DISPELLING THE MYTH: Purdue creates scientifically based animation of 9/11 attack...

[RJ Shooter]

Very nice, computer calculated explanation of how the planes brought down the towers...

http://news.uns.purdue.edu/x/2007a/070612HoffmannWTC.html


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NOKJ4ZXgK4Q

[ATAK, Inc.]

Well, that pretty much set it in stone! It was a conspiracy, inside job, definately Bush's fault and a result of the scalar weapon! LOL


One thing they did not address, was the ablation of most, if not all of the SFRM (spray-applied fire resistant material). But the detail of the destuction of the core columns (along with the super heating of the steel, once the fire proofing was blown away, changed the physical property of the steel), is pretty much the death knell of the structure.

[Partisan1983]

Damn cool vid RJ.


While conspiracies have existed since the dawn of man........9/11 was not one of 'em



Funny how only a handful of Americans think it was conspiracy, yet no one on the rest of planet does....


But I defend the right of Americans to speak their opinion.....however "out there" it may be (and I know you do too)....

[Dr. Gonzo GED]

The great thing about computers is that they tell you exactly what you tell them to tell you...

But hey, if you like that one, I've got this trailer for an incredible wildlife documentary...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MPNTtqqTB5s

[RJ Shooter]

The great thing about computers is that they tell you exactly what you tell them to tell you...Except for the fact that they explained how they simply inputted all known data, and the computer generated the scene on it's own. Funny how the computer showed it exactly as it happened, even down to the engine shaft exiting the opposite side of the building.

There are consistencies such as gravity, density of certain metals, etc. that are easily plugged into a the software, that takes the amount of fuel, speed of travel, mass of the aircraft, etc. into consideration. Whether or not you believe it, changes nothing.

...you can lead a man to knowledge, but you can't make him think!

[Dr. Gonzo GED]

Except for the fact that they explained how they simply inputted all known data, and the computer generated the scene on it's own. Funny how the computer showed it exactly as it happened, even down to the engine shaft exiting the opposite side of the building.

There are consistencies such as gravity, density of certain metals, etc. that are easily plugged into a the software, that takes the amount of fuel, speed of travel, mass of the aircraft, etc. into consideration. Whether or not you believe it, changes nothing.

...you can lead a man to knowledge, but you can't make him think!
Cool story bro. :thumbsup:

[MOP]

Thanks for the clip.

I'm wishing the Fed would release the content of the 'black boxes',

they can always edit out the muslim war cry of "God is Great".

[Krupski]

Thanks for the clip.

I'm wishing the Fed would release the content of the 'black boxes',

they can always edit out the muslim war cry of "God is Great".

Who needs flight data recorders when we have high-tech cartoons to "prove" everything?

[El Jefe]

Who needs flight data recorders when we have high-tech cartoons to "prove" everything?

Um, it's more than you got.

[Krupski]

Um, it's more than you got.

I've got a lot more... but that's all you're getting. :)

[RJ Shooter]

Who needs flight data recorders when we have high-tech cartoons to "prove" everything?Yeah, it's true. I don't need computers to show me what millions of Americans physically saw anyway. Two fast moving airliners crashed into two high rise office towers! They then fell! Simple, factual, logic.

The weight of the building and what it contained, as well as the weight of the million gallon domestic water gravity tanks (weighing 9 million+ pounds themselves) located at the top of each tower (water cannot easily be pushed 90 stories into the air, constantly, so all high-rise office towers have gravity tanks), plus the weight of the upper level engineering floors, caused the remaining, heating metal structure to weaken - not melt. There is not a single, reputable, physicist that would disagree with this scenario's outcome.

Being a high-rise fire safety director, certified in the state of Ohio, I tend to know some dynamics that the average layperson would not. Ever taken a piss on the 40th floor of a building at 2am and felt the building sway back and forth? I have, for about 8 years. Notwithstanding, much of the support structure was damaged or destroyed from the initial impact, so even without heat, the structure was weakened.

But you, in your infinite wisdom and knowledge on such dynamic matters, know more than the rest of the sane world? You pwetty fwunny... ;)

Anyone want to tell me what happens to concrete and metal when 100+ million pounds of energy starts traveling downward at a rate of 98 ft/s2? POWDER!

[Krupski]

Anyone want to tell me what happens to concrete and metal when 100+ million pounds of energy starts traveling downward at a rate of 98 ft/s2? POWDER!


98 feet per second squared? That's a little over 3G's!

I know you meant 9.8 meters/sec squared... just messing with you. :)

[RJ Shooter]

The force due to gravity on this planet is 98 ft/s2!!!!

Look it up Roger. You're a scientist, are you not? Shouldn't you know some of the basic tenants to physics and their direct result on every physical body on this planet?

[Krupski]

The force due to gravity on this planet is 98 ft/s2!!!!

Look it up Roger. You're a scientist, are you not? Shouldn't you know some of the basic tenants to physics and their direct result on every physical body on this planet?


1G is 32 feet/sec squared or 9.8 meters/sec squared.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth%27s_gravity


The gravity of Earth, denoted g, refers to the acceleration (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acceleration) that the Earth (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth) imparts to objects on or near its surface (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elevation). In SI units (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_System_of_Units) this acceleration is measured in m/s2 (metres per second per second, equivalently written as m·s−2 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metre_per_second_squared) or N/kg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metre_per_second_squared)). It has an approximate value of 9.81 m/s2, which means that, ignoring air resistance (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_resistance), the speed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed) of an object falling freely (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_fall) near the Earth's surface increases by about 9.81 metres per second every second.



:slap:

[RJ Shooter]

It's 32 ft/s2, and 9.8 m/s2... You're correct on this minor equation. But this is still the acceleration rate, and my point still stands. That's a lot of mass moving at a constantly accelerating rate... ;)

(it's been a long time since I used physics, but the 9 and the 8 were still in there) LOL!

And a quick search shows someone else saying the same thing I said! http://www.purplemath.com/modules/quadprob.htm

Either I'm remembering incorrectly, as is someone else, or I'm right about something... LOL!!!!!!

And did you know about the Engineering and Domestic Water on top of each building? You have chillers, heaters, air handlers and a whole lot of water. The weight is unbelievable. You can argue my decimal error, but you can argue the remaining facts...

[RJ Shooter]

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_measure_of_the_force_of_gravity_on_an_ object

[MR. Polytech]

Interesting...But then how do you explain the collapse of WTC building 7, which was not hit by aircraft? Oh yeah, it was a fire...No jet fuel, no impact- steel skyscrapers built as WTC 7 are not supposed to burn..Look's more like a demo det in this picture...And others I have seen that were taken from other angles.

http://www.wtc7.net/
http://www.wtc7.net/docs/streamers.jpg

[printerman]

fuel , what a bunch of crap and the gullible public buy into it like donuts for a penny ...

Aviation fuel burns up quick
Steel girders burn at 2600 degrees after prolonged fire
No building (steel structure) has ever collapsed in the U.S.A. from fire
The rate of collapse was way to fast with zero resistance
Seismic recordings in 2 universities proved multiple explosions in sequenced order
Temp. readings in the "pile" were un-natural to be included with building materials
This "cartoon" shows much speculation
A grapefruit falling unimpeded falls at the same rate as those buildings came down
Building 5 with hardly any fuel fell mysteriously hours later with no reasonable explanation

[Krupski]

Aviation fuel burns up quick

"Aviation fuel" is usually thought of (by pilots) as "AVGAS" or aviation gasoline. Passenger jets burn...basically... kerosene.

Looking at the videos of the two tall buildings burning shows a lot of black, sooty smoke. This means that the kerosene flame was fuel rich due to lack of sufficient airflow. This also means that the flame temperature was quite low... probably not much above 1000 degrees F. This is the temperature where steel just barely begins to glow red (weak glow can be seen in the dark).

NIST testing of the steel debris at the WTC site, in fact, found that the steel was actually exposed to no more than 500 degrees F. Reality is probably somewhere in between.

Neither 500 degrees F nor 1000 degrees F is anywhere near hot enough to weaken steel, especially when the beams had substantial heatsinks (i.e. the concrete and the other beams they were connected to).

