9/11 simulations

I am posting this to challenge your thoughts & views on 9/11



NEW YORK (CNN) -- A computer simulation of the September 11, 2001, attack on the World Trade Center, posted on the Web site YouTube by Purdue University researchers, shows how hijacked planes crashed through the twin towers, stripping fireproofing materials from the steel columns and eventually leading to their collapse.

The 3-D animation, part of a Purdue study that took two and a half years to complete, will hopefully help engineers design safer buildings, researchers said.

"When the developers of the World Trade Center first designed the complex, they did take into account of an accidental plane crash," said Christoph Hoffman, one of the study's lead researchers. "The only thing they didn't anticipate is the fire. If the crash impacts the water line, then a fire can burn for a long time."
source

[edit on 3-7-2007 by youngskeptic]

[edit on 3-7-2007 by youngskeptic]

[edit on 3-7-2007 by youngskeptic]

I get this
"The url contained a malformed video id."
got a different link?
never mind I got it
incase others don't get it here it is. Link to video

[edit on 7/3/2007 by EvilBat]

Originally posted by EvilBat
I get this
"The url contained a malformed video id."
got a different link?

fixed

[edit on 3-7-2007 by youngskeptic]

This website goes and debunks a lot of the 9/11 claims like no plane parts were found at the Pentagon

www.skeptic.com...

Originally posted by youngskeptic

"When the developers of the World Trade Center first designed the complex, they did take into account of an accidental plane crash," said Christoph Hoffman, one of the study's lead researchers. "The only thing they didn't anticipate is the fire. If the crash impacts the water line, then a fire can burn for a long time."
source

Thats incorrect.

John Skilling was the head structural engineer for the WTC. In a 1993 interview, Skilling stated that the Towers were designed to withstand the impact and fires resulting from the collision of a plane such as Boeing 707 or DC-8.

Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel (from the airplane) would dump into the building. There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed, ... The building structure would still be there. - Source

A white paper released on 2/3/1964 clearly states that the Twin Towers could have withstood impacts of planes traveling 600mph, a speed which was greater than the impact speed of either jetliner used on 9/11.

The buildings have been investigated and found to be safe in an assumed collision with a large jet airliner (Boeing 707—DC 8) traveling at 600 miles per hour. Analysis indicates that such collision would result in only local damage which could not cause collapse or substantial damage to the building and would not endanger the lives and safety of occupants not in the immediate area of impact.

Frank A. Demartini an on-site construction manager for the World Trade Center who also died on the day of 9/11.

The building was designed to have a fully loaded 707 crash into it. That was the largest plane at the time. I believe that the building probably could sustain multiple impacts of jetliners because this structure is like the mosquito netting on your screen door -- this intense grid -- and the jet plane is just a pencil puncturing that screen netting. It really does nothing to the screen netting.

Video of Frank Demartini Below:



BeZerK

I want to thank you for replying bezerk!

John Skilling was the head structural engineer for the WTC. In a 1993 interview, Skilling stated that the Towers were designed to withstand the impact and fires resulting from the collision of a plane such as Boeing 707 or DC-8.

But it was a 747 that crashed into the twins towers and not a 707 berzerk

Originally posted by youngskeptic
I want to thank you for replying bezerk!

John Skilling was the head structural engineer for the WTC. In a 1993 interview, Skilling stated that the Towers were designed to withstand the impact and fires resulting from the collision of a plane such as Boeing 707 or DC-8.

But it was a 747 that crashed into the twins towers and not a 707 berzerk

I actually knew you would come back with that answer. It was a Boeing 767 that hit the towers not a 747.

But either way lets examine further.

The Boeing 767 were only just a little bigger than 707's and DC 8s the types of jetliners whose impacts the WTC designers i outlined above anticipated.




"Given the differences in cruise speeds, a 707 in normal flight would actually have more kinetic energy than a 767, despite the slightly smaller size. Note the similar fuel capacities of both aircraft. The 767s used on September 11th were estimated to be carrying about 10,000 gallons of fuel each at the time of impact, only about 40% of the capacity of a 707" - Source

BeZerK


[edit on 4-7-2007 by BeZerk]

The claim that the world trade center can withstand a collision is flawed because
"the fuel load was not considered in the design."

