computer simulation of WTC attacks by Perdue university

[Sword_Of_Truth]

And how many times has it been explained to you that modelling the entire collapse is unecessary?

Hmm?

Another swing and a miss, 'Seeker.

 

[Mercutio]

A far better use of the time and energy would be to assume a local collapse, and then model how that then leads to the pulverization, the ejection, the molten metal, the collapse times, etc.

I am genuinely curious as to why you find this of more interest than the factors leading to that local collapse. If one were trying to learn from this disaster in order to prevent some future disaster, it seems to me that the events leading to the local collapse are far more informative. But perhaps I am missing something crucial--why do you think that modeling the later events would be "a far better use of...time and energy"?

 

[Dog Town]

Succisa Virescit

 

[Loss Leader]

Here's how the troofers will get out of it. Right from the Purdue webpage on the modeling of the attacks:

This work has been supported in part by NSF grant DSC-0325227

So, since the government helped pay for it, the study can't be valid. Never mind that the NSF is an independent government agency, making its funding decisions through a 24-member science board. Never mind that the NSF funds 20% of all federally-funded science research in the universities of the country. They're government lackeys.

Just wait.

 

[Bell]

I am genuinely curious as to why you find this of more interest than the factors leading to that local collapse. If one were trying to learn from this disaster in order to prevent some future disaster, it seems to me that the events leading to the local collapse are far more informative. But perhaps I am missing something crucial--why do you think that modeling the later events would be "a far better use of...time and energy"?

I'm not trying to jump on BS101's defense here, but this is something I don't understand either. Okay, I understand the importance of studying why the top of the WTC towers came down, but isn't it also important to study why that led to the 'pulverisation' (not my words) of the rest of the towers? I think that's what he is getting at. Why the collapse of the top resulted in the total destruction (pancake collapse) of the towers.

To me this seems like saying the top came down because such and so, and therefor we can asume why the rest of the towers collapsed. Isn't it important why they collapsed after the initial collapse? Why, for example, the top didn't just break up over the rest of the building leaving a big portion of the building standing?

I just don't understand that

 

[Gravy]

Cool, maybe they should create a screensaver that takes some computer power.

Seen this

http://reprehensor.gnn.tv/blogs/17552/Engineer_s_Remarkable_WTC_Collapse_Simulations

That can't be true of course

I probably removed more of the columns from WTC #1 than I should, but the loads would have simply redistribued themselves and since the towers were built with so many factors of safety (5 is what I found in literature), I am confident office fires did not weaken the steel causing a sudden global collapse.

...My model only shows the effects of removing the core columns which is consistent with the videos of the collapses. If I had more time and computer power, I would like to further investigate the explosive aspects of the perimeter columns which would have been consistent with explosives in the trusses.

...Finally, if it were not for the free exchange of ideas on the internet and for the movie “In Plane Site” and “Loose Change 2nd Edition,” I would have been still one of those that still believes the government’s story which has yet to prove one fact or produce one piece of evidence.

Translation: "Like, hey, man, if I were to read the NIST report, I'll bet it says that the impact of the planes brought down the towers. Obviously that's a lie, as my model shows. I'm glad I didn't have to make my PC sweat by modeling the effect of the fires on the steel that had its fire protection knocked off, because everyone knows that fire can't bring down a steel building that Loose Change says was built with a safety factor of 5. Or maybe that was its warp factor. Whatever, man, the gubmint's story is bogus. I heard it on the internet."

 

[WildCat]

Why, for example, the top didn't just break up over the rest of the building leaving a big portion of the building standing?

I just don't understand that

Because the force coming down on it is so great that it couldn't possibly withstand it. No building is designed to carry such a load.

 

[kevin]

but isn't it also important to study why that led to the 'pulverisation' (not my words) of the rest of the towers?

I've yet to see pulverization proved. Why study something that didn't happen?

All the proofs I've seen are pictures of ground zero during the removal. Like they didn't bring in tons of gravel and pack material to stabilize the grounds as much as possible.

Other proofs include pictures of the dust during collapse. No proof of what materials are in the cloud, no density measurements, no volume calculations. I've installed drywall, I know the amount of dust that causes. Multiply by millions of square feet and I see nothing unusual in these photos.

 

[kevin]

No. Like NIST, Purdue didn't study the collapses either.

They don't claim to be studying. This simulation is of the initial impact and immediate after effects. It doesn't pretend to be anything else.

 

[Bell]

Because the force coming down on it is so great that it couldn't possibly withstand it. No building is designed to carry such a load.

I understand that. But what I don't understand is why NIST examinated the event leading up to the initial collapse, and the reason for that collapse, but not the reasons of the results of that collapse.

To me that seems like looking at a carwreck wrapped around a tree, and concluding that happened because the road was slippery, without looking at why the car got wrapped that way. It could be because the impact force was very high. It could also be because the car was designed very bad safety wise.

I would think (but I'm no scholar on this subject) that it also would be relevant to investigate why the towers were destroyed the way they where.

