Blender Demolition - Case Study: World Trade Center (slowed down)
Вставка
- Опубліковано 29 сер 2024
- Demo video of the development of the Demolition feature for Blender 2.5x/2.6.
The main purpose of this video is to prove the capabilities of my physics system development, if any. It is not intended to prove or disprove 9/11 conspiracy theories. I'm deleting comments that include hate speech, so you better think twice before starting an argument about the reasons of 9/11 here. Instead, I recommend to read a neutral source like: en.wikipedia.o... to get some pros and cons instead of watching videos on UA-cam like mine to come to a realistic conclusion about what has happened that day.
This test case scenario needed 10 minutes per frame to calculate geometry deformations and additional 5 minutes to render the image. The test system was an Intel Core i7-980X Extreme Edition with 3,33 GHz, 12 virtual cores and 12 GB of RAM.
Check here for the real-time version:
• WTC Simulation - World...
WTC7 Simulation:
• Early Attempt: Collaps...
For more information see:
blenderartists....
kaikostack.com
FAQ:
Q: Is the core missing in your model?
A: No, it's just hardly visible because of the low camera angle.
Q: Why did the tower not tip over?
A: If one part of the supporting structure fails then a progressive process starts which makes neighbor supports failing as well due to increased load they have to bear and so on. This happens within seconds so that the building has literally no time to tip over. The larger a building the more immovable is it due to inertia.
Q: But I saw lots of demolition videos where high buildings tipped over, what now?
A: Reinforced concrete buildings with solid load bearing walls are not comparable to lightweight steel structures like the Twin Towers were. Also most certainly none of them were even half as high.
Q: The debris obviously didn't choose the way of least resistance by falling through the still intact structure, how is this even possible?
A: With the debris mass accumulating and accelerating over time also the momentum increases. It increases much faster than the resistance of the still intact structure could slow it down. In this case also the energy required to redirect the momentum to a path of less resistance would be much greater than keeping the original motion path throughout the intact structure. So it depends on the direction of momentum if the path of least resistance would actually be the most energy efficient way to go.
Q: What about Newton's third law? The collapse doesn't match up with my school physics calculations.
A: Classical Mechanics describes the behavior of idealized non-deforming objects, but steel isn't. In fact no known material in the universe is. You cannot reduce complex problems to simple formulas without iterative process, that's why we use computer simulations to understand the behavior of building collapses.
Q: Where's the rest of the building collapsing?
A: The whole building was basically too large at the time. I remember this to simulate about a day per run and the simulation time increases exponentially with increasing element count. Waiting a month per simulation to finish was just out of scope.
Q: I don't see my comment (anymore), do you censor?
A: No. UA-cam automatically marks comments as possible spam if they contain certain keywords such as bad language, links to unknown websites, or when they basically got reported by other users. Then I need to manually accept them in order to make them visible again. I usually do this for most marked comments periodically and sometimes it takes a while until I see them.
Twin Towers wasn’t built like previous skyscrapers, they used trusses that are weaker than traditional buildings. It was the outer shell was where the strength was.
It wasn’t that the steel completely melted, more like started the bend. You had over 15+ floors above impact level- the mere weight of those upper floors were immense. That mean a lot.
That fire we’re burning for quite some time.
It wasn’t like the plane hit & someone on the inside job simply pressed a big red button you get at Staples, the easy button here folks and the building cane right down. If it was staged it would’ve happened 1,2,3.
Not ok, let’s all take long coffee break then come back in a few hours to press destruction button folks.
Again, the entire 15 plus floors above impact zone fell as one complete unit cascading downward until it it ground level. It wasn’t like a controlled implosion where you see an explosion at top floor then see controlled explosion nowhere around top upper floors.
Ask yourselves conspiracy theorists then how did the explosions now to start explosions “below” where airplane hit. Sorry but a large airplane hit not perfectly straight but slightly tilted damaging multiple floors.
There’s no way that a group of inside men could know exactly what floor airplane was going to damage in order to place so-called explosives below impact zone. Conspiracy theories are just that, theories, not facts, not science. Just a feeling. They have their rights to feel what they wish.
People forget that these buildings due to the massive amounts of wind generated at 104 floors up aren’t simply going to fall over like Michael Jackson did in his Smooth criminal video, ain’t gonna happen. So falling in on itself is one of the honest conclusions one would believe after the fact.
That’s true but what about the molten pools of metal found 🥵
And how do you explain tower 7?
LBoy 193
And how exactly does a building with pre planted explosives burn for 7 hours with out setting them off collapsing the building much much sooner than as the conspiracists planned?
Tower 7 took massive debri hits when towers fell- I’ve seen photos of damaged integrity I building 7 then add hours upon hours of fires burning & you have it, collapses. Thank Myth Busters for this answer.
You’re fuckin washed dude. Do some Shrooms or DMT! YoUr not seeing it for what it really is. And no other buildings were by it? How’s come they didn’t have the same fate? Other buildings got hit with debris too how’s come they didn’t fall? I’m not saying I know what happen exactly but I’m very confident that we are being lied too by the media. That shit was very planned.
Michael Piccirillo And Ohh... I got something for those myths to bust...........
My nuts
As an engineer I can confirm that the item pictured is indeed a building.
U type like u smart
@@supel6039 engineer have to be smart dude
@E. lol
It’s just blender and blender is not the best lol
😂😂
Never saw so many stupid people commenting here. The author is just showing his physics engine, but now he is wasting his time answering stupid comments from people that didn't even bothered to read the description.
Samuel Lourenço Oh, the irony. “Stupid people”. Fucks up his grammar more than once.
Oh, I didn't know that IQ was measured by the ability to write in English. Probably you would mess up more than trice if you were to write a simple sentence in Portuguese, both grammar and spelling. And, using slang and cursing only reveals how low and cheap you are.
By the way, nobody asked your opinion and that comment was not for you. Mind your own business.
I didn't realize that everyone who comments here has to be invited to do so.
Nobody asked your opinion. Mind your own business.
Fuck off, already, you douchebag.
Thank you for this demo video which clearly demonstrates that the North Tower collapsed on its own due to the damage from the plane impact and the fire later weakening what structural support remained. I for one am an eye witness to the collapse of the So Tower, the first WTC tower to collapse. I worked in NYC and watched the collapse from one block away at Murray and Church streets. There were never any explosions. The So Tower the collapse began at the plane's exit hole on the bldg.'s north side which was close to a corner. That corner buckled inward and then the entire top half of the bldg. began to tilt over toward the west in a very loud cracking sound that echoed over all of downtown. You'd have to be a witness to know that because the sound is not captured on any video I have seen. As the top tilted over, the floors beneath it pancaked from the weight and top half in motion downward. The entire bldg. then disappeared into a cloud of dust and a loud rumble. Two minutes later all the electric downtown went out. I, and thousands of others on the street around WTC, didn't stick around to watch the north tower collapse 20 or so minutes later. BTW, just before the So Tower collapse, on the corner of Murray and Church street was a piece of plane engine from the plane that hit the So Tower. It was a large disc with broken turbine blades. I photographed it with my Duane Reed disposable camera. For the conspiracy bunch, missiles don't have turbine engines.
Thank you for taking the time sharing what you were experiencing that day.
Kostack Studio Your welcome. One more thing I'll add. When the So Tower fell, debris from the building fell quite a distance starting fires to nearby buildings. On Church St on a corner opposite the WTC site was a US Post Office I had been to many times. When the So Tower fell, mail trucks parked along the curb and other parked cars caught fire. I have two photos of that. Some of the conspiracy folks will say "yes there were bombs because some people still around WTC said they heard explosions." They don't know where, and that it was somewhere nearby, but then assume it had to be bombs inside the North Tower. Fact is those parked cars and trucks on fire had their gas tanks explode. I could clearly hear the sound as the So Tower collapsed, and the much fainter, but loud enough sound as the people who jumped hit the ground, but never did I hear an explosion come from WTC.
henry nevins Your little theory here makes absolutely no sense. 1) sound isn't the only piece of evidence, smoke is seen exiting the side of the buildings in explosive fashion in multiple pieces of footage BELOW the line of collapse. 2) you are basically claiming that hundreds of cars blew up instantly as debris collided with them. Even though the explosive sounds can be heard before any debris is likely to have even come close to hitting the ground.The towers took around 10 seconds to fall. You're telling me that in well under ten seconds debris from the top fell, ignite fires with multiple cars, then blew those cars up in sync with the collapse of multiple floors of the towers? and why wasn't any explosive sounds reported to have been heard AFTER the towers came down? did all the cars suddenly decide to stop blowing up? Did they only want to do it in sync with the collapse and explosive smoke seen below the collapse line? Tell us, are you even from New York or are you just here to make shit up, I'm confused.
henry nevins okay you're not using your brain here, let me simplify: you said that gas tanks were exploding as the building came down. In some footage of the collapse where there is sound, the sounds of explosions are in sync with the smoke leaving the building before the collapse line. So what YOU ARE IMPLYING is that the gas tanks blew up, in sync with the collapse of each floor. Even though the debris you claim to have started fires hadn't hit the floor yet, let alone had time to set fire to multiple cars and blow up their gas tanks, and YES WITHIN LESS THAT TEN SECONDS because that's how fast the towers fell. And please stop passing off uneducated guesses as some type of scientific theory. It's your word against the that of those in actual footage AT THE ACTUAL SCENE. Just because you've named a couple of streets doesn't prove you were there, I would rather believe the people at the scene, who said what they said long before inside job theories became known.
Diego Rodrigues Fact: My "on scene" account contradicts what you want to believe. And then I mention the pancaking building is puffing out smoke as it collapses and to you that's some kind of fk'n scientific theory? What planet are you from? Since your so stuck on the "some footage" of the collapse and explosions in sinc, then why don't you give the link to that footage? I'll watch and try to calmly evaluate it verses what I saw first hand. Even though I was on the scene, I'm willing to learn new information, if in fact the footage is believable. There's a guy among these WTC 911 videos who gives his account on the street that day. I believe he's legit because he said some things that only someone who was there, like me, would know. From his line of sight on the street, north of the So Tower, he didn't see the 2nd plane at all, only the ball of fire after impact. He then makes the baseless leap conclusion that "it had to be explosives in the bldg", yet millions of people on the ground from different angles of sight saw the damn plane. Someone like that who assumes facts, would put and innocent person in the electric chair if serving on a jury. That's why I tell only what I saw and heard first hand.
Let’s all just appreciate how well-rendered this is.
It's totally wrong. They left out the central core that stood for a short time as the building slid down around it. You can see it in the actual videos. That part stood longer as it was post and beam structure unlike the outer part of the tower. The core housed the water, power and elevators.
Brian Hunnewell no you can see a part smaller than the actual building falling into itself
1:18 is the most wccurate
@@davidlang4442 Q: Is the core missing in your model?
A: No, it's just hardly visible because of the low camera angle.