Video from various angles of the two WTC buildings show strange WHITE HOT metal dripping... almost spewing out of corners. It looks like a big-ass cutting torch or Thermite. Or maybe it was just rusty steel and some molten aluminum that unfortunately managed to form thermite locally.

Other videos show bright white flashes coming from the inside of the building just milliseconds BEFORE the airplanes hit. Maybe someone Photoshopped the videos and added the flashes. Or maybe they were explosive charges? I dunno. But to my knowledge, concrete does not get scared at the sight of an oncoming airplane and start blinking...

RJ's assertion that building like the WTC towers have substantial HVAC equipment in them (cooling towers, water tanks, pumps, etc...) is completely true. And yes that stuff is heavy. I can't lift it.

But are we supposed to believe that the buildings were built on the ragged edge of engineering so that all the heavy pumps and water tanks caused an overload of the building, just waiting to fall at the snap of a firecracker? :yeah:

Sorry RJ... but that WAS funny.

Oh and what about "Building 7", completely undamaged except for a few broken windows and some dust on the roof? Ah I know the windows were load bearing structures. When the windows broke, BOOM it fell down with controlled demolition precision. :yeah:

(sorry I'm just cracking up here)...

I don't know if CDI or some other company pulled those buildings, but whoever did the job did it well.

[Krupski]

Interesting...But then how do you explain the collapse of WTC building 7, which was not hit by aircraft? Oh yeah, it was a fire...No jet fuel, no impact- steel skyscrapers built as WTC 7 are not supposed to burn..Look's more like a demo det in this picture...And others I have seen that were taken from other angles.

http://www.wtc7.net/
http://www.wtc7.net/docs/streamers.jpg

How do I explain it? Easy. When Larry Silverstein picked up his radio and said "pull it", one of the demolition people pushed the button.

[Krupski]

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_measure_of_the_force_of_gravity_on_an_ object

How long did it take you to find a site that said a 10 kilogram mass on the ground weighs 98 newtons?

Heck, if you really needed to stick with that magic "98" number, there were easier ways. Body temperature... 98.6 degrees F (close enough). Or Windows 98? Oh wait I know... the temperature that steel beams weaken at... "98"!

Unit? What units? We don't need no stinkin units. It's 98 and that's a fact!

:yeah:

[MOP]

I saw the clips about WTC# 7.........and it is bothering me.

This means that the passengers+crews of Airliners 1,2, and 3....were liquidated.

....and the heroic fights, on board Airliner#4, did not occur.

and for what ? Invade the Mid-East ?

[Krupski]

I saw the clips about WTC# 7.........and it is bothering me.

This means that the passengers+crews of Airliners 1,2, and 3....were liquidated.

....and the heroic fights, on board Airliner#4, did not occur.

and for what ? Invade the Mid-East ?

This assumes that there were passengers on the airplanes.

Although... thinking about it... it would be difficult to manufacture all the families that claim to have lost someone on those flights. If it were bogus, SOMEONE would blab.

So... would our government be so cruel, so heartless as to sacrifice all those lives (airplanes AND WTC buildings) for their own agenda?

Anyone who thinks "NO" is naive...

[MOP]

No agenda is worth the killings of so many citizens.

Pres. Bush is not that stupid. Can you imagine if someone leaked that evil plot...

...the Bush Family would be seeking asylum in Sri Lanka.

[El Jefe]

No agenda is worth the killings of so many citizens.

Pres. Bush is not that stupid. Can you imagine if someone leaked that evil plot...

...the Bush Family would be seeking asylum in Sri Lanka.

9/11 was not perpetrated by the Bush administration, anyone who thinks so is mentally ill.

[Krupski]

No agenda is worth the killings of so many citizens.

Pres. Bush is not that stupid. Can you imagine if someone leaked that evil plot...

...the Bush Family would be seeking asylum in Sri Lanka.

I never said Bush did it.

[Dr. Gonzo GED]

9/11 was not perpetrated by the Bush administration, anyone who thinks so is mentally ill.
Of course not. It was perpetrated by patsies so many rungs down the ladder that they honestly thought they were working against the global elite, never realizing their actions would grant their sworn enemies more power, riches, and access than ever. (This based on obvious connections between Wahhabist extremism, and the Saudi royal family. Good friends and longtime business partners of the Bushes, who personally profiteered beyond imagination off the wars started by the events of 911.)

