Iron start to melt at 1538°C (2800°F) kerosene burns in open space between 260-315°C (500-599°F) and maximum (enclosed area) at 980°C (1796 °F), clearly it can't melt iron. And aluminium even alloys can't do much against steel even at high speeds.
Respond to this video... In the weeks after 9/11, the news media told us that the towers fell down because the jet fuel fires had melted the structural steel. This was absolutely ridiculous. Jet fuel does not burn hot enough to melt steel. But there was molten steel in the debris pile. So what caused the molten steel, and why do officials find it necessary to lie about it? See my video: The 9/11 "Deep Mystery" and the Crazy Engineers
ok but where is the simulation that takes us all the way through to the collapse? by now you should have been able to calculate that... you've had 2 years.
So why don't the core columns move in unison as the plane comes into the building? The plane had to push against the floor slab and the slab had to move the columns since they were connected horizontally by beams.
Computer simulations are great when they are correct but if there is a flaw they can be REALLY STUPID once you figure it out.
@Weirdo10o4 That leaves the minor detail of all of the survivors saying the building swayed on impact. The NIST has produced a graph of the oscillation of the south tower. The building deflected 12 inches at the 70th floor, 130 feet below the impact point.
People that DON'T KNOW SHIT just make up crap that helps them BELIEVE what they want. Why don't you try actually UNDERSTANDING SOME PHYSICS and getting some REAL DATA? You have had EIGHT YEARS to do it!
@Weirdo10o4 The plane that hit the north tower was 141 tons and the velocity was 440 mph.
Momentum is Mass times Velocity
Kinetic Energy is half of Mass time Velocity squared.
Since the south tower move 12 inches 130 feet below the impact point we should be told the amount of steel and 20 stories above and below center of impact.
@Weirdo10o4 You are just very good at demonstrating that you have no idea what you are talking about. The concrete floor slab outside the core is easy to compute, 601 tons. That does not count the pans and trusses.
The steel in the core and exterior columns had to increse all of the way down the building.
That would affect how the building swayed in the wind and its response to the impact of the plane.
The floor slab was 205 ft x 205 ft. Subtract the area of the core. The thickness varied between 4 and 5 inches because the pans were corrugated. I have see edge on pictures I use 4.33 inches. The concrete was 110 lb/cu. ft.
@imbrd Have you seen their "detailed" version? But in fairness, I didn't see the light for years. I had serious doubts on 911 but the truth was just too far fetched. Even Noam Chomsky is lost today. but he is funded by CIA. Now we have the truth, which was obvious from the beginning. "ae911truth" is using good science. Purdue-do is poo-poo and is one of the perps in this crime.
of course- go truth! we need to form an open people's court & supeana power, grand jury, judge & public investigation. If the feds wont do it for watever reason, then the people must do it- take the constitution, over throw tyranny & form our America based on the Constitution which the forefathers set before us
This video tells us nothing we don't already know; a plane hit the north tower. It did some damage and caught fire. This simulation does NOT tell us anything about the collapse. It has been eight years since the collapse; why not try to simulate it?
yeah, I mean the tools for massive physics simulations are there but I have yet to see any simulation that even closely represent what actually happened...
I did not use my voice on my video for business reasons: I like my job.
I think Purdue could easily simulate the collapse GIVEN the right assumptions. I might respectfully disagree with those assumptions, and I might explain why. I believe they could simulate the collapse of the upper part, above the impact, quite plausibly. I believe the bottom part, the collapse down to the ground, would be difficult to simulate without implausible assumptions. Hey, maybe I'm wrong so let's go Purdue!
Lets just wait a few years, with the ^2 development rate of technology, in a few years we should be able to do it on our average PC. In the mean while lets try to do something about things such as the motive behind 9/11 (US support for Israel) so we can invest the US military budget in to something more intelligent.
Well, I see we agree on something: I also want a divorce from Israel. Like many men in a nasty divorce, I don't want to "get even"...I just want to get away. Like many men in a nasty divorce, I hope my ex gets married again and moves on with her life. That is what I want for Israel: I hope she prospers, but does so without me!
So if you were in the forties it wouldn't be your job to help or to stop Germany from doing the Holocaust? Walk on. Don't do even the smallest thing - support a new 9/11 by doing so, glad to see you've thought this through while chasing ghosts..
It's your government's and if you care you support something like.
It is the responsibility of the US government and all American citizens to protect THIS country, NOT holocaust victims in other countries. Sorry that sounds harsh, but if you are right, then we are all nothing but slaves to other peoples' misfortune. Holocausts are, unfortunately, the rule not the exception. If Stalin, our erstwhile ally, killed fewer people in any given year than Hitler did, it was from incompetence, not good intentions.
Instead of using computer simulation to prove what didn't happen, try using it to simulate cruise missles and planted demolitions. My bet is it'll be closer to the actual events. Plane can't travel that fast that low (air density). We should see (but don't) the effect of jet wash in the smoke. Don't believe the government would lie to you? Who's the idiot?
Er - you are. An idiot. A moron. A halfwit. A jackass. A dimwit. A chicken head. A pled.
How do you explain the THOUSANDS of eyewitness in New York? All liars? Or are you a holographic plane man? Which brings us back to - Dickhead. Mong. Donkey...
That's good. Typical argument for someone who has no argument: Name calling and personal attacks. All this shows is that you have no imagination. If I thought (which I don't) that you had any real interest in other, more probable explanations, I would tell how thousands of eyewitnesses, seeing something hit the towers, became convinced that it was a plane because the media told them to. These 'thousands' that you speak of could easily mistake a cruise missle's form and sound for a jet.
Imaginations is not a good thing in this case. Yours for instance seems to be out of control. Thousands of people who see planes everyday got confused because you say so? Get a life fool.
And how many of them see cruise missles every day? Or could tell the difference? Again, you have no argument, so you resort to name-calling. I'll bet you'd think the earth was flat as long as your TV told you so. You can't think for yourself, that's clear enough. "The people will believe what the media tells them they believe."
George Orwell
"The fact that an opinion has been widely held is no evidence that it is not utterly absurd."
It's official! Most people on Youtube are liberal idiots who hate the United States of America and belive that our own goverment attacked and destroyed the Twin Towers to start a war.
One of the best things about America are the rights and freedoms granted to the people in the constitution. If you were to analyze your statement you will determine what you just said is ludicrous. I can't help you do that though... you're on your own. good luck
A) The fireball which apparently barrelled down the liftshafts to blow out the lobby, basement and the windows of nearby buildings at ground level.
B) The collapse initation inside the towers
C) The collapse sequence which then follows, the straight down collapse into the path of most resitance with the tower top "crushing down" the undamged structure below the point of impact.
So why did Pardue not produce a simulation of this?
Last by not least, HOW on earth can the heat cause any damage on the columns down on the main plane´s impact, if the source of heat was such low (take a physics journey to Madrid´s Windsor Tower), and it only affects on the upper floors...coincidently the only ones that stayed integral during the Collapse...
Apart from the structural damage caused by planes on those affected floors the REST of the BUILDING was INTACT, and do your research, this building was designed to last, not to crack.
