Wednesday, June 20, 2007

Purdue Simulation: Full of Hot Air

The newest volley in the disinformation campaign regarding 9/11 is a simulation of the Twin Towers created by Purdue University. As summarized by Raw Story:

The simulation found jet engine shafts from airlines flown into the World Trade Center "flew through the building like bullets," according to an Associated Press vide report.

Flaming jet fuel cascaded through the tower stripping away fireproofing material and causing the building to collapse, the AP video reports.

"The weight of the aircraft's fuel, when ignited, acted like a flash flood of flaming liquid," according to the video.

However, Kevin Ryan has already demonstrated that there was not enough energy from the airplane impacts to have knocked much of the fireproofing off. See also this article.

And very few of the core columns were severed by the planes' impact. And tests by NIST showed that temperatures in the Twin Towers never got hot enough to significantly weaken the structural steel of the 47-column inner core.

Researchers have stated that the Purdue simulation contradicts the observed facts in other ways, and in the next couple of weeks, they will publish their findings.

Moreover, the Purdue simulation still does not address the flies in the ointment which NIST also ignored:

(1) The simulation either fails to include, or inaccurately represents, the 47 core columns holding up each of the Twin Towers.

(2) Most of the jet fuel burned outside the buildings, especially in the case of the South Tower - which produced a glowing orange fireball as the building was struck at an oblique angle. So the simulation could not hold true for the South Tower.

(3) The people who designed the Twin Towers did not think that an airplane plus fire from the jet fuel could bring the buildings down. Indeed, they assumed that "all the fuel (from the airplane) would dump into the building", and yet assumed "The building structure would still be there." Since most of the fuel (especially with the South Tower) exploded outside of the buildings, shouldn't they "still be there"?

(4) Even if the planes and fire had initiated a collapse sequence, why did the towers totally collapse, when no modern steel-framed building has ever before completely collapsed due to fire?

(5) Why did they collapse at virtually free-fall speed? And why did WTC7 -- which wasn't even hit by a plane -- totally collapse at free-fall speed later that same day?

(6) How could the buildings have fallen at near free-fall speed, indicating very little resistance, and yet produce tremendous pulverization of concrete, which indicates great resistance?

(7) No one can explain why "steel columns in building 7 were "PARTLY EVAPORATED in extraordinarily high temperatures" (pay-per-view). Absent controlled demolition, how could such temperatures have been generated by jet fuel or diesel?

As if that's not enough, Kevin Ryan pointed out to me today by email that the Purdue simulation contradicts many aspects of NIST's findings:

"1. Were columns on the south face of WTC severed by aircraft impact? NIST says maybe one, but Purdue now suggests several. NCSTAR1, p. 22-23.

2. Was there any jet fuel in AA11's center fule tank? NIST says no, but Purdue now says yes, it was completely full. NCTSAR1-5A, p liii, lviii.

3. How did the fieproofing get "widely dislodged"? NIST suggests the aircraft debris turned into shotgun blasts to affect this. Purdue now suggests the jet fuel did it. Thanks to Purdue for invalidating NIST's work. NCSTAR1, p 119."

In other words, not only does the Purdue simulation contain many of the same errors as the NIST reports, but, as if that's not bad enough, it stretches the truth beyond even what NIST itself has done.

Moreover, as pointed out by the blog Truth Or Lies:

"The following statement was used in the Purdue simulation: 'The weight of the aircraft's fuel, when ignited, acted like a flash flood of flaming liquid.' This is a direct contradiction of the FEMA report (which can be viewed HERE) which stated: 'despite the huge fireballs caused by the two planes crashing into the WTC towers each with 10,000 gallons of jet fuel, the fireballs did not explode or create a shock wave that would have resulted in structural damage.'”
As Crockett L. Grabbe, PhD, research scientist and visiting scholar, department of physics and astronomy, university of Iowa 1980, and former researcher at Naval Research Laboratory put it:

“Many may conclude that the building structure of the World Trade Center twin towers was poorly designed with fire retardants that the heat from the airliner explosions within an hour caused catastrophic destruction of the south tower, and in less than 2 hours the north tower. However, the evidence overwhelmingly supports a different conclusion: this collapse was in fact caused by explosive devices planted well in advance."

Indeed, numerous scientists, engineers and demolition experts have said the official version of the destruction of the World Trade Centers is impossible.




27 Comments:

Anonymous eugene davis said...

Damn! My wood stove didn't come with any fire proofing....I guess it is gonna melt.

11:40 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Everytime you drive, be careful
and keep checking, maybe your engine is weakening and will soon turn to molten metal.

That's the Friggin story about 9/11 they are hoping we are going to buy. No chance morons. 9/11
was an inside job.

11:46 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Why has no one hit on this fact?
Why do welders use oxygen when cutting, and welding steel? Because there is not enough free oxygen in our atmosphere (21%) to allow a flame to reach the temperture REQUIRED to melt steel. OXYGEN MUST BE ADDED TO THE FUEL TO REACH THE MELT TEMPERTURE OF STEEL. When welders use a cutting torch, the cutting torch has a valve on the handle to allow MORE oxygen to flow into the torch head. The more oxygen, the hotter the flame. Too much oxygen = too much heat, and the oxidizing flame will actually oxidize(burn) the metal creating weak welds. If the towers fell due to fire alone, then the open atmosphere in, and around them was oxygen rich, way over the natural 21% oxygen that we breath every day on planet Earth.

12:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

They must think we're complete morons. Our government hard at work making us safe and giving us the right information. HA,HA,HA,HA,HA,HA,HA,HAAaaaaa!!

12:45 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

There's only one important question concerning the attacks, did the US gov't allow/participate in 9/11?

The answer to that query would explain the illegal wire-taps, suspension of habeas corpus, banning of books like "America Deceived" from Amazon, detaining of dissenters in fences miles away from events, and multiple wars based on lies.

How can the gov't be innocent in 9/11 when we have caught it lying so many times (WACO, Ruby Ridge, no WMDs, USS Liberty, Operation Northwoods, Gulf of Tonkin, Pearl Harbor, ETC.)?

In law, if you determine a person lies ONCE during his testimony, it can be assumed that he lied in the remainder of his testimony. How come we do not hold the gov't to the same standard as it holds us to?

The gov't lied to us about Iraq and more Americans have died there than in 9/11. If the gov't lied about Iraq then why is everyone so reluctant to believe that the gov't lied about 9/11?

Final link (before Stark County District Library bends to pressure and drops the title):
America Deceived (book)

1:21 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"The weight of the aircraft's fuel, when ignited, acted like a flash flood of flaming liquid,"

Why the need for flaming rhetoric? Hmmm? Oh, that's right, it's propaganda. That explains it.

Here are the facts. It's estimated 5,000 to 7,500 gallons of fuel were not burned up in the initial fireballs and so entered each of the Twin Towers.

That amounts to 650 to 1,000 cubic feet of fuel. That equates to filling up a 10'x10' office cubicle to 6 feet or the ceiling, at most.

Hardly a "flash flood". And to state that this small volume of liquid could have stripped off any fireproofing is ludicrous.

Here's another way to visualize it. The occupiable floor space of each floor was 40,000 square feet. If you spread 7,500 gallons of any liquid over just one floor, it would result in a film only .3 inches think. Yes that's 3 tenths of an inch; the thickness of a pencil.

And if you spread that liquid over 110 floors, it's only 3 thousandths of an inch thick; the thickness of 3 pieces of paper.

Flash flood, my ass. This is an inconsequential amount of liquid in such a large structure.

2:31 PM  
Blogger Davol White said...

