Purdue Creates Scientific Animation of 9/11

The Purdue animation relates to the collapse of the north tower. When you change the parameters used to those of the south tower, where from the trajectory of the plane, the core columns were probably not even struck the results are a little different. The simulator proves that in fact the south tower did not collapse. (Hee, hee.)

And it certainly didn't collapse first.

[edit on 16-6-2007 by ipsedixit]

[edit on 16-6-2007 by ipsedixit]

Originally posted by bsbray11

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?

Because it prevents the steel from reaching temperatures that can cause it to weaken, and hopefully by that time can have been put out. And the answer is yes, because the factor of time is involved.

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

.

yes you did, And I don't appreciate YOU doing the same thing.

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.

But in time it plays a HUGE factor. And also, there are different types of steel. There are literally THOUSANDS of grades of steel. And different grades are going to have different characteristics. Yet you claim this is horribly wrong.

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.

But you just said the size doesn't matter did you not? And more importantly, we're not just talking about columns, we're talking about the steel trussing which was the core of the problem, NOT the columns.

And the basis of the claim you are trying to make is essentially that the fires couldn't have weakened the steel or that the fireproofing makes no difference at all , which has been proven beyond any shadow of a doubt to not be true.

Originally posted by masterp
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.

You're right, the WTC had it MUCH worse. It was struck by hundreds of tons of falling building and burned for 7 hours or so. And I would hardly call extensive scientific analysis and research by 100's of experts "pretending". Perhaps you have some more accurate scientific research?

[removed quote of Entire previous post]



I guess you should read the FEMA report. Firemen reported some damage to 10 floors on 1 side of the building. Not enough to cause the collaps even with fires.

Thier have been secveral ofther steel buildings that had had longer lasting fires and worse structural damage then any of the WTC buildings and did not collapse.



Quoting - Please review this link

[edit on 16-6-2007 by 12m8keall2c]

Ultima. Isn't it a bit dishonest to try and imply that the only damage to WTC 7 was the corner damage? Combine this with the rest of the damage and the fires that by the end had engulfed the building. Even the firemen are sitting there live on camera pointing out how the building is destined to collapse. They are pointing out how the building is buckling and engulfed in fire and that there's nothing they can do to save it.


And by other buildings, how many of them have suffered severe structural damage and went unaided for 7 hours? How many were of the same design? I assume you are going to bring up the Madrid hotel, which is mostly concrete and whose steel portion collapsed.

Originally posted by snoopy
You're right, the WTC had it MUCH worse. It was struck by hundreds of tons of falling building and burned for 7 hours or so. And I would hardly call extensive scientific analysis and research by 100's of experts "pretending". Perhaps you have some more accurate scientific research?

Open your eyes and look.



[edit on 16-6-2007 by selfless]

Originally posted by selfless

Open your eyes and look.


[edit on 16-6-2007 by selfless]

So what you are saying is that because it looks to You like something else, it must be the same thing. Tell me what your expertise in demolition is selfless. Since I am untrained and clearly you seem to think you know something we don't. What is your training and expertise in demolition. What are your credentials?

And why is it that you don't show the WTC7 from the beginning of it's collapse, instead you start it half way through? And why is it that the demolition experts say they can see nothing about WTC 7 to suggest a demolition? Perhaps you could teach them something since you seem to know something the experts don't.

Your video simply shows the collapse of the WTC7 next to a controlled demolition. Was there a point to that or something? I don't get it.

Originally posted by snoopy
Ultima. Isn't it a bit dishonest to try and imply that the only damage to WTC 7 was the corner damage? Combine this with the rest of the damage and the fires that by the end had engulfed the building.

And by other buildings, how many of them have suffered severe structural damage and went unaided for 7 hours? How many were of the same design? I assume you are going to bring up the Madrid hotel, which is mostly concrete and whose steel portion collapsed.

Please read the FEMA report that firemen state 10 floors on 1 side had some damage.

www.wtc7.net...

According to the account of a firefighter who walked the 9th floor along the south side following the collapse of WTC 1, the only damage to the 9th floor facade occurred at the southwest corner. According to firefighters' eyewitness accounts from outside of the building, approximately floors 8-18 were damaged to some degree.

Please show me in the photos where the big fires are.
i114.photobucket.com...
i114.photobucket.com...
i114.photobucket.com...

Here is a listing of other steel buildings that had longer lasting fires then the building at WTC and had structural damage.

www.pleasanthillsfire.org...