Designed to last an impact from a 767 going 500 MPH? And 590? It was NEVER designed to survive an impact of those speeds, especially with that much jet fuel still available in the plane.
When the outer beams snapped, the trusses dragged the core, which, with gravity's help, snapped the core and started a collapse which doomed the entire building.
Yes retard...you can find on the tube a former WTC Responsible that comments about this buildings special design to COPE WITH not just ONE but MULTIPLE IMPACTS OF A BOEING 707 TYPE AIRCRAFT.
Yeah, but guess what, and here's the thing that they should mention. Those 707's were thought to hit the plane going at speeds a plane would normally have during LANDING! They thought the plane would get lost in the fog, or piloting went dead. The fuel would be almost empty also.
So, yeah, they would be able to survive 707's, not 767's. Also, the Towers did well against what they stood up against. They stood for an hour (ST) and an hour and a half (NT) which is extremely good.
Um, there isn't much of a difference between a 707 and a 767. It's slightly heavier yet it's slower. 707 would cause more damage due to it's speed. Going by that then the result would have to be the same...which doesn't mix right.
More speed equals greater damages, regardless of weight and mass? If that was true then an arrow would do greater damage to a window than a thrown rock would do, because you know...arrow is faster than a rock! HUUUURRR!
wow! great purdue!! wheres the central core of the building? or do you idiots always do simulations half arsed? this show floors and outer walls... are we all idiots? my way of looking at it is when aluminium hits steel at 500mph steel wins, not in your sim eh? i dont suppose you included any ACTUAL DATA in this? no? didnt think so.
There's more evidence that a good deal of the second plane footage is real. There is one CNN Exclusive which is a half arsed composite (so they'd have more than 2 seconds of the plane prior to impact. The first plane footage is likely real but it's so edited and out of focus it's worthless.
the possesser, the folks saw the planes hit. Videos are available from a variety of different sources. the event was captured live. There is no credible evidence that any of this was faked.
Really, I put my money on the THOUSANDS of horrified New Yorker's present in lower Manhattan as proof enough. You CT people are out of your minds.... "The Video's were faked..." I guess the eye witnesses were all CIA operatives giving academy award performances.
unfortunately most people are brainwashed and believe that whatever the gov't says is true, it's pretty evident that they covered it up, and even more evident that the tyrants working through the gov't planned and executed 911, I'm not just talking out of my ass, people need to thoroughly investigate and research 911, I mean people are doing more investigating than the 911 commision ever did,
@treeman222 Yes i agree with all you have said here 2 years ago, the put options aspect is very interesting as is Goldman Sachs selling $240 million worth of B.P. stocks just before the oil spill.Follow the money trail it brings up alot of questions
"Lol, and then they said that WTC 7 fell because of falling debris - what kind of shit is that? "
Building 7 was demolished BECAUSE of falling debris. There were no resources and manpower enough to put out the fires they were needed elsewhere.
The towers are clearly not being demolished, building 7 is clearly demolished. Notice the clouds forming at the base first. In the case of towers the clouds only start when the debris hit the street.
where are the core columns in this simulation? i think its more important to see a simulation of the building being detonated. there's no way it could have collapsed.. just like an egg carton wouldn't collapse if you shot the top of it off... and the wtc was far stronger for its weight.
well i think with a computer simulation, anything is possible. what we really should do is make scale models out of the actual correct materials. i challenge ANYBODY to make a scale model explode like the real ones did without detonating explosives. check out ae911truth dot org. that's a great site where very sober minded architects and engineers debunk bush's lies about 9/11.
You idiot, this is a finite element simulation. Finite element simulations simply show the results of parameters inputted. In these simulations, all of the data about the wtc including material constants, lengths, boundary conditions are replicated exactly, and the simulation then takes the inputed data and lets the laws of physics show what happens. Why does your opinion overrule the latest proven techniques in computational structural mechanics?
I'm perfectly aware of what it is. i guess it makes you an idiot not to realize that. ANY data could be entered. We do not know just from what we see here, for example, if all the box columns, at their appropriate size, spacing, etc, were entered into the simulation. this simulation only covers the first few (and undisputed) seconds of the airplane portion of the event. it does not even come close to the collapse. lets wait for them to get that, using the actual blue prints, then we can talk.
@iamafractal ive done it, take that. i took a model airplane and used it as a template and built a whole new plane, complete with engines that run off a formula equivalent to jet fuel.i then built and exact replica of both towers and flew the plane into the "north" tower using strings and pulleys as guidance then using quick release the strings released the plane at a precise scale speed. then i took my footage and compared that to the 9/11 footage and wham! almost exact!! i was so happy!!!
@iamafractal i ran out of characters, anyway to continue, i myself am a physicist, structural, and mechanical engineer. i was surprised myself at the results. and even the collapse was equivalent, except there was no dust when mine fell lol. i used to think it was the government but now i dont. with my results i now know that i was just the planes that took down the building. in my scale model it worked and it was precise. i take that as enough evidence. does anyone else?
@iamafractal that can't work because you can't scale down material strength, therefore even if you had lets say a 1/30 model, the aluminum plane simulate would still need to hit at 500mph.
Too bad fire can't actually melt steel. That's a simple fact you can check without a computer simulation. What would really be helpful, is a simulation on how everything turned to dust and the buildings came down at free fall speed. This simulation does not show how the buildings fell.
Thats just plain wrong, fire can remove almost 20% of the structural strength of steal beams, the towers did not fall at free fall speed, other simulations clearly show time and time again how the building fell with the impact of an aircraft and fire damage.
Dammit, stop using real physics terms. You must be part of the plot. You know that anyone can see that a real aluminum plane would just have bounced clean off the building. Teams of engineering students using real data can't possibly be trusted - someone got to them too, man. Grow up - anyone who doesn't believe in the truther conspiracy of the week is a certified CFR member.
It's frightening to see such falsehoods coming from dick heads like Alex Jones, a man without the proper qualifications who has never built a simulation of his own to explain his theories and makes a load of money from selling his books and DVD's.
video of the collapse from the ideal angle, facing the damaged face of the building. The fire may have burned, or even exploded, the diesel fuel powering generators on floor 5. This probably weakened the transfer trusses and girders between floors 5 and 7 that transferred load to the smaller-sized foundation. Coupled with the probably severe damage already sustained in the collapse of the towers, it was only a matter of time before the load-bearing capabilities of the structure were exceeded.
You obviously haven't look at the way the foundation was constructed for this building. the foundation was actually smaller then the first floor of the building, due to a substation the structure was constructed on. Also, no other event has ever happened like 9-11, and it is difficult, if not impossible, to judge an event that we've never even conceived of. Buildings are simply not able to absorb such extreme amounts of punishment. We also have very little imagery or (cont.)
yea I wanted to believe that our gov could do such a horriable thing..see one fishy story after another and then a complete cover up is adiquit for me to ask question..esp. when ALL of the investgation was conducted by the criminals..and the criminals own the media...its not a conspiracy if math science and logic back it up..
Flight 11, 175, and 77 were not intercepted by military aircraft. This is unacceptable. The drills being conducted were Vigilant Guardian and Northern Vigilance.