Too many people know a controlled demolition when they see one. It's become my catch phrase for articles like this. I just had another thought about this. If both buildings came down because of the same physics put forward by the official story, the Purdue Simulation, the Popular Mechanics article, and the 911 Commission Report then why did they both fall pretty much at the same time? That is, if fires somehow produced sufficient heat to weaken the upper floors, which subsequently pancaked the towers to the ground at free fall speed then what explains both towers falling within minutes of each other when the first tower was struck almost an hour before the second tower. Plus both towers were struck in different places at least 10 floors apart, and also different angles yet both towers decide to fall identically in the same footprints. Why wasn't there at least 30 minutes between these towers falling? It took WTC 7 all day to decide to control demolition? It scares me to think that anybody out there believes this was anything but controlled demolition. It's a dark day for America's soul.

3:36 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The Purdue study is hogwash. It's based on fundamentally erroneous assumptions, carrying them over from the flawed government reports.

The video states, "The weight of the aircraft's fuel, when ignited, acted like a flash flood of flaming liquid,"

Weight? What weight?

The estimated 5,000 to 7,500 gallons of jet fuel that entered the building weighed between 32,000 and 49,000 pounds. That's equivalent to only 200 to 350 people.

On a busy day, each of these buildings had 25,000 people working in them with a similar number of additional visitors. The additional weight of 200 - 350 people is meaningless.

Remember, these were some of the biggest buildings in the world; more than a quarter mile tall (1360') with a floor space of one acre.

This is a negligible weight in such a large structure. It would not cause any mechanical damage.

And even the government acknowledges the entire amount of jet fuel would have burned off in about 10 minutes. So, what continued to burn? Just office materials on a very few floors, which could not possibly have structurally damaged the buildings.

5:20 PM  
Anonymous sal said...

Important addition:
First of all I cannot find any paper that would describe how and how much of the fireproofing was dislodged. Has the Purdue's study been peer-reviewed after all?

Anyways,
Prof. Popescu who designed animation software himself points out FLAWS in the simulation:
http://www.cs.purdue.edu/cgvlab/papers/popescu/popescuWTCVIS07.pdf
on Page 6 we read:

"One of the shortcomings of the simulation is that the dispersing fuel is treated by LS-DYNA as a non-volatile liquid. However, it created an explosion and subsequent fire. Thus, SPH elements should have a death frame associated that attenuates the mass of liquid over time. This and other fire-related effects should be revisited in future work."

Another thing, is that animation shows bare columns without gypsum walls. I ask: how could they confirm that fireproofing was dislodged if they didn't include all the other stuff, like walls, that covered columns?

And where can I read a paper that describes this alleged dislodging scientifically?
As for now we have Mr. Soze's (check K.Ryan's article on him and his fellows) OUTRAGEOUS statements which try to confirm official explanation and bolster it with Purdue's study. Soze's managed to include "column buckling", "heat from an ordinary office fire would suffice to soften and weaken the unprotected steel.", "collapse would follow whatever the number of columns cut" in his statement about Purdue's study, while this study has NOTHING to do with those topics. OUTRAGEOUS!
The worst thing is that media will buy it.

5:54 PM  
Blogger HenryB said...

Indeed, numerous scientists, engineers and demolition experts have said the official version of the destruction of the World Trade Centers is impossible.

Care to name these numerous brainiacs? Put the bong down before you answer.

8:48 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

About 200 scientists and engineers who doubt the official account of 9/11 are listed here.
http://www.patriotsquestion911.com
300 other people are also on the site, but I don't know if you're interested in the opinions of people who headed Army Intelligence, Assistant Secretaries of Defense, Deputy Director of White House Task Force on Terrorism, senior CIA officials, etc.

9:36 PM  
Blogger Renee said...

Dear Henryb,

If you follow the hyper-links in the blog entry you will find all the names you could ever care to find. Click! It's easy.

9:54 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Are these not the same people who explained via a simulation, why the Pentagon remained standing for over half an hour after being hit and yet there was no plane debris outside?

