Article. http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/americas/06/21/newyork.simulation/index.html

High quality simulation on YouTube.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cddIgb1nGJ8

 

am I wrong for actually thinking that is awesome?

-as in I think the physics and recreation and the detail are incredible....

 

Nope. That's why it's news and why I posted it.

 

Too bad they didn't go into the collapse, that's the controversial part.

 

Only for a few people.

 

Like me.

Without going into it and pushing the politics thing, I will say I have not seen an explanation that proves the jet was solely responsible for the way they collapsed - not that I feel any contributing factors were politically oriented in the first place.

 

The tinfoil hats responding to that video on youtube are really pissing me off.

 

And you're 100% correct: the actual jet was NOT responsible for the towers falling.

(and before i continue, let me also add that i'm not pushing politics...)

Several months after 9/11, there were several seminars held on Long Island that discussed how and WHY the towers fell and why they fell they way they did. My father, who is an architect, attended a few of these seminars.

The Twin Towers were amazing buildings, not only from an architectural standpoint, but also from an engineering standpoint. They were originally built to withstand a collision with a prop plane.

However, as you obviously know, on 9/11 each tower was hit by a huge commercial airliner...AND REMAINED STANDING.

What caused the towers to fall was not the actual physical plane, but rather the jet fuel, which spilled out all over and was ignited. This in turn softened/melted the steel beams. As a result, the beams buckled and collapsed in a downward fashion.

The exact same explanation has been given during many of my engineering classes the past few years, and it completely makes sense.

Mods, if need be, please feel free to edit or remove my post if there's something that you don't like...  

 

How about those that claim structural steel should not melt at the temperature of burning jet fuel?

Also, how does that explain how BOTH buildings completely collapsed neatly into their own footprints, and didn't topple over at all?

Why would a heavily reinforced building that tall collapse neatly all the way to the ground because of damage near the top?

How about the reports that the third building that had very minor damage WAS destroyed on purpose with (likely) pre-existing controlled explosives, for no apparent reason?

 

In before lock.

 

I never heard of that claim, honestly.
From what i know, heard, and have read, structural steel does indeed warp under high temperatures. Wood, foor instance, does not warp, so if the towers were made of wood and fell they way they did, yeah, that would seem a bit fishy...

I'm sure there is steel that can withstand VERY high temperature, but i don't think ANYBODY in a million years considered people purposely crashing big jets into the buildings when they designed the towers...



and both towers fell because they both experienced jet fuel spilling into the building, igniting, and heating up the beams. After time, those several floors could not support the weight of the top part of the building, and fell straight down (following the laws of gravity).

 

That's a little immature.
This is simply a disscussion of building mechanics and engineering...
Nothing political.

 

I'll second OptimusPrime86's distinction between melting and weakening. It's my understanding there's a significant drop in the ability of steel to withstand warping forces at a certain temperature that's well below its melting point. Same goes for the collapse from damage up top being due to spilled jet fuel.

The 'footprint' collapse could be possible for a variety of reasons, and while I admit I'm not an architect or engineer, doesn't it seems likely that buildings are constructed with such a collapse in mind for both safety reasons and to facilitate eventual demolition--a combination of planned obsolescence and the same idea used in cars that crumple rather than resist impact?

In the end, though, the best argument that I've ever heard for the collapse being genuinely the result of the plane's impact rather than anything else is Occam's Razor. No matter how unlikely it seems (it doesn't to me, but even for those who have trouble believing it), it seems even more unlikely that there is a conspiracy that simultaneously has the power to engineer all the events of 9/11, but not repress any suspicion. Any elaboration on that would be political, but I think it makes sense.

 

The third building being "pulled" is what really gets me.

I could buy the first two both falling from fire and impact as they did, if it wasn't for that third one that seeming fell for no reason. The building owner even admitted that they decided to "pull it.” Did they run in during the chaos and place charges, or were they already there?

Were the same charges present in the towers?

I have no thoughts of government conspiracy, the only conspiracy I see here is insurance fraud. Perhaps the owner was sick of the repeated attempts on the buildings and saw a convenient way out.

 

A nice debunking of the conspiracy theorist claims.

 

What a frustrating website design. A little left padding would do wonders.

 

Some good stuff there, but I'm still not convinced on certain points.

 

Then there's probably no convincing you.

Not saying that as a negative, just being realistic.

 

An interesting simulation...a little boring, but interesting nevertheless. Thats all I have to say about this subject.

 

I could probably be convinced if a scale replica was built and hit by a tiny plane with the same outcome, but that isn't possible for a number of reasons.

If they applied the computer model in the OP to the entire event, that would be interesting to see as well.