1. The One Meridian Plaza Fire
One Meridian Plaza is a 38-floor skyscraper in Philadelphia that suffered a severe fire on February 23, 1991. The fire starting on the 22nd floor, and raged for 18 hours, gutting eight floors and causing an estimated $100 million in direct property loss It was later described by Philadelphia officials as "the most significant fire in this century".

The fire caused window breakage, cracking of granite, and failures of spandrel panel connections. Despite the severity and duration of the fire, as evidenced by the damage the building sustained, no part of the building collapsed.

2. The First Interstate Bank Building is a 62-story skyscraper in Los Angeles that suffered the worst high-rise fire in the city's history. From the late evening of May 4, 1988 through the early morning of the next day, 64 fire companies battled the blaze, which lasted for 3 1/2 hours. The fire caused extensive window breakage, which complicated firefighting efforts. Large flames jutted out of the building during the blaze. Firefighting efforts resulted in massive water damage to floors below the fire, and the fire gutted offices from the 12th to the 16th floor, and caused extensive smoke damage to floors above. The fire caused an estimated $200 million in direct property loss.

A report by Iklim Ltd. describes the structural damage from the fire:

In spite of a total burnout of four and a half floors, there was no damage to the main structural members and only minor damage to one secondary beam and a small number of floor pans.

3. The 1 New York Plaza Fire
1 New York Plaza is a 50-story office tower less than a mile from the World Trade Center site. It suffered a severe fire and explosion on August 5, 1970. The fire started around 6 PM, and burned for more than 6 hours.

[edit on 16-6-2007 by ULTIMA1]

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Please read the FEMA report that firemen state 10 floors on 1 side had some damage.

Please show me in the photos where the big fires are.
i114.photobucket.com...
i114.photobucket.com...
i114.photobucket.com...

Here is a listing of other steel buildings that had longer lasting fires then the building at WTC and had structural damage.

www.pleasanthillsfire.org...

1. The One Meridian Plaza Fire
One Meridian Plaza is a 38-floor skyscraper in Philadelphia that suffered a severe fire on February 23, 1991. The fire starting on the 22nd floor, and raged for 18 hours, gutting eight floors and causing an estimated $100 million in direct property loss It was later described by Philadelphia officials as "the most significant fire in this century".

The fire caused window breakage, cracking of granite, and failures of spandrel panel connections. Despite the severity and duration of the fire, as evidenced by the damage the building sustained, no part of the building collapsed.

2. The First Interstate Bank Building is a 62-story skyscraper in Los Angeles that suffered the worst high-rise fire in the city's history. From the late evening of May 4, 1988 through the early morning of the next day, 64 fire companies battled the blaze, which lasted for 3 1/2 hours. The fire caused extensive window breakage, which complicated firefighting efforts. Large flames jutted out of the building during the blaze. Firefighting efforts resulted in massive water damage to floors below the fire, and the fire gutted offices from the 12th to the 16th floor, and caused extensive smoke damage to floors above. The fire caused an estimated $200 million in direct property loss.

A report by Iklim Ltd. describes the structural damage from the fire:

In spite of a total burnout of four and a half floors, there was no damage to the main structural members and only minor damage to one secondary beam and a small number of floor pans.

3. The 1 New York Plaza Fire
1 New York Plaza is a 50-story office tower less than a mile from the World Trade Center site. It suffered a severe fire and explosion on August 5, 1970. The fire started around 6 PM, and burned for more than 6 hours.

So there's the start of your problem. You are only going by a FEMA report. Now go check out the NIST reports (what they have so far) and look at what the firefighters have to say. In the other thread I included just a couple of the hundreds of quotes which show beyond any shadow of a doubt that there was serious damage and fire in WTC 7.

Meridian

38 stories is NOT a skyscraper. It suffered NO stuctural damage as you claimed it did.

"All interior firefighting efforts were halted after almost 11 hours of uninterrupted fire in the building. Consultation with a structural engineer and structural damage observed by units operating in the building led to the belief that there was a possibility of a pancake structural collapse of the fire damaged floors." So as you can see it was in danger of collapsing from only fire. And it didn't have any structural damage, didn't lose it's fire protection, and didn't lose its sprinkler systems.


Your bank ALSO suffered no structural damage. It was a fire on 4 floors that lasted 3 /12 hours. No structural damage, no loss of fire protection, and no loss of sprinkler systems.


