Page 1
Page 1
Started By
Message

Video simulation of WTC tower collapse removes the smoke and debris

Posted on 9/11/26 at 8:17 am
Posted by stout
Porte du Lafitte
Member since Sep 2006
185171 posts
Posted on 9/11/26 at 8:17 am




Channel of more videos


quote:

In the real footage, so much is hidden by fire, dust, debris, distance, and chaos that many people come away with the impression that the towers simply dropped straight down into their own footprints.

But that is not really what happened.

These simulations make it much easier to see that the collapse begins in the heavily damaged and fire-weakened region, the upper section starts moving and tilting, and the destruction then propagates downward through the structure.

The towers do not simply disappear vertically into their own footprints. Large portions of the upper structure and exterior are moving outward and to the side as the collapse develops. Much of that motion is simply obscured in the real videos once the enormous debris cloud forms.

And this is also why I find these simulations useful when people describe the collapses as looking like “controlled demolition.”

Strip away the smoke and dust and the resemblance becomes much less convincing.

What you see is a highly asymmetric structural failure beginning around the aircraft-damaged and fire-affected floors, followed by an enormous moving mass progressively overwhelming the structure beneath it. There is tilting, rotation, exterior columns peeling away, debris being thrown far outside the building footprint, and structural failure occurring chaotically as the collapse moves downward.

That is very different from the neat mental image usually implied by “controlled demolition,” where structural supports are deliberately severed in a carefully timed sequence to produce a predetermined collapse.

And importantly, we already know what preceded these collapses.

Both towers suffered massive aircraft-impact damage. Fireproofing was stripped from portions of the structure. Large, uncontrolled fires then burned across multiple floors - for about 56 minutes in the South Tower and about 102 minutes in the North Tower - heating and weakening structural components until collapse initiated.

Once that upper mass began moving, the loads imposed on the floors and structure beneath became vastly greater than anything they had been designed to carry.

The result was progressive collapse.

No, an animation is not proof simply because it looks convincing, and these are not official NIST simulations. They are visualizations built under particular assumptions.

But as visualizations, I think they are extremely useful.

They let you see something the original footage often cannot show clearly: beneath that enormous cloud of smoke and debris was a complicated, violent, asymmetric structural failure - not two buildings neatly dropping straight down into their own footprints.

A note on the simulation: this is not intended to reproduce the collapse down to the exact motion of every beam, floor panel, and fragment of debris. No practical simulation could do that. Its value is in modeling the large-scale structural behavior - how the major sections deform, move, tilt, separate, and progressively fail. Think of it as a visualization of the mechanics and overall collapse behavior, not a frame-by-frame reconstruction of where every piece of steel ultimately landed.




LINK
Posted by FearTheFish
Member since Dec 2007
4590 posts
Posted on 9/11/26 at 8:29 am to
Was this someone's senior AutoCAD project? This doesn't seem like a real possibility - especially that entire left side just hanging out like that.
Posted by Towelie
America's Wang
Member since Aug 2007
19346 posts
Posted on 9/11/26 at 8:37 am to
Steel Beams can't melt Jet Fuel
Posted by awestruck
Member since Jan 2015
14831 posts
Posted on 9/11/26 at 8:40 am to
quote:

Steel Beams can't melt Jet Fuel
Correct

And maybe the most factual statement in this thread.
Posted by TDsngumbo
Member since Oct 2011
51966 posts
Posted on 9/11/26 at 8:42 am to
quote:

especially that entire left side just hanging out like that.

The towers collapsed from the inside out. As I understand it, their main support was accomplished by steel beams instead of relying more on concrete (which I believe the new WTC tower now does). So when the steel weakened, it started to give way and once that occurred it was a domino effect, which pulled the rest of the steel beams down with it. The exterior wall you see there that appears to be a large section just hanging out wasn't weakened which is why it remained mostly in tact as it fell. Outside walls weren't weakened, only the interior supports were. The building's main support was relying on the interior beams, not the exterior ones. When those interior ones were broken and weakened by the burning jet fuel, they gave way which eliminated the towers' main support structure. The rest came down with it.

The new tower relies much more on a hybrid steel and extremely hardened concrete core. If a plane crashes into the new one, never say never, but it's likely not going to result in the same outcome. It'll likely stay standing because of this.
Posted by mtntiger
Asheville, NC
Member since Oct 2003
29946 posts
Posted on 9/11/26 at 8:49 am to
But, but, but.....

....Rosie O'Donnell said fire has never melted steel before. Who am I supposed to believe?
Posted by danilo
Member since Nov 2008
26468 posts
Posted on 9/11/26 at 8:54 am to
Controlled demolition. Confirmed.
Posted by DownshiftAndFloorIt
Here
Member since Jan 2011
73000 posts
Posted on 9/11/26 at 9:03 am to
You can see the perimeter supports buckle right before the whole thing comes down. The mechanics of what happened once the supports started to buckle are pretty well understood and scientifically supported from what I recall.
Posted by tigeraddict
Baton Rouge
Member since Mar 2007
15226 posts
Posted on 9/11/26 at 9:39 am to
quote:

Temperature Milestones for Structural Steel

Up to 400°F (204°C): Strength remains relatively stable or shows a minor peak, but then begins a steady decline.

1,100°F (593°C): Steel loses up to 50% of its room-temperature structural strength.Above

1,200°F (649°C): Strength drops rapidly, losing up to 90% of its load capacity and becoming highly susceptible to deformation



quote:

Jet fuel burns between 800°F and 1,500°F (426°C to 815°C) in open air



just putting this here for the inevitable "melt steel" comment
Posted by Cfrobel
Member since Nov 2019
343 posts
Posted on 9/11/26 at 10:17 am to
quote:

Outside walls weren't weakened, only the interior supports were. The building's main support was relying on the interior beams, not the exterior ones. 


The buildings had their strength from both the exterior and interior load bearing columns, this is what allowed the incredibly innovative and desirable open floor plans rather than an office floor full of colums. The outside columns were severely weakened/severed by the impact but the design was resilient enough to successfully redistribute the load, the hat truss at the top of each building being critical, and keep the buildings standing.

The ultimate design flaw with WTC 1 and 2 was that in order to save weight they used lightweight steel trusses to hold the structure together through the connection of the interior and exterior load bearing columns. These are what ultimately began to sag and/or collapse and pull and strain the load bearing columns to the point they could no longer support the weight of the load.
first pageprev pagePage 1 of 1Next pagelast page
refresh

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on X, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookXInstagram