Building Collapse due to Plane Crash

Here's are some facts about this video:

- This is an actual computer simulation using ASI's proprietary technology. see our ExtremeLoading.com website for more information about the technology.

- We did not conduct this experiment to prove or disprove anything. Only that we could do it in our software.

- The building is the AP Murrah building from the Oklahoma City disaster. It is reinforced concrete. What you see here is only the actual structural components, not things like curtain walls and furniture, etc.

- The plane is a shell, much like the building itself. But just because you don't see all the pieces doesn't mean they aren't accounted for. For example, the mass and velocity of the plane are true to life so far as a computer program can approximate.

- It is true we did not simulate the explosion that would have occurred. Most likely this would have decimated the entire structure, which isn't as large as the Twin Towers were. To make comparisons between the two would be pointless.

- This is an engineered simulation, no tricks, no animation, and to be frank was done in 2004. The technology behind this simulation was light-years ahead of any other comparable software then, and it has only gotten better today.

- Instead of throwing conspiracy theories at this video, you should be writing your congress and telling them they need to use this technology to evaluate our current decaying infrastructure.

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• Building
• Collapse
• Plane
• Crash
• Simulation
• Extreme
• Loading
• collision
• oops
• boom
• cool
• wow
• AEM
• FEM
• ELS
• ELT

[BlackSpid3y]

i thought when a plane hits a building it will expload?but still cool

[appliedscienceint]

@BlackSpid3y you are right. The explosion was not included in this simulation.

[tocamadera]

plane is not a solid body is just an empty aluminium body.

[appliedscienceint]

@tocamadera Yes, this is the case in the simulation.

[appliedscienceint]

@FSPilotsUK because a 767 slamming into a steel building won't cause a single spark or flame will it? Fail.

[appliedscienceint]

@Merlin5x5 please visit the ExtremeLoading com site for answers.

[appliedscienceint]

@CallumPK you are right. We did not include the explosion as part of this simulation. We only wished to analyze the impact.

[appliedscienceint]

@MaryStewart Did you not see the plane "get torn up"? Please watch it again, the plane gets pretty well torn up.

[appliedscienceint]

@frosty9595 because it's an engineered simulation. You could note that if we simulated the explosion that would have been involved, the rest of the structure would have been affected.

[appliedscienceint]

@mrledfeb no.

[appliedscienceint]

@N1k1mon If I understand you correctly, the toppling effect you are referring to would have required more force than we are capable of generating. Think of it like toppling a row of dominos, and then enlarge those dominos to the size of the WTC.

[appliedscienceint]

@unoriginality1 You are right. Which is why that part was not simulated. There would be nothing left to analyze. Remember this in an engineered simulation, obliterating everything is beyond the scope.

[appliedscienceint]

@ItsTimothy . They have, mostly conspiracy rants not pertinent to the simulation itself or of any value really.