Agreed, but it all relates. Was is a coincidence that the military was standing down that day, and that is was conducting war drills simulating those exact attacks?
Nothing logical is legal in the US. I'll check that out. We trained Osama bin Laden. The Bush family has close ties to the bin Ladens. We helped Saddam develop his chemical weapons. What do you think happened, and why do you think our government is covering things up?
Well to me guys flying planes into buildings is not as important as to why warnings were ignored, our skies were not protected, and how they somehow defied the laws of physics at the WTC, and how the incompetent pilots pulled off stunts that most experienced commercial could only dream of pulling off, like the 270 degree bank turn at 500 mph that Flight 77 supposedly made.
Also interesting that the government-released pancake scenario leaves the core of the buildings intact, which is not what actually happened. I'd like to see a graphic of WTC 7. I'd like to see anything from the government on WTC 7. They can't prove a lie.
So, if we shouldn't believe them, why are people defending the official story? I'm actually enjoying this. It's a real discussion. Where are you from?
The idea that it lept out of his pocket and survived that explosion is bogus. 6 of the hijackers have turned up alive, and only the hijackers from Flight 77, and Atta, showed up on airport security cameras. They were also not mentioned on a single casuality list.
The black sooty smoke coming out of the towers is also indicitive of a dying fire. Firefighters even said that there was no fire they couldn't contain. We have been lied to. Why are you defending what the Bush cronies say? They lied about Iraq and cheated in 2 elections. Why should we believe them and the government-run agencies about 9-11?
It is interesting to note that the melting point of aluminum is 660C, while experiments in other buildings in the US, Australian, Japan, and the UK showed that open-air fires, such as office fires, like the WTC, can only reach temperatures of 360C. This is hot enough for jet fuel to burn, but not hot enough to melt, let alone weaken steel. Even at 550C, steel has 60% of its strength. Fire could not have brought down the towers. Period.
Strange how Mohammed Atta's passport somehow lept out of his pocket, through a "raging inferno" and onto the street a couple blocks away. Talk about far-fetched...
I found that guy's website to be completely pointless. He doesn't make connection between the aluminum and why the buildings fell. You can't prove a lie. Maybe that's why the government has no official explanation as to why WTC 7 fell, and as to how fire caused the buildings to collapse. The Commission lied about the design of the buildings in order to make the "truss" theory plausable. This is the report you're defending?
The structural support for the towers was the inner core. That's where the center of gravity was. If the floors pancaked, the core should have been left standing. The plane in the South Tower did not breach the core of the building. It should not have fallen. The buildings were designed to withstand much larger fires (duh...STEEL), and multiple plane impacts. Fire does not bring down steel buildings. It doesn't happen. Read up on the design of the towers.
So the plane exploded and somehow paper survived? Please. You said the mail was on the plane. The Towers were not made from aluminum, and the composition of planes is not public knowledge. Melting aluminum is irrelevant in regards to why the towers collapsed. If you look at thermite explosions, they look exactly like what is coming out of the South Tower. There are also photos of the center columns with perfectly diagonal cut marks, similar to those associated with CDs.
True, but steel weakens at 50% of its melting point, or 1500F. Temperatures in the buildings were never recorded above 800F, which is a little more than 25% of the melting point. They could not have weakened that quickly at such low temperatures. There are many other stories of steel buildings burning at much higher temperatures for much longer, days in fact, that still remained standing.
He has some good data, except he avoids mentioning the actual temperatures that were recorded inside the Trade Center, none of which were hot enough to melt metal. He also doesn't make a connection between the molten metal and the collapse of the tower. If the metal was indeed not steel, the fires could not have been hot enough to cause the building to collapse. Catch 22.
So we are supposed to believe that a plane crash melted fireproofed steel but US Mail somehow miraculously survived? The fires were hot enough to melt steel but not burn paper?
There are military planes with windows, seats, paper, wheels, and of course, a fuselage. But that's irrelevant. The fact is, the towers were designed to withstand much more severe impacts. Fire doesn't cause steel buildings to fall, and molten metal can be seen pouring out of the South Tower, which can only be explained by thermite or thermate. Jet fuel does not burn hot enough to melt steel.
Exactly, there has never been an investigation into what really happened. There are too many conflicting accounts to just blindly accept the official story.
A body is found with two gunshot wounds to the head and a third to the chest. The gun is found in the right hand of the victim. The victim is left handed.
Based on the "evidence" the coroner declares the case a suicide. Despite the fact that that conclusion makes no sense to any intelligent and rational human being, cdddrafstman continues to believe the official version.
Whats sad is I'm wasting my time trying to argue with a clinical paranoid. Whats fantasy is denying all the video footage of PLANES flying into the towers, including amateur footage. I can almost understand how people might not think a plane hit the pentagon, but there is a wealth of evidence of two planes slamming into the two towers. Also, many people died on those planes, including the Executive producer of Frasier and his wife, and one of the founders of Akamai.
Firefighters reported seeing a "green bomberstyle aircraft" hit the South Tower. Do you think they would have mistaken that for a commercial 767? No. I doubt the plans that hit the WTC were Boeings. Bombers would explain the flashes that occur before the planes hit the towers.
911 was an inside job. There were no hijackers. None of the 'hijackers' were on the official passenger lists (CNN. com) Many of the 'hijackers' are still alive (BBC). None of the 'hijackers' bodies were recovered at any of the crash sites. Look at the evidence, watch --> loose change, 911 in plane site, terror storm, 911 mysteries, ultimate con trailer, money masters <-- how did the government give the media names and photos SO FAST -- 10am on 911?
What amazes me is that people can think that our government or any government can act so efficiently as to pull off a 9/11 caper, hiding bombs and detonating them, getting people off planes at secure locations, etc. If our government is really that efficient, our troops would
Precisely, jsvrameriz. Dennis Leary said it best, "Bush is not smart enough to figure out how to end this war in Iraq, but he is apparently smart enough to set this thing up?" These conspiracy theorists used to make me sick. Now they just make me laugh.
BUSH didnt set this up..he is only a dumb puppet. CHENEY SET IT UP....Dennis Leary isnt a political analyst...he is just a comedian with a grumpy whiney schtick...
LMAO! Seriously You need to stop pushing the Q-tip when you feel resistance in your ASS becauSe thats where your brain is...in your ASS!!! DUMBASS -get it??... LMAO!!!!
The reason the Madrid fire didn't bring down the tower is because IT HAD A CONCRETE CORE! Concrete is much more heat resistant than steel. That means that the two situations are not comparable! I'm getting so sick of how the conspiracy idiots manipulate evidence and filter facts to fit there insane schemes. and just plain LIE! Google Madrid fire concrete and click on the first result. It says how the concrete structure of the building performed extraordinarily well.
The sheer idiocy of the conspiracy idiots never ceases to amaze me!
Drop a concrete block on a Styrofoam cup and measure how much the cup slows down the concrete block. Not much! This is similar to how the weight of how ever many floors above the impact points all fell simultaneously on a SINGLE FLOOR AT A TIME. This instantly ripped off the floor and its weight was then added to the mass falling on the next floor. And the whole ti me its all accelerating at 9.8m/s^2 , gaining momentum.