According to its builders & engineer, these building were designed this way to fall straight down and not topple over...straight down to ensure less damage than toppling over...thats very logical.
7-11 was a part time job
JAYSON i’m literally crying this made my day.
Copy-pasting was your full time job
selling your was a your full-time job
thank you jayson
Your so funny dude😂😂😂😂😂🤣😂😂🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣!!have a good day where ever you are!!!😊
Still taking care of the comment section 9 years later...
Still copying comments...
19
911 inside job
@@coolk3dat754 proof ?
@@SESKE_5 seek and you shall find. Sleep and see nothing
Let’s take a moment of silence to pay our honers to the ppl who died 🙏✊
Yes RIP TO ALL PEOPLE THAT DIED IN PAKISTAN AND AFGHANISTAN
Tarik Hodzic We do give them respect.
Vivi TV all love
@@bouss2382 dont fuck with with the usa and you wont have 100,000 deaths for our 3000 do the math taught them a lesson
This Is not World Trade Center?
I've never seen so many self-proclaimed demolition and physics experts being angry at a computer simulation in one place before. What an entertaining comment section...
*laughs in free fall speed*
honestly i'm surpised the core below where the plane hit demolished you would think just the outer part would have came down or just the top part "falling off" also there is some videos where it is refereed to as a bombing
You catched my thought
Well the twin towers were meant to withstand a 707 from the 70s not two 767 fully fueled
You know it was intentionally designed to withstand an aircraft because the Empire State Building was hit by a military plane way back then
This render was an inside job
brilliant
Dead right m8
Pure scam work
exactly they found traces of explosives in the vents,jet fuel cant get hot enough to melt steel beams,and why do u think bush just sat there and kept reading when he had a problem to deal with
expressvirus 19 jet fuel can't melt steel but it will get it hot enough to bend with little force.
Wow, the comments section here is a giant clusterfuck for the ages
Hell has nothing on youtube comment sections for these kinds of videos and on stupid conspiracies.
@Fred Knowells yeah it's like how crusaders back in the medivel ages were such extremists but for some reason no one said that the entire christian religion is a warmongering cult
@Fred Knowells whats funnier is, it's perfectly fine for you to group all muslims like they were one unit controlled by a hive-like mind and blame or point fingers to anything the ignorant few of them does, but for example you wouldn't say that "ALL americans are warmongering terrorists because oh look here they started a new war already!"
When even I can tell you that not all americans are warmongering terrorists cause thats a fact, but your pride is choking your guts so much that you wouldn't even bother to understand that most muslims are not terrorists, but a few of them just had it with the US gov.
This is haunting. Because of the smoke that day you didn't get to see it this way. Im glad.
You weren't there why do u care
It doesn’t care if he wasn’t there, what matters is as people we got through this death destruction all of that we got through. And now what matters to the U.S is killing the rest of the rat bas*erds that caused every killing,bombing,shootouts,schoolshootings
They were brought down by bombs not planes, they were built to withstand plane strikes & they are to this day still only buildings to ever fall from fire. It was a demolition plain & simple.
We withstood hell’s gate opening letting its demons out and just to swallow the World Trade Center and everyone in and around it with its thick fog of death
@@Shadoefax760 please leave the internet and never come back! You'll make the world better a better place if you do
That one comment that said “towers never even fell” made my head hurt
it was a joke
@@jcwrior333a joke that made my head hurt🤷
@Ashton Lovell You cant offend dead people, okay in all seriousness though, it was just an edgy joke, yall take this shit too seriously, just ignore it and move on.
Dats a paddlin copy cat!
@@michaelzane3823 Dude, what are you talking about? Of course you can offend dead people, they have no sense of humour.
They're all dead serious.
What I find interesting about this simulation is that it only shows the destruction of the top part of the towers and doesn't show how the pulverised remains of the top would continue its destructive path through an undamaged structure right to the bottom which, incidentally would be the most revealing part.
It's only revealing that the entire building was just too large to be simulated as a whole at the time.
Can we expect a simulation showing how the top few floors pulverise the entire untouched bottom of the building? No one is amazed at how ten falling floors crush and pulverise the ten floors beneath them while pulverising themselves in the process. What is amazing is where the energy needed to crush the entire rest of the building came from. Can you offer any simulation help there?
It is planned.
Patrick
Actually, the clips that hold the floor joists (actually they were trusses) had a maximum design load. Even through that load was 10 times or more what was necessary, they were not designed to hold the weight of 10 or more floors falling onto the existing floor.
That weight is mass in motion, which equals energy. Once the top 15% of the building fell, the clips could not withstand the loads. The clips held for microseconds at each floor. This is what made the the falling seem controlled.
The acceleration of the destruction was limited rather than at the speed of gravity (freefall speed).
There would have been NOTHING revealing about the lower part of the building in this analysis. It will continue with each floor holding for microseconds and then releasing itself as the clips sheared.
Job Applicant 15% of the building pile-driving through stronger undamaged floors makes no sense. I eagerly await the simulation but I know better not to hold my breath.
Each column had the gravitational load bearing capacity rated for 100.000.000 pounds , the building itself weighed 500,000,000 pounds , I find it hard to believe that 47 columns , tied in a bundle , like a giant nail , could collapse from a debris field at near free fall speed without being hammered like a nail would need to be into a block of wood.
exactly mate you know what everyone said no way fall at freefall speed the columns were blown out even in the basement the fire brigade heard a loud explosion
BINGO!
@@gatecrasher1970 You guys always say "free fall speeds" but what the actual fuck does that mean?
@@mpk6664 simply means falling at the rate of 9.8 m/s^2 which is the rate that gravity imparts acceleration on a falling object. If there was resistance of any kind, the towers would have fallen slower than this. But they instead fell, seemingly unobstructed by their own mass, while accelerating towards the ground.
And yet you see with your eyes it did. The collapses started exactly where the damage was. Nowhere else.
So I guess wtc7 just fell down cuz it was just scared it was next
Burnttoaster It got smashed by WTC1
Mark Savatier sure thing bub...can you handle the truth? 9/11 was a Mossad operation: nowingradical3.blogspot.com/2018/04/by-way-of-deception.html
Burnttoaster
In what world does "scared" mean "crushed by concrete debris from a skyscraper and ravaged by fires"?
You really think that the government is stupid enough to crash planes into buildings and then randomly demolish an unrelated building with explosives?
What does this accomplish?
9/11 would have been the exact same if building 7 was unscathed.
Use your brain for half a second.
Lmao good one 👍
hahaha i was gonna ask about wt7 but you beat me to it lol
1:36 (Pause) On the right anyone thought of one world trade venter a little?
Lol
For those with an engineering background, the World Trade Centers were the first and last of a kind of architecture called tube design. The idea is that the building is built like a tube, with the skin being the only load barring structure. In this picture, you can see the size and close distance the huge steel beams. That was the only thing holding up the building. The inside floors hung inside on the outside walls, and the vertical height also bore down on the columns. The steel beams that they used were three beams wide by two stories tall. Staggered the beams were bolted together by huge bolts, screw thread. This give allowed the building to sway 5 feet in heavy winds to dampen the energy. When the planes hit the skin, only one side needed to be breached to set off sheer collapse, each two story beam sheering the bolts. What we don't know and remains a mystery, was that they took that long to fall. The interior elevators, were only frame steel in a center column to the 78 floor. From there up hung on the outside walls. There was only two sheet's of 3/4 drywall, between the elevator core, and the floors. There was no way to get 79-110 evacuated, so they just did not sound the alarms that high. The World Trade Centers were the absolute cheapest possible way to ever build a building. It was never done after it was built. The evil Bin Laden knew of the cheap ass buildings as he tried to take out the bottom two corners in the 1993 blast. Then in 2001, he hit at the sky lobby at 78, the most vulnerable as to engineering and trapping people.
Was it really the last? I thought it was one of the first - and helped ignite this design to become popular.
To be fair, the design was extremely efficient and did its job extraordinarily well. I think most other towers would have partially collapsed on impact. These managed to hold strong until their design ultimately led to a rapid total collapse.
so your not an engineer is what ur saying then... why was there a 1600 centigrade fire still burning over 7 weeks later after 9/11 again ??? why was that ?? office fires ehhhh ?? thats what ur going with ??? cuz the jet fuel was all incinerated within 4min.. that is the little bit that actually stayed in the building.. most burned up in the giant fire ball.. and the other most , most likley was ejected out the exit hole... but those with pyro backround say all the jet fuel was all gone within 4min... so office fires kept a 1600 centigrade fire going for 2 months ???? or was it thermite..... and why was thermite dust found everywhere.. i cant seem to fguter that out. can you help me.. since u have a backround in talking about ppl with an engineering backround/
no.. it was the thermite buddy.@@aSASa45454
All the floors below the impact were made of polystyrene and marshmallow.
so you're saying they put bombs on all 110 floors
Why would you need to put bombs on all the floors? I believe these buildings had seams every three floors so all you have to do is put explosives every three floors. Don't forget that every third of this building had a 36 foot tall span called Sky lounges where basically two floors were missing. There were three of these. Those would obviously be weak points in the building.
all on video. buildings came down where the planes hit. that's what caused the impact chain reaction.
Thematic charges could easily take a tower down but a plane not one of the twins
Crystalgames1211 Well I mean the planes did cause a pretty big explosion
I have studied this at great length and what nobody here seems to ask is what about Newton's third law? It states that when objects interact, they always exert equal and opposite forces on each other. Therefore, while an object is falling, if it exerts any force on objects in its path, those objects must push back, slowing the fall. If an object is observed to be in free-fall, we can conclude that nothing in the path exerts a force to slow it down, and by Newton's third law, the falling object cannot be pushing on anything else either. So in conclusion the only way for this to happen at the speed that each tower fell, including building 7 which a lot of people forget about could only happen with the help of explosives pushing away any obstacle in it's path.
