Purdue Creates Scientific Animation of 9/11

Originally posted by ipsedixit
Steven Jones addressed the issue of computer modelling of the WTC collapse in an interview . (Unfortunately I don't have the link, but many may have seen this.) He said that proponents of the official version at one of the labs trying to bolster that version were having difficulty creating a computer model that fit the observed results of the collapse while firmly leaving out the effects of explosives.

They had to keep massaging the data to the point of extremely exaggerated parameters in order to approach the point where the collapse could appear plausible while at the same time excluding explosives. I think even with the exaggerated parameters (garbage in) they were not able to achieve the desired simulated collapse (garbage out).

When you read the accompanying explanation very carefully, one gets the impression that the people at Purdue have hit on a new parameter (the large mass of liquid fuel AS PROJECTILE) to create a model they can work with reasonably (i.e. rationally) in the context of the observed collapse of the building.

All aspects of the 911 story have been massaged over and over when they were found wanting. This is the latest NIST-report-applicable bit of massaging. Either the shape shifting monster of disinformation has found a new shape or these are, I would maintain, somewhat narrowly focussed exponents of the official version.

We are told that the plane went through the building like "hot lava". As a creative writing wannabe I admire the phraseology, but as a truther on the verge of carpal tunnel syndrome, I don't buy it.

Steven is being a bit dishonest here.

There is no way to know all the exact variables in the building, so experiments must be done trying as many variables as possible to see the various outcomes. To say exhaggerated is an opinion and unfair since they are going to try every possibility, including extreme ones.

He also ignores that explosives were excluded because there wasn't any evidence of any. They could also have included collapse due to too much cottage cheese as well, but they left that out.

And the Irony is that it comes from Jones. A guy who claims to have found Thermate at the scene. Which isn't true at all. He found sulfer and traces of metals. The sulfer is one of the most common things found there because of the sheet rock.

And someone was correct in their prediction that it was inevitable for people to come along and cry "disinfo". I geuss it was predictable after all.

Just to follow up on my previous post. I believe that to regard the fuel itself as a projectile narrowly focussed (on a core column for example) is not valid because in the immediate explosion the force of the fuel's weight plus it's explosive force would be dissipated in the "n" directions of a sphere. This force would bounce all over the place between floors. I don't see evidence of that effect being included in the simulation.

Originally posted by snoopy
Steel is not steel. There are so many factors involved such as the tpe of steel, the thinkness, the size, etc etc.

Are any of those things going to change the strength curve with temperature?

All that changes is the amount of heat you need.

Try again?


Btw, the tests were done with no fireproofing, so fireproofing is irrelevant to this information. And the statement "steel isn't steel" is so wrong in so many ways that I'm not even going to touch it. Mother of all contradictions, wrong, and completely stupid. You're pretty much telling me that you will never accept any comparison, ever. The scientific method is apparently non-applicable here for you.

[edit on 15-6-2007 by bsbray11]

Hang on Snoopy, Snoopy hang on.

Steven is being a bit dishonest here.

I don't think so. One of the parameters he referred to was fires burning for several hours longer than they did at the WTC. Why would they try that parameter when any grade school kid could tell them it didn't apply?

He also ignores that explosives were excluded because there wasn't any evidence of any.

There were in fact vast numbers of anecdotal reports of multiple explosions. Chief Albert Turri told news reporters that he believed secondary devices were planted in the buildings and ordered his people out.

I can't speak to the evidence for thermate at the WTC except to refer to angle cut beams. This part of the subject is beyond my technical competence (such as it is.) I must say though, that the idea of a collapse by itself without explosive assistance creating a layer of powder three inches deep from one side of Manhattan to the other is to put it mildly just a little fanciful.

And someone was correct in their prediction that it was inevitable for people to come along and cry "disinfo". I geuss it was predictable after all.

Absolutely, considering the record to date of the mainstream media and the man who should be called "the disinformation president".

Why does UL say that fireproofing is necessary? Why does UL state that making more DURABLE fire proofing is needed to protect lives?

www.ul.com...

Robert Berhinig a 35 year veteran of UL did this report post 911. Called "Protecting The Foundation of Fire Safety."

This article is quite interesting and deals with fireproofing and time temperature curve ratings.

Here is another article written by two REAL engineers that deals with fire ratings and proofing..

www.aisc.org...


This deals with the Cardington Test building as well. It's conclusion was that the steel/ concrete floor etc system is ideal of modern highrises. The photos that were taken after the test showed zero collapses and this of coarse was without fireproofing. The Photos did however show bending of the beams. see pg 10 of the report.