Just like any other good clandestine operation, none of the cells knew what the others were doing, or what the true motivation behind their orders were. It's the way these things have been done for millennia. "Blowing up a building" is a checkers move. The game is actually chess though. It's a lot deeper than simply "a-holes jack plane and crash it", as there are so many technical flaws and impossibilities in the official story that it doesn't even make sense when you really start analyzing the players on all sides.

You want to know who to suspect of murder? Follow the money trail. And dats' da troof.

[HDR]

The great thing about computers is that they tell you exactly what you tell them to tell you...


Analytical programs which simulate do not tell you exactly what you want them to tell you anymore than a game lets you win because you want to win.

As everything you use on a computer is a program; start the calculator hit a two, then the plus sign, and another two. Now sit there and fill your mind with I want a three and hit the equals.

Let me know when the calculator answers three..

If it answers four, don't give up just focus harder.... Believe in yourself.

lol


Who needs flight data recorders when we have high-tech cartoons to "prove" everything?

Stealth aircraft and ships are a product of computer simulations; so is ballistic flight. The reason fast movers don't break up during high G maneuvers is the result of computer simulations.

http://www.cfdesign.com/ http://www.ansys.com/

You of all people ought to know better.. Instead of hiding in Double E heaven, try visiting some of your college's other engineering schools...

Show some engineering common sense; claim they twisted the data by locking variables and values that were inputted to analysis same as the climatologists as East Anglia did with global warming.

Roger, there are better methods accompanied by real life examples to cast doubts on their ability to simulate than taking a moon bat approach.

[Krupski]

Roger, there are better methods accompanied by real life examples to cast doubts on their ability to simulate than taking a moon bat approach.

I'm not casting doubts on anyone's abilities. In fact, the computer simulation (aka cartoon) that RJ posted reinforces my point. The airplane did indeed, as I expected, break up immediately after impact. Not many beams and columns were severed. I thought the simulation was VERY accurate (compared to what I would EXPECT to happen).

Buildings such as the WTC towers (as well as most any other building) are not constructed on the ragged edge of failure like the Space Shuttle is. There is no huge need to minimize weight in a building.

Strength, being able to support it's own weight, being able to withstand the TREMENDOUS amount of force ordinary wind produces, is more important.

Simply put, the building is (was) very strong. The loss of a few beams or the supposed weakening of a few beams from fire did not, could not and should not cause the building to collapse.

I won't even get into all the anomalies that can be seen in various videos (flashes before impact, white hot "thermite-like" sparks spewing out of small areas, the fact that kerosene, burning in an oxygen poor environment barely reaches 1000 degrees F., etc...)

It's about as absurd as saying that a Humvee in good condition fell apart because it hit a small pothole.

And, why did WTC-7 fall down when it had NO damage? Was it a copy-cat collapse? Is it a myth that thousands of people heard on a business band radio someone say "pull it" seconds before WTC7 fell?

This whole thing is like someone committing a murder, then tossing the body into a lion's den at the zoo to cover the crime. If no forensic investigation is done (or if the security videos of the perp tossing the body in are never released), then the murderer may very well get away with it.

Merely showing a National Geographic documentary on how lions do, indeed, eat meat will NOT necessarily convince thinking people that the murder never happened.

I especially liked the accuracy of the video that correctly shows the airplane's fuselage immediately breaking up from the impact and properly explaining WHY it broke up. They also (correctly) assert that the simulation shows the heavy, dense engines exiting the other side of the building almost intact.

Now I would like to see the same simulation run on the Pentagon "event" and see how a disintegrated fuselage can punch 5 perfect holes in concrete walls. And how the two engines caused NO damage to the Pentagon outer wall when the same engines blew all the way THROUGH a WTC building!

And, if the government wants to shut the "loons" up once and for all, why don't they simply release the confiscated surveillance videos that were acquired for miles along the flight path of the Pentagon "object"?