*****
That is complete fantasy, no steel framed skyscraper has ever collapsed in history like this except and only on this day, I would even go as far to say it's impossible. The towers collapsed in about 10 seconds according to the NIST report but that's pretty ridiculous because the towers were 110 storys high so for it to collapse at the said speed 10 floors a second would have to be crushed to dust ? 10 floors is about 120ft roughly which is the terminal velocity of a falling person in thin air with no obstructions 120ft per second, a building taking over a much wider area would fall slower. How the fuck can you explain that a falling building can crush an undamaged part of a building as if it wasn't there? Are we to assume the floors were made of butter ? just for an example if you were to get 4 house bricks and stand 3 on top of each other length ways then drop the 4th brick from say 1 foot what do you think will happen? will it crush through all 3 bricks turning them to powder or will it simply bounce off the top causing slight damage to the top brick. Or try standing on a packer of biscuits the more you push on it the more compressed it becomes and it will never crush all the way through unless you stamp on it. Your theory sucks
*****
Why can't you see it's a controlled demolition ? Huge girders are being ejected out hitting other buildings including building 7 that was 370 feet away. So how is that possible without the use of explosives. There was no pancake collapse that you would expect if floors were coming down on each other floor.The whole building turned to dust. It worked 3 times on 9/11, it hasn't happened before or since 9/11 and there have been many bigger hotter longer lasting fires in other skyscrapers that didn't collapse because of fire. If skyscrapers are so vulnerable to fire why don't demolition companies simply set fire to buildings and let them collapse in to their own footprint ? Think of the money they could save. In 1975 the north tower of the wtc caught fire on the 11th floor, and spread through the corridors toward the main open office area. The fire department on arrival found a very intense fire. It was not immediately known that the fire was spreading vertically from floor to floor through openings in the floor slab. There was 125 firemen involved in fighting this fire and 28 sustained injuries from the intense heat and smoke. The fire spread to other floors and lasted for over 3 hours which is hotter and longer than what happened on 9/11 yet when the fires were extinguished the structural integrity of the building wasn't compromised at all and after being cleaned and refitted it was back to work as offices again. Popular Mechanics tried to debunk a controlled demolition on 9/11 but all they did was debunk Isaac Newton
+Dan Druft +Transparency Now
You cannot reduce complex mathematical problems to simple formulas, that's why we need to do computer simulation instead of using calculators. All laws of physics worked consistently that day, if you will accept this or not.
+Kostack Studio You are saying that Newtons law didn't exist if we are to believe the computer simulation. It doesn’t make sense. Newtons 3rd law should also include the plane hitting the side of the building. How did a plastic and aluminium plane cut through the steel reinforced exterior grid and then manage to damage all the 47 core columns? If it was a pancake collapse then why weren’t the super strong 47 core columns still remaining, because we are told the core columns were supporting the floors so if the floors gave way why would the core columns disintegrate as well? The video simulation is nonsense as it shows a collapsing building as if it was hollow. Common sense will tell you that a smaller lighter weight falling sideways as it does in the real video clops couldn't act as a pile driver at the point of most resistance. It simply doesn’t make sense. Put Newtons 3rd Law of motion in to the computer simulation and it will drop maybe a floor then just sit there or the top will fall off. Not crush through the strongest part of the building as if it wasn't there at 10 floors a second
+Dan Druft No, I didn't say that. Computer simulations include all principles described by Newton. And my common sense also confirms this, looks like your common sense works differently. ;)
So it turned out that it was a very poor idea to have all of the support beams on the outside of the building instead of an "old fashioned" building with supports in the middle and throughout every floor.
No, it actually makes the building more redundant.
... So.. I guess this is a world where there is no resistance?
The Doctor A world where air offers more resistance than concrete and steel.
drugsmoker101 I dang ol' tell you what!
+The Doctor
Resistance is futile!
One of ther most retarded demonstartions I have ever seen.
Must have been done by the NSA and Mossad.
drugsmoker101 ***** Regardless of the truth: anyone who believes the official story is brain dead.
I've seen a lot of these models. If it falls into its own foot print the the resistance of each consecutive floor would slow the fall as it descended, unless the vertical structures below were removed before the upper floors struck them. Which is what I believe happened.
The entire tower fell in about 30 seconds. You can see that the collapse is a progressive collapse and it doesn't all fall in one go. One side does fall faster than the other and the central core falls last. It also didn't neatly fall into it's own footprint when all the buildings surrounding the complex sustained damage.
@@KingKehra The surrounding buildings sustained damage due to forcefully blown out debris, not due to tilting. how did you see it didn't fall in one go? the pyroclastic cloud covered most of the demol.. uh collapse
This model does not represent the steel columns losing their molecular integrity and separating into fine powder sized particles as observed on the day. Thank you for your time; please don't waste mine.
Quote from the uploader, "It's not accurate in a scientific sense, there are connections but they are not based on real world parameters."
You're the only one wasting peoples time. Read the description.
Yes what makes 3 inch steel girders become powder -good question.aluminium wings hmm.
I’m not going down the conspiracy route but from an engineering perspective I’m struggling to understand quite how every floor under the damaged area collapses quite so easily and quickly.
If you believe NIST(not saying you) you are a huge conspiracy theorist. Those buildings coming down at near free fall just bc of fire and plane impact within less than one hour is completely absurd
That's easy. General knowledge: floors carry people and furniture. When a whole building falls on them, bad things happen
domino effect
I’m wondering if sky scrapers have been built different since 9/11? With stronger floors. It seems the towers actually took the impact well from the aircraft but ideally you’d expect them to stay up?
You really only need one or two floors to fall on the floor below them, and it becomes too much weight for that lower floor to handle. (It's build to hold a certain strength. And two or three floors, plus plane and debris was eventually too much weight for the couple of floors below those. So when THOSE start to fail, and they fall on the ones below THEM, it is a cascading effect called the "pancake effect." You really only need one or two floors to buckle and fall onto the floors below them, and very quickly, the next floor fails, like dominos. It's hard to wrap your head around, but if you want to understand more, do a web search on the pancake effect.
TO ANYONE TREATING THIS VIDEO AS AN ACCURATE SIMULATION:
This video was made by computer animators. It was made as a visual representation. This is very different from physical simulation. Many more parameters than were used for this animation would be required to produce a physically-accurate simulation of this resolution. But the creators obviously love the attention so they will be the last to point that out to you.
If this was a parametrically accurate simulation, then the creators would have no problem releasing all of the model specifications and values used for each metric compared to a complete inventory of all physical materials used in the construction of the WTC and their associated experimental parameter values.
PLUS experimental stress/strain curves for all relevant materials, thermodynamic principles and relationships applied to the simulation, initial conditions, spatial and temporal discretization, procedure for model calibration...I think I made my point.
Armchair engineers amuse me
try to get your head around 101 Physics - thats all thats needed Ginger. You are paid here as theres too much invested in commenting in my opinion
This makes complete sense! But why didn't anyone tell me the core columns were made of hollow wood?
If the tower was made of wood it would have fallen without fire.
Andrew Arnold Exactly like it's depicted in this animation.
What makes you think the material properties of the columns were anywhere those of wood? The rendering has nothing to do with the simulation. Looks like you didn't read the original comment by Kai and have little respect for the hard work he put in that.
Claude Lacoursiere I'm not addressing whoever made this video, my comment is for people like "henry nevins" down in the comments who say this simulation CLEARLY DEMONSTRATES how the North Tower collapsed, in spite of the description saying "The main purpose of this video is to prove the capabilities of my physics system development, if any. It is not intended to prove or disprove 9/11 conspiracy theories."
I wrote too fast then.
In any case, there are enough flames in this thread so I won't comment more.
12 floors of a building CRUSHED the Other 97 floors of the building to Dust -
i suppose you believe the pentagon was hit by a 757 to
very well put ,oh did i mention the put options ?
As a pilot, yes, you can get a 757 to go 550 miles per hour. Most passenger planes are tested very close to mach one in a dive (including the A380, which is fuckhuge by comparison) and can sustain that speed easily, for safety reasons.
You're also ignoring that as the floors fell, the were gaining both mass and speed. For every floor you fall you multiply the amount of force brought down on the floor below it by the mass of the floor, and then multiply that number times the velocity of the falling material (which is increasing) _squared_. And yes, the falling material was indeed slowed down by the floors below it, but not more than it's speed increased in the space between floors. Gravity is a bitch.
"if I push real hard on some concrete, will it pulverize and eject plumes of dust everywhere? no, it will not"
Yes it will. That's exactly how they figure out the strength of concrete. They use a hydraulic press to push on it, until it shatters.
Also, the plane that hit the Pentagon hit with the force of .68 tons of TNT. I am of the persuasion that 1,360 lbs of dynamite would make a pretty damn big hole in a concrete air sandwich like the Pentagon. That's of course, ignoring the fuel being compressed and exploding.
Lastly the hijackers were classically trained pilots who knew what they were doing very well. Pointing the nose of the aircraft wouldn't be the hard part. Navigating there would have been, and the fact that they did so clearly shows understanding of aircraft systems.
wow the shills are out to nite ...Israel did 911 ....911TRUTH .
Nope. The top twelve floors crushed the thirteenth floor; those thirteen then crushed the fourteenth; those fourteen then crushed the fifteenth; repeat until basement.
It's called gravity, dumbass.
There's a really interesting video on UA-cam explaining how the towers were built and how that contributed in a way to their eventual collapse. The combination of the building design and fire protection being blown off parts of the steel support at impact meant that collapse was inevitable.
there's another interesting video out there about the "dancing israelis" and a van with a mural of a plane flying into the WTC on the side.
Gotta love how the roof and antenna, slightly tilted, just keep accelerating downward along with the rest of the tower.
is something else expected?
Hello, could you please make the rest of the simulation available? I mean, all the tests shown here end when the part above the impact is almost destroyed, but I would like to see what happens next in the simulation, how the collapse progresses with just the debris on the top and at what speed.
Even if I agreed with everything that you said(which I don’t), I think you’ll even have to admit building 7 came down at a free fall speed for at LEAST 100 feet. I would argue it came down at free fall speed the entire time but for argument sakes, we’ll say 100 feet.There is no way that you can explain building 7’s collapse. It defies all logic UNLESS you start comparing it to other KNOWN controlled demolitions. The University of Alaska in Fairbanks spent 4 years studying the collapse of Building 7. The conclusion to their study was office fires DINNOT bring down building 7. At the end of the day, Building 7 is the smoking gun!
There are a lot of other factors to consider too: World Trade Center 7 was not even on the same block as the rest of the WTC complex. In fact it was located over 350 feet from ground zero. And it was the only building in all of Manhattan that was damaged by falling debris AND caught fire on multiple floors AND suffered catastrophic failure. And then there's the fact it also housed multiple federal offices, including the emergency command center for disaster management. The sheer odds of all of these factors coming together for the complete destruction of the entire World Trade Center Complex. would be like winning three Powerball lotteries in a row.
Seems to me you know the truth already. But are not ready to accept it.
Gold went missing. Underground Italian Job.
original World Trade Center was a large complex of seven buildings in the Financial District of Lower Manhattan, New York City, United States. It opened on April 4, 1973, and was destroyed in 2001 during the September 11 attacks. At the time of their completion, the Twin Towers-the original 1 World Trade Center (the North Tower), at 1,368 feet (417 m), and 2 World Trade Center (the South Tower), at 1,362 feet (415.1 m)-were the tallest buildings in the world. Other buildings in the complex included the Marriott World Trade Center (3 WTC), 4 WTC, 5 WTC, 6 WTC, and 7 WTC. The complex contained 13,400,000 square feet (1,240,000 m2) of office space.
The time is right for America to face it's past misdeeds. Believe in something...stand up for what is right!! 9/11 was an INSIDE JOB!! I'm retired USAF and worked in the Western Air Defense Sector for just over 10 years prior to 9/11. There is NO WAY that a plane could get through to the Pentagon on 9/11. First of all...the plane would be tailed by a fighter interceptor long before it reached the Pentagon! Second...the Pentagon is within Restricted Air Space. Third...all commercial planes were ordered to be grounded before the plane reached the Pentagon so at that point "shoot down" would be authorized! The plane would be shot down by the interceptor tailing it or once the plane entered Restricted Air Space...it would be shot down by a SAM since deadly force is authorized in War Readiness Status for any intrusion into Restricted Air Space! However, Cheney ordered a Stand Down allowing the plane to get through to the Pentagon. Clearly, an INSIDE JOB to defeat the US Air Defense System from within! See Norman Mineta's testimony which was extraordinary courageous during the era of Bush's Politics of Fear..."You are with us or against us!" Lastly, the FAA computer system and Air Defense computer system were fully automated. Any commercial plane that deviated from it's submitted flight plan is automatically identified by the computer system and FAA controller alerted. FAA tries to first make contact with the airline pilot if there's a deviation from flight plan or transponder is turned off. If there is an anomaly, FAA calls the Air Defense Sector and fighter interception occurs. The fighter interceptor is airborne within 5 minutes and vector is given for the interception. These are dedicated Air National Guard Air Defense fighter interceptors on 5 minute alert status on the coast. See ua-cam.com/video/bDfdOwt2v3Y/v-deo.html
al murphy, except Cheney had the people responsible for watching the radars out on a drill and the NG interceptors out over the Atlantic doing drills. So he had people doing drills on terrorist crashing planes into building while it was actually happening. When the people went back to work they didn't know if it was still a drill or the real thing till it was too late.
You forgot to put Mossad into the equation, other then that I am not in disagreement.
wow omg u r soo smart thanks
No planes building 7... Controlled demolition.... End of story... Sad day
Thank god you're not a judge
Building 7 “pull it” Larry Silverstein controlled demolition. Case closed.
xxCrimsonSpiritxx also, AT&T deemed 911 the emergency number to dial in 1968... the same year construction began on the trade centers and Robert Kennedy assassination. Look up USS Liberty
AMEN
An ADMITTED demolition from the Owner of the building. That fire chief and other fire officials have been silent and elusive however. Strange isn't it?
jet fuel cant melt steel beams
Fasfffeedeqfqfqfqffwf
No, but it can soften the metal enough weaken it, same principle applies to a blacksmith, he heats the metal so he can manipulate it to make a horseshoe, the heat used doesn't melt the metal
I'd love to see a modern render showing how the weight of the building was spread by the outer walls and core. Particularly seeing the reallocation of that weight after so much of one side was destroyed. Going by footage of the impact zone on the north tower, I think more like 75% of the columns on the north side were compromised.
It ignores the molten steel that was visible on that day and continued to be molten for 3 weeks.
Yep, USGS Satellite orbiting WTC complex 1 week later recorded hot spots at tower 1,2 &7. WTC 1 was 1,160 degrees F. WTC 2 was 1,377 degrees F and WTC 7 was 1,340 degrees. Houston we have a problem, this is not from jet fuel or fire retardant office furnishings. Military grade demolition, that's why the damn area smoldered with hot spots for months.
Thermite
@@troys9069 What utter garbage. There was no molten steel. There were a LOT of liquids seen poring from the burning towers, but video alone does not tell you what those liquids were. You need to test SAMPLES. Liquid steel is white hot, over 2800F A LOT hotter than the numbers you mention. At normal atmospheric pressure, liquid steel would freeze solid before it hit the ground.
The kind of temperatures you mention are NORMAL within structural fires. It is also normal for an underground fire to burn extremely hot even without a lot of oxygen, because of the insulating factor of the rubble.
Fire retardants are only effective at slowing down the progress of a small cool fire. They have zero effect on a large hot fire.
@Bob Bobbertson There are no eye witness reports of explosions. There is one video of a fire fighter who says the sound of the floors pancaking sounded like a series of explosions. That is not evidence of explosions.
@@redhog1arkie395 Pulling a word out of the air is not evidence of anything.
As a demolition expert, and studying physics
None of this true
That's what I'm saying why would you ever find nanothermite in the air. Why would there be liquid molten steel pouring out of the building? Why would it burn for two to three months of liquid molten Steel. This kid up his calling me an imbecile I'm waiting for him to challenge me so I can debate him. It took me a while and look into a lot of videos. I finally found A missing piece! It took me a while to find it I can prove it was set up. They had a thousand psychologist analyze what happened during that period Of time. Their conclusion was since America is the superpower of the world. In the grand scheme of things for not necessary the Native Americans but the Europeans this is a young country. They said some people are so proud of America that live here no matter how much you put in front of their face they will not accept that their government did this to them.
Just hocus pocus OwlCIAduh man.
As a physics major and "expert" you are full of shit
The world can rest easy then because you've worked it all out. Don't know why anyone else bothered investigating.
@@JT-cf7dq Yeah, no s***. It was the largest Insurance claim in history. It took 50 insurance companies to write binding things for the amount of insurance. He wanted on the building, but that's just a small part of it.
please upload this video with the entire length of the tower visible.
@daren darensky Probably because it wasn't necessary for what he's showing us. Which is a demo of his physics engine.
The collapse is stopping in the middle of the building. That's why they don't show.
His computer fun a melt
Steel frame towers are built very strongly. They need to withstand the pressure of gale-force winds, the violent rocking motion of earthquakes, and the ravages of time. For this reason, they are almost impossible to destroy.
Airplane strikes do not destroy skyscrapers. A bomber strike to the Empire State Building during World War II did not harm that building. The World Trade Center towers were designed to survive a strike by a Boeing 707. The 767 is more massive, so the building was stressed near its design limits. But if a failure had occurred at that moment, it would have been at the point of highest levered stress, near the base of the tower, and the tower would have fallen over like a giant tree in a forest windstorm. That, of course, did not happen.
Fires do not destroy skyscrapers. Never in the history of steel frame structures has a single one been destroyed by fire.
How to destroy a skyscraper. So, how do you destroy a skyscraper? Suppose you need the vacant land to build another one, for example.
A nuclear bomb is very effective, but it can be difficult to get permits from the city.
An early invention was the wrecking ball. A huge lump of steel and lead is swung from a massive chain at high speed. With the benefit of momentum, it is able to bend or break a few girders at a time. But it would be a hopeless task to destroy a tower the size of the World Trade Center, using a wrecking ball.
The most effective, cleanest, safest way to destroy a skyscraper is known as controlled demolition. The trick is to distribute explosives at key points throughout the structure. The explosives are detonated simultaneously, destroying the integrity of the steel frame at key points, such that no part of the building is supported against the force of gravity. The entire mass is pulled swiftly to earth, where gravity does the work of pounding the structure into tiny fragments of steel and concrete. The gravitational potential energy of the structure is converted smoothly and uniformly into kinetic energy, and then is available very efficiently to pulverize the fragments of the building as they impact against the unyielding earth. Controlled demolitions have a striking and characteristic appearance of smooth, flowing collapse.
As your eyes will tell you, the World Trade Center collapses looked like controlled demolitions. Here’s the proof.
The proof. According to the law of gravity, it is possible to calculate the time it takes for an object to fall a given distance. The equation is H=(1/2)at2, where H is the height, a is the acceleration of gravity (10 meters per second squared) and t is time in seconds. Plug in the height of the building at 1350 feet (411 meters) and we get 9 seconds. That is just about the length of time it took for the very top of the World Trade Center to fall to the street below. According to all reports, the whole thing was over in just about ten seconds.
It is as if the entire building were falling straight down through thin air. As if the entire solid structure below, the strong part which had not been burned or sliced or harmed in any significant way, just disappeared into nothingness. Yet this (within a small tolerance) is what we would expect to find if there had been a controlled demolition, because the explosions below really do leave the upper stories completely unsupported. Like the Road Runner after he runs off the edge of the cliff, the entire building pauses a moment, then goes straight down.
Any kind of viscous process or friction process should have slowed the whole thing down. Like dropping a lead ball into a vat of molasses, or dropping a feather into the air, gravitational acceleration cannot achieve its full effect if it is fighting any opposing force. In the case of the World Trade Center, the intact building below should have at least braked the fall of the upper stories. This did not happen. There was no measurable friction at all.
This proves controlled demolition.
We have been lied to. We have been lied to about this, at multiple levels. The first lie was that the load of fuel from the aircraft was the cause of structural failure. No kerosene fire can burn hot enough to melt steel. In point of fact, most of the fuel in the jets was contained in their wing tanks. The thin aluminum of the tanks was pierced or stripped as the airplanes penetrated the walls of the towers, and the result was the huge fireball which was seen on national TV, where most of this fuel was burned.
A hot, vigorous fire would have blown out many windows in the building and would have burned a red or white color. This was not what happened. The fire in the World Trade Center was an ordinary smoldering office fire.
But let’s suppose that the fire was hot enough to melt steel. What would have happened in that case? Before it breaks, hot steel begins to bend. This redistributes the forces in the structure and puts elastic stress on those parts that are still cool. The process is asymmetric, so that the structure should visibly bend before breaking. But of course, no steel skyscraper has even bent over in a fire.
Let’s suppose the structure were sufficiently weakened that it did fail catastrophically near the point of the airplane strike. In this case, the intact structure below would exert an upward force on the base of the upper story portion of the building (the part that has been broken loose), while any asymmetry would allow the force of gravity to work uninhibited on the tip of the skyscraper. Thus, the top section of the skyscraper would tip and fall sideways.
If it did not tip, it would have ground straight down through the building below. The gravitational potential energy of the upper stories would be coupled into the frame below, beginning to destroy it. The frame below would deflect elastically, absorbing energy in the process of deflecting. At weak points, the metal structure would break, but the elastic energy absorbed into the entire frame would not be available to do more destruction. Instead, it would be dissipated in vibration, acoustic noise and heat. Eventually this process would grind to a halt, because the gravitational potential energy of a skyscraper is nowhere near sufficient to destroy its own frame.
If the World Trade Center towers had been built entirely out of concrete, they might have stood for awhile before toppling in the wind. But in that case, if they had collapsed straight downwards, the energy required to pulverize the concrete would have slowed the downward progress of the upward stories. The gravitational potential energy of the World Trade Center was barely sufficient to convert its concrete into powder, and for that to happen in an accidental collapse would have been impossible, but would have taken a lot longer than 10 seconds in any case.
How it was done. The World Trade Center was leased by Westfield America and Larry Silverstein, on April 26th, 2001. Zim Israeli Shipping moved out of the buildings around that time. With a certain amount of shuffling of tenants from floor to floor, it should have been easy (with all the commotion and noise of remodeling) to plant explosives on several floors; enough for at least a sloppy kind of controlled demolition.
There was more “magic” at work on 9/11, to produce the effects that were seen on the TeeVee.
The events of 9/11, summarized. Taken all together, the evidence suggests very strongly that the attacks of 9/11 were fake terror, and quite possibly were a collaborative venture of the Israeli and US governments.