What it didnt show was the reaction to structural damage. This is key in that NIST as well as several other Engineering firms have concluded, it wasn't JUST fire that caused the collaspes.

I like how in this animation they show the aluminum plane being shreaded as it hits the steel beams.

But in the animated drawing of the Pentagon they have the aluminum plane staying pretty well intact as it smashes through the reinforced concrete wall, and into the interior collums and walls.

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by snoopy
Steel is not steel. There are so many factors involved such as the tpe of steel, the thinkness, the size, etc etc.

Are any of those things going to change the strength curve with temperature?

All that changes is the amount of heat you need.

Try again?


Btw, the tests were done with no fireproofing, so fireproofing is irrelevant to this information. And the statement "steel isn't steel" is so wrong in so many ways that I'm not even going to touch it. Mother of all contradictions, wrong, and completely stupid. You're pretty much telling me that you will never accept any comparison, ever. The scientific method is apparently non-applicable here for you.

[edit on 15-6-2007 by bsbray11]

No, the studies by UL were done with fire proofing of various sizes and without. And they show beyond any shadow of a doubt that the fireproofing has a huge effect on the steel

And claiming that all steel is the same is ABSOLUTELY WRONG. Just WRONG. And any expert will be happy to show you this along with the testing done by UL. To sit here and try to tell us there is only one kind of steel and there is no variation of steel, and that size and thickness, nor building design play any factors.

It think the reason you are now calling people stupid is because you don't want to admit that you're simply flat out wrong here. And for you to say others aren't using scientific method when it's clearly YOU who is not is absurd.

keep trying there my friend, keep trying. Perhaps you can write a peer reviewed paper on your claims there and see how far you get.

Originally posted by ipsedixit

I don't think so. One of the parameters he referred to was fires burning for several hours longer than they did at the WTC. Why would they try that parameter when any grade school kid could tell them it didn't apply?

What does that have to do with him trying to claim that the sulfer found is proof of thermate when it clearly is not. That's what I mean by not being completely honest.

There were in fact vast numbers of anecdotal reports of multiple explosions. Chief Albert Turri told news reporters that he believed secondary devices were planted in the buildings and ordered his people out.

I can't speak to the evidence for thermate at the WTC except to refer to angle cut beams. This part of the subject is beyond my technical competence (such as it is.) I must say though, that the idea of a collapse by itself without explosive assistance creating a layer of powder three inches deep from one side of Manhattan to the other is to put it mildly just a little fanciful.

yes people did report explosions. A natural occurrance of a building collapsing. Now had they found any traces or anything what so ever to suggest bombs they would have. NIST has specifically addressed this issue as well. Unfortunately people who believe there were bombs is not evidence of bombs, nor is people hearing explosions. Not a single piece of physical evidence has ever been found to suggest bombs.

And your angle cut? It was cut by the workers and clearly shows marks from the blow torch. And as for the dust, what do you think is gonna happen when 2 110 story buildings come crashing down? Why on earth would explosives be needed to create a lot of dust? There's no basis for that.

And someone was correct in their prediction that it was inevitable for people to come along and cry "disinfo". I geuss it was predictable after all.

Absolutely, considering the record to date of the mainstream media and the man who should be called "the disinformation president".



Case in point on the last issue.

Originally posted by CaptainObvious
Why does UL say that fireproofing is necessary? Why does UL state that making more DURABLE fire proofing is needed to protect lives?

According to someone here, UL is not only "stupid", but lacks any scientific method, and is simply "wrong".

Yes SNoopy.... funny how that same person when you disagree with him..you are "talking out your A**". Funny also how even though he quite OFTEN does that..never gets warned. I guess "Scholars" get away with more than us Government Shills

FOCUS == TOPIC

... not character and or person



Thank you.



» 9/11 Conspiracies » Purdue Creates Scientific Animation of 9/11 » Post Reply

 

That's a terrific video and all but I knew planes hit the towers on 9-11-2001. This animation really doesn't prove any type of point. 9-11 was not an isolated event. People will never see the big picture until they quit scrutinizing every minute detail and not connecting it to other events.

Put the pieces together and then step back and look at what it all represents.

There is too much stacked in favor of this being planned by people other than muslim extremist terrorists.

Also, if you were not old enough to vote (18) in 2000 then there isn't much that you have to say about the events on 9-11 other than you heard about it or saw it on TV.

The 2000 election scandal should have been a big indicator that something was not right. Isn't it strange that a guy wins an election by an electoral college vote but not a popular vote and had to have recounts in the state his brother was governor of?

This same man that won a fraudulent election also has the ex-CEO of Halliburton (who's HQ is now in Dubai in the United Arab Emirates) as his running mate.

