time. I believe that the building probably could sustain multiple impacts of jetliners because this structure is like the mosquito netting on your screen door—this intense grid—and the jet plane is just a pencil puncturing that screen netting. It really does nothing to the screen netting.
aSASa45454 2 years ago
Actually they said it could withstand a low speed, low on fuel airplane impact. The designer also said that he knew if such a collapse would start it wouldn't stop.
What you claim below is absolutely ridiculous.
/watch?v=yicMyvf0BpA
Weirdo10o4 2 years ago
"Actually they said it could withstand a low speed, low on fuel airplane impact. The designer also said that he knew if such a collapse would start it wouldn't stop."
Have you ever looked at a single thing about the WTC design specs? It was a 707 @ 600MPH. What hit was a 757 @ an unknown, but lower than 550MPH speed.
aSASa45454 2 years ago
Have you ever listened to the designer of the building?
A Boeing 707 at landing speed, low on fuel, fire not considered since they were expecting the airplane to have low momentum and most of the fuel to burn outside the structure.
A 20 percent larger plane at 710km/h. SI units rule.
Weirdo10o4 2 years ago
The government couldn't cover up Bill Clinton getting a BJ...but the 1000 or so people in this one is a perfect cover up? The gov't screwed up so badly with FEMA and Katrina, but this plot, they were able to pull off? Occam's Razor holds true in this...the official story is what really happened.
slatchem2016 2 years ago
Come on. This is a ridiculous simulation. You could build an equally poor analog used Lincoln Logs and probably get the same incomparable results. In this ludicrous simulation, every single element is impervious to damage and can support an infinite amount of weight. If someone sees this simulation and honestly makes any comparison to the WTC collapses tells me that person must be less than 7 years old or is severely retarded.
yegreskin 2 years ago 2
you know those buildings had power
they also had UPS (uninterpretable power supply) rooms that were full of lead acid batteries
these were not empty dead buildings
that flow could have been a million things including magnesium alloy from the plane
(esp seeing this is where the plane and office debris got piled up, northeast corner)
molten metal does not equal molten steel
justin39640 2 years ago
Hmm... Interesting, but what you should have added combustibles like chairs, papers, and remembered that there was a fire spreading throughout the building as it fell.
JustAManInAMask 2 years ago
WTC collapsed and when the top floors fell it created a domino effect. as 1 floor hits the other it collapes and keeps going. it shouldnt have came down but when the plane hit the 1st building the explosion blew off all the fireproofing on the frame. the frame heated up, melted, then collapsed.
ScrubsRox3 2 years ago
didnt melt it was weakened
thats all you need
justin39640 2 years ago
This is not true. There was in fact molten metal in the rubble of the towers not only the twin towers but also WTC7. Explain that! Also this molten metal appears before the buildings collapsed in the south tower.
sugardancer77 2 years ago
Molten metal doesn't prove anything.
slatchem2016 2 years ago
This is an amazingly unscientific simulation. The model does not represent the towers. Nor is any data provided. Very bad. Very bad science.
adamsmark69 2 years ago 2
adams, what makes you say it's unscientific?
punxsutawneybarney 2 years ago
O.o you must be JOKING its SOLID bodies, little over 10 flores, and simulated in real time.
DaleSparrow 2 years ago
What's unscientific about it?
punxsutawneybarney 2 years ago
No its not unscientific, but this simulation doesn't represent the towers the least bit. (by that sentence cheese is scientific.) hoever i agree that NIST has to redo the sims.
DaleSparrow 2 years ago