Student pilots from Saudi Arabia and other Arab nations were enrolled in flight schools in Venice, Florida and other locations. The flight school in Venice is linked to CIA drug running operations, according to one researcher.
A recently leaked document from the US Drug Enforcement Agency indicates that a number of Israeli intelligence operatives describing themselves as art students took up residences in close physical proximity to the Arabs as they moved about the country.
The Arab flight students boarded the flights on 9/11. Did they intend to hijack the airliners, and if so, for what purpose? Had the Israelis played in any way the role of agent provocateur in organizing whatever was planned? It seems reasonable to conjecture that the goals of these Arabs were opposed in some way to some US Middle Eastern policy. It would be very interesting to question the Israelis regarding their knowledge of the Arab flight students.
At any rate, if the Arab flight students had been ordinary hijackers, they might have taken the controls of the airplane, but their plot should have quickly been foiled for two reasons.
First of all, the Boeing 757 and 767 aircraft are probably equipped with remote-controlled flight computers for purposes of hijack recovery. This was stated by a British intelligence operative and was also suggested by a former German secretary of defense. The technology needed for such systems is well known, and its utility is obvious. If these systems had been operative on 9/11, then they should have been used to take control from the hijackers.
Secondly, the US air force has standard operating procedure to send jet fighters to intercept hijacked aircraft within minutes after they are reported. These fighters may be armed and are certainly very maneuverable, and an airliner cannot hope to match them.
"Airplane strikes do not destroy skyscrapers"
Who claimed that's what happened?
tpryce The base commander and I became pretty good friends. I did termite and pest control on base. We ended up going to the bar on the base quite often. Eventually he came over and met my children and after a couple hours of drinking. He taught me a whole lot of things including this.And also the world in which we exist is not what they tell us.
tpryce He was someone of importance and credibility. But you have to protect his anonymity🍃
"Never in the history of steel frame structures has a single one been destroyed by fire."
The Terminus Hotel in San Francisco collapsed due to fire caused by the 1906 earthquake. calisphere.org/item/ark:/13030/hb9h4nb76b
The Plasco Building in Tehran (2017) collapsed due to fire. gizmodo.com/why-9-11-truthers-are-obsessed-with-the-plasco-high-ris-1822203542
Wilton Paes de Almeida Building (2018), a steel framed highrise, collapsed after a 90 minutes fire.
Corey Murphy You got drunk with some guy and he told you “things”?
Well, that’s all I need to know.
Is there a video of tower 7 falling too?
As that building wasn't hit by a plane but still falls the same as north and south towers.
Great video,keep up the work!
ua-cam.com/video/VAkTbyENZ5s/v-deo.html
How much of the twin towers falling steel collided with building 7? A lot. It took out many of the buildings frame members, cutting through enough support columns which caused its cascade collapse. Or or or ...is your engineering degree from a accredited college like the architecture major who drew the plans?
@@angeloriggi6370what are you on about?
@@angeloriggi6370You need to do further research on building 7. Larry Silverstein was on tape saying that they decided to PULL IT. Denotation took place with all 3 buildings and some Americans just don't want to face reality because you think your government ❤ you. The government wanted a means to invade the middle eastern countries and they wanted to strip away your liberty's via the patriot act.
Can you show what happens at the base of the towers? I was always fascinated how the buildings just seemed to have vanished.
Well the smoke covered what it looked like but the base still stood for a bit before collapsing. Some footage you can see parts still standing then it falls. Basically the towers were very heavy
Two things, I was re-watching some of the live coverage from the days after the attack and one of the reports said the rubble pile for one of the towers (can't remember which) was about 5 stories high and the other tower was about 6 stories. But because both towers had a basement, a ConEd station and 6 levels of parking, A LOT of the rubble was up to 60ft+ underground. Plus the 3-4 inches of dust and debris coating all of lower Manhattan after the collapses. So not exactly vanished but certainly not as visible. Do you remember pictures of while they were clearing out the rubble, how deep that pit looked by the time they were done? 3,000 person burial site, that was, still gives me the shivers.
The towers were about 95% air, excluding the contents. So, if you were to somehow compress it within its own footprint, it would only be a few stories tall.
The base was somewhat still there for a little bit after the collapse from what I’ve seen
It was 15 acres of 60’ tall mound plus 6 floors of basement……..
How do you explain the total collapse of the core columns?
+Randal Flagg They can't so they just ignore them.
+Randal Flagg I was wondering about the core m'self.
Where'd it go?
If the floors were to "Pancake" on top of each other, the core should be there waving in the wind, but as we see from the videos of the day, the collapse (demolition) was global and it started in the core with the antennae moving before anything else.
Anyone who believes the official lie hasn't done their homework.
It's been disproven over and over again.
+the1grape - Anyone from the Truther camp will believe whatever anyone says as long as that has something to do with some grand conspiracy.
the1grape
As for ftfisher4x4 shills always falsely accuse 'truthers' of doing exactly what they do. Believe lies and ignore evidence that doesn't fit their picture. The thing is if you look at everything that happened that day they haven't got a leg to stand on.
Johnny Chunders - Planes hit the towers, the resulting damage brought down the towers. It is not some big conspiracy. If the buildings were brought down with standard demolition methods, were are the leftovers of that process? You want me to believe that for better than 14 years, anyone involved in such a thing has been able to keep their mouths shut about it (and it would have taken a sizable crew just to wire the buildings)? Please.
in the simulation the fall looks much slower than what we've seen in reality, not just because this can be slowed motion on purpose but real towers looked like they was free falling
Even assuming if any of this could happen as in your model, it certainly did not fit the time frame in which the collapse occurred.
What time frame? The real towers didnt collapse in 10 seconds like people commonly say. Go watch a full collapse and time it. I dont remember the real time but its closer to 25 seconds.
These issues have been clearly analyzed although the explanation for the buildings rapid collapse have yet to be adequately explained, take a look at this article and consider the information seriously since NIST and the 9/11 Commission Report support the near-free-fall drop of the buildings. www.twf.org/News/Y2007/1017-Achilles.html
But hey, that's just a theory!
A Terrory!
Thanks for watching
Matt Foley k
What provides the force for the lateral projectiles? What causes the collapse in the first place. Cartoons are not evidence.
Where is he claiming this is evidence?
@@natesandrews3848 wrong.!it was wrong first of all I think that the columns are some of those columns were still intact where that jet came through cuz the jet is not going to cut like a scissors those columns which those steel as heavy steel soso you have three sides of the building intact and the building is not going to fall it's a steel structure even if those columns were not there which I believe they still were and then you've got the interior structure holding up as well so it's ridiculous and then you don't mention the crenellated front facade which is really very strongbut when you look at the photographs of the wall sections blowing away from the building you see that they're square somebody cut the crenellated sections in square this is a big giveaway you saw the explosions all come down the building and these sections that were blown away from the building where is much at 500 feet into the next building now you need the power of a space shuttle to blow the section of wall 500 ft across the street give me a break what do you think was all that power coming from it only comes from exsposions!
you just wasted a bunch of computer time on that silly mock-up it's complete joke and you should be ashamed of yourself
The video should start off with "READ THE DESCRIPTION BELOW, THANK YOU"
@@j.j.8741 Opps, Thanks for the correction!
Good that you made it clear in the titles that this is a SIMULATION. Just repeating it here for those who think it's evidence. Good work.
Settings #1 and #7 looked the most accurate. To the people who said the core column wouldn't fail are stupid. The core column had likely been struck by the plane and had been heated and weakend. Also there was no outer structural supports for the floors, only web joists held the floors up individually. The design of the world trade center was great for wind resistance and against earthquakes, but not gravitational resistance. Each floor consisted of 3,266 tons (6 million pounds) of concrete on each floor. Each floor had over an acre of concrete 4 feet deep, let alone with all the plumbing, insulation and joists. Once one of the middle floors gave out, all that weight slamming down on each floor can cause it to collapse in no time. Most all of the people that said they planted bombs and that's how the tower fell. The witnesses stated the bombs were planted in the lower floors/basement and each of the collapses started from where the planes impacted so none of that makes any sense. It's science. Dumb people just believe those who are smarter than them, no matter how ridiculous it seems. Banscotty DP is a dipshit
So weird, I was watching controlled demolitions of buildings and this came up as a recommended video!!
Anyone saying this was faked, it's almost like your denying these families of their grief of their lost relative who may have worked in the tower, and I dont give a shit who you are or what you thought happened but that just makes you a terrible person
@@yoursimenthusiast8721 Fuck off 😂 people who's family members died surely want to know the truth or are they just happy to blame Bin Laden because it makes them feel better believing their government wouldn't do such a thing? Wake up.
@@yoursimenthusiast8721 There are many survivors and families of victims who don't believe the official story and say the opposite
@@PabloGonzalez-hv3td and those MaNy are wrong, and just as dum as the flat earthers or any other group of bafoons questioning history... we are no better than any of our enemy countries if we are happy with killing our own people... and so we did not kill our own people... goodbye 🖕🏻👋
@@yoursimenthusiast8721 Seems like you can't handle a little truth learn about OPERATION NORTHWOODS if you don't believe your government is capable of false flag attacks it almost happened in the 60s. The war on terror claimed more American lives than the "terror" itself.
Great software, couldn't help but notice it's not going down at free fall speed lol
Its not. It is damped by the upward resistance of still intact stories.
During the Months leading up to 9/11, there were many vacant floors undergoing “renovations”. The elevators were also going through upgrades which took months to complete, and allowed hundreds of tradesmen, laden with tonnes of parts and equipment, free access into both buildings and in particular, the elevator shafts which provided access to every column. The weekend before 9/11 there was no operational security in the building for the best part of 2 days. This information is not a conspiracy theory, it is easily verified by the Port Authority service records. There was more than enough time & opportunity to completely wire both buildings for a controlled explosion. Wake up America, your Governments have a history of doing this. Use some of your intelligence to seek the truth yourself. May all the victims of 9/11 RIP.
Imagine being one of the builders that helped build this and one day you look on the news and its destroyed
9/11 can't be an inside job, planes came from the outside. Amazing render.
jokes aside. It is, on occasion, entertaining to see those people who claim they LISTEN and SEE when they pick out one witness story and strawman it to fit their argument, contrary to video evidence
Or to see someone claim that 'The calculations' prove that gravity could not cause the destruction and find that they've listed no sources or no calculations of their own, and severely underestimate gravity
Or to see someone ask whether the tower used a concrete core, get corrected to steel, and proceed to ignore every fact placed in front of him for his own delusion.
I know its a serious subject, but still that was pretty darn funny!
Well i guess their parents never told them to not believe everything that's on the internet. I do get that their distrust in the governement, i don't trust the governement in my country eighter. But i don't think they would do what those terrorists did that day. Just like the terrorists are extremists, they are extremists too. They can't let a video about 9/11 pass by without commenting complete BS.
It was a funny joke btw 🤭
All the comments fighting each other saying things about conspiracy, chill out, its just a video, i know that 911 was a great tragedy and an unforgiven scar but the best you can do is try to build a better future and stop these kind of things happen again, and the best way to do it is stop fighting in the comments section and enjoy the amazong skills that this guy have in 3d modeling
P.D.:sorry if i made a mistake, i am mexican and i dont know good english
Another P.D.: dude your modeling skills are asweome, i just barely can make letters in 3d
....I think you are the Mexican Messiah....
Read the Qur'an!
This conspiracy will going on and on.....👊
If you see evil, then you should confront it.
@@ismanismun5736 dead right brother.
@@ismanismun5736 Sorry, I've never read the Bible, much less the Koran.
I'd rather read the fucking phone book.
The irony here is if you look at the actual collapse it looks nothing like this.
Indeed, he forgot to account for all the explosive charges required.
“The fires were burning for a very long time”. You say.
No they weren’t,after the initial flash ,they smouldered,puffed out lots of smoke.
That’s not a fire burning hot.
That’s not the fire needed to bend steel.
You're absolutely right brother the fires were only burning for about an hour and a half. What made molten steel started to pour out some of the windows is all the Nano thermite. Once they collapse into themselves, it was three months of molten Steel almost like a volcano. The only two countries in the world with nanothermite technology is America and Israel. I'm sure also that those buildings had unbelievable sprinkler technology for their size it would have easily put a fire out like that no problem. Look at the fire that happened in Dubai ! The whole building 3/4 was a Towering Inferno, crazy and that thing never collapsed in on itself!
RIGHT ON . I was thinking the same thing ! Over an hour and not even 2 hours is virtually NO TIME for105 story Structures such as BOTH WORLD TRADE BUILDINGS to implode into itself like it did (& considering these buildings WERE ironically famously publicized as being ABLE TO WITHSTAND the impact of a jet) . Yet most astonishingly , along with Building 7 which was NOT hit by the force of a 600 mile an hour jet ) -they were the first 3 buildings EVER in history to ALL be virtually pulverized to the point of unfathomable amounts of mushroom like cloud dust. Not to mention a very symmetrical like collapse , never seen before in history .. At the very least you would think buildings that appeared to disintegrate in this manner after those that created and bragged about their ability to withstand an airplane impact , would warrant a major MANDATORY and historical investigation, if for nothing else but to provide Architects , structural engineers, developers etc.. with much needed reform on building and safety standards to prevent something like this ever happening as much as possible . Almost 3000 people murdered from the way these buildings incinerated and yet its a proven fact a much needed Investigation of the scene was avoided like the plauge ..never mind critical thinking , its common sense that there something else going on here ..
What are you talking about!!! Underground fires smoke. The temperature remains hot because there is no way for the heat to escape.
@@wiretamer5710 That is a good point
It’s truly amazing how many people willingly go through life with their head solidly shoved up their ass, as evidenced from the moronic comments section.
explain that to tower 7.
no the government proved building 7 collapsed due to office fires on 2 floors that had nearly gone out when it collapsed at the speed of light due to bending of 2 beams in one corner of that strengthened building,but its ok they got the gold out of the basement the night befor.
Demolition companies have ceased using explosives and resorted to isolated office fires and minimal damage as the means of demolition? You'd be a fool not to have surely :/ Considering your comment.
Can your simulation programming show what forces made the giant sections of building fly so far away? And how most of the building materials ended up as dust at the bottom?
Most of the building didn't end up as dust. Look at pictures of ground zero, it's mostly all metal beams. A lot of the dust that came as a result of the collapse was things like the interior masonry work (think of all the tiling), the drywall, the concrete subflooring and not to mention the entire steel structure was coated in a fireproofing compound.
The large parts that were thrown off from the building is simply from the force of the top of the towers falling into the bottom, creating a lateral force on the building's exterior and essentially peeling the walls away as the mass fell through.
They hauled off almost 2 millions pounds of rubble. It was a lot more than dust.
The concrete however.... drop a chunk of concrete 100' and it burst into a thousand pieces. Drop thousands of tons of glass, steel and concrete from a quarter mile high and it will pulverize most of what is beneath it. Even humans were ground into dust.
It's pretty crazy too if you watch when they go under the towers. A lot of it was untouched. There was a subway system and almost like a mall under the towers. After they moved a lot of the metal beams and concrete pieces they could get under there through pockets. There were news stands that still were untouched. The newspapers having that date was eerie. The stores with clothes all on the racks. Everything was covered in dust though. I was just shocked so much underneath was still okay.
I watched this interview with a guy who was talking about all the cars in the underground car park they took out that were fine. I always wonder if they resold them. Someone has a car from 9/11 and has no idea. Like how they sell cars that have been in hurricanes...I think it was Katrina that people ended up getting cars from and didn't know until mold and problems from water damage started happening.
As for pieces that got flung so far away. I watched this documentary and they found a guy's legs on a building pretty far away. They said it was from him sitting at his desk as the plane came in. The force and pressure literally blew things away. You can see all the debris that flies out when the plane hits. From him sitting at his desk, his legs under the desk, it protected his legs. That's why they only found the legs on that building top and not the rest. That's what it said anyway in the doc I watched.
Those poor people. I can’t imagine what those 2,626 people who died in these collapses felt. The people outside saw the towers coming down, but the people inside only heard it coming down. It probably sounded like 10 trains coming right at them. It’s not even the collapse of the towers that’s profound, it’s the loss of life. Those towers were landmarks, they were just as iconic as Mount Rushmore. When tourists come to America they wanted to see those towers first
The "shattering" image of the steel structure is ludicrous!
Yeah right... steel never shatters or explodes under pressure... do some homework!
Like crushing a soda can
@@queenearplugs5158 but it’s not a soda can…
@@memyselfandiuntildeath1911 thats why he said "like" smh
**Kostack Studio posts a lengthy disclaimer explaining the purpose of the video, followed by a comprehensive FAQ**
...
**idiots explode into pointless arguing in the comments anyway**
lmao
This is some quality simulation, given how aged it is.
I'd say good work, with how close this got - given the right settings.
When it comes to the fires that softened the steel trusses, I've always found the following book excerpt interesting.
"The raging fires, capable of generating their own wind systems, fed on wrecked office furniture, computers, carpets and aircraft cargo, but primarily it fed on ordinary paper - an ample supply of the white sheets that were so much a part of the larger battlefield scene. Without that paper, many experts believe, the fire might not have achieved the intensity necessary to soften and weaken the steel beyond its critical threshold. It would be simplifying things, but not by much, to conclude that it was paperwork that brought the Towers down."
9/11, on a “demolition” channel?
*Coincidence?*
The software was named Demolition, it's just a coincidence.
largest skyscraper demolition in history
The idea that the top stayed intact to piledrive is laughable at best. Equal and opposite reaction. Go ahead jump out of a plane and land feet first on a stack of 10000 stacked up cardboard boxes. What happens? You crush through at first and slow and slow and slow UNTIL you stop. Your momentum is arrested by the material still in the way. Your design basically requires all other material bellow to have zero resistance. It's a joke. Not to mention how an office fire with zero jet fuel to blame collapsed a relatively undamaged WTC 7.
NIST rejects the..'' top stayed intact to piledrive theory'' !!!
You theorists always talk about the third law. What about the first and second? AHAHAHA you are stupid.
Funny how much computing power has advanced in 9 years.
Jet fuels burns at 1,517 F. Steel can be hot formed at 1,600 F. So you tell me that with 36,000 psi and hours of constant heat and physical stress that Jet fuel didn't bring down that building.
These compilations are a joke. They are trying to confuse 4 year olds. Its absurd.
+openworld poland no, you are totally wrong and this simulation is correct. it has no joints, exactly as in the real thing where joints where removed with explosives.
isn't that sweet?
+racerschin Secret explosives aren't "sweet"; they're nonexistent.
"The main purpose of this video is to prove the capabilities of my
physics system development, if any. It is not intended to prove or
disprove 9/11 conspiracy theories." You're the confused one.
Actually this model has joints.
How would this explain the situation where the entire section of the tower above the impact zone toppled over, effectively removing the downward pressure on at least half the cross section of the standing structure. Yet the building, including the section that was trying to fall off, continued to disintegrate symmetrically...
It didn't topple over. it simply collapsed more toward one side (the side most heavily damaged). Once the collapse began the upper stories fell the only way they could....straight down. The towers were @ 90% empty space inside, there was nothing for the top sections to 'slide' on. Understand?
I hope someone is paying to to write like that, because I really wouldn't want to think you could actually believe it. No, it didn't topple over, but it was in the process of doing that and certainly would have, were it not for the fact is was blown to pieces in mid air. Watch the videos! That section was supposed to be the 'battering ram' crushing the floors below - yet it is clearly 'disconnected' from the sections below, or it could not have moved the way it did and as far as it did, off of its alignment. And, while in the process of falling it, and the section below it are still exploding in every direction.
Yes Nigel, everyone who has even a basic understanding of mechanics is a paid shill. Only clueless conspiritards like you know the twoof....that teams went into the occupied floors where the planes hit and strategically cut beams and planted explosives. Then they waited for the planes to hit and let the fires burn for a time before setting them off. So clever!
AZCobraman
Hey, thanks, no need to be so generous with your praise - but I'm surprised that you don't know about all the situations leading up to 9/11 when there were work details, out of hours activities and power outages - that could have offered people access to the building. Glad to put you right on that though. Oh and, when there is a proper, independent investigation, conducted by people who look at all the facts and what remains of the evidence - I for one will shut up if that reveals that all the coincidence, unusual happenings, first time in history events, turn out to be just plain old what jolly well happens when a hi-jacked plane that never took off is flown at an impossible speed, by people who don't know how to fly them in to buildings designed to withstand their impact...
C'mon man, nobody went in and tore up all the walls and cut beams and planted explosives....right where the planes hit. All that stuff is just Hollywood-style idiocy. The rest of your 'planes never took off' BS, is just as clueless as the earlier stuff.
No 'independent investigation' will ever be enough for you guys. You've got it all figured out already and no amount of rational explanation, physics or evidence....not to mention live video footage of the attacks and collapses will even be enough to drag you out of your echo chambers of woo and nonsense.
Oh and the towers DID withstand the impact of the planes. They remained standing long enough to allow the vast majority of the occupants to escape. And you of course know that the whole 'designed to withstand a plane hit' refers to an accident. A plane off course, going slow, low on fuel, etc. Not a plane dropping from 25K ft. going 450mph (and yes they were going that fast, it can be calculated from the videos themselves) and being flown intentionally into the buildings. Another of your cherry picked 'gotchas' shot to shit by reality.
The first one is the closest to what I remember of the collapse videos. The rest seem to have too much splintering, but they all capture the floors pancaking.
this model doesnt capture the floors collapsing several storeis below the main point where the pancaking occurs.
