Just a few comments on the models. I created them using ProE and have been working on them for about nine months now. I used a modeling program to produce the animation. They are to scale down to a mm based on drawings/literature from NIST and FEMA. There were many iterations. The original only had the upper floors. I was going to try and perform a Finite Element Analysis on fires bringing them down but found out quickly how big the model would become and that it would not demonstrate the collapse. I took the majority of my data from the NIST and FEMA reports but I also research old photographs of WTC 1, 2, and 7. NIST and FEMA were very careful to only show 2D drawings and illustrations because showing a realistic 3D model would make it even more difficult to explain fires causing the collapