computer simulation of WTC attacks by Perdue university

[TruthSeeker1234]

Letter sent to Purdue scientists

Dear Purdue Scientists:

I read with interest your material on the computer simulations of the jet crash into WTC1 that you have created. Fine work.

As you may be aware, there is some debate as to whether or not a local collapse of the upper section of the tower would lead to the type of pulverizing, obliterating behavior that we actually observed on 9/11. (e.g. See Ross http://worldtradecentertruth.com/Journal_5_PTransferRoss.pdf)

Do you have any plans to run your model further in time? That is, would it be possible for you to assume a local collapse of the upper part of the building falling down into the lower part, and then model the behavior of the entire tower from that point forward?

Thank You.

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Zero

Are we supposed to be suprised that you lied again?

 

[WildCat]

Letter sent to Purdue scientists

Maybe you can help out by engineering a computer algorithm that will accurately account for the millions of variables necessary for such a simulation. Because currently none exist.

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Letter sent to Purdue scientists

Dear Purdue Scientists:
Please correct your model so that it conforms with my personal biases.

Thank You

Translated free of charge.

 

[TruthSeeker1234]

Guys, look. I understand that you assert that model of the collapse is not necessary. An assertion is not an explanation. No one has explained to me why it is not necessary. I think it is necessary.

Now, saying it is not possible to model the collapse is a different argument. I'm quite sure it can be modelled, it's just a question of how simplified it needs to be. Models could be developed where the simplifying assumptions are all in favor of continued collapse, and also made in favor of arrested collapse. AFAIK, this hasn't been done at all. Don't tell me it's not possible.

This thread began by shouting that I needed to shut up, and that my questions about the NIST model had been satisfied. No they haven't. Purdue figured out that jet crashes can break columns. AFAIK, nobody was disputing that. They have solved a non-problem, and have neatly avoided the issues.

 

[Dog Town]

Do you have any plans to run your model further in time? That is, would it be possible for you to assume a local collapse of the upper part of the building falling down into the lower part, and then model the behavior of the entire tower from that point forward?

Thank You.

Did you understand the amount of computing power required, for what they did? I hope not!

 

[Dog Town]

Now, saying it is not possible to model the collapse is a different argument. I'm quite sure it can be modelled

You haven't learned a thing!

 

[kevin]

Do you have any plans to run your model further in time? That is, would it be possible for you to assume a local collapse of the upper part of the building falling down into the lower part, and then model the behavior of the entire tower from that point forward?

Actually it isn't that simple. From the looks of their animations they've only modeled a few floors of the building. It isn't a matter of letting it run more in time, they would have to start over from scratch and build a new model of the whole building.

If the NSF is handing out money for modelling wtc attacks I'm fairly confident someone will eventually take up the floor to floor collapses.

 

[rwguinn]

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.

for one thing, the car will stay pretty much in 1 piece. Second, you an easily estimate the forces involved in bending the metal, and test the actual metal of the vehicle, and examine the fastening, welds, etc. Strength is easily obtainable from the remains, and will tell you exactly how fast the thing was going when it hit the tree.
That, in effect is what was done with WTC--all collapses. Material was tested, remaining fastenings examined, and there was visual evidence and data of how the collapse started. Once the forces were known--mostly by calculation and correlation with the visible evidence--the result was obvious to anyone with a modicum of knowlege of physics and engineering.
To analyze the actual collapse would involve not millions, but billions, of variables. The buildings did not remain mostly intact, nor would one expect them to. In order to account for all those variables--well, it would probably be faster and cheaper to rebuild the towers, furnish them, instrument the He!! out of them, and repeat the disaster, with full data acquisition.

 

[kevin]

I can guarantee you that if anyone actually does the modelling necessary to show the full collapse of the buildings, truthseeker will immedately switch his argument to the same one anti-global warming people use -- "it's only a model".

 

[Dog Town]

The buildings did not remain mostly intact, nor would one expect them to. In order to account for all those variables--well, it would probably be faster and cheaper to rebuild the towers, furnish them, instrument the He!! out of them, and repeat the disaster, with full data acquisition.

That's what I'm talk'en bout! Nice to hear an engineer, fellow Texan at that, say it. While I have no degree in those fields, I understand!

BTW Cowboys 27 Redshirts 10, 3 points total offense for for Wash! LOL!

 

[TruthSeeker1234]

Guinn penned

Once the forces were known--mostly by calculation and correlation with the visible evidence--the result was obvious to anyone with a modicum of knowlege of physics and engineering.