Full Quote
"With the 707 however, to the best of my knowledge, the fuel load was not considered in the design," Leslie Robertson

The drywall fireproofing surrounding the central columns was highly fire-resistant but not very strong.

bbc
bbc

Youngskeptic,

"Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel (from the airplane) would dump into the building. There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed, ... The building structure would still be there." - John Skilling

Now if you read the first post i wrote up, you will see that the building could stand multiple impacts.

Ok lets just say the jet fuel was the ultimate reason why it collapsed, that itself is extremely flawed.

Much of the jet fuel was consumed immediately in the fireballs which erupted when the planes hit the towers. According to one FEMA investigator - Jonathan Barnett most of the jet fuel which managed to enter the towers was consumed within ten minutes.

Maximum burning temperature of Jet Fuel is 980°C.

Open Air - 260-315 °C

Lets examine:

NIST: "None of the recovered steel samples showed evidence of exposure to temperatures above 600 degree C for as long as 15 minutes."
Nist Page 180.

NIST: Within the investigation of the recovered steel, Frank Gayle's group performed a paint defermation test which showed how paint would curl or change in a certain temperature range. So they took the samples and analized them to see what kind of temperature they were exposed to by looking at the paint. Less than 2 percent of the samples which have been pulled specifically from the fire zones, despite pre-collapse exposure to fire less than 2 percent seen temperatures of 480 degrees F* which is very low relative to the temperatures to "soften or melt" steel. "Only three of the recovered samples of exterior panels reached temperatures in excess of 250 degrees C* during the fires or after the collapse. This was based on a method devoloped by NIST to characterize maximum temperatures experienced by steel members through observations of paint cracking." NIST page 181

To weaken steel for the purposes of forging, normally temperatures need to be above 1100°C.

So there is no way that steel was weakened or it deformed due to jet fuel.

BeZerK


[edit on 4-7-2007 by BeZerk]

Ok lets just say the jet fuel was the ultimate reason why it collapsed, that itself is extremely flawed.

2 things
1) I never said that jet fuel was the ultimate reason why it collapsed
2) It was both structural damage and jet fuel that caused the wtc to collapse

Much of the jet fuel was consumed immediately in the fireballs which erupted when the planes hit the towers. According to one FEMA investigator - Jonathan Barnett most of the jet fuel which managed to enter the towers was consumed within ten minutes.

It was the rest of the stuff burning afterward that was responsible for the heat transfer that eventually brought them down."

NIST: "None of the recovered steel samples showed evidence of exposure to temperatures above 600 degree C for as long as 15 minutes."

The melting point of steel is about 1,500 degrees Celsius (2,800 degrees Fahrenheit). Normal building fires and hydrocarbon (e.g., jet fuel) fires generate temperatures up to about 1,100 degrees Celsius (2,000 degrees Fahrenheit). NIST reported maximum upper layer air temperatures of about 1,000 degrees Celsius (1,800 degrees Fahrenheit) in the WTC towers (for example, see NCSTAR 1, Figure 6-36).
However, when bare steel reaches temperatures of 1,000 degrees Celsius, it softens and its strength reduces to roughly 10 percent of its room temperature value. Steel that is unprotected (e.g., if the fireproofing is dislodged) can reach the air temperature within the time period that the fires burned within the towers. Thus, yielding and buckling of the steel members (floor trusses, beams, and both core and exterior columns) with missing fireproofing were expected under the fire intensity and duration determined by NIST for the WTC towers.
nist

Originally posted by youngskeptic
2 things
1) I never said that jet fuel was the ultimate reason why it collapsed
2) It was both structural damage and jet fuel that caused the wtc to collapse

Its quite obvious that the building survived the damage of the Boeing 767 smashing into it, as it stood for about 1hr and 40mins respectively.

It was the rest of the stuff burning afterward that was responsible for the heat transfer that eventually brought them down.

What stuff? computer monitors, desks and some other office equipment... well thats strange especially when people were located right on the impact hole. If the heat inside the building was so intense there would be no people that could bare that much heat. At 100 degrees Celsius even that is a threat on your life.

Firefighting calls from within the Tower states that there were only a few pockets of small fires which they could take out in 2 lines. If fires were so hot and intense that it buckled the steel then the firefighters should have not been able to approach the fire as the temperatures would be very hot.

NIST: "None of the recovered steel samples showed evidence of exposure to temperatures above 600 degree C for as long as 15 minutes."

