@@KaiKostack When I read that you won't "endorce conspiracy theories", I take it to mean you will only accept the oh-fishy-al story fed to you. Science and engineering don't work that way. You are not doing yourself any favors when you decide only the government story is the acceptable story.
all things concidered this looks very complicated . . so many constraints and possibly around 50,000 rigid body objects of various shapes and sizes . . but it does show the this collapse very well
@@pepelapiu2004 Thanks for your comment, but my work is based on science, not narratives. This simulation uses real data and engineering principles to analyze the collapse, not to support any story.
Something that should be noted is that the damaged top of WTC1 spun less then 1/8th of 1 degree then began its decent. This spin (most likley caused by an internal core failure) caused the north tower to flex out and then stabilize. This all happened at POI over the course of less then a quarter of a second in which the north tower undamaged region had already fallen 5 feet.
I noticed that in some of the home videos that are available on UA-cam. I always wondered why the north tower collapsed first when it was the second one hit. Another video that shows the other side of the north tower from what news channels captured shows the plane striking the corner of the building, putting an angular gash in it. After I saw that, then the odd collapse of the north tower made sense. I watched another video about the south tower collapse and they described that as being a pancake collapse, the floors inside just fell like a stack of pancakes being dropped.
@@cadence4527 With all due respect, I must correct you. The first to be hit was the north tower, and the first to fall was the south tower. One of the theories is that having been impacted further down, the weakened area supported the weight of more floors, which caused the collapse, despite having been hit later.
@@cadence4527 WTC1s collapse is indictive of a failure of possibly the core no longer being able to hold floors 102 down to 96. The slow collapse of these floors can be seen in helicopter footage at first. Then it can be seen 5 to 7 minutes before the tower collapased in a massive issuing of black sooty smoke out of the highest POI wound. There is video roughly 15 minutes before collapse taken of the southern side of WTC1 at floors 92-roof which clearly shows at least floor 102 having failed and collapsed ontop of floor 101. This was a helicopter video in which the pilot famusly states "Its inevitable. The tower will collapse".
@@lobaandrade7172 Sure do. It also mentions the 106 floor "crumbling" (from Victim reports of that height most likely). There is clear video of the 101 floor being pancaked by the at least 102 if not also the 103 floor which all are on fire with extreme black smoke. ua-cam.com/video/wZ34eWqbayk/v-deo.html The video above is from the History Channel (USA) Documentary: One Day in America. and is the closest to uncut of what one would be allowed to see on TV.
Except for the fact that it goes directly against all laws of physics. You can only produce this kind of bs if you tampered with this simulation in ways that would make any physicist/engineer cringe
@@Flyingdutchy33 I'm an architectural engineer and a physicist lmao. This simulation is extremely helpful in many ways. It can also help others understand more about how the buildings went down.
@@AllPileup A serious reply, I can tell. Look, you find me any engineer that will say that you can freefall a structure into its own footprint without meeting _any_ resistance on the way down by pancaking, we can resume talking. Until such time, refrain from making comments that do not contribute to the discussion.
This is the one we've all been waiting for! I know how much work this all takes, so I have huge respect for the work you've done here and with BCB in general! 😎
I noticed that almost all the simulations started with the tower already being damaged. If you didn’t add any of the damage to your tower model, would the simulations still show it standing upright? I would assume that if not, then the collapses in your simulation are caused by your tower’s design itself being flawed. Then, your simulation would not accurately reflect the collapse caused by the plane, nor the tower’s decades of standing strong.
In fact, one of the first goals of the development was to make the tower standing stable, which, as you can see, was not easy. Complex structures also leave a lot of room for bugs. The initial damage should not have caused the tower to collapse.
Very incredible detailing and physics. A few things to note; 1. the central core of WTC 1 could be seen sagging as the collapse initiated, 2. because of the weakness of the concrete used (could only withstand approx 4000 lbs psi or around that), the concrete floors would've obliterated and crumbled as the collapse progressed. Because of this we cannot determine what the true collapse of either building really looked like as they were both enveloped in catastrophic amounts of dust and debris as they crumbled. WTC 2 gives us a better idea of how the building behaved as it collapsed because you can briefly see the top of the tower as it keels over before it gets shrouded in dust, but for another brief moment you see what looks to be the facade cascading away through the dust. It's very possible that both tower disintegrated at the very top early on in the collapse and created a debris ball in essence that pile drove into the bottom floors. I recently saw a video where an engineer mentioned that the building could've withstood between 6 and 11 floors being dropped down. Approximately 11 if it was gradual or approximately 6 floors if it were sudden. In both towers' cases, it was far more than 6 or 11 floors suddenly dropping down. Very keen to see where this goes, though.
I would argue that the physics in this video are by far the most lackluster part of it. They are entirely rigidbody, and the "bending" you see is in fact just constraints between objects in the system. There is no stress-strain analysis, nothing to do with heat whatsoever. The models, however, are very well done.
@@silencethequiet From the looks of it, these are only tests. It seems that each test is using different parameters of strength or rigidity in the parts of the structure. Physics engines can be finicky, especially when trying to replicate things as they are in the real world. Not all steel is built or cast identically. Steel that was cast in the 60's/70's for the original WTC differs when compared to modern steel. There's also the concrete that was used as well for the floors and walls. The concrete in the original towers was significantly weaker as well compared to what we use today, especially in the new 1 WTC tower. It'll be interesting to see how this develops and if it can be narrowed down to a more accurate model that can replicate the real thing as it was.
It's been so long since this was announced and no word until now, I honestly thought this project had been abandoned. So glad that it's still going, and I can't wait to see the final product.
Yes! He stays next to what he announced so long ago! Thank you for that Big Mountain full of development, Troubleshoot, and Time that you invested to simulate the currently most historic event of the 21st Century. You are a Person were i look up to that huge level of expertise that you experienced from all these Years of working with Blender. I wish i could some stuff learn from an certain Experienced person like you.
@@Top_Maths I've taken a closer look at the artifacts and I think they're not that bad in 4K resolution. You have to know that the source material isn't perfect either. For example, the strong moiré effect in some shots was already introduced during rendering because I tried different lighting settings, some of which were really bad. So I'd say if someone really needs source material, probably for their own video projects, they can ask me. And if your idea is to upload the entire archive for conservation reasons, then I think the idea is appealing, but at the same time I'm realistic enough to know that almost nobody will ever look at it. 🙂
The End Sequence looks very interessing and quite similar to real collapse . But the real collapse was covered in dust , so i very interesing to the final video .
Dude, I have been following your simulation progress over the years, and I gotta say. You're one of the best. I've also been dabbling in blender simulations over the years and even though my work is nearly not as good as yours, it has certainly gotten a lot better. Good luck.
Your simulation is coming along well despite the limitations inherent. Understandably, you can't simulate any sort of deflection in any steel members, which they'd be subjected to during a collapse. Deflection is important. Falling members from above meeting static structure below create opposing force impacts where falling steel would bend before they break others off their joints. With the simulated members being rigid models without ductility, the collapse mechanics behaves starkly different to real life.
The elements in the simulation are rigid, but the connections are not. In fact, plastic deformations are simulated, as are damping effects in collisions. In the next video I will show component tests where you can see this better.
Your videos are depicting something closer to a house of cards or a pile of dominos, more than an actual steel structure that was designed to survive several airliner impacts. From the moment collapse is initiated, you are turning the structure into something that approaches a liquid with no real structural value.
This is not the actual simulation just yet. This is a video of the process of him going through numerous issues over the years trying to make the simulation work correctly. The end result is at the end of the video, which looks closer to real life than the earlier simulations. Everything before that is just "testing".
"Designed to survive several airliner impacts" That's false, in the maximum foreseeable risk insurance report, the buildings are ideally designed & insured for one large-body aircraft impact. Under the airliner impact analysis section the insurance MFR report severely underestimates the damage an airline could do to the buildings (I believe it's estimated at only 30% damage). What the design of the buildings did not account for was the uncontrolled fires that resulted after impact. If you are planning on doing insurance fraud, you don't underestimate the value of your assets, which is what was done in the Silverstein properties MFR report.
@@Top_Maths Imagine that. Designing a building specifically to resist airline impacts, but never thinking of the fuel!! Lol Is it possible that they never considered the fuel because back in the 70's they had this ridiculous belief that open air kerosene fires would not destroy steel? You know, those retarded myths of the crazy 60's!!
@@pepelapiu2004 people in the '60s were dumb. Like seriously, there was a product called headlight wipers, Which was like windshield wipers for your headlights. The worst part is that people actually bought it thinking that it would be useful. Dumb product, dumb buyers, dumb generation. Also they were all racist, so yeah, they were all pretty dumb.
Once you figure out the physics, will you make a simulation of the South Tower? I hope you do as it will help paint a fuller picture of what really happened.
Pretty obvious what happened, planes hit the buildings and thousands of tons of debris & heat caused the internal collapse of the buildings, ya ever play jenga?
El ultimo render, que es el se parece mas a la realidad, se corta. Puedes terminarlo hasta el colapso total ce la torre, o es que a partir de determinado momento se detiene la caida y queda la parte inferior de pie?
I have a question about the trusses. So in this simulation it looks like the joints are where force and torque is transferred and when the force exceeds the cross sectional strength it breaks. Does this allow the prediction of buckling? It seems to be accurate on the large scale but in the detailed view of the truss I noticed the joints were the failure point but I feel like trusses should have the ability to buckle. So I am wondering if the constraints allow predicting the behavior of buckling, without showing it, by using extreme dislocation of the joints. Because buckling is energy absorption I think this would be important in showing the transformation from high resilience to high energy absorption where particularly in high compression force without any bending moment. I also enjoy your videos involved with similar energy absorption things. lol
Of course, simplifications are used to simulate such a large building. Nevertheless, the connections are calculated in their various degrees of freedom including plastic deformation, which will allow for buckling and damping effects. In the next video I will show some component tests that were used to determine the connection properties.
Also have to keep in mind that the framing for the radio tower served as both a brace for the radio antenna under high winds, and also as a reinforcement point that connected the outer support structures to the supports at the core of the building. It worked to redistribute some of the load. In the real-world footage as the building collapses, you can note that the radio tower and central columns at the top of the building begin to sink before the outer walls give way. The framing both redistributed loads, and also was capable of dragging down everything else with it in a chain-reaction.
It did strip the perimeter columns away as it failed, with the prefabricated truss system being the only weak link in this particular scenario that happened. If the truss connection is the perimeter to the core, and it definitely was, this is how the failure took place. With all the smoke and dust, it was difficult to tell. The south tower tips to the angle of the impact zone. While the north tower more lined up. If the truss system fails, it's the only way for it to happen. It was really 2 collapses at once.one was the perimeter columns having nothing to hold them to the core any longer,and that ones below it weren't going to prevent it. The 2nd is the core,but without the perimeter failing, the core couldn't fail on its own. The floors below were still intact, but after that, much of an area was gone. Nothing was going to stop it.