LOGIC!!! *GASP* YOU ARE HURTING MY HEAD! No no no....must believe all eye witnesses who heard "what sounds like explosions" at WTC, must ignore all eye witnesses who saw a plane hit the Pentagon...ONLY WAY, MUST KEEP THEORY...*GASP*
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 2 months ago
Why is there never any simulation of the actual collapse. Does anybody know of a serious vid that shows that?
The911watch 5 months ago
@The911watch
/watch?v=8I43Q3LWLhI
/watch?v=8SBq5g7m6y8
Most serious ones I've found.
NickWaterfall 3 months ago
very clever. well done.
lsteer100 5 months ago in playlist 9/11
This simulation doesn't take in consideration the materials.
EterIronGen 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Iron start to melt at 1538°C (2800°F) kerosene burns in open space between 260-315°C (500-599°F) and maximum (enclosed area) at 980°C (1796 °F), clearly it can't melt iron. And aluminium even alloys can't do much against steel even at high speeds.
EterIronGen 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Respond to this video... In the weeks after 9/11, the news media told us that the towers fell down because the jet fuel fires had melted the structural steel. This was absolutely ridiculous. Jet fuel does not burn hot enough to melt steel. But there was molten steel in the debris pile. So what caused the molten steel, and why do officials find it necessary to lie about it? See my video: The 9/11 "Deep Mystery" and the Crazy Engineers
punxsutawneybarney 8 months ago
They didn't show most of the fuel being blown up in the fireball outside the building. Retards.
Super911truth 9 months ago
why haven't they create normal collapse simulation, or there isn't any collapse in model and Ahmadi Nejad was right?
GrossGluck 1 year ago
No core ..!
You think people are stupid ?
MrPierrePhilippe 1 year ago
LOL
the wings stayed on huh?
what a crock of shit.
DSCW33 1 year ago
ok but where is the simulation that takes us all the way through to the collapse? by now you should have been able to calculate that... you've had 2 years.
iamafractal 1 year ago
great job!!!
krzysiek1031 2 years ago
Skyscrapers have to sway in the wind.
So why don't the core columns move in unison as the plane comes into the building? The plane had to push against the floor slab and the slab had to move the columns since they were connected horizontally by beams.
Computer simulations are great when they are correct but if there is a flaw they can be REALLY STUPID once you figure it out.
psikeyhackr 2 years ago
sorry about the thumbs down man- i meant to give thumbs up ! :)
imbrd 2 years ago
Or the floor slab broke at a certain amount of pressure which is the amount of pressure that goes to the core, too, doubt it was that great.
Weirdo10o4 2 years ago
@Weirdo10o4 That leaves the minor detail of all of the survivors saying the building swayed on impact. The NIST has produced a graph of the oscillation of the south tower. The building deflected 12 inches at the 70th floor, 130 feet below the impact point.
People that DON'T KNOW SHIT just make up crap that helps them BELIEVE what they want. Why don't you try actually UNDERSTANDING SOME PHYSICS and getting some REAL DATA? You have had EIGHT YEARS to do it!
psikeyhackr 2 years ago
How much force did the plane have? Since you know stuff.
Weirdo10o4 2 years ago
@Weirdo10o4 The plane that hit the north tower was 141 tons and the velocity was 440 mph.
Momentum is Mass times Velocity
Kinetic Energy is half of Mass time Velocity squared.
Since the south tower move 12 inches 130 feet below the impact point we should be told the amount of steel and 20 stories above and below center of impact.
psikeyhackr 2 years ago
What do you need that for? Probably something like 450t / floor.
Weirdo10o4 2 years ago
Actually I'd raise that to 1000t, it's hard to get a good number.
Weirdo10o4 2 years ago
@Weirdo10o4 You are just very good at demonstrating that you have no idea what you are talking about. The concrete floor slab outside the core is easy to compute, 601 tons. That does not count the pans and trusses.
The steel in the core and exterior columns had to increse all of the way down the building.
That would affect how the building swayed in the wind and its response to the impact of the plane.
psikeyhackr 2 years ago
How do you arrive at you 600 tons of concrete?
Weirdo10o4 2 years ago
@Weirdo10o4 I delete stuff that is TOO DUMB.
The floor slab was 205 ft x 205 ft. Subtract the area of the core. The thickness varied between 4 and 5 inches because the pans were corrugated. I have see edge on pictures I use 4.33 inches. The concrete was 110 lb/cu. ft.
DO THE MATH
psikeyhackr 2 years ago
No, it's not, each floor (not talking about the columns) could support 1,300t (over their own weight, of course)
Your system of measurement is retarded.
Volume of concrete: (62 x 62 - 27 x 41) x 0.01 = 27.3m^3
Weight: 27.3 x 2400 = 65 520kg
65 tonnes of concrete per floor?
So you're saying that the 4 inch concrete slab on each floor weighed 300 cars worth? I'm saying 32... wow
(Floor area - Core area) x depth = concrete volume in cubic meters
Volume x (density/m^3) = concrete weight per floor
Weirdo10o4 2 years ago
I tried it with your system and wound up with the same figure, étrange...?
Weirdo10o4 2 years ago
Counter things, don't delete them, Napoleon.
Weirdo10o4 2 years ago
Deleted my comment? Coward.
I know the columns got smaller higher. Btw, you're the first truther that knows the equation for kinetic energy, congratulations!
Weirdo10o4 2 years ago
@Weirdo10o4 I'm not a Truther. Science is supposed to be a Truth Movement.
Why haven't scientists all been demanding to know the distributions of steel and concrete in the towers for EIGHT YEARS?
You just haven't been paying attention to people like Jeff King.
psikeyhackr 2 years ago
Same figure as yours, that is...
Weirdo10o4 2 years ago
@Weirdo10o4
Your calculation look like you are using a thickness of ONE CENTIMETER for the slab.
What is that 0.01 ???
psikeyhackr 2 years ago
@psikeyhackr It should be 0.11
psikeyhackr 2 years ago
Damn, I shouldn't do this that late...
Weirdo10o4 2 years ago
Talk about demonstrating not knowing what one's talking about:
/watch?v=GQpbQlrfPaM
Weirdo10o4 2 years ago
Well, dont send your kids to Purdue! This plane's wings tips and edges just just sliced seamlessly thru 6 floors of steel and concrete
IExposeMormonism 2 years ago
o man i wanted to go to purdue- until i saw this
imbrd 2 years ago
@imbrd Have you seen their "detailed" version? But in fairness, I didn't see the light for years. I had serious doubts on 911 but the truth was just too far fetched. Even Noam Chomsky is lost today. but he is funded by CIA. Now we have the truth, which was obvious from the beginning. "ae911truth" is using good science. Purdue-do is poo-poo and is one of the perps in this crime.
IExposeMormonism 2 years ago
of course- go truth! we need to form an open people's court & supeana power, grand jury, judge & public investigation. If the feds wont do it for watever reason, then the people must do it- take the constitution, over throw tyranny & form our America based on the Constitution which the forefathers set before us
imbrd 2 years ago
This video tells us nothing we don't already know; a plane hit the north tower. It did some damage and caught fire. This simulation does NOT tell us anything about the collapse. It has been eight years since the collapse; why not try to simulate it?
Skeptic121 2 years ago
yeah, I mean the tools for massive physics simulations are there but I have yet to see any simulation that even closely represent what actually happened...
paimail21 2 years ago
Because it's damn hard.
Weirdo10o4 2 years ago
Yes, it's hard! That's why they do this stuff; it's called a challenge. Pushing back the frontiers of knowledge and all that.
Skeptic121 2 years ago
And once they'd do it you'd be shouting "FAKE! FAKE! FAKE!" no matter what.
And is that your normal voice on your videos?
Weirdo10o4 2 years ago
I did not use my voice on my video for business reasons: I like my job.
I think Purdue could easily simulate the collapse GIVEN the right assumptions. I might respectfully disagree with those assumptions, and I might explain why. I believe they could simulate the collapse of the upper part, above the impact, quite plausibly. I believe the bottom part, the collapse down to the ground, would be difficult to simulate without implausible assumptions. Hey, maybe I'm wrong so let's go Purdue!
Skeptic121 2 years ago
Lets just wait a few years, with the ^2 development rate of technology, in a few years we should be able to do it on our average PC. In the mean while lets try to do something about things such as the motive behind 9/11 (US support for Israel) so we can invest the US military budget in to something more intelligent.
Weirdo10o4 2 years ago
Well, I see we agree on something: I also want a divorce from Israel. Like many men in a nasty divorce, I don't want to "get even"...I just want to get away. Like many men in a nasty divorce, I hope my ex gets married again and moves on with her life. That is what I want for Israel: I hope she prospers, but does so without me!
Skeptic121 2 years ago
How about stop them from committing war crimes.
Weirdo10o4 2 years ago
It is not my job to help, or to stop, Israel from committing war crimes.
Skeptic121 2 years ago
So if you were in the forties it wouldn't be your job to help or to stop Germany from doing the Holocaust? Walk on. Don't do even the smallest thing - support a new 9/11 by doing so, glad to see you've thought this through while chasing ghosts..
It's your government's and if you care you support something like.
/user/representativepress
/watch?v=44wK72Snm6Y
Weirdo10o4 2 years ago
Wierdo,
It is the responsibility of the US government and all American citizens to protect THIS country, NOT holocaust victims in other countries. Sorry that sounds harsh, but if you are right, then we are all nothing but slaves to other peoples' misfortune. Holocausts are, unfortunately, the rule not the exception. If Stalin, our erstwhile ally, killed fewer people in any given year than Hitler did, it was from incompetence, not good intentions.
Skeptic121 2 years ago
And besides it tells us a lot about the damage the buildings sustained from the impact.
Weirdo10o4 2 years ago
How about stop them from committing war crimes.
Weirdo10o4 2 years ago
more dis-information to confuse the issue. it started with PBS which is a bogus video since no center column was included.
brokencasket 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
THIS 3D VIRTUALIZATION IS LESS THAN POOR...IT IS JUST RETARDED:
CHECK THIS OUT:
v=w0TZAWUYPP8
PURDUEFUCKTARDS UNIVERSITY EXPOSED:
THE BIGGEST GAY LIARS IN SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY
THIS BIATCHS ARE FUNDED BY YOUR GOV TO SPREAD THEIR JEWTRASH OFFICIAL LIES
arsenium666 2 years ago
Jewtrash? Are you serious?
amenzix 2 years ago
Purdue and Mete Sozen have committed a terrible fraud.Watch 911 Taboo.
machfron 2 years ago
So why can't all of the engineering schools physically model that straight down collapse if a plane could really cause that?
Search Youtube for: WTC MIToo
If a skyscraper cannot collapse like that shouldn't the schools that train people to design those buildings know it? Why so much silence?
Ryan Mackey a NASA scientist did a HARDFIRE #3 program discussing a SCALED collapse model. It is in Google video.
psikeyhackr 2 years ago
WTC collapses looks nothing like controlled demolition.
adunwad 3 years ago
The NOSE of the plane disintegrates IMMEDIATLY......The News Reports show the NOSE exiting the building......Who's RIGHT ???
hartsy50 3 years ago
this is a simulation of the first hit dummy not the second where you can see the nose.
ikesnare1 3 years ago
It's not the nose exiting the building smartass
Horjan 2 years ago
The very outer part of the wings would not have cut thru the thick steel of of the outer core of the buildings.
tinpan2112 3 years ago 2
tinpan.. it depends primarily upon the speed the wings leading edge hits the outer core. even air can cut through steel if it's going fast enough.
femr2 3 years ago
This kind of simulation would help understand the extent of the damage done to the tower upon impact...
Does it take in account the central steel columns?
Simboiss 3 years ago
dude....why you did not let the building collapse..the whole simulation is shitt without collapse!
metekhan23 3 years ago
Instead of using computer simulation to prove what didn't happen, try using it to simulate cruise missles and planted demolitions. My bet is it'll be closer to the actual events. Plane can't travel that fast that low (air density). We should see (but don't) the effect of jet wash in the smoke. Don't believe the government would lie to you? Who's the idiot?
FRTothus 3 years ago
Er - you are. An idiot. A moron. A halfwit. A jackass. A dimwit. A chicken head. A pled.
How do you explain the THOUSANDS of eyewitness in New York? All liars? Or are you a holographic plane man? Which brings us back to - Dickhead. Mong. Donkey...
911TruthMatters 3 years ago
That's good. Typical argument for someone who has no argument: Name calling and personal attacks. All this shows is that you have no imagination. If I thought (which I don't) that you had any real interest in other, more probable explanations, I would tell how thousands of eyewitnesses, seeing something hit the towers, became convinced that it was a plane because the media told them to. These 'thousands' that you speak of could easily mistake a cruise missle's form and sound for a jet.
FRTothus 3 years ago 2
Imaginations is not a good thing in this case. Yours for instance seems to be out of control. Thousands of people who see planes everyday got confused because you say so? Get a life fool.
911TruthMatters 3 years ago
And how many of them see cruise missles every day? Or could tell the difference? Again, you have no argument, so you resort to name-calling. I'll bet you'd think the earth was flat as long as your TV told you so. You can't think for yourself, that's clear enough. "The people will believe what the media tells them they believe."
George Orwell
"The fact that an opinion has been widely held is no evidence that it is not utterly absurd."
Bertrand Russell
FRTothus 3 years ago
You know if you want to portray yourself as a independent thinker, you be wiser not to finish off with a quote from someone else jackass.
911TruthMatters 3 years ago
Again, you have no argument, so you resort to name-calling.
FRTothus 3 years ago
have you seen the nose of the plane come out of the other side of the tower in this simulation?
You know "as seen on TV".
theonlyreallaz 3 years ago
its a false simulation which has been crafted in order to support the fake videos of boeings hitting the south tower, broadcast on 911.
youtube:
"NIST versus Purdue Boeing Crash Simulation"
"911 amateur part 3"
google:
"purduesimulation.doc"
blawyer 3 years ago
It's official! Most people on Youtube are liberal idiots who hate the United States of America and belive that our own goverment attacked and destroyed the Twin Towers to start a war.
WTCTribute 3 years ago
One of the best things about America are the rights and freedoms granted to the people in the constitution. If you were to analyze your statement you will determine what you just said is ludicrous. I can't help you do that though... you're on your own. good luck
webovisionca 3 years ago
You must wake up to the TRUTH!
Stopping hiding from it.
Do the research!
Listen to the facts, they are overwhelming!
Google Search: RING OF POWER
PeaceIsRad 3 years ago
Features missing from this "Simulation"...
A) The fireball which apparently barrelled down the liftshafts to blow out the lobby, basement and the windows of nearby buildings at ground level.
B) The collapse initation inside the towers
C) The collapse sequence which then follows, the straight down collapse into the path of most resitance with the tower top "crushing down" the undamged structure below the point of impact.
So why did Pardue not produce a simulation of this?
djmdb 3 years ago
Last by not least, HOW on earth can the heat cause any damage on the columns down on the main plane´s impact, if the source of heat was such low (take a physics journey to Madrid´s Windsor Tower), and it only affects on the upper floors...coincidently the only ones that stayed integral during the Collapse...
Apart from the structural damage caused by planes on those affected floors the REST of the BUILDING was INTACT, and do your research, this building was designed to last, not to crack.
FanFisique 4 years ago
Designed to last an impact from a 767 going 500 MPH? And 590? It was NEVER designed to survive an impact of those speeds, especially with that much jet fuel still available in the plane.
When the outer beams snapped, the trusses dragged the core, which, with gravity's help, snapped the core and started a collapse which doomed the entire building.
WTCTribute 3 years ago
Yes retard...you can find on the tube a former WTC Responsible that comments about this buildings special design to COPE WITH not just ONE but MULTIPLE IMPACTS OF A BOEING 707 TYPE AIRCRAFT.
watch?v=S2GIAlV3inM
Retard.
FanFisique 3 years ago
Yeah, but guess what, and here's the thing that they should mention. Those 707's were thought to hit the plane going at speeds a plane would normally have during LANDING! They thought the plane would get lost in the fog, or piloting went dead. The fuel would be almost empty also.
So, yeah, they would be able to survive 707's, not 767's. Also, the Towers did well against what they stood up against. They stood for an hour (ST) and an hour and a half (NT) which is extremely good.
WTCTribute 3 years ago
Um, there isn't much of a difference between a 707 and a 767. It's slightly heavier yet it's slower. 707 would cause more damage due to it's speed. Going by that then the result would have to be the same...which doesn't mix right.
SpraxIAKS 3 years ago
More speed equals greater damages, regardless of weight and mass? If that was true then an arrow would do greater damage to a window than a thrown rock would do, because you know...arrow is faster than a rock! HUUUURRR!
RedeemedChef 3 years ago
wow! great purdue!! wheres the central core of the building? or do you idiots always do simulations half arsed? this show floors and outer walls... are we all idiots? my way of looking at it is when aluminium hits steel at 500mph steel wins, not in your sim eh? i dont suppose you included any ACTUAL DATA in this? no? didnt think so.
BiliousTrumpstaine 4 years ago 2
In real life the plane went right through the building! Look at the videos!
How does this show me how they collapsed?
kendoggydogg 4 years ago
actually there is evidence that proves that most of the videos of the planes hitting the towers were faked
thepossessor 4 years ago
There's more evidence that a good deal of the second plane footage is real. There is one CNN Exclusive which is a half arsed composite (so they'd have more than 2 seconds of the plane prior to impact. The first plane footage is likely real but it's so edited and out of focus it's worthless.
MulletManSam 4 years ago
the possesser, the folks saw the planes hit. Videos are available from a variety of different sources. the event was captured live. There is no credible evidence that any of this was faked.
seneca67 4 years ago
Really, I put my money on the THOUSANDS of horrified New Yorker's present in lower Manhattan as proof enough. You CT people are out of your minds.... "The Video's were faked..." I guess the eye witnesses were all CIA operatives giving academy award performances.
trudog2 4 years ago
Comment removed
treeman222 4 years ago 7
unfortunately most people are brainwashed and believe that whatever the gov't says is true, it's pretty evident that they covered it up, and even more evident that the tyrants working through the gov't planned and executed 911, I'm not just talking out of my ass, people need to thoroughly investigate and research 911, I mean people are doing more investigating than the 911 commision ever did,
thepossessor 4 years ago 2
@treeman222 Yes i agree with all you have said here 2 years ago, the put options aspect is very interesting as is Goldman Sachs selling $240 million worth of B.P. stocks just before the oil spill.Follow the money trail it brings up alot of questions
73mandala 1 year ago
@treeman222 Lol, and then they said that WTC 7 fell because of falling debris - what kind of shit is that?
12OclockLow 1 year ago
@12OclockLow
"Lol, and then they said that WTC 7 fell because of falling debris - what kind of shit is that? "
Building 7 was demolished BECAUSE of falling debris. There were no resources and manpower enough to put out the fires they were needed elsewhere.
The towers are clearly not being demolished, building 7 is clearly demolished. Notice the clouds forming at the base first. In the case of towers the clouds only start when the debris hit the street.
obaeyens 1 year ago
@obaeyens Admitting WTC7 was demolished is tantamount to admitting foreknowledge.
DarkwingScooter 1 year ago
where are the core columns in this simulation? i think its more important to see a simulation of the building being detonated. there's no way it could have collapsed.. just like an egg carton wouldn't collapse if you shot the top of it off... and the wtc was far stronger for its weight.
iamafractal 4 years ago
do you really think that with how the simulation is seen, that they wouldve been able to include it?
911NeverForget 4 years ago
well i think with a computer simulation, anything is possible. what we really should do is make scale models out of the actual correct materials. i challenge ANYBODY to make a scale model explode like the real ones did without detonating explosives. check out ae911truth dot org. that's a great site where very sober minded architects and engineers debunk bush's lies about 9/11.
iamafractal 4 years ago 2
You idiot, this is a finite element simulation. Finite element simulations simply show the results of parameters inputted. In these simulations, all of the data about the wtc including material constants, lengths, boundary conditions are replicated exactly, and the simulation then takes the inputed data and lets the laws of physics show what happens. Why does your opinion overrule the latest proven techniques in computational structural mechanics?
underriot 4 years ago
I'm perfectly aware of what it is. i guess it makes you an idiot not to realize that. ANY data could be entered. We do not know just from what we see here, for example, if all the box columns, at their appropriate size, spacing, etc, were entered into the simulation. this simulation only covers the first few (and undisputed) seconds of the airplane portion of the event. it does not even come close to the collapse. lets wait for them to get that, using the actual blue prints, then we can talk.
iamafractal 4 years ago
what is the purpose of this simulation...