As you can see from NIST's statement, that the steel samples showed NO evidence of temperatures exceeding 600 degree Celsius for as long as 15 mins. So therefore it is scientifically impossible for the fire to weaken the steel.

NISTs own statement contradicts its statement below. So which is it?

The melting point of steel is about 1,500 degrees Celsius (2,800 degrees Fahrenheit). Normal building fires and hydrocarbon (e.g., jet fuel) fires generate temperatures up to about 1,100 degrees Celsius (2,000 degrees Fahrenheit). NIST reported maximum upper layer air temperatures of about 1,000 degrees Celsius (1,800 degrees Fahrenheit) in the WTC towers (for example, see NCSTAR 1, Figure 6-36).
However, when bare steel reaches temperatures of 1,000 degrees Celsius, it softens and its strength reduces to roughly 10 percent of its room temperature value. Steel that is unprotected (e.g., if the fireproofing is dislodged) can reach the air temperature within the time period that the fires burned within the towers. Thus, yielding and buckling of the steel members (floor trusses, beams, and both core and exterior columns) with missing fireproofing were expected under the fire intensity and duration determined by NIST for the WTC towers.
nist

Diffuse flames burn far cooler and oxygen starved diffuse flames are cooler yet.

The fires in the towers were diffuse therefore well below 800ºC.
Their dark smoke showed they were oxygen-starved, particularly in the South Tower.

If fires were not hot enough to melt steel, how is it possible for molten metal to be found for weeks after 911. Thermal images and photo analysis from 911 is evident that molten metal was present.

If what your saying is correct then the presence of molten metal should not exist weeks after 911.

The NIST website also states the following:

"Did the NIST investigation look for evidence of the WTC towers being brought down by controlled demolition? Was the steel tested for explosives or thermite residues? The combination of thermite and sulfur (called thermate) "slices through steel like a hot knife through butter."

"NIST did not test for the residue of these compounds in the steel."

Why did NIST not test for the residue when there was evidence of explosives present in the building from squibs, to the numerous eye witness accounts to the molten metal found weeks after 911.

Please watch the following for evidence that thermate was present in the building. Thermate is a mixture of Thermite (explosive material) and sulfur which acts as like a hot knife slicing butter.

Professor Steven Jones examined steel spheres from 911 using a electron microscope which he analyzed and found the signature that thermate makes. This proves that the twin towers was an act of deliberate arson.

Google Video Link

Rebuilding America's Senses - THERMATE EVIDENCE A MUST SEE!

Take into account that NO STEEL FRAMED BUILDING IN HISTORY HAS COLLAPSED DUE TO FIRES.

How did WTC7 collapsed when no plane hit the building?

BeZerK


[edit on 4-7-2007 by BeZerk]

[edit on 4-7-2007 by BeZerk]

First off mate 1000 degree air temp is NOT I repeat NOT going heat the metal in that air to the same temperature. But mute point, even if the steel in the area of the fire did somehow manage to get that hot, it would not snap and explode itself outwards it would bend or sag. But for the whole building to globaly collapse to its foundation all of the steel would have to have failed. The failure of all that steel would not happen from sporadic office fires on a few floors. You're are asking us to believe a ridicules scenario. And again even all that is mute because of NISTs admittance that no steel showed to have reached any more than 600deg. Which ain't gonna cause your pancake collapse, no matter how many 'experts' you can find that say it did.
Btw do you ever check the background of these 'experts'? You should, you might see a pattern. But then again probably not...

I really wish you guys would go learn some basic physics before you come here wasting peoples time with your silly 'hollywood physics' guesses at what you think happened.

We can clearly see what didn't happen, thanx...

I agree ANOK.

It's amazing how NIST actually contradicts its own Report.

They did not even test for explosive residue why?

Maybe it has something to do with the $3 Million in funding the whole investigation received

NIST has been thoroughly debunked over and over. "yawns"



Also view the following: Source

BeZerK

[edit on 4-7-2007 by BeZerk]

I am about to go to my mom and dad house so I will counter your points either
later tonight or tomorrow

debunking 9/11 Myths skip ahead to 9:54 of the podcast

youngskeptic,

You should view the sources and videos i have posted above before attempting to counter anything.

BeZerK

LOL, they are right the steel doesn't need to melt to damage a building; no one here is arguing that at all.

What we are arguing is that an hours worth of office fires that would have been in contact with, at a guess, 10% of the towers steel structures is not going to cause global vertical collapse.

Listen to what they are saying and check it out for yourself. You are just taking it at face value and putting your trust in complete strangers’ opinions. I don't have time to go through this videos obvious attempt at deception point by point, but right off the bat they talk about temps that can't be proved. NIST says no metal was found to have been exposed to any more than 600Degress. They can hypothesize all day long but that one simple fact makes their hypothesis impossible. You don't have to take my word for this, no one can refute that fact that steel will not snap and explode itself laterally from temps of 600d for less than an hour. I don't need some government hack to tell me any different.

You need to learn that these people are deceiving you, and if you would only look at the evidence with an open mind and then try to match it to what they are saying you would see it doesn't fit.

They talk about what happens when a steel building collapses, when no steel building has ever collapsed from fire. So it’s not fact, just opinion shaped to fit the official story and deceive those gullible enough to believe anything an ‘expert’ tells them. Those that are paying attention can see right through this.

No one here is claiming the steel had to melt, were not stupid, even though molten steel was found. They are right when they say steel will lose 50% of its weight bearing capacity, but they don’t tell you there is no way enough of the steel could have reached anything like that temperature from office fires in less than an hour. No way can you make that happen. If you can prove me wrong, I’ll eat my monitor. Shouldn’t be too hard for you to do. Get a piece of steel and heat the thing up using fuel found in an office dowsed in jet fuel.
I think you will have a hard time keeping it burning long enough though…
See for yourself how it behaves instead of believing what others tell you. Whether the fire could have got hot enough is an extremely easy fact to prove, but you debunkers just keep ignoring what proves your official story a fallacy, a fairy tale, and a bad joke. Most of it you can check for yourself by applying simple physical laws and doing some simple tests of your own. Do what Dr. Jones did and then see what your results say about the official story.

You’re wasting your time here bud, for every video that claims to prove the official story true there is a simple physics law that contradicts their whole claim.

Edited for composition.


[edit on 4/7/2007 by ANOK]

Where are the internal walls???? Kinda important, wouldn't you say?

NIST state that they have video evidence of the external walls buckling prior to collapse. In all the footage I've seen, this isn't apparent. Where is this footage, and can we see the SAME footage they looked at, with frame-by-frame analysis??

Originally posted by mirageofdeceit
Where are the internal walls???? Kinda important, wouldn't you say?

NIST state that they have video evidence of the external walls buckling prior to collapse. In all the footage I've seen, this isn't apparent. Where is this footage, and can we see the SAME footage they looked at, with frame-by-frame analysis??

Indeed. If NIST's models show collapse initiation in support of the official explanation, why not disclose those models? Till this day we have seen no computer models that is in support of the official investigation.

Its exactly the same as the pentagon incident, we have see no video of a Boeing 757 hitting the Pentagon... hmmmm

Read my signature, that is exactly what i think of NIST.

BeZerK

Its quite obvious that the building survived the damage of the Boeing 767 smashing into it, as it stood for about 1hr and 40mins respectively.

But the air plane help bring the tower by ripping of the fireproofer and by weakening the steal beams

well thats strange especially when people were located right on the impact hole. If the heat inside the building was so intense there would be no people that could bare that much heat. At 100 degrees Celsius even that is a threat on your life.

NIST believes that the persons seen were away from any strong heat source and most likely in an area that at the time was a point where the air for combustion was being drawn into the building to support the fires. Note that people were observed only in the openings in WTC 1.

This is what 911research had to say "This is most likely true. This page debunks the notion that the people standing in the impact holes invalidates the notion that intense fires burned in the North Tower."

Firefighting calls from within the Tower states that there were only a few pockets of small fires which they could take out in 2 lines. If fires were so hot and intense that it buckled the steel then the firefighters should have not been able to approach the fire as the temperatures would be very hot.

That line was taken way out of context . "Ladder 15, we've got two ISOLATED pockets of fire. We should be able to knock it down with two lines."

As you can see from NIST's statement, that the steel samples showed NO evidence of temperatures exceeding 600 degree Celsius for as long as 15 mins. So therefore it is scientifically impossible for the fire to weaken the steel.

Sorry I could not find a report by nist that says that the temperature at the wtc did not exceed 600 degree's Celsius

Diffuse flames burn far cooler and oxygen starved diffuse flames are cooler yet.