And now they have the job of explaining, via a simulation, how the same type of plane entered another building, smashed it into smithereens and yet managed to spew its contents outside.

This munchausenwerk is straight from the Annals of Improbable Research, via the Journal of Irreproducible Results.

10:48 PM  
Anonymous Hank said...

Everyone seems to be ignoring one simple fact, which is verifiable on wikipedia. The open air burning temp of jetA is a max of 599 degreesF. You could fill the world trade towers to the top with jetA and let it burn til it was all gone and it would NEVER reach a temp that would weaken steel. Not even the low grade steel used in coathangers would weaken at 599 degrees. Combine that with the fact the physical law of conservation of momentum makes a genuine collapse at free fall speed IMPOSSIBLE, and it's easy to see that the entire govt. story is a lie. I bet Purdue is getting a substantial govt. grant.

7:20 AM  
Anonymous Publius said...

Following up on Hank's comment. The Purdue study was funded by a grant from the National Science foundation which just had its budget doubled.

Can you say "quid pro quo"?

Sure you can.

See, wasn't that easy?

I knew you could.

9:22 AM  
Anonymous Tóirse said...

Your blogs are always right on the money. You'd make a fantastic criminal prosecutor.

9:29 AM  
Anonymous Publius said...

The comment by davol while is one of the best succinct arguments I have ever seen as to why the Official Conspiracy Theory™ is a pantload and it bears repeating:

Davol White said...

"Too many people know a controlled demolition when they see one. It's become my catch phrase for articles like this. I just had another thought about this. If both buildings came down because of the same physics put forward by the official story, the Purdue Simulation, the Popular Mechanics article, and the 911 Commission Report then why did they both fall pretty much at the same time? That is, if fires somehow produced sufficient heat to weaken the upper floors, which subsequently pancaked the towers to the ground at free fall speed then what explains both towers falling within minutes of each other when the first tower was struck almost an hour before the second tower. Plus both towers were struck in different places at least 10 floors apart, and also different angles yet both towers decide to fall identically in the same footprints. Why wasn't there at least 30 minutes between these towers falling? It took WTC 7 all day to decide to control demolition? It scares me to think that anybody out there believes this was anything but controlled demolition. It's a dark day for America's soul."


That pretty well sums it up. In looking at any argument (particularly the Official Fairy Tale of 911), when trying to analyze it and determine its truth value, the internal contradictions of the explanation cause it to come cascading down like an explosively demolished building. The outpoints in the Official Fairy Tale, its inconsistencies and contradictions of observed events, are enough to leave it nothing more that shattered smoldering wreckage to anyone with any wit willing to look objectively and weigh the evidence.

911 WAS an Inside Job.

9:38 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I'm very proud of all you people today. Everyone here sounded intelligent. The heckler was even treated with respect. Awesome! Keep up the great work. Remember what Dr. Bowman said. He said we don't need to EXPLAIN the mysteries of 911. We only need to ask the QUESTIONS that are being ignored so that investigations can be possible [or so people at least start thinking].

4:03 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Amazing...they go through all that trouble to try to brainwash us into believing the "O-fishy" Story with those fake-ass simulations...and all they do is make people ask,"Uh-huh,that's very nice...NOW EXPLAIN HOW WTC7 CAME DOWN THE EXACT SAME WAY THE TOWERS DID WITHOUT BEING HIT BY A PLANE."

9:20 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I would like to know the names of the demolitionists who said the official version of the World Trade Centers is impossible? I know of only one, Danny Jowenko, a Dutchman, and he specifically denies WTC 1 & 2 were controlled demolition jobs. He does believe WTC 7 was a CD, but he has not examined all of the evidence. I am a former demolitionist, and will testify there is no way the WTC buildings were brought down with demolitions. It takes months to plan, rig, and excute CD's of this sise. Quite frankly it would have been impossible given the conditions and time involved.