Indeed, the BCB only works with an older version of Blender (2.79). A port to later versions is planned, but not my priority at the moment. A working version can be found here: kaikostack.com/fracture
I'm pretty sure the top of the north tower tilted a little bit and began to fall; it looks like the area around the plane impact side began to fail and starts to break. And the facade of the top started to literally peel like a banana peel.
Good stuff! Small question: "This is an independent, private project with no financial support or backing from any third parties, individuals, or interest groups." Has the EU withdrawn their funding?
The development of the BCB software was funded as part of an EU research project. However, this research project has no direct connection to the current WTC simulation project, which simply uses this freely available software.
No matter how good you make this model, one thing you definitely should keep in mind is that your model has to ahow the collapse of the floors, then the exterior steel hasto fall.apart from lack of support and lastly about half of the towers core surviving oh and that the initial crash caused a shockwave of damage all the way down to the lobby due to the fireball For example survivors mention seeing stairwells cracked same with the walls and stuff in their offices and you couldsee the damage on the lobby from when the naudet brother filling inside the north tower went inside it
Question: Of course the structure would have to be a lot stronger at the base of the towers, compared to near the top of the towers. This is because the first floor structure had to support the 109 floors of weight above it while the 90th floor structure only had to support the 20 floors of weight above it. Did your models account for thicker columns and thicker core structure at the bottom?
@@MalarPaper9666 Well. The idea of a weaker top structure falling into a stronger lower structure and demolishing the lower structure first. That is a ridiculous concept. This is what the absurd pancake collapse theory is based on - a weaker top structure falling through a progressively stronger lower structure and demolishing all of it as it falls, suspiciously looking like the lower structure is not offering any resistance. I mean, look at the videos again. They all look like a sturdy steel structure suddenly turned into a liquid or a house of cards.
@@KaiKostack Very well. So you are comfortable with a weaker top structure falling into a stronger lower structure and the weaker structure pulverizing the stronger one all the way to the bottom. All seemingly at near free fall speeds? And of course, should anyone have a problem with this logic, they are by definition, crazy conspiracy kooks on par with flat earthers, right?
@@pepelapiu2004 If the physics simulation doesn't have a problem with it, why should I? Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but you should be able to back it up with evidence if you want it to be taken seriously.
But did you know that the World trade center had 7 stories of basement? That's where all of the post collapse debris ended up IRL. This simulation didn't have the basements yet, which is why you see a bunch of debris piled up.
@@zackakai5173 But there wasn't a multistory pile. You have ASSUMED there was.The lobby, and the Golden Ball outside were still plainly visible, and vehicles parked outside were not buried. What was cleared were the remnants of the other buildings, like Building6, which was hollowed out rather than inundated with debris.
Why are the service floors always missing? The towers were 3 buildings stacked on top of each other. You see two distinct bands approximately 1/3rd then 2/3rds the way up. Those floors house things like lift mechanisms, Air conditioning etc and have steel girders out to the perimeter no Trusses. So the Towers collapsed from the top down after damage and a one or more hours of fire. Apparently the Conservation of Energy does not apply in this case. In the 70's there was a far longer Fire in one of the Towers which went to around 5 floors centred around the 19th floor. The building stood for another 20 years yet a FAR Greater weight would have been on those flimsy Trusses.
The floors that are taller are the mechanical floors in this model, but the building has no cladding so you can't really notice them, but the steel columns are coloured silver to make the towers look cladded
So uhm why is it collapsing from the bottom it’s almost as if on videos it collapsed where the impact zone was also how come the base foundations were at ground zero the last one was more accurate
Because every simulation before the final one was just "testing", and they were just showcasing the many bugs and problems he had while perfecting the simulation.
Good simulators. On some, it looked like the tower was made of lego. On others, it reminded me of unused animation of Citadel destruction from Half-Life Episode 1 ending.
This model shows a lack of structural integrity from the base the lower 2/3 of the building was structurally sound These were the tallest buildings in the world built with an integrity for earthquakes, hurricanes and withstand aircraft impacts.
The aircraft that it was tested with were smaller in comparison to the plane that were used on 9/11. Their crash test did not account for any fire though.
Yup, but if you look at the images of the ground zero you can see only a few bent steel structures. I found a gallery of 1300 photos of the ground zero with amazing angles, you can clearly see the pancaked floor and the exteriors walls stuck together.
But the bottom of the buildings did not shatter, this is the opposite of what happened. ??? Not sure I understand why you did not show the tops shattering. The bases were intact.
This is not an actual collapse evaluation. This is a simulation error/bug montage. The end of the video shows the final result on how it actually collapsed.
Eu vi outra simulação que chegava mais próximo da realidade do que aconteceu, as torres entraram em flambagem antes de cair, ou seja, as paredes delas fizeram uma espécie de barriga para dentro causando assim um efeito dominó de todos os andares!
In all these simulations one very important thing is missing: concrete and steel debris that was blasted hundreds of feet away and found embedded in buildings far from the WTC. What energy could have propelled debris that far if not an explosion?
Well how far away are you talking about, and in which direction? Some of the core columns fell over to the East and landed in the next block over. Pieces of build and plane were found in the directions of North and South more than a couple blocks over, which were likely a result of the plane impact.
@@MalarPaper9666 A consistent number of heavy steel beams, concrete debris and human bones has been projected for over a 500 ft radius around both towers in ALL directions, and they were found, photographed and collected by the FEMA and NYFD. Where did the energy to hurdle these large and heavy chunks of of structure so far away from the towers came from?
@@Dooms90Day 500 ft is not a long distance at all when considering the height of the tower in comparison. Not to mention that a 500 ft radius from both towers is really only confined to the size of the plaza and a little bit across each of the streets. To the South, 500 ft was enough to hit 90 West Street, 144 Washington Street, The Deutsche Bank Tower, and crush a small church, but other than that the debris couldn't really go much further because of those buildings. To the East, 500 ft is about the length of the columns I described which fell over. The distance was enough to destroy the rest of the buildings in the plaza, but the buildings on the next street over otherwise sustained hardly any damage aside from broken windows. To the West, 500 ft was enough distance for the debris to hit the financial center, and the Winter garden was almost destroyed. To the North, 500 ft was more than enough distance to hit building 7, and then the collapse of building 7 increased the area destruction by destroying The Fitterman Hall building, and damaging the Barclay-Vesey Building, 20 Vesey Street, and 240 Greenwich Street.
@@Dooms90Day 500 ft is not a long distance at all when considering the height of the towers in comparison. Not to mention that a 500 ft radius from both towers is really only still confined to the size of the plaza and hardly even a little bit across each of the streets.
This isnt even close to what actully happened you should make that clear- it does point out though the the interior box columns simply dissapear- buildings dont fall like that
A quick reminder: This video is focused on scientific simulations and does not endorse any conspiracy theories. See the video description for details.
I dropped everything i was doing to watch this.
Went to the TV room to watch it in 4K and even wiped my glasses just in case lol
@@KaiKostack When I read that you won't "endorce conspiracy theories", I take it to mean you will only accept the oh-fishy-al story fed to you.
Science and engineering don't work that way.
You are not doing yourself any favors when you decide only the government story is the acceptable story.
all things concidered this looks very complicated . . so many constraints and possibly around 50,000 rigid body objects of various shapes and sizes . . but it does show the this collapse very well
@@pepelapiu2004 Thanks for your comment, but my work is based on science, not narratives. This simulation uses real data and engineering principles to analyze the collapse, not to support any story.
@@pepelapiu2004 Says the clown crying about somebody using science to simulate the collapse. Imagine unironically saying something like "oh-fishy-al".
Something that should be noted is that the damaged top of WTC1 spun less then 1/8th of 1 degree then began its decent. This spin (most likley caused by an internal core failure) caused the north tower to flex out and then stabilize. This all happened at POI over the course of less then a quarter of a second in which the north tower undamaged region had already fallen 5 feet.
I noticed that in some of the home videos that are available on UA-cam. I always wondered why the north tower collapsed first when it was the second one hit. Another video that shows the other side of the north tower from what news channels captured shows the plane striking the corner of the building, putting an angular gash in it. After I saw that, then the odd collapse of the north tower made sense.
I watched another video about the south tower collapse and they described that as being a pancake collapse, the floors inside just fell like a stack of pancakes being dropped.
@@cadence4527 With all due respect, I must correct you. The first to be hit was the north tower, and the first to fall was the south tower. One of the theories is that having been impacted further down, the weakened area supported the weight of more floors, which caused the collapse, despite having been hit later.
@@cadence4527 WTC1s collapse is indictive of a failure of possibly the core no longer being able to hold floors 102 down to 96. The slow collapse of these floors can be seen in helicopter footage at first. Then it can be seen 5 to 7 minutes before the tower collapased in a massive issuing of black sooty smoke out of the highest POI wound. There is video roughly 15 minutes before collapse taken of the southern side of WTC1 at floors 92-roof which clearly shows at least floor 102 having failed and collapsed ontop of floor 101. This was a helicopter video in which the pilot famusly states "Its inevitable. The tower will collapse".
@@JosephTobin1you have a link to that video? That sounds fascinating
@@lobaandrade7172 Sure do. It also mentions the 106 floor "crumbling" (from Victim reports of that height most likely). There is clear video of the 101 floor being pancaked by the at least 102 if not also the 103 floor which all are on fire with extreme black smoke.
ua-cam.com/video/wZ34eWqbayk/v-deo.html
The video above is from the History Channel (USA) Documentary: One Day in America. and is the closest to uncut of what one would be allowed to see on TV.
This is about to be the most realistic simulation on this particular topic anyone has ever seen. You should be proud of that.
Except for the fact that it goes directly against all laws of physics. You can only produce this kind of bs if you tampered with this simulation in ways that would make any physicist/engineer cringe
@@Flyingdutchy33 I'm an architectural engineer and a physicist lmao. This simulation is extremely helpful in many ways. It can also help others understand more about how the buildings went down.
@@MalarPaper9666 I think you need to revisit your physics classes
@@Flyingdutchy33 ok mr quantum
@@AllPileup A serious reply, I can tell.
Look, you find me any engineer that will say that you can freefall a structure into its own footprint without meeting _any_ resistance on the way down by pancaking, we can resume talking.
Until such time, refrain from making comments that do not contribute to the discussion.
Wow I can’t wait for the final product
Yeah, I'd be very keen to see what material properties were employed in order to defy all known laws of physics.
@@Flyingdutchy33oh boo hoo continue liking your own comments
@@supermarioplushes2517 I did no such thing. Besides, how do I like my own comment twice?
Boohoo?
@@supermarioplushes2517why did you like your own comment?!?!
@@supermarioplushes2517That’s got to be the weirdest hate comment for attention I’ve ever seen.
That final shot is eerily reminiscent of the real thing. Looking forward to seeing the final result.
This is the one we've all been waiting for! I know how much work this all takes, so I have huge respect for the work you've done here and with BCB in general! 😎
I noticed that almost all the simulations started with the tower already being damaged. If you didn’t add any of the damage to your tower model, would the simulations still show it standing upright?
I would assume that if not, then the collapses in your simulation are caused by your tower’s design itself being flawed. Then, your simulation would not accurately reflect the collapse caused by the plane, nor the tower’s decades of standing strong.
In fact, one of the first goals of the development was to make the tower standing stable, which, as you can see, was not easy. Complex structures also leave a lot of room for bugs. The initial damage should not have caused the tower to collapse.
@@KaiKostack alright, thanks for clearing that up!
@@KaiKostack I'm assuming you had everything "deactivated" from start?
wake up world, Kostack has dropped
World
World
World
World
World
1:37
"I don't feel so good, Mr. Stark"
Very incredible detailing and physics. A few things to note; 1. the central core of WTC 1 could be seen sagging as the collapse initiated, 2. because of the weakness of the concrete used (could only withstand approx 4000 lbs psi or around that), the concrete floors would've obliterated and crumbled as the collapse progressed. Because of this we cannot determine what the true collapse of either building really looked like as they were both enveloped in catastrophic amounts of dust and debris as they crumbled. WTC 2 gives us a better idea of how the building behaved as it collapsed because you can briefly see the top of the tower as it keels over before it gets shrouded in dust, but for another brief moment you see what looks to be the facade cascading away through the dust. It's very possible that both tower disintegrated at the very top early on in the collapse and created a debris ball in essence that pile drove into the bottom floors. I recently saw a video where an engineer mentioned that the building could've withstood between 6 and 11 floors being dropped down. Approximately 11 if it was gradual or approximately 6 floors if it were sudden. In both towers' cases, it was far more than 6 or 11 floors suddenly dropping down. Very keen to see where this goes, though.
I would argue that the physics in this video are by far the most lackluster part of it. They are entirely rigidbody, and the "bending" you see is in fact just constraints between objects in the system. There is no stress-strain analysis, nothing to do with heat whatsoever. The models, however, are very well done.
@@silencethequiet From the looks of it, these are only tests. It seems that each test is using different parameters of strength or rigidity in the parts of the structure. Physics engines can be finicky, especially when trying to replicate things as they are in the real world. Not all steel is built or cast identically. Steel that was cast in the 60's/70's for the original WTC differs when compared to modern steel. There's also the concrete that was used as well for the floors and walls. The concrete in the original towers was significantly weaker as well compared to what we use today, especially in the new 1 WTC tower. It'll be interesting to see how this develops and if it can be narrowed down to a more accurate model that can replicate the real thing as it was.
It's been so long since this was announced and no word until now, I honestly thought this project had been abandoned. So glad that it's still going, and I can't wait to see the final product.
WE GOT THE SIMULATION BEFORE GTA 6 LETS GO
I’m so excited for the finished product
All of these show a collapse from the base and not the points of impact.
Bingo. How did they miss that?
Because you clearly didn’t watch until the end
I appreciate your work simulation of the WTC, please keep up the great work that you do.
Much Blessings to you n your's friend.
Yes! He stays next to what he announced so long ago! Thank you for that Big Mountain full of development, Troubleshoot, and Time that you invested to simulate the currently most historic event of the 21st Century. You are a Person were i look up to that huge level of expertise that you experienced from all these Years of working with Blender. I wish i could some stuff learn from an certain Experienced person like you.
holy shit the last shot looks extremely similar to what it looked like
Hey Kai,
The youtube compression is a nightmare. Can you please make the raw video available for download?
In general I wouldn't mind, but I don't know if the extra effort of hosting is worth it for the few diehard viewers.
@@KaiKostack You don't have to host it, you can always upload it to a mega or do a torrent and I (and others) can seed.
@@KaiKostack So... can you do it?
@@Top_Maths I've taken a closer look at the artifacts and I think they're not that bad in 4K resolution. You have to know that the source material isn't perfect either. For example, the strong moiré effect in some shots was already introduced during rendering because I tried different lighting settings, some of which were really bad. So I'd say if someone really needs source material, probably for their own video projects, they can ask me. And if your idea is to upload the entire archive for conservation reasons, then I think the idea is appealing, but at the same time I'm realistic enough to know that almost nobody will ever look at it. 🙂
@@KaiKostack 🤦♂
The End Sequence looks very interessing and quite similar to real collapse .
But the real collapse was covered in dust , so i very interesing to the final video .
Absolutely amazing, literally been checking this channel every week for an update 😂
Well, this is extremely encouraging. Worth the wait.
Really cool, can’t wait for final results
Small mistake. All these "simulations" seem to assume that the bridges were not steel, but glass...
False, check the component tests in his latest video which demonstrate significant deformation in the floor trusses before breaking.
Dude, I have been following your simulation progress over the years, and I gotta say. You're one of the best. I've also been dabbling in blender simulations over the years and even though my work is nearly not as good as yours, it has certainly gotten a lot better. Good luck.
All these online experts telling you that your work is wrong, so why arnt they doing the same thing
We’re getting close!
We are very far from real physics.
Oh wow! This was quite a journey. When is like the expected final product of the simulation? This 14 year journey has been wild.
Your simulation is coming along well despite the limitations inherent. Understandably, you can't simulate any sort of deflection in any steel members, which they'd be subjected to during a collapse. Deflection is important. Falling members from above meeting static structure below create opposing force impacts where falling steel would bend before they break others off their joints. With the simulated members being rigid models without ductility, the collapse mechanics behaves starkly different to real life.
The elements in the simulation are rigid, but the connections are not. In fact, plastic deformations are simulated, as are damping effects in collisions. In the next video I will show component tests where you can see this better.
Your videos are depicting something closer to a house of cards or a pile of dominos, more than an actual steel structure that was designed to survive several airliner impacts.
From the moment collapse is initiated, you are turning the structure into something that approaches a liquid with no real structural value.
This is not the actual simulation just yet. This is a video of the process of him going through numerous issues over the years trying to make the simulation work correctly. The end result is at the end of the video, which looks closer to real life than the earlier simulations. Everything before that is just "testing".
"Designed to survive several airliner impacts"
That's false, in the maximum foreseeable risk insurance report, the buildings are ideally designed & insured for one large-body aircraft impact. Under the airliner impact analysis section the insurance MFR report severely underestimates the damage an airline could do to the buildings (I believe it's estimated at only 30% damage). What the design of the buildings did not account for was the uncontrolled fires that resulted after impact.
If you are planning on doing insurance fraud, you don't underestimate the value of your assets, which is what was done in the Silverstein properties MFR report.
@@Top_Maths Imagine that. Designing a building specifically to resist airline impacts, but never thinking of the fuel!! Lol
Is it possible that they never considered the fuel because back in the 70's they had this ridiculous belief that open air kerosene fires would not destroy steel? You know, those retarded myths of the crazy 60's!!
@@pepelapiu2004 people in the '60s were dumb. Like seriously, there was a product called headlight wipers, Which was like windshield wipers for your headlights. The worst part is that people actually bought it thinking that it would be useful. Dumb product, dumb buyers, dumb generation. Also they were all racist, so yeah, they were all pretty dumb.
Once you figure out the physics, will you make a simulation of the South Tower? I hope you do as it will help paint a fuller picture of what really happened.
Yes.
Pretty obvious what happened, planes hit the buildings and thousands of tons of debris & heat caused the internal collapse of the buildings, ya ever play jenga?
This is definetly South tower collapse 9:14
I've been waiting so long for you to release this
3:44 that e plosion was like a jumpscare without sound and the flying debris at 3:49 got me too
amazing stuff, really goes to show how complex the buildings were structurally (also amazing that this is a solo project)
Woow, very realistic video! I watch all of your videos, thanks and very very happy year for your simulations.
And you’re showing it collapsing from the bottom for what reason? Who programmed this?
How many YEARS did it take of analyzing every frame in every video of the tower collapsing to make this simulation accurate?
The moment we've been waiting for a long time
I'm amazed that Blender can run this quality of a simulation. What hardware you using and how long does the average sim take to process?
But it collapsed from the top not the bottom
This is attempt nr 8000 to trick people and hide the truth
I felt the same way until I watched the entire video, if anything he's showing that it was caused by the plane crash & nothing but
@@ericschulze5641 This is not an actual collapse evaluation. This is a simulation error/bug montage.
1:39 wtf!??
Fr
The collapse of the towers are definitely some of the most disturbing sights I seen
you saw it like in real life?
@CIeaner23 no, only videos
This will only feature only North Tower or both buildings? Is there any chance in the final simulation for Lobby/Mall level view of collapse?
The final simulation will cover the entire complex. While not every detail can be included, I will aim to show as much as possible.
El ultimo render, que es el se parece mas a la realidad, se corta. Puedes terminarlo hasta el colapso total ce la torre, o es que a partir de determinado momento se detiene la caida y queda la parte inferior de pie?
I have a question about the trusses. So in this simulation it looks like the joints are where force and torque is transferred and when the force exceeds the cross sectional strength it breaks. Does this allow the prediction of buckling? It seems to be accurate on the large scale but in the detailed view of the truss I noticed the joints were the failure point but I feel like trusses should have the ability to buckle. So I am wondering if the constraints allow predicting the behavior of buckling, without showing it, by using extreme dislocation of the joints. Because buckling is energy absorption I think this would be important in showing the transformation from high resilience to high energy absorption where particularly in high compression force without any bending moment. I also enjoy your videos involved with similar energy absorption things. lol
Of course, simplifications are used to simulate such a large building. Nevertheless, the connections are calculated in their various degrees of freedom including plastic deformation, which will allow for buckling and damping effects. In the next video I will show some component tests that were used to determine the connection properties.
Also have to keep in mind that the framing for the radio tower served as both a brace for the radio antenna under high winds, and also as a reinforcement point that connected the outer support structures to the supports at the core of the building.
It worked to redistribute some of the load.
In the real-world footage as the building collapses, you can note that the radio tower and central columns at the top of the building begin to sink before the outer walls give way. The framing both redistributed loads, and also was capable of dragging down everything else with it in a chain-reaction.
I have been waiting!
It did strip the perimeter columns away as it failed, with the prefabricated truss system being the only weak link in this particular scenario that happened. If the truss connection is the perimeter to the core, and it definitely was, this is how the failure took place. With all the smoke and dust, it was difficult to tell. The south tower tips to the angle of the impact zone. While the north tower more lined up. If the truss system fails, it's the only way for it to happen. It was really 2 collapses at once.one was the perimeter columns having nothing to hold them to the core any longer,and that ones below it weren't going to prevent it. The 2nd is the core,but without the perimeter failing, the core couldn't fail on its own. The floors below were still intact, but after that, much of an area was gone. Nothing was going to stop it.
i tried downloading the plugins they dont work anymore when i try to enable it
Indeed, the BCB only works with an older version of Blender (2.79). A port to later versions is planned, but not my priority at the moment. A working version can be found here: kaikostack.com/fracture
YOOOOOO IT DROPPED
But when Depressed Ginger makes videos like this, he gets struck down.
I'm pretty sure the top of the north tower tilted a little bit and began to fall; it looks like the area around the plane impact side began to fail and starts to break. And the facade of the top started to literally peel like a banana peel.
Dang didn’t realized this video would be posted
Is this assuming all the parts cant break apart?
Bro PLEASE stop edging us 😭😭😭
show us mooooore
Good stuff! Small question: "This is an independent, private project with no financial support or backing from any third parties, individuals, or interest groups." Has the EU withdrawn their funding?
The development of the BCB software was funded as part of an EU research project. However, this research project has no direct connection to the current WTC simulation project, which simply uses this freely available software.
@@KaiKostack Thank you for the clarification!
No matter how good you make this model, one thing you definitely should keep in mind is that your model has to ahow the collapse of the floors, then the exterior steel hasto fall.apart from lack of support and lastly about half of the towers core surviving oh and that the initial crash caused a shockwave of damage all the way down to the lobby due to the fireball
For example survivors mention seeing stairwells cracked same with the walls and stuff in their offices and you couldsee the damage on the lobby from when the naudet brother filling inside the north tower went inside it
I just jumped to watching this when I saw it.
1:38 the fact it started tearing itself apart-
Terrifying but very instructive
Question: Of course the structure would have to be a lot stronger at the base of the towers, compared to near the top of the towers.
This is because the first floor structure had to support the 109 floors of weight above it while the 90th floor structure only had to support the 20 floors of weight above it.
Did your models account for thicker columns and thicker core structure at the bottom?
It did have stronger columns towards the bottom. He has said so in some of the other comments.
@@MalarPaper9666 Well. The idea of a weaker top structure falling into a stronger lower structure and demolishing the lower structure first. That is a ridiculous concept. This is what the absurd pancake collapse theory is based on - a weaker top structure falling through a progressively stronger lower structure and demolishing all of it as it falls, suspiciously looking like the lower structure is not offering any resistance.
I mean, look at the videos again. They all look like a sturdy steel structure suddenly turned into a liquid or a house of cards.
Yes, the supports get thicker towards the bottom. If you look closely, you can even see that in the wireframe shot at 9:31.
@@KaiKostack Very well. So you are comfortable with a weaker top structure falling into a stronger lower structure and the weaker structure pulverizing the stronger one all the way to the bottom. All seemingly at near free fall speeds?
And of course, should anyone have a problem with this logic, they are by definition, crazy conspiracy kooks on par with flat earthers, right?
@@pepelapiu2004 If the physics simulation doesn't have a problem with it, why should I? Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but you should be able to back it up with evidence if you want it to be taken seriously.
Nice work
How many objects does the latest simulation have?
Thanks, it initially varied between 50,000 and 70,000 elements per tower.
The simulation is wrong in one important aspect: it depicts significant heaps of post collapse material.
But did you know that the World trade center had 7 stories of basement? That's where all of the post collapse debris ended up IRL. This simulation didn't have the basements yet, which is why you see a bunch of debris piled up.
Oh you mean like the multi-story pile of huge pieces of debris all over the real site for months after the fact?
@@zackakai5173 But there wasn't a multistory pile. You have ASSUMED there was.The lobby, and the Golden Ball outside were still plainly visible, and vehicles parked outside were not buried. What was cleared were the remnants of the other buildings, like Building6, which was hollowed out rather than inundated with debris.
that antenna is on some kind of drugs
Why are the service floors always missing? The towers were 3 buildings stacked on top of each other. You see two distinct bands approximately 1/3rd then 2/3rds the way up. Those floors house things like lift mechanisms, Air conditioning etc and have steel girders out to the perimeter no Trusses. So the Towers collapsed from the top down after damage and a one or more hours of fire. Apparently the Conservation of Energy does not apply in this case. In the 70's there was a far longer Fire in one of the Towers which went to around 5 floors centred around the 19th floor. The building stood for another 20 years yet a FAR Greater weight would have been on those flimsy Trusses.
The floors that are taller are the mechanical floors in this model, but the building has no cladding so you can't really notice them, but the steel columns are coloured silver to make the towers look cladded
I think anyway
So uhm why is it collapsing from the bottom it’s almost as if on videos it collapsed where the impact zone was also how come the base foundations were at ground zero the last one was more accurate
Because every simulation before the final one was just "testing", and they were just showcasing the many bugs and problems he had while perfecting the simulation.
By the way, can you make simulation of Baltimore bridge collapse?
Good simulators. On some, it looked like the tower was made of lego. On others, it reminded me of unused animation of Citadel destruction from Half-Life Episode 1 ending.
He back
It’s an interesting simulation, but needs some landmarks to help us orient our perspective.