A lot of people are saying that the towers fell the way the did due to inertia, when in fact it was designed to fall that way. The architect knew that if the building were to collapse then it would need to cause minimal damage, so it was designed to fall in on itself.
you are generally incorrect. the tower twisted from burn damages floor to floor by 4 degrees and collapsed
Did you develop the whole Physics Engine by yourself? Man, that's amazing :0
Very nice graphics. I hope your physics system development went well.
You posted this 6 days before the 10th anniversary of 9/11 and now it’s been 20 years, that’s crazy.
Interesting video, thank you for the amount of time and effort you put into it.
🥊Steel frame towers are built very strongly. They need to withstand the pressure of gale-force winds, the violent rocking motion of earthquakes, and the ravages of time. For this reason, they are almost impossible to destroy.
Airplane strikes do not destroy skyscrapers. A bomber strike to the Empire State Building during World War II did not harm that building. The World Trade Center towers were designed to survive a strike by a Boeing 707. The 767 is more massive, so the building was stressed near its design limits. But if a failure had occurred at that moment, it would have been at the point of highest levered stress, near the base of the tower, and the tower would have fallen over like a giant tree in a forest windstorm. That, of course, did not happen.
Fires do not destroy skyscrapers. Never in the history of steel frame structures has a single one been destroyed by fire.
How to destroy a skyscraper. So, how do you destroy a skyscraper? Suppose you need the vacant land to build another one, for example.
A nuclear bomb is very effective, but it can be difficult to get permits from the city.
An early invention was the wrecking ball. A huge lump of steel and lead is swung from a massive chain at high speed. With the benefit of momentum, it is able to bend or break a few girders at a time. But it would be a hopeless task to destroy a tower the size of the World Trade Center, using a wrecking ball.
The most effective, cleanest, safest way to destroy a skyscraper is known as controlled demolition. The trick is to distribute explosives at key points throughout the structure. The explosives are detonated simultaneously, destroying the integrity of the steel frame at key points, such that no part of the building is supported against the force of gravity. The entire mass is pulled swiftly to earth, where gravity does the work of pounding the structure into tiny fragments of steel and concrete. The gravitational potential energy of the structure is converted smoothly and uniformly into kinetic energy, and then is available very efficiently to pulverize the fragments of the building as they impact against the unyielding earth. Controlled demolitions have a striking and characteristic appearance of smooth, flowing collapse.
As your eyes will tell you, the World Trade Center collapses looked like controlled demolitions. Here’s the proof.
The proof. According to the law of gravity, it is possible to calculate the time it takes for an object to fall a given distance. The equation is H=(1/2)at2, where H is the height, a is the acceleration of gravity (10 meters per second squared) and t is time in seconds. Plug in the height of the building at 1350 feet (411 meters) and we get 9 seconds. That is just about the length of time it took for the very top of the World Trade Center to fall to the street below. According to all reports, the whole thing was over in just about ten seconds.
It is as if the entire building were falling straight down through thin air. As if the entire solid structure below, the strong part which had not been burned or sliced or harmed in any significant way, just disappeared into nothingness. Yet this (within a small tolerance) is what we would expect to find if there had been a controlled demolition, because the explosions below really do leave the upper stories completely unsupported. Like the Road Runner after he runs off the edge of the cliff, the entire building pauses a moment, then goes straight down.
Any kind of viscous process or friction process should have slowed the whole thing down. Like dropping a lead ball into a vat of molasses, or dropping a feather into the air, gravitational acceleration cannot achieve its full effect if it is fighting any opposing force. In the case of the World Trade Center, the intact building below should have at least braked the fall of the upper stories. This did not happen. There was no measurable friction at all.
This proves controlled demolition.
We have been lied to. We have been lied to about this, at multiple levels. The first lie was that the load of fuel from the aircraft was the cause of structural failure. No kerosene fire can burn hot enough to melt steel. In point of fact, most of the fuel in the jets was contained in their wing tanks. The thin aluminum of the tanks was pierced or stripped as the airplanes penetrated the walls of the towers, and the result was the huge fireball which was seen on national TV, where most of this fuel was burned.
A hot, vigorous fire would have blown out many windows in the building and would have burned a red or white color. This was not what happened. The fire in the World Trade Center was an ordinary smoldering office fire.
Thank you Corey that's the best explanation I've ever heard, well said, I've also known this for years it's all lies. Another thing is THE BUSH family controlled the whole event with THE DEMO and they also had a HUGE BOND PAYMENT (or something) that was coming due on the 12th of September, 2001, so they destroyed the building(s) quite THE MONSTERS ha?! This was a CIA HIT controlled by George Bush Sr. who yes, was executed by the Patriots (White Hats) this past year (2019).
Joe Bertocchi yes you’re correct, I had this explained to me back in 2004 when I was a civilian contractor at an Air Force Base in Southern California by somebody with a lot of credibility. It was a controlled demolition there is no doubt about that. But everything did not go accordingly to plan. He explained that the buildings were supposed to be completely evacuated then they were going to “pull “I still pray for the ones that lost their lives and their families. Have a great day and a merry Christmas :-)
Andy W yes it is, most will never remove the veil from their eyes. If and when that is done you do not have to dig very deep at all to find the truth. And when one does it is absolutely terrifying.
Andy W I love you brother God bless🤝
anthony winter They did have steel quake braces,and yes they were some of the strongest buildings for its time.👍🏼
Although Newtons 3rd Law of Motion didn't happen that day it's interesting to note that in a gravitational collapse there are always body's or body parts big enough to recognize as human beings between the pancaking floors, yet on the same day that the US fighter jets decided to take the day off more than 20,000 body parts were found from 2700 victims and 1100 bodies left no fragments big enough to extract DNA from. I wonder if you can explain how a gravitational collapse can produce bone fragments from office workers and fire-fighters on the top of the Deutsche bank roof without the use of explosives ?
Because a section of building the size of the statue of liberty falling from hundreds of meters up does that to people.
+Ginger Biscuit Bollocks name me one building that has happened to where bodies were shredded in a pancake collapse. You have just made up that nonsense with out a shred of evidence. why don't you just fuck off you total bell end
+Ginger Biscuit keep eating that biscuit and look straight ahead, don't ask any questions .....your story quite rotten probably feels like its going to keep, but it wont and it doesn't. Get informed and start looking around or get off that fat cat payroll.
Cat Osullivan "Wake up sheeple" You people are so repetitive good god.
+Ginger Biscuit So are you paid well, or simply unemployed so any income will do? I'd imagine you're free from income tax, good for you sonny jim laddy boy jim!
Excellant A+. I did much research trying to understand how they fell. The construction company Koch said in the book "Men of Steel" that if they had used a 1" bolt instead of a 5/8 bolt on the truss connections, the buildings might have stayed up. Your video helps me to finally understand how they came down with the twisting forces at play. Forget the outer walls and just picture the effect of the weight coming downing on the floor trusses and the twisting force that would be applied to the center columns. I never could understand how the tremendously strong center columns could have been brought down so easy. Your video helps understand how the twisting force may have been the reason why. Once the force is applied, it simply sheared the bolts. Amazing how it all happened so fast and nobody really ever understood it. Thanks for the video.
This is an interesting simulation. After all these years I don't know why I still view these 9/11 videos. I've never participated in construction design on the scale of the twin towers, but I do have a civil engineering degree.
At this point, at least for me, it's more like a psychology study to get a glimpse into the minds of CT (conspiracy theorists) to see what makes them tick. What is causing society to be so polarized? Don't get me wrong, not all CT are uneducated morons. Many follow a pseudo scientific approach - do research and come to conclusions based on their findings. If I had the desire, I could probably do some quick internet research myself and find 'proof' that unicorns living on a flat earth do indeed exist.
If you want to prove what you want to believe, the internet makes this possible. I suppose the same could be said for what I want to believe, but I've been involved in the design and failure simulations - I'm no genius, but I have some of the intellectual tools to form a realistic conclusion. Momentum, impact force, kinetic energy: it's all basic physics.
On a more philosophical note, there is always Occam's razor. :)
Well Ken let me suggest two books, although both published sometime back may give you some insight the why and how of our current societal delima: Futureshock and of course manufacture of consent.
Just before the Hour there will be many liars and the insignificant shall have all of the say - Mohammed
God made you ugly for a reason
Even if the fires were strong enough to melt all of the trusses or any of them on the building (and they most likely were not), the building would not have collapsed. The structure underneath had a resistance to that which far outweighed the force above. So the official story is wrong on two major counts not one. Go here for starters.
www.ae911truth.org/evidence/evidence-overview
You're an engineer, explain what he's getting at in the video. All I see is different renderings of the collapse. I came here hoping for a narrative and didn't get one
Please do a video on wtc 7 because the story on that is office furniture got fire then the building came down, do you yanks actually bloody believe that sounds like a bunch bs to me
ua-cam.com/video/VAkTbyENZ5s/v-deo.html
@@KaiKostack ua-cam.com/video/zkL0SkG83tI/v-deo.html
@12weasel100 I farted a blew a hole in my wall
@Ashton Lovell what did u say to me punkbitch
@Ashton Lovell I will hit you with a stone Cold stunner or an RKO
Did you know when metal gets hot it actually bends very easily?
How hot can the fuel make the steel,? You do know steel is an excellent thermal conductor, so you are heating the entire structure. ANSI steel (building rated) is hardened, so more heat required. So what we are left with is a energy deficit. Not enough energy to produce the outcome. But, ignore any of that. What is really fun, because the result is impossible, is the rudder going into the building. The rudder(tail) is in no way structurally sound enough to cut through the steel outer panels. The outer panels of the world trade towers were structural steel components and what held the floor joists. So the tails of the airplanes should stay outside of the building. There is no way the physics of the situation could be any different. So if the tails of the airplanes went inside the buildings, the whole picture is a cartoon. This is the science of the rudders, and a fact no one can change. The rudders should have been broken off and stayed outside of the building. That makes the videos cartoons. And the "official story" false, without wiggle room.
Dan Howard okay dan
@@hansdoward Its possible for the rudder to go through the steel because the plane was flying faster after it was hijacked, the hijackers increased the speed, plus aircraft grade aluminium is a hell of a lot tougher than regular aluminium.
@@BackwoodsGaming2024 You said it before I could. Well done. Prove this guy wrong!
I'd like to see this animation showing the full height of the buildings so that we can see how the top floors, which have dissolved to essentially nothing, continue to crush the 40 stories below.
He's working on it.
Also, the top floors can't dissolve to nothing unless you go into Einsteinian physics. But that's probably not what you mean
Kostack's new model, as mentioned is due any time. If you expect to find what you describe however you won't, because that is not at all what happened.