migo53333 4 years ago
@iamafractal ive done it, take that. i took a model airplane and used it as a template and built a whole new plane, complete with engines that run off a formula equivalent to jet fuel.i then built and exact replica of both towers and flew the plane into the "north" tower using strings and pulleys as guidance then using quick release the strings released the plane at a precise scale speed. then i took my footage and compared that to the 9/11 footage and wham! almost exact!! i was so happy!!!
kendrick2541 1 year ago
@kendrick2541 that's great. let's see the video of that.
iamafractal 1 year ago
@iamafractal i ran out of characters, anyway to continue, i myself am a physicist, structural, and mechanical engineer. i was surprised myself at the results. and even the collapse was equivalent, except there was no dust when mine fell lol. i used to think it was the government but now i dont. with my results i now know that i was just the planes that took down the building. in my scale model it worked and it was precise. i take that as enough evidence. does anyone else?
kendrick2541 1 year ago
@iamafractal that can't work because you can't scale down material strength, therefore even if you had lets say a 1/30 model, the aluminum plane simulate would still need to hit at 500mph.
xxcurnuxx 1 year ago
Too bad fire can't actually melt steel. That's a simple fact you can check without a computer simulation. What would really be helpful, is a simulation on how everything turned to dust and the buildings came down at free fall speed. This simulation does not show how the buildings fell.
pbot27 4 years ago
1967, January 16: McCormick Place Fire
How about the tanker fire in San Francisco which brought down a steel reinforced bridge? Just to name some examples of steel being taken out fire.
Bundy133T 4 years ago
Thats just plain wrong, fire can remove almost 20% of the structural strength of steal beams, the towers did not fall at free fall speed, other simulations clearly show time and time again how the building fell with the impact of an aircraft and fire damage.
veryverybadwolf 4 years ago
Several aircraft in recent years,dc10's and 767's have broken wings in landings with descent rates lower than 20 ft/sec.
machfron 4 years ago
Wings break off in hard landings.What incredible horseshit this fake simulation is.
machfron 4 years ago
It's called "intertia".
ConanTL 4 years ago
Dammit, stop using real physics terms. You must be part of the plot. You know that anyone can see that a real aluminum plane would just have bounced clean off the building. Teams of engineering students using real data can't possibly be trusted - someone got to them too, man. Grow up - anyone who doesn't believe in the truther conspiracy of the week is a certified CFR member.
ghk13287 4 years ago
Thank you for not pointing out that I misspelled inertia.
ConanTL 4 years ago
It's frightening to see such falsehoods coming from a reputed university.
machfron 4 years ago
It's frightening to see such falsehoods coming from dick heads like Alex Jones, a man without the proper qualifications who has never built a simulation of his own to explain his theories and makes a load of money from selling his books and DVD's.
veryverybadwolf 4 years ago 2
The academic prostitutes who produced this shit ought to be stripped of their degrees.
machfron 4 years ago
THAT´S RIGHT BRO!!! the thumb up didn´t bring much, i leave it so!!!
MuieLaPahar 4 years ago
video of the collapse from the ideal angle, facing the damaged face of the building. The fire may have burned, or even exploded, the diesel fuel powering generators on floor 5. This probably weakened the transfer trusses and girders between floors 5 and 7 that transferred load to the smaller-sized foundation. Coupled with the probably severe damage already sustained in the collapse of the towers, it was only a matter of time before the load-bearing capabilities of the structure were exceeded.
DarkSpy87 4 years ago
You obviously haven't look at the way the foundation was constructed for this building. the foundation was actually smaller then the first floor of the building, due to a substation the structure was constructed on. Also, no other event has ever happened like 9-11, and it is difficult, if not impossible, to judge an event that we've never even conceived of. Buildings are simply not able to absorb such extreme amounts of punishment. We also have very little imagery or (cont.)
DarkSpy87 4 years ago
yea I wanted to believe that our gov could do such a horriable thing..see one fishy story after another and then a complete cover up is adiquit for me to ask question..esp. when ALL of the investgation was conducted by the criminals..and the criminals own the media...its not a conspiracy if math science and logic back it up..
occision 4 years ago
the only people who still believe the official 911 story just watch to much fox news and tv in general...
occision 4 years ago
The only people who believe the Conspiracy Theories spend too much time reading website info that only portraty their point of view
Theoddkiwi 4 years ago
this vid totaly proves nothing..great job..911 needs to be investigated as the gov has something to hide..
killinthepit 4 years ago
Flight 11, 175, and 77 were not intercepted by military aircraft. This is unacceptable. The drills being conducted were Vigilant Guardian and Northern Vigilance.
brandon112586 4 years ago
Sweet.
brandon112586 4 years ago
I don't believe that the Pentagon was the destination of Flight 77.
brandon112586 4 years ago
Agreed, but it all relates. Was is a coincidence that the military was standing down that day, and that is was conducting war drills simulating those exact attacks?
brandon112586 4 years ago
Fine, but Hani Hanjour was described as someone who could barely fly a Cessna. He was a terrible pilot.
brandon112586 4 years ago
Nothing logical is legal in the US. I'll check that out. We trained Osama bin Laden. The Bush family has close ties to the bin Ladens. We helped Saddam develop his chemical weapons. What do you think happened, and why do you think our government is covering things up?
brandon112586 4 years ago
Nice. I've been to Gronigen.
brandon112586 4 years ago
Well to me guys flying planes into buildings is not as important as to why warnings were ignored, our skies were not protected, and how they somehow defied the laws of physics at the WTC, and how the incompetent pilots pulled off stunts that most experienced commercial could only dream of pulling off, like the 270 degree bank turn at 500 mph that Flight 77 supposedly made.
brandon112586 4 years ago
I certainly don't want them on the passenger lists.
brandon112586 4 years ago
Also interesting that the government-released pancake scenario leaves the core of the buildings intact, which is not what actually happened. I'd like to see a graphic of WTC 7. I'd like to see anything from the government on WTC 7. They can't prove a lie.
brandon112586 4 years ago
So, if we shouldn't believe them, why are people defending the official story? I'm actually enjoying this. It's a real discussion. Where are you from?
brandon112586 4 years ago
Blown to kingdom come.
brandon112586 4 years ago
I don't consider them victims, but they were killed, so they were casualties.
brandon112586 4 years ago
The idea that it lept out of his pocket and survived that explosion is bogus. 6 of the hijackers have turned up alive, and only the hijackers from Flight 77, and Atta, showed up on airport security cameras. They were also not mentioned on a single casuality list.
brandon112586 4 years ago
The black sooty smoke coming out of the towers is also indicitive of a dying fire. Firefighters even said that there was no fire they couldn't contain. We have been lied to. Why are you defending what the Bush cronies say? They lied about Iraq and cheated in 2 elections. Why should we believe them and the government-run agencies about 9-11?
brandon112586 4 years ago
It is interesting to note that the melting point of aluminum is 660C, while experiments in other buildings in the US, Australian, Japan, and the UK showed that open-air fires, such as office fires, like the WTC, can only reach temperatures of 360C. This is hot enough for jet fuel to burn, but not hot enough to melt, let alone weaken steel. Even at 550C, steel has 60% of its strength. Fire could not have brought down the towers. Period.