New York Plaza

ALSO no structural damage, no loss of fire protection, no loss of sprinkler systems. The fire was so small and short, that people went back to work two hours later. It was also on a single floor (the 19th) and did not last 6 hours.



So I think it's pretty clear that even if your intentions are good, you are being quite dishonest here. You made claims of buildings with worse fires and worse structural damage. And all of these buildings had much less fire and absolutely NO structural damage. This isn't even an issue of misunderstanding, it's simply a case of the claims being untrue.

Originally posted by snoopy
So I think it's pretty clear that even if your intentions are good, you are being quite dishonest here. You made claims of buildings with worse fires and worse structural damage. And all of these buildings had much less fire and absolutely NO structural damage. This isn't even an issue of misunderstanding, it's simply a case of the claims being untrue.

Please show me in the photos that building 7 is fully involved in fire as you stated.

i114.photobucket.com...
i114.photobucket.com...
i114.photobucket.com...

Snoopy, I feel left out. What do you have to say to my post?

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.

I am upset that I get no critique. I must make too much sense.

Science provides us the oppurtunity to create and test without destroying ourselves. This is a good example of exactly what happened during the crash and gives us better insight to the damage and being able to see it in a dimensional sense rather than just diagrams.


With time, computer simulations can be created of anything. Dreamworks should create it in house or ILM and put and end to the specualtion once and for all.

Originally posted by Spoodily
Snoopy, I feel left out. What do you have to say to my post?

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.

I am upset that I get no critique. I must make too much sense.

I disagree that the towers being hit by a Cessna would have caused them to collapse. The chances of such a small plane doing enough damage to cause a collapse it extremely unlikely.

The model is of GREAT importance. The whole point of computer models is because it's too expensive and dangerous to rebuild the WTC and fly a real commercial plane into it. The computer model gives engineers to study the effects without putting people in danger and spending billions of dollars.

But again you are missing the point, The computer model has absolutely nothing to do with proving how the towers collapsed or why. And it most certainly isn't to entertain conspiracy theorists.

And I disagree with your conclusion. If they were to rebuild the WTC and crash a plane into it in the exact same manner and it did fall, I somehow doubt you would be satisfied. I am willing to bet that there is nothing that would convince you that the scientists are telling the truth about what happened and I have no intention of convincing you otherwise. You will alwyas believe it was an inside job regardless of what evidence comes to light. Or do you think I am wrong about that?

Originally posted by snoopy

I disagree that the towers being hit by a Cessna would have caused them to collapse. The chances of such a small plane doing enough damage to cause a collapse it extremely unlikely.

The model is of GREAT importance. The whole point of computer models is because it's too expensive and dangerous to rebuild the WTC and fly a real commercial plane into it. The computer model gives engineers to study the effects without putting people in danger and spending billions of dollars.

But again you are missing the point, The computer model has absolutely nothing to do with proving how the towers collapsed or why. And it most certainly isn't to entertain conspiracy theorists.

And I disagree with your conclusion. If they were to rebuild the WTC and crash a plane into it in the exact same manner and it did fall, I somehow doubt you would be satisfied. I am willing to bet that there is nothing that would convince you that the scientists are telling the truth about what happened and I have no intention of convincing you otherwise. You will alwyas believe it was an inside job regardless of what evidence comes to light. Or do you think I am wrong about that?

You can make any conclusion you want to come to be true in a computer simulation, there are too many variables. What was the wind speed on 9-11? What was the temperture outside? Were there people doing jumping jacks inside? A real world test is the only way you will ever be able to say that a plane can bring down a building. A little extreme, yes, but so are the billions of dollars spent fighting in a country that doesn't have the WMDs we were told they did.

My point about the Cessna was that there were demolition charges in the buildings that brought them down, the planes were just part of the 'Shock and Awe' of the whole thing. Do they crash a jet into every casino in Las Vegas before they demolish it? No, the charges are all you need to demolish the building.

Snoopy said:

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.

Why do you suppose there is no evidence,I think maybe the way the evidence was shipped off in a hurry and not properly analyzed is enough to set off alarms that something happened that day that is not quite right.

[edit on 17-6-2007 by crowpruitt]

Soms more facts from NIST showing that they did not do a full investigation and the fires in the towers were not that hot.

wtc.nist.gov...

1) No WTC-7 steel was recovered or analyzed.

2) No unprocessed, intact floor trusses were recovered or analyzed.

3) No testing for explosives (or sulfidation or other residue of any kind) was performed.