 

[Bell]

I've yet to see pulverization proved. Why study something that didn't happen?

All the proofs I've seen are pictures of ground zero during the removal. Like they didn't bring in tons of gravel and pack material to stabilize the grounds as much as possible.

Other proofs include pictures of the dust during collapse. No proof of what materials are in the cloud, no density measurements, no volume calculations. I've installed drywall, I know the amount of dust that causes. Multiply by millions of square feet and I see nothing unusual in these photos.

Kevin, I was being sarcastic. Hence the quote marks ('')

 

[Gravy]

I would think (but I'm no scholar on this subject) that it also would be relevant to investigate why the towers were destroyed the way they where.

I would agree with you if there was something unusual or mysterious about how the towers collapsed. There wasn't. They were crushed by an enormous moving mass.

 

[Loss Leader]

Why, for example, the top didn't just break up over the rest of the building leaving a big portion of the building standing?

I just don't understand that

I'm pretty sure NIST and others have satisfactorily answered that. My understanding - and Gravy or Mackey or somebody will have to correct me - is that the collapse of the core at the point of the impact pulled the building inwards. This put assive pressure on the core immediately below as it was now holding up all of the load it usually did pluss most of the load held by the exterior of the building. That part of the core gave out and pulled the building inwards some more, repeating all the way down to the ground.

There really is no mystery as to how local collapse led to the failure of the entire building. The whole top twenty floors didn't just fall twenty feet on top of the first unaffected floor. They fell down and in. That added pressure on the core had a domino effect all the way down to the ground.

Incidentally, this is one of the reasons why it is unsurprising that the towers fell in their own footprints (to the extent that they did). The core kept pulling the building inwards and that kept it from toppling like a tree.

Oh, I hope I'm right. Help me, Gravy. Reach out with your mind.

 

[WildCat]

I understand that. But what I don't understand is why NIST examinated the event leading up to the initial collapse, and the reason for that collapse, but not the reasons of the results of that collapse.

Because the exact dynamics of what happens next is far too complicated for any computer algorithm to handle presently.

 

[gumboot]

I'm not sure if that animation gives an acurate view of what happened at the Pentagon. It suggest that the airplane entered the building 'intact' (like at the WTC) and the wings started to break up inside the building. But looking at the actual damage, I would conclude the wings were crushes at the point of impact.

Not really... you'll see that the columns work like a sort of cheese grater and the aircraft is shredded into pieces straight away. Of course those pieces remain in a vaguely aircraft-like shape after shredding because of inertia.

At The Pentagon the hole extends across the width of the wings so we know the wings penetrated the building itself - otherwise the exterior wall would be intact.

-Andrew

 

[Bell]

Gravy, Loss Leader. I understand all that, but I still don't understand why NIST have not examined the total collapse. To me it seems like they are making an assumption, without providing evidence trhough a computer model. But as said before, I'm no scholar of such subject. NIST must have plenty people far more intellgent and educated than I, knowing what they are doing (or not doing, for this matter)

 

[gumboot]

I understand that. But what I don't understand is why NIST examinated the event leading up to the initial collapse, and the reason for that collapse, but not the reasons of the results of that collapse.

I think there's two reasons.

1) They were investigating building safety. Once collapse starts building safety becomes irrelevant.
2) It is impossible to accurately simulate the billions of variables involved in such a collapse. NIST are interested in science, not guess work.

To me that seems like looking at a carwreck wrapped around a tree, and concluding that happened because the road was slippery, without looking at why the car got wrapped that way. It could be because the impact force was very high. It could also be because the car was designed very bad safety wise.

I think it's more like doing a study on car safety, and stopping the study once the car plunges off a 3,000ft cliff.

Safety becomes irrelevant. The outcome is predetermined.

Having said that, you CAN analyse that sort of thing with a car, because it's a much simplier system. Before they had sophisticated systems for doing car crash analysis they didn't go into that sort of detail.

I would think (but I'm no scholar on this subject) that it also would be relevant to investigate why the towers were destroyed the way they where.

I think the key thing is "why did collapse occur?" Once collapse has started, it's going to keep going until it hits the ground. That's exactly what NIST looked at.

-Andrew

 

[Bell]

Not really... you'll see that the columns work like a sort of cheese grater and the aircraft is shredded into pieces straight away. Of course those pieces remain in a vaguely aircraft-like shape after shredding because of inertia.

At The Pentagon the hole extends across the width of the wings so we know the wings penetrated the building itself - otherwise the exterior wall would be intact.

-Andrew

I was thinking of the entrance hole being something like 60 feet, and the wingspan of the 757 being some 124 feet. Therefor I concluded the wings 'folded' into them self.

Maybe I've been reading to much troofer 'evidence' ?

 

[Bell]

Thanks for the feedback on the WTC analysis, everyone!

 

[TruthSeeker1234]

And how many times has it been explained to you that modelling the entire collapse is unecessary?

Zero