Nearly all indoor large fires, including those of the principal combustibles in the WTC towers, produce large quantities of optically thick, dark smoke. This is because, at the locations where the actual burning is taking place, the oxygen is severely depleted and the combustibles are not completely oxidized to colorless carbon dioxide and water.

The visible part of fire smoke consists of small soot particles whose formation is favored by the incomplete combustion associated with oxygen-depleted burning. Once formed, the soot from the tower fires was rapidly pushed away from the fires into less hot regions of the building or directly to broken windows and breaks in the building exterior. At these lower temperatures, the soot could no longer burn away. Thus, people saw the thick dark smoke characteristic of burning under oxygen-depleted conditions

If fires were not hot enough to melt steel, how is it possible for molten metal to be found for weeks after 911. Thermal images and photo analysis from 911 is evident that molten metal was present.

I said the fire was weakend by the steal not melted it

I will respond more tomorrow because I have to be up in 6 hours for work

Originally posted by youngskeptic
But the air plane help bring the tower by ripping of the fireproofer and by weakening the steal beams

There is absolutely no proof at all that the plane ripped of fireproofing from the steel.

That line was taken way out of context . "Ladder 15, we've got two ISOLATED pockets of fire. We should be able to knock it down with two lines."

Out of context? If there had been raging fires inside the number of floors believe me the firefighters would have felt not only the 1000 Degree's temperature that NIST claims but have seen alot more fires than "ISOLATED" ones.

Sorry I could not find a report by nist that says that the temperature at the wtc did not exceed 600 degree's Celsius

Here are others to tickle your senses.

“Only three of the recovered samples of exterior panels reached temperatures in excess of 250 C (482 F) during the fires or after the collapse. This was based on a method developed by NIST to characterize maximum temperatures experienced by steel members through observations of paint cracking.” NIST, p. 181

“All four test specimens sustained the maximum design load for approximately 2 hours without collapsing.” NIST, p. 143

“The results established that this type of assembly was capable of sustaining a large gravity load, without collapsing, for a substantial period of time relative to the duration of the fires in any given location on September 11.” NIST, p. 143

"Overall, approximately 87 percent of all perimeter and core column steel tested exceeded the required minimum yield strengths specified in design documents. Test data for the remaining samples were below specifications, but were within the expected variability and did not affect the safety of the towers on September 11, 2001.” It also will point out: “Of the more than 170 areas examined on 16 perimeter column panels, only three columns had evidence that the steel reached temperatures above 250°C.… Only two core column specimens had sufficient paint remaining to make such an analysis, and their temperatures did not reach 250°C.… Using metallographic analysis, NIST determined that there was no evidence that any of the samples had reached temperatures above 600 °C.” p. 180

You should really read the whole report.

NIST REPORT

Nearly all indoor large fires, including those of the principal combustibles in the WTC towers, produce large quantities of optically thick, dark smoke. This is because, at the locations where the actual burning is taking place, the oxygen is severely depleted and the combustibles are not completely oxidized to colorless carbon dioxide and water.

The visible part of fire smoke consists of small soot particles whose formation is favored by the incomplete combustion associated with oxygen-depleted burning. Once formed, the soot from the tower fires was rapidly pushed away from the fires into less hot regions of the building or directly to broken windows and breaks in the building exterior. At these lower temperatures, the soot could no longer burn away. Thus, people saw the thick dark smoke characteristic of burning under oxygen-depleted conditions

Do you have a source for your claim?

I said the fire was weakend by the steal not melted it
I will respond more tomorrow because I have to be up in 6 hours for work

And im asking you, from your claims your agreeing with NIST on the basis that temperatures reached 1000 Degrees Celsius to "WEAKEN" the steel. So thus temperatures did not get hot enough to MELT steel. Ok you following... here we go... now if temperatures were NOT hot enough to melt steel then why were there pools of molten and metal found weeks after the 9/11 attacks not only under the Twin Towers but under WTC7.

Now lets talk about WTC7. No plane had crashed into, no jet fuel had been present, thus no temperatures of 1000 degrees celsius right? So how did it collapse? Please don't say it was damage from the twin towers when in fact this was the furthest away and buildings closer to the Twin Towers sustained more damage and was still standing after the attacks.

Also please watch the video i posted above to get further clarification that fire did not weaken the steels for collapse initiation.

BeZerK

[edit on 5-7-2007 by BeZerk]