When you look at the motive for the crime, and not just the crime, you will see who the real criminals are.

I do wish that this wasn't the case and that terrorists really were the guilty party to blame for 9-11, but unfortunately it was really rich people doing really nasty things for their own reasons (GLOBAL DOMINATION).

The speed of technology is well beyond what it used to be. At one time the idea that the earth was flat was real, then it took months to sail across the sea, now we can video conference with people from all over the world without leaving our house or office.

The world is very small now in comparison to what it once was and the idea of very rich people over riding the governments of the world and claiming it for themselves is very real. Especially when those same people are already part of existing governments.

[edit on 6/15/2007 by Spoodily]

The video was not made to prove how 9/11 happened. I doubt the people who made it are even aware that people think it was an inside job or are even aware of the conspiracy movement. It was done to show the mechanics of the impact for scientific study. Not to prove it wasn't an inside job.

And simply saying evidence points to it being an inside job is not evidence, it's just talk.

And making a case of a stolen election is not evidence or even remotely related to the topic. In fact I don't think this thread ios really even intended to refute or debunk anything. It just always turns into that.

Everyone is aware that planes were used on 9-11. Computer models don't really make any point.



"And making a case of a stolen election is not evidence or even remotely related to the topic."

O RLY?


[edit on 6/15/2007 by Spoodily]

this is an excellent computer animation, and i applaud all involved.

the main point i took from this video animation of 3/4 of a second was the oscillations taking place. if you look at the videos you will notice that the floors above were shaken in a non symetrical way, the oscillations hit decidedly harder in some areas as opposed to others. this would make it highly improbable that both towers would collapse directly downward. i am not an odds calculating kind of guy, but i know some of you are. if anyone would care to take a stab at that, it would be interesting to see the conclusion.

Originally posted by Spoodily
Everyone is aware that planes were used on 9-11. Computer models don't really make any point.


"And making a case of a stolen election is not evidence or even remotely related to the topic."

O RLY?

[edit on 6/15/2007 by Spoodily]

Again, the model was not to show a plane hit the building. it was to show how the plane impact effected the building for scientific study. how often do we get to test the effects of planes hitting buildings/ Not often. So this is really important research for scientists. Again, they aren't trying to disprove a conspiracy, and probably not even aware of a conspiracy theory. It's for learning about the dynamics and physics of such an occurrence.

And correct, the election has nothing to do with this. It's conjecture. Maybe great for a thread o it's own, but not for this. The computer model has nothing to do with the election being stolen or not.

They could have flown a Cessna into those buildings and they would have collapsed in the exact same way they did on 9-11. This model is of no importance, the damage the plane did is of no real consequence and was more for show.

If they want to recreate the event, we should build an identical tower and crash an identical plane into it and see what happens. They got identical buildings to collapse on 9-11, let's do a third just for scientific purposes. If it falls to the ground we will all be satisfied and this can be laid to rest.

Does this animation acurately represent the inside of the WTC's? For instance where are the supposed main closed I-beams? Were the elavator shafts within the damaged areas? While this is interesting to watch it's lacking in detail as far as what I would expect from a supposed use of a supercomputer, mainly the depiction of the building.

I can believe that a 767 did enough damage to bring the building down, so this doesn't seem to change things for me.

My problems with the "official" story are the unheaded warnings by the last 2 administrations, and the non real time respose during the attacks.

Originally posted by snoopy
No, the studies by UL were done with fire proofing of various sizes and without. And they show beyond any shadow of a doubt that the fireproofing has a huge effect on the steel

Until it burns off in two hours. That's all it does. Now tell me why this is relevant to testing naked steel? Is taking the fireproofing off going to make it seem like steel is harder to fail or something? How is this hurting your case?

And claiming that all steel is the same is ABSOLUTELY WRONG.

Never said it was, and I don't appreciate you putting words in my mouth.

I said that the temperature/strength curve doesn't change when you change the dimensions of the steel, whether it's length or thickness, and iron and steel are already similar enough in how much they weaken depending on temperature for the argument to still hold, so different types of steel, one would imagine, would be even more similar and relevant to the exact same functions.

The only major difference is the amount of HEAT. You need more heat to make a large amount of steel 600 C, than you would to make less steel 600 C. The steel used in the British Steel tests were much smaller in all dimensions than even the Twin Towers' exterior columns. So this hurts your case because the test structure was much easier to heat than the towers would have been.

[edit on 16-6-2007 by bsbray11]

Nice simulation. Let's all pretend the two towers fell down because of the airplanes hitting them. But what about WTC 7? it was not hit by a plane, yet fell down in the exact same way.