This is all wrong. Watch again real footage of the towers coming down. What you see is the building being pulverize as it free falls. It is not collapsing... it is disintegrating. This could only mean one thing. Nuclear energy was used. That's why there was molten that lasted for 2 months and why a huge hole was made in the bedrock what was melted rock. Also, why a bomb went off in the basement and a few people had their skin melted off. The truth was in the water that was tested on site. This video depicts a collapse
***** Sounds good to me. You're using ''critical thinking'' that's all we can do. But these numb'tards that believe in the ''Official Story" scare me. But just how the hell did they stick a volcano in there. LOL
+Roadsmoker Stash
mmmmmm
+Roadsmoker Stash Nuclear energy does not create molten steel that stays molten for months. And there was no huge hole, nor molten rock.
And that 'bomb' was a fireball, not a nuclear explosion.
Indeed, only a few people were injured by the fireball.
Yet you want us to believe that a nuclear explosion in the basement at the moment the plane hit the tower would only cause a few people to have burns and nothing else...
+Whatever Noticed Who is ''us'' Do you have a group of people sitting next to you? LOL It's not important what I believe...It's only important what you believe. If you twist information that you disseminate....you are never gonna get anywhere with enlightening yourself. IE; I never said ''nuclear explosion at the same moment a plane hit'' If you don't know about the molten rock and huge hole underneath the tower; I'm guessing you still think ''office furniture fire'' brought down WTC7
+Roadsmoker Stash Nuclear? Are you kidding me? The basin would have been destroyed. You know, the walls holding back the water from leaking into the basement? Oh! But that doesn't matter because some Russian "scientist" said so!! Must be true so fuck real physics, I'm going the nuclear option!!
Way to get MAD, dumbass.
This is always something that confused me if the plane hit around the 90th floor, how did the entire building collapse? I'm guessing from the video that the undamaged floors above came down over the damaged floors and it just kept on going till it hit the ground.
Yes otherwise known as “pancaking” which is cited the cause of collapse was
Correct....Drones were common site after that. Boeing and Airbus ✈️ already had 💯 percent ground controlled flight technology since more than 3 decades. The planes were totally unmanned. Also, internal structure was weekend by blasts 10-15 mins prior to planes hitting the buildings.....rest was work of gravity..
The WTC collaspe is easily demonstrated with and empty pop can and as long as it's sides remained rigid it can take a lot of pressure before being crushed. However dent the sides a little and collapsing the can can be done with less force because the load is no longer being transfered equally thru the walls. Indeed buildings like the Empire State Building transfers it load thru a forest of columns /boxes like was used in timber frame mining used in 1800 and it's why the B-25 that struct it in 1940s it caught the plane like a catchers mitt.
Yep, Empire was built like a grid:
www.walksofnewyork.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/index.jpeg
WTC was built like a tube within a tube:
i.pinimg.com/originals/5f/87/c9/5f87c985a6f569e4177f747117960a34.jpg
How about building 7 though I read there was a lot of financial record and even billions of dollars worth of gold in there that conveniently disappeared when the building came down. This building wasn’t even hit by an airplane, I’m not a conspiracy theory dude either just curios.
huh, thats an analogy I've never heard of before
pretty cool, ngl
Apart from the fact that the wtc had a massive steel column in the centre 🙄🙄🙄
When WTC towers fell their debris just didn't go into its basement but came down on the entire complex including its other building. Number 7 was damaged so extensively facing away from street that it was a question of time before it to would fall. The side Building 7 shown on TV faced outward but the side that was toward the towers was almost sheared off as they fell gave the impression that it wasn't damaged at all. In Denver a number of years ago a hospital under going demolition was being picked apart from behind and collapsed unexpectedly away from the side that was still standing. Indeed the side facing City Park just of the road separating each still had its windows etc. fortunately it fell back towards the side being cut away instead across its four lanes with its traffic. It took no lives since the crew doing the destructible n were at much I believe but the hospital appeared to have been pushed over almost intact as if by a giant hand.
People don’t know that just from the top falling several floors down is catastrophic to the structural support of the building. The building is meant to support weight not support force. That force caused the bottom to go out.
Interesting stuff - how was the trajectory controlled in a perfect vertical plain - is that a parameter perhaps?
This is called "physics". You will get to it one day. Maybe.
those towers had a super strong core but i dont see that core when thry fall
I would be very curious to see you run a partial simulation showing just the lower 1/4 section collapsing if running an entire full building simulation is not feasible......
The path straight down is that of most resistance. In addition, the alleged plane and fire damage was asymmetrical, and could not have been responsible for the symetrical collapse, straight down the middle, near free fall speed into its own footprint. If those 2 things were actually responsible, the structure would fall to one side like a tree, but neither tower did, nor did bldg 7, which had a different frame design. However, plane hits and fires can't explain the fact that all the concrete (alot) turned to sub micron powder in mid air, along with some of the steel, one lone 700 foot section of core column left standing after the collapse, seen from 4 different angles on video, started to fall before turning to fine dust whilst still upright. Despite outraged protest and complaints, much of the steel remaining after the collapse was shipped out within three weeks to China and quickly smelted. The actual official investigation only began well over a year after, comically underfunded, and careful not to ask about not mention bldg 7. Bush & Chaney allowed to testify off the record, and behind doors, not even under oath.
They destroyed a crime scene.
The twin towers were not designed for any kind of vertical kinetic energy.
They collapsed due to dynamic amplification.
The twin towers did not collapse symmetrically.
The twin towers did not collapse into their own foot print....they collapsed out all over the surrounding buildings.
The TT's and wtc7 had ''moment resisting'' outer shells, that are designed to resist the overturning moment, so its impossible for these buildings to tip over like a tree.
Wtc7 had exactly the same frame design as the TT's.
The concrete floors in the TT's were made from a low strength, light weight concrete, called ''litecrete'' .....that's why it turned to dust....the steel did not turn to dust.
The connections in wtc7's inner core were weak ''shear'' connections, that allow the girders to turn in a circle
I get that the outer sections of the columns and floors should collapse almost completely, but surely the centre of the buildings would have remained partially standing. Still not convinced about building 3???
They WERE partially standing you idiot ---> From video evidence, significant portions of the cores of both buildings (roughly 60 stories of WTC 1 and 40 stories of WTC 2) are known to have stood 15 to 25 seconds after collapse initiation before they, too, began to collapse.
Flawed building codes allowed a building like wtc7 to be designed and approved.
Can you explain how in actual footage you can clearly see massive steel beams dissolve into dust before they hit the ground?
They have recovered all steel to be expected from the building design as solid beams from the rubble, so you can be sure that no steel turned into dust. The steel was covered in dust when falling which made it only look like it would turn into dust.
yes!! HOW did this happen!!!???
Kostack Studio lol what a dick !! Did they do that before they put it on a boat to China never to be seen again!?!?!
Because that's what you do!? Isn't it
We interupt you for this Public Service Announcement: "No beams were hurt in the demo..cough, cough, I mean, destru....cough cough, I mean attacks on the WTC".
Yes don’t believe your lying eyes just listen to the nice man with the animated picture show of reality. The beams you saw turn to dust and disappear did not disappear .....they were dusty .....then you couldn’t see them anymore.....so now you know the “truth”. Yes in FACT Ko sack was able to verify that the very beam you watched disappear was located in a “very dusty” and “not disappeared” condition at ground zero....NO REALLY 🤷♂️!! He saw the intact non disappearing beam....rest assured that you couldn’t have seen what you obviously saw.....and can still go watch today...... Ko sack make a computer thing so he is obviously more informed than you and your stupid conspiratorial eyes and brain are.....and he is defiantly not a goose stepper paid to maintain this low rent propaganda......NO!! he doggedly monitors this posting after 8years out of DUTY AND HONOR AND FOR THE TRUTH DAMNIT🧐. A true patriot. George Soros ....opps....I mean George Washington would be proud!!
You pieces of shit are loosing control of the narrative....no matter what you do the truth will find all of you and the when He does.....the wrath you have heaped upon yourselves will be unspeakable. Have a shitty day coward
3x in one day, never before, never since.
Excellent ... moot point.
Yeah those girls were hot. But yeah, I doubt I will get that lucky again.
What are you even talking about???
Jeffrey Fisher XDDDDDD
Rest in peace. Posted at September 11 2020 11:54 pm in texas
tornado
Thanks for doing this, pretty impressive really
To the conspiracists:
Three identically constructed buildings all experience identical modes of failure due to identical stresses: Physical impact, followed by heat.
Start from this assertion: identically constructed buildings fail in precisely the same manner, and fall in precisely the same manner when they encounter identical stressors.
The three buildings that failed had no load-bearing concrete. Metal gets softer with heat.
Ever eat one of those nasty-ass push pops? It doesn’t have to melt entirely before the shit show starts.
Ever seen a kid eating an ice cream cone? The ice cream will fall before it is all melted.
Lastly, imagine a REEEEALLY fat guy laying in a hammock tied to a metal frame. Its easy to imagine the frame bending inwards as his weight sags the hammock downwards. If the hammock cords suddenly broke, the frame poles that bent inwards would get flung outwards, and the fat guy hits the ground.
Now stack 100 of these fat guys on hammocks with metal frames. If a hammock near the top fails, the poles fly outwards. He lands on top of the next fat guy, that hammock breaks, the poles fly outwards, and both fat guys land on the third. By now, it won’t matter how heavy the guy in the next hammock is, the fat guys falling from above are enough to snap the hammock, fling the poles, and continue downwards, repeating itself over and over and over until the bottom is reached.
And that is how the towers fell. The floors were suspended from the central core to the outer wall. A truss is like a very stiff hammock - fastens at the end, distributes weight as horizontal tension, just as gravity pulls the fat guy down but bends the poles horizontally inwards.
This is how the towers appear to be exploding outwards as they collapse internally.
Fat Guys Huh....?
Watch architects and engineers for 9/11 and decide for yourself
rider7488 I am an engineer, I decided for myself years ago. Three buildings of a uniquely designed complex fell in identical ways consistent with the damage they sustained. They were the first buildings of this design type to fall. Others have since fallen, with similar results
Go here. It explains why the official collapse story cannot be true.
www.ae911truth.org/evidence/evidence-overview
spend some time watching videos of other steel structures collapsing. Steel collapses in very specific ways. Here’s one to get you started: ua-cam.com/video/RRTcS55JtuQ/v-deo.html
Why so many dislikes?
because it shows how the buildings logically collapsed using physics, proving hte NSIT to be a sound investigation. In other word twoofers, dont like the truth
Because it's a fucking cartoon.
***** That doesn't make sense.
xCmOn3yx777 I don't get what you mean. Isn't this a demolition video? NIST didn't say anything about demolition did they? maybe I am not understanding the meaning of this video. I am assuming this Blender demo program is a new program to help plan a demolition of a building. The guy who did this video just choose to use a computer model of the North Tower. He says in the description this is not for proving or disproving the 9/11. Please explain why this fallows the NIST report.
because it clearly shows a hole where a plane flew in dumb ass. these people are helping with the offensive criminal cover up of what really happened that day. the NIST report is stupidity and cartoon like fantastical bullshit. and because the gov said its its true it must be true right?