No. People with a knowledge of physics realize that all work requires energy. The observed work that was done ( the pulverization, the ejection, the rapid collapse times, the molten metal, the expansion of the dust clouds) requires far more energy than is available in the form of elevated mass.

What engineers have said is that they understand how collapse is possible. But what occured was not just a collapse. That's why it is important that we study the events after NIST (and Purdue) truncated their timelines. When you add it all together, there is just way more energy needed than what is available. There must be another energy source, and that energy source would be explosives.

The scientific shortcoming of the OCTs then, is tunnel vision. Looking at individual elements of this event in isolation, they seem plausible. But putting the whole picture together, you realize the energy deficit is just too great.

 

[tsig]

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

Since you say you don't understand it you will just have to take the word of those that do.


The top did break apart over the building, it just took the rest of it with it.

Why don't you get some training so that you can understand?

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Guinn penned

No. People with a knowledge of physics realize that all work requires energy. The observed work that was done ( the pulverization, the ejection, the rapid collapse times, the molten metal, the expansion of the dust clouds) requires far more energy than is available in the form of elevated mass.

What engineers have said is that they understand how collapse is possible. But what occured was not just a collapse. That's why it is important that we study the events after NIST (and Purdue) truncated their timelines. When you add it all together, there is just way more energy needed than what is available. There must be another energy source, and that energy source would be explosives.

The scientific shortcoming of the OCTs then, is tunnel vision. Looking at individual elements of this event in isolation, they seem plausible. But putting the whole picture together, you realize the energy deficit is just too great.

Truthseeker, for the record... what is your AGE and your EDUCATION (degree earned or last grade completed)?

 

[gumboot]

Guinn penned

No. People with a knowledge of physics realize that all work requires energy. The observed work that was done ( the pulverization, the ejection, the rapid collapse times, the molten metal, the expansion of the dust clouds) requires far more energy than is available in the form of elevated mass.

I have never seen anything even remotely resembling evidence for such a claim.

In contrary, I have seen ample evidence of the complete opposite.

Of your five points above, two are directly connected (pulverisation and dust cloud) and two are simply false (collapse time and molten metal). Hardly so compelling is it? Your "ejection" could be called false as well. The exterior columns are clearly seen peeling away from the tower during collapse. This produces lateral movement. The North Tower collapse initiated higher, and debris spread further. This makes total sense. Drop a handful of rocks from your waist height into a soft ground like sand (so they don't bounce away). Then drop same rocks from shoulder height.

Do the rocks land in the same place each time? Which scenario has a wider spread?

-Andrew

 

[qarnos]

Guys, look. I understand that you assert that model of the collapse is not necessary. An assertion is not an explanation. No one has explained to me why it is not necessary. I think it is necessary.

Now, saying it is not possible to model the collapse is a different argument. I'm quite sure it can be modelled, it's just a question of how simplified it needs to be. Models could be developed where the simplifying assumptions are all in favor of continued collapse, and also made in favor of arrested collapse. AFAIK, this hasn't been done at all. Don't tell me it's not possible.

Two questions. First of all, do you have the knowledge and expertise required to create your own model?

Second, if the answer to the first was "no", then how are you qualified to dictate what is and isn't possible with regards to modelling the collapse?

Yes, models can always be simplified by making assumptions, but you need to understand the validty of your assumptions first.

Sometimes, the validity is obvious. Einstein assumed than the speed of light is constant for all observers in all frames of reference. He didn't just guess this. The Michelson-Morley experiments done decades earlier had shown it to be the case beyond all reasonable doubt.

The validity for the kind of assumptions you would be making, whatever they are, would, IMHO, not be so obvious. Which makes me want to ask - want kind of assumptions do you think could be made without affecting the accuracy of the model? Who did you ask about this, assuming you are not qualified to analyse it?

Finally, your idea of creating two models at opposing extremes is also flawed. Once again, you invoke the idea of making all kinds of crazy assumptions and somehow bias them towards one end without fully understanding how they will affect the model in the first place.

It also introduces a second problem. Let's say we have model A, which is the collapse-biased model, and model B is the arrest-biased model. What conclusions would you draw if model A collapsed and model B stood?* Both of them have been biased such that neither is an accurate representation of what happened on September 11 and you have wasted your time.