4) Only 12 total core columns were recovered from WTC-1 & WTC-2 combined.

5) Of the recovered core pieces, none showed exposure to temperatures in excess of 250 C.

6) Of 170 examined areas on the perimeter column panels, only three showed exposure to temperatures in excess of 250 C and for one of these three forensic evidence indicated that the high temperature exposure occurred AFTER the collapse.

7) No recovered steel showed any evidence of exposure to temperatures above 600 C for any significant time.

The pre-collapse photographic analysis showed that 16 recovered exterior panels were exposed to fire prior to collapse of WTC 1. None of the nine recovered panels from within the fire floors of WTC 2 were observed to have been directly exposed.

NIST developed a method to characterize maximum temperatures experienced by steel members using observations of paint cracking due to thermal expansion. The method can only probe the temperature reached; it cannot distinguish between pre- and post-collapse exposure. More than 170 areas were examined on the perimeter column panels ...

Only three locations had evidence that the steel reached temperatures above 250 °C.

These areas were:

• WTC 1, east face, floor 98, column 210, inner web,
• WTC 1, east face, floor 92, column 236, inner web,
• WTC 1, north face, floor 98, column 143, floor truss connector

Other forensic evidence indicates that the last example probably occurred in the debris pile after collapse. Annealing studies on recovered steels established the set of time and temperature conditions necessary to alter the steel microstructure. Based on the pre-collapse photographic evidence, the microstructures of steels known to have been exposed to fire were characterized. These microstructures show no evidence of exposure to temperatures above 600 °C for any significant time.

This is what drives me nuts about 9/11 CTs:

Here in this thread we see a simulation by computer modeling experts and structural engineers from Purdue. These are people who are experts in their field and are attempting to explain an event without having any any ties to either the conspiracy theorists or to their opponents.

Yet a bunch of people who have no comprehension of the very basics of structural engineering, who have a deep seated and unalterable bias against the teams findings, and who have a vested interest in the conspiracy theories are somehow more of an expert than the Purdue researchers, because of a "gut feeling" or because "they heard it on the internet".

Listen, a lot of shady crap went down on 9/11, and I don't swallow the official story, but to immediately outright discard reasonable alternative explanations from expert, disinterested, and independent parties out of personal bias....is just ignorant, in the classical definition of the word. Why not try this?: "Deny Ignorance".

Originally posted by Reality Hurts
Here in this thread we see a simulation by computer modeling experts and structural engineers from Purdue.

They only modeled an impact. I never had a problem with the impacts and neither do most others.

The problem is their parroting of other "studies" that are flawed or non-existant regarding everything that happened afterwards, ie all of the testing NIST should have been doing, but either never did or else got results from that explicitly contradicted their most important hypothesis.

Originally posted by Spoodily

You can make any conclusion you want to come to be true in a computer simulation, there are too many variables. What was the wind speed on 9-11? What was the temperture outside? Were there people doing jumping jacks inside? A real world test is the only way you will ever be able to say that a plane can bring down a building. A little extreme, yes, but so are the billions of dollars spent fighting in a country that doesn't have the WMDs we were told they did.

My point about the Cessna was that there were demolition charges in the buildings that brought them down, the planes were just part of the 'Shock and Awe' of the whole thing. Do they crash a jet into every casino in Las Vegas before they demolish it? No, the charges are all you need to demolish the building.

No you can't just make any conclusion you want. All the variables have to be taken into account, and they are. And to do a real life recreation, you cannot do that. Not to mention it's completely absurd. You have no greater knowledge of the variables with a real live test than you do with a computer. But with a computer you can try every variation. And had Perdue done a computer simulation saying that it was impossible for the planes to have taken down the buildings, I feel confident you would be more than satisfied with computer testing.

There were demolition charges? Can you prove that? Because if you can, you would be the first person to. What you are suggesting is pretty much impossible and cannot be backed up. You're reasoning for it being a demolition is because they don't demolish buildings with planes? Do you realize how absurd that is? I appreciate your imagination, but I am trying to stick with only real facts, not imagination.

Originally posted by bsbray11


They only modeled an impact. I never had a problem with the impacts and neither do most others.

The problem is their parroting of other "studies" that are flawed or non-existant regarding everything that happened afterwards, ie all of the testing NIST should have been doing, but either never did or else got results from that explicitly contradicted their most important hypothesis.

Could you point out these flaws and non-existent studies? What testing should NISt have been doing? And how would they have contradicted their hypothesis?