Me when I pull out the wrong jenga:
This model shows a lack of structural integrity from the base the lower 2/3 of the building was structurally sound These were the tallest buildings in the world built with an integrity for earthquakes, hurricanes and withstand aircraft impacts.
The aircraft that it was tested with were smaller in comparison to the plane that were used on 9/11. Their crash test did not account for any fire though.
the problem is that the elements are not bending
Yup, but if you look at the images of the ground zero you can see only a few bent steel structures. I found a gallery of 1300 photos of the ground zero with amazing angles, you can clearly see the pancaked floor and the exteriors walls stuck together.
How could the staircase on floor 14 hold
The same reason the general public were advised to hide under the stairs during the blitz in WW2
9/11/2002 ?
I saw both buildings collaps and none of simulations in this video even remotely comes close to it being accrurate.
You do realize that this is not an actual collapse evaluation, right? This is a simulation error/bug montage.
What’s the music? Sounds like Chernobyl
really cool music!
This gives me a test car crash vibes from the same yr (2015 & 2017)
In real videos the collapse begins from the top not from the bottom. Something should be wrong with your similation, shouldn't it?
It's not the final one (as stated in the description)
This is not an actual collapse evaluation. This is a simulation error/bug montage.
@@MalarPaper9666 And how many times does this have to be explained to peeps? Thank you for doing it yet again.
In the miniature it looked like 9/11 ☠️
But the bottom of the buildings did not shatter, this is the opposite of what happened. ??? Not sure I understand why you did not show the tops shattering. The bases were intact.
This is not an actual collapse evaluation. This is a simulation error/bug montage. The end of the video shows the final result on how it actually collapsed.
The collapse happened at the top of the buildings not the bottom unless your saying they blow up the base first🤔
This is not an actual collapse evaluation. This is a simulation error/bug montage.
No el 11 de septiembre😢
Is this the wtc tower 2
Cómo se destruyó el acero con el impacto del avión?
Because if you hit an object at 500 mph, it tends to break.
Отличное воспроизведение обрушения. Сразу видно, что здания быди подорваны искусственным образом.
It looks like a movie, right?
Eu vi outra simulação que chegava mais próximo da realidade do que aconteceu, as torres entraram em flambagem antes de cair, ou seja, as paredes delas fizeram uma espécie de barriga para dentro causando assim um efeito dominó de todos os andares!
In all these simulations one very important thing is missing: concrete and steel debris that was blasted hundreds of feet away and found embedded in buildings far from the WTC.
What energy could have propelled debris that far if not an explosion?
Some of the simulations show that. Interesting stuff.
Well how far away are you talking about, and in which direction?
Some of the core columns fell over to the East and landed in the next block over.
Pieces of build and plane were found in the directions of North and South more than a couple blocks over, which were likely a result of the plane impact.
@@MalarPaper9666 A consistent number of heavy steel beams, concrete debris and human bones has been projected for over a 500 ft radius around both towers in ALL directions, and they were found, photographed and collected by the FEMA and NYFD. Where did the energy to hurdle these large and heavy chunks of of structure so far away from the towers came from?
@@Dooms90Day 500 ft is not a long distance at all when considering the height of the tower in comparison. Not to mention that a 500 ft radius from both towers is really only confined to the size of the plaza and a little bit across each of the streets.
To the South, 500 ft was enough to hit 90 West Street, 144 Washington Street, The Deutsche Bank Tower, and crush a small church, but other than that the debris couldn't really go much further because of those buildings.
To the East, 500 ft is about the length of the columns I described which fell over. The distance was enough to destroy the rest of the buildings in the plaza, but the buildings on the next street over otherwise sustained hardly any damage aside from broken windows.
To the West, 500 ft was enough distance for the debris to hit the financial center, and the Winter garden was almost destroyed.
To the North, 500 ft was more than enough distance to hit building 7, and then the collapse of building 7 increased the area destruction by destroying The Fitterman Hall building, and damaging the Barclay-Vesey Building, 20 Vesey Street, and 240 Greenwich Street.
@@Dooms90Day 500 ft is not a long distance at all when considering the height of the towers in comparison. Not to mention that a 500 ft radius from both towers is really only still confined to the size of the plaza and hardly even a little bit across each of the streets.
Why is quick?
excellent music
Y el WTC 7 ?
Sounds like some remix of a black crown initiate song
I mean, can you imagine how many people have been pancaked bettwen the floors?
You would need a monster pc for this type of stuff😂😂😂
Really cool graphics but not explain the collapse of the building just different simulations of what did not happen
This is not an actual collapse evaluation. This is a simulation error/bug montage.
Das ist nicht das was wir 2001 gesehen haben.
Es beginnt oben und löst sich auf.
Such a weak simulation. The towers were blown apart from top to bottom.
You do realize that this is not an actual collapse evaluation, right? This is a simulation error/bug montage.
This isnt even close to what actully happened you should make that clear- it does point out though the the interior box columns simply dissapear- buildings dont fall like that
This video is just clips of him "Testing" and encountering bugs, and not an actual collapse analysis or case study. He did make that clear.
@@MalarPaper9666 Why oh why don't people read the descriptions before commenting. 🙄🙄
You are a voice of reason 😁😁
무려 1시간 이상 한공기 연료로 불에타는 동안 그 많은 스프링쿨러는 왜 작동을 안했나? 스프링쿨러만 작동했어도 철골이 1천도 이상 올라갈 일은 없었잖아?