Rather than drawing the outline of a 757 over a plume of smoke seen in ONE FRAME of a parking lot camera, show me the video that at least ONE of the cameras MUST have captured of an AIRPLANE... with the proper N number and proper corporate markings.

Is that really too much to ask? "Show me"?

[HDR]

Simply put, the building is (was) very strong. The loss of a few beams or the supposed weakening of a few beams from fire did not, could not and should not cause the building to collapse.

So you contend "did not, could not and should not" and they contend it did. They have a bunch of calculations and a simulation. To contest their claims you have an unsupported opinion. aka a conspiracy theory.

I've read there was explosives planted in the building which was what really made it fall.. As there wasn't any flashes "they" must have used "flash-less" explosives..


And, if the government wants to shut the "loons" up once and for all, why don't they simply release the confiscated surveillance videos that were acquired for miles along the flight path of the Pentagon "object"?

Have you ever asked yourself why all those surveillance cameras were pointed up at the sky? I always was under the (mistaken) impression that surveillance cameras watched stores, parking lots, traffic, and us. Gee, I would have guessed someone would have noticed seeing pigeons and other birds in flight..

This is Andy from Brinks and although I can't see the crime; I want to report the stars are beautiful tonight....

There must be some mighty stupid people if they installed miles of surveillance cameras pointed up the skies...

However, as the government knew when the plane was coming did Bush order them to aim the surveillance cameras up?



Is that really too much to ask? "Show me"?

I thought that was exactly what they did.

[Randomluck]

Jaysus this place is full of ignint Troofers and Nutjobs.

Here's y'alls official spokesperson making your case proving 9/11 was MIHOP

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x56836

[HDR]

Jaysus this place is full of ignint Troofers and Nutjobs.

Here's y'alls official spokesperson making your case proving 9/11 was MIHOP

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x56836

Dung better known as the unimpeachable source of accuracy, facts and truth... lol

[El Jefe]

I wish someone would explain how our slap dick government could keep a conspiracy of this magnitude under wraps. And if it's so obvious that the facts don't back up the official storyline, then why haven't the media and the Bush's political rivals, blown this wide open?

I mean c'mon, the MSM and the Dems took Nixon down down over a petty break in, I have to think they'd be wall to wall with this if it had any legs.

[HDR]

I wish someone would explain how our slap dick government could keep a conspiracy of this magnitude under wraps. And if it's so obvious that the facts don't back up the official storyline, then why haven't the media and the Bush's political rivals, blown this wide open?

Probably either Bush had all the witnesses snuffed or interned them in TSA camps.


I mean c'mon, the MSM and the Dems took Nixon down down over a petty break in, I have to think they'd be wall to wall with this if it had any legs.

Maybe the democrats did it to involve us in a war??

[Dr. Gonzo GED]

Analytical programs which simulate do not tell you exactly what you want them to tell you anymore than a game lets you win because you want to win.

The program demonstrates exactly the parameters that were entered into it. Period. If the animation matches the official story, it's because the official story is what was used to develope the animation. Why would you expect any deviation in the results? Compurters can;t make things up on the fly Top. If they could we'd all be slaves to the machines already...

[Randomluck]

If they could we'd all be slaves to the machines already...

You don't think we are now? huh, amazing.

[El Jefe]

:terminator::terminator::terminator::terminator::t erminator::terminator::terminator:

[HDR]

The program demonstrates exactly the parameters that were entered into it. Period. If the animation matches the official story, it's because the official story is what was used to develope the animation. Why would you expect any deviation in the results? Compurters can;t make things up on the fly Top. If they could we'd all be slaves to the machines already...

Those kind of programs analyze data. They are also expensive and protected against modification. If you modify them, the license will lock.

Obviously one can cheat as the climatologists at East Anglia did by the false parameters they fed into their weather program. In this case we could tell the program the steel girders were made out something which was about half as strong as steel. Or substitute a weaker grade of concrete. However, Purdue is way too wise to stick their neck in that noose. If they did, then some college kid would rat them out. Hackers ratted on the climatologists or maybe the NWO hired the hackers?
Notice the new conspiracy? lol

People use the machines to enslave us.