This thread began by shouting that I needed to shut up, and that my questions about the NIST model had been satisfied. No they haven't. Purdue figured out that jet crashes can break columns. AFAIK, nobody was disputing that. They have solved a non-problem, and have neatly avoided the issues.

Why don't you ask them if you can have their model? I don't know what good it will do, but this was what your whole NIST argument started as until you started shifting goalposts.

* This isn't really a problem, since you already have your conclusion set in stone.

 

[qarnos]

No. People with a knowledge of physics realize that all work requires energy. The observed work that was done ( the pulverization, the ejection, the rapid collapse times, the molten metal, the expansion of the dust clouds) requires far more energy than is available in the form of elevated mass.

Ignoring the multitude of errors (pulverization, etc), how did you reach this conclusion? Where are your calculations and your proofs?

Or did Dylan tell you this?

What engineers have said is that they understand how collapse is possible. But what occured was not just a collapse.

Once the collapse has initiated, yes it is.

That's why it is important that we study the events after NIST (and Purdue) truncated their timelines. When you add it all together, there is just way more energy needed than what is available.

SHOW YOUR CALCULATIONS AND YOUR PROOFS.

There must be another energy source, and that energy source would be explosives.

Oh, it would be, would it? You know this... how, exactly?

The scientific shortcoming of the OCTs then, is tunnel vision.

Where can I get that irony-meter image from????

Looking at individual elements of this event in isolation, they seem plausible. But putting the whole picture together, you realize the energy deficit is just too great.

SHOW YOUR CALCULATIONS AND YOUR PROOFS.

NIST HAS DONE THIS - NOW YOU DO IT.

 

[OMGturt1es]

The observed work that was done ( the pulverization, the ejection, the rapid collapse times, the molten metal, the expansion of the dust clouds) requires far more energy than is available in the form of elevated mass.

IF the buildings collapsing DUE to a combination of structural damage caused by the initial impact and the resultant weakening of the steel could NOT produce enough energy to power the pulverization, the ejection, the rapid collapse time, the molten metal and the expansion of dust clouds, THEN the buildings collapsing DUE to controlled demolition could NOT produce energy enough to power the pulverization, the ejection, the rapid collapse time, the molten metal and the expansion of dust clouds.

either scenerio supposes that the reason behind the collapses simply weakened the buildings' structures enough that gravity was able to take over. gravity does all the work. CD, plane crash, bomb, thermite, etc... it doesn't matter. the force required to take down the buildings is dwarfed by the force exerted by the accelerating and growing mass, and pulverization, ejection, rapid collapse time, molten metal and expansion of dust clouds are all results for the collapse, not of the trigger.

seriously, look at 'em all individually:

1. pulverization - given an accelerating, growing mass the size of the towers, isn't it a bit looney to suspect that pulverization was due to anything other than that huge, accelerating, growing mass?
2. ejection - in any collapse, there will be ejection. does this need to be explained? really?
3. rapid collpase time - gravity? a falling mass should collapse rapidly, shouldn't it? can you imagine a scenerio where the WTC building collapsed slowly? perhaps it's possible, but highly unlikely.
4. molten metal - i don't understand HOW this supports CD, really. shouldn't this suggest hot temperatures? wouldn't this be better explained by, oh, i don't know... the raging infernos that we all saw on television?
5. dust clouds - give me a break, seriously. you see dust clouds in CD as well, don't you?

again, all these things would be expected to occur in CD as well, wouldn't they? CD simply takes out the building's structure, so that gravity can do the rest. if two planes taking out the towers' structures could not do the above, then neither could CD.

SO, if you honestly believe your statement, then you honest don't believe that controlled demolition brought down the towers? so what did?

 

[einsteen]

Wrong ^varg, the model would be the same if the wtc1 tower was not 110 floors, with an impact on floor 96, but also if it was 20 floors high with a plane impact on floor 7. Just translate your coordinate system a little bit higher. Ever heard about translation invariance ?

 

[Foolmewunz]

Truthseeker1234567890,

I think the Boilermakers got your address confused with mine. I just received the following via USTFHPXHL (ultra secret tin-foil hat planet x hyper link).

Dear Truthseeker,
Ross???!!! Whoa! Ho ho hee hee ha ha ha.
Has this guy ever been on a campus in his life. Don't send lightweights out to play with the big boys, please.
Thanks for the laugh.

Yours truly,

Some REAL Scientists
Purdue University

P.S. Keep on observing, son! Leave the science to scientists. Oh, and Margaret, our beagle, says, "Get a Life".