08.07.06
World Trade Center
Between 2002 and 2004 Z-Axis worked for the attorneys representing Silverstein Properties to help prove that the collapses of the twin towers resulting from the attacks on 9/11 were two occurrences under the terms of the property insurance policy. Z-Axis was part of the investigative team hired by Silverstein to provide engineering proof that the collapses were independent events. Our part of the forensic investigation was to use our 3D computer models of the towers and photogrammetric techniques to determine the speed and impact angle of the two airplanes into the towers. This podcast shows samples of the resulting animations, with discussion of how they were developed. In October of 2004, a New York jury unanimously decided in Silverstein’s favor, forcing the property insurance companies to pay for two occurrences.
As is our usual practice in this podcast series, the video we’ve built for you consists of excerpts from the original animations, with our own new explanatory voiceover. We do this because the animations used in trial are often quite long — sometimes hours — and usually have no audio track to tell you what’s going on. When they’re presented in court, of course, these animations are accompanied by the live testimony of an expert witness. We also think that you might find some explanation useful in understanding the animations and their significance both to the trial and to the history of animation in court.
Kevin said,
December 29, 2006 at 8:22 am
Is this website just a shameless commercial for your company, or are you putting out evidentiary material for the public to examine? Decide. You need to properly label it, especially if you go around place external links back to this site from Wikipedia and other non-commercial sites where people are looking for research material.
rudy.ramsey said,
December 31, 2006 at 10:44 pm
The folks best suited to reply to Kevin\’s comment are on holiday just now, but they\’ll respond in a few days.
Gary Freed said,
January 11, 2007 at 11:48 am
Kevin, I apologize for taking so long to respond to your comment but the holidays, blizzards in Denver, and some pressing projects kept me away. Thanks to Rudy for stepping in. Anyway, I understand your concern and am in the process of updating the podcast description so that someone linking to just this one podcast will have a better understanding of what to expect.
On the other hand, there is a reason why we did not include the entire package of raw animations used in court. The total run time of all these animations is probably over an hour and entirely without sound. These animations were designed to accompany the testimony of the expert witness while he gave oral descriptions live in the courtroom. Watching them without this testimony is like watching paint dry. They are really not stand-alone pieces. That is why the podcast series has shown only excerpts of the animations along with our narration regarding a little of the history of the case and the background of the production process.
In one regard presenting these works is a commercial for me and for Z-Axis. However, the intent was to share with the world what we think is a unique and significant application of computer animation that might otherwise go unnoticed.
paul said,
March 31, 2007 at 3:34 am
This is great, it explains so much would be good to see more and some indepth stuff on what realy happend that day.
balthazar said,
June 12, 2007 at 12:46 am
The more I watch these videos the more I believe that 9/11 was an inside job. When you see a building start to topple over until it reaches a 70% angle you better expect it to keep toppling in that direction where all the weight is distributed, as the Law of Inertia dictates.
Weight is distributed in the direction of least resistance. If the upper portion of the building fell upon the lower… in order for it to distribute its weight straight down all the way through.. that would mean that it fell flat upon its foundation all the way through… which is just about impossible to do. The building would most likely meet unequal resistance from the surface it fell on… meaning one side of the building would fall faster then the other. The building would therefore fall at an angle as displayed in the video… If you’ll notice the top portion of the building does fall angularly… at the very beginning.
If demolition is considered, the reason why the building tilts at the beginning as though ready to topple over and then miraculously falls straight downward can be easily answered. The building met unequal resistance. Most likely the section most damaged collapsed first pulling the rest of the building with it and toppling over, until, of course, demolition blows up everything beneath it, eliminating resistance, and allowing it to fall straight downwards, thus, discontinuing its toppling motion.
The top section of the south tower began to tilt at approx 9:59 am. At this moment, a large cloud of grey dust suddenly puffed out of the building. The 35 stories of the top section continued to tip to 23 degrees past vertical. At this point, the upper segment was hanging over the edge by approx 65 feet. In frame by fame pictures, one can see the concentric and uniform mushrooming grey cloud rapidly expand to envelp the building. As this is happening, one can see debris being blown away from the building with an extremely powerful blast. The overhanging upper section was then mysteriously shrouded and never seen again. Then the whole building came straight down. With an incredibly fast 10.4 seconds the once might tower was reduced to a pile of totally pulverized remains. Government story is that this building experienced a compression or a pancake demoltion caused by weakened trusses and weight from above. At first this explanation sounds plausible, especially because this is what the television reports have told us time and time again. But common sense would indicate that the center of gravity of the top section was not centered over the lower section. Thus, if there was a compression demolition, it would not be uniform because the center of gravity was considerably off center. Secondly, the severed top section that was tilting very much over the edge would fall somewhat independently. Third, this section would fall at a fast rate than the anchored lower section because it would not meet the resistance of the intact lower section. Fourth, the top and lower sections would break into pieces, they would not pulverize. None of these four things happened.
Benny said,
June 15, 2007 at 9:51 am
Just like how NIST was only charged with explaining the initiation of the collapse, this animation seem to only deal with the plane impact and initial failure of the structure around the impact site. Do you have any top-to-bottom simulations? I would love to see you try and get WTC1 or 2 to fall in 10-12 seconds.
Another interesting simulation would be one for the alleged kerosene fireball that zig-zagged down the staggered elevator shafts, all the way down to the lobby, and then blew out the ceiling and windows. Just a thought.