7:56 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

to the post above mine who claims to be a "former demolitionsist":

Are you admitting that you think wtc7 might have been a "cd" as you put it?

IF you are, then please explain the molten metal underneathe the piles of all 3 buildings.

10:41 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

how can anyone think these buildings came down 'naturally' ie., not a contolled demolition????

how is it at all possible to believe otherwise?????

are people really that dumb and refuse to even apply basic 10th grade physics in their thinking?

i don't understand. do people actually think the laws of physics were suspended on 911? because why? "911 and the US are so special, the laws of physics are suspended."

too too many stupid hollywood action films, everybody believes a load of 'super-hero' nonsense.

2:37 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Dear George Washington,

I am a student in Prof. John Mohr’s Introduction to Sociological Methods course at the University of California, Santa Barbara. In this course we are learning how to use content analysis techniques to learn about archival texts. I am writing to you today because I would like to make use of the material that you have posted on the following internet web site (www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=7996921&postID=8811948198736386345) as material for my course exercise on content analysis. If you have no objections, I would like to download some of the “blog” text posted on your website and apply some basic content analysis techniques to the material. This means I will be looking to count the number of words you use, and systematically look for recurring themes in the text. The results of the analyses that I perform will not be made public, nor they will be published. In my classroom write-up of my findings I will not identify you by name. There is no obligation for you to participate in this study. If you decide that you would like to withdraw your consent you may do so at any time by contacting me by email. Before I can proceed, I must ask you to send me a reply by email, affirming that you have no objections to my making use of your blog material in this way. I also need to know whether you are at least 18 years of age. Please email me at this address. natrose@umail.ucsb.edu.

More information about the study can be obtained by contacting professor John Mohr, in the Department of Sociology at the University of California, Santa Barbara, CA 93106. You can also contact Prof. Mohr by email: mohr@soc.ucsb.edu.

Thank you very much!

Natalie Rose

5:51 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The part I like is where they tell you that jet fuel vaporized the jet engines at the Pentagon (along with everything else).

Sooooo . . . jet fuel burns inside the jet's engines the entire time the plane is in the air, without causing any damage at all to the engines, but if the plane crashes, the evilness of those Arabs makes the fuel experience some maniacal chemical transformation, so that now it will vaporize the same engines that it didn't damage at all while the plane was flying?

Well . . . why not??!!? I'm a dumbass; I'll believe anything!

11:49 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

One of the anonymous posters put up this gem:

"Quite frankly it would have been impossible given the conditions and time involved."

No shit, Sherlock. The buildings were wired during all of those "security" drills in the time leading up to 9/11, while everybody else was out of the building.

The upper half of the South Tower was shut down for close to 36 hours on the weekend of Sept. 8-9. The WTC said that it was replacing computer cables. The electricity was completely shut off, disabling all of the security doors and cameras, with hordes of "engineers" going in and out. Well, guess what? Computer cables don't directly connect to building electricity. There would have been only one good reason for ensuring that nothing going on in there would be seen, and I think that even this guy could figure out what it was. Or, maybe not.

11:54 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

If a high speed 200 ton object hits a relatively tall narrow 500,000 ton object isn't the distribution of mass going to be important in analyzing the effect of impact? I have searched the NIST reports. I can't find the total quantity of concrete in each tower. Didn't the people who designed the buildings have to determine how much steel and concrete to put on every floor, including the basements? Why is it we haven't even heard how many tons of steel were on the floors where the planes hit in six years?

psikeyhackr

10:19 AM  
Blogger psikeyhackr said...

Don't skyscrapers have to sway in the wind. If an airliner hits near the top of a skyscraper isn't it going to deflect and oscillate.

Why don't the CORE COLUMNS move in unison in the Purdue simulation as the plane comes in and pushes against the floor slab and cracking it up? Didn't the survivors just below the impact point report the whole building shaking. Someone said it "moved like a wave".

7:46 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home