brandon112586 4 years ago
Strange how Mohammed Atta's passport somehow lept out of his pocket, through a "raging inferno" and onto the street a couple blocks away. Talk about far-fetched...
brandon112586 4 years ago
I found that guy's website to be completely pointless. He doesn't make connection between the aluminum and why the buildings fell. You can't prove a lie. Maybe that's why the government has no official explanation as to why WTC 7 fell, and as to how fire caused the buildings to collapse. The Commission lied about the design of the buildings in order to make the "truss" theory plausable. This is the report you're defending?
brandon112586 4 years ago
The structural support for the towers was the inner core. That's where the center of gravity was. If the floors pancaked, the core should have been left standing. The plane in the South Tower did not breach the core of the building. It should not have fallen. The buildings were designed to withstand much larger fires (duh...STEEL), and multiple plane impacts. Fire does not bring down steel buildings. It doesn't happen. Read up on the design of the towers.
brandon112586 4 years ago
So the plane exploded and somehow paper survived? Please. You said the mail was on the plane. The Towers were not made from aluminum, and the composition of planes is not public knowledge. Melting aluminum is irrelevant in regards to why the towers collapsed. If you look at thermite explosions, they look exactly like what is coming out of the South Tower. There are also photos of the center columns with perfectly diagonal cut marks, similar to those associated with CDs.
brandon112586 4 years ago
True, but steel weakens at 50% of its melting point, or 1500F. Temperatures in the buildings were never recorded above 800F, which is a little more than 25% of the melting point. They could not have weakened that quickly at such low temperatures. There are many other stories of steel buildings burning at much higher temperatures for much longer, days in fact, that still remained standing.
brandon112586 4 years ago
He has some good data, except he avoids mentioning the actual temperatures that were recorded inside the Trade Center, none of which were hot enough to melt metal. He also doesn't make a connection between the molten metal and the collapse of the tower. If the metal was indeed not steel, the fires could not have been hot enough to cause the building to collapse. Catch 22.
brandon112586 4 years ago
Nevermind, I got it. I'll check it out.
brandon112586 4 years ago
I typed in that URL and it doesn't exist.
brandon112586 4 years ago
So we are supposed to believe that a plane crash melted fireproofed steel but US Mail somehow miraculously survived? The fires were hot enough to melt steel but not burn paper?
brandon112586 4 years ago
There are military planes with windows, seats, paper, wheels, and of course, a fuselage. But that's irrelevant. The fact is, the towers were designed to withstand much more severe impacts. Fire doesn't cause steel buildings to fall, and molten metal can be seen pouring out of the South Tower, which can only be explained by thermite or thermate. Jet fuel does not burn hot enough to melt steel.
brandon112586 4 years ago
Exactly, there has never been an investigation into what really happened. There are too many conflicting accounts to just blindly accept the official story.
brandon112586 4 years ago
To : nootpad
All bunk video's put together by con-spiracy con-artists !
cdddraftsman 4 years ago
cdddrafrtsman goes by this kind of logic.
A body is found with two gunshot wounds to the head and a third to the chest. The gun is found in the right hand of the victim. The victim is left handed.
Based on the "evidence" the coroner declares the case a suicide. Despite the fact that that conclusion makes no sense to any intelligent and rational human being, cdddrafstman continues to believe the official version.
Koralaa 4 years ago
Whats sad is I'm wasting my time trying to argue with a clinical paranoid. Whats fantasy is denying all the video footage of PLANES flying into the towers, including amateur footage. I can almost understand how people might not think a plane hit the pentagon, but there is a wealth of evidence of two planes slamming into the two towers. Also, many people died on those planes, including the Executive producer of Frasier and his wife, and one of the founders of Akamai.
ebulating 4 years ago
The only thing the NPT proves is that you are incredibly stupid. I mean, wow. There really are no words.
ebulating 4 years ago
Firefighters reported seeing a "green bomberstyle aircraft" hit the South Tower. Do you think they would have mistaken that for a commercial 767? No. I doubt the plans that hit the WTC were Boeings. Bombers would explain the flashes that occur before the planes hit the towers.
brandon112586 4 years ago
911 was an inside job. There were no hijackers. None of the 'hijackers' were on the official passenger lists (CNN. com) Many of the 'hijackers' are still alive (BBC). None of the 'hijackers' bodies were recovered at any of the crash sites. Look at the evidence, watch --> loose change, 911 in plane site, terror storm, 911 mysteries, ultimate con trailer, money masters <-- how did the government give the media names and photos SO FAST -- 10am on 911?
gilligxx 4 years ago
Check out Prison Planet.
Steve Watson has debunked this piece of government propaganda
thermate911 4 years ago
have been back from Afghanistan and Iraq by now.
jsvramirez 4 years ago
What amazes me is that people can think that our government or any government can act so efficiently as to pull off a 9/11 caper, hiding bombs and detonating them, getting people off planes at secure locations, etc. If our government is really that efficient, our troops would
jsvramirez 4 years ago
Precisely, jsvrameriz. Dennis Leary said it best, "Bush is not smart enough to figure out how to end this war in Iraq, but he is apparently smart enough to set this thing up?" These conspiracy theorists used to make me sick. Now they just make me laugh.
phralmulo 4 years ago
BUSH didnt set this up..he is only a dumb puppet. CHENEY SET IT UP....Dennis Leary isnt a political analyst...he is just a comedian with a grumpy whiney schtick...
xpez 4 years ago
LMAO! Seriously... you need to stop pushing the Q-tip in when you feel resistance.
phralmulo 4 years ago
LMAO! Seriously You need to stop pushing the Q-tip when you feel resistance in your ASS becauSe thats where your brain is...in your ASS!!! DUMBASS -get it??... LMAO!!!!
xpez 4 years ago
The reason the Madrid fire didn't bring down the tower is because IT HAD A CONCRETE CORE! Concrete is much more heat resistant than steel. That means that the two situations are not comparable! I'm getting so sick of how the conspiracy idiots manipulate evidence and filter facts to fit there insane schemes. and just plain LIE! Google Madrid fire concrete and click on the first result. It says how the concrete structure of the building performed extraordinarily well.
ebulating 4 years ago
werent the floors of the WTC made of concrete??? SMART GUY...
xpez 4 years ago
the cement would protect the steel that surrounded it..making the STEEL STRONGER!!! DUMBASS
xpez 4 years ago
The sheer idiocy of the conspiracy idiots never ceases to amaze me!
Drop a concrete block on a Styrofoam cup and measure how much the cup slows down the concrete block. Not much! This is similar to how the weight of how ever many floors above the impact points all fell simultaneously on a SINGLE FLOOR AT A TIME. This instantly ripped off the floor and its weight was then added to the mass falling on the next floor. And the whole ti me its all accelerating at 9.8m/s^2 , gaining momentum.
ebulating 4 years ago
LOGIC!!! *GASP* YOU ARE HURTING MY HEAD! No no no....must believe all eye witnesses who heard "what sounds like explosions" at WTC, must ignore all eye witnesses who saw a plane hit the Pentagon...ONLY WAY, MUST KEEP THEORY...*GASP*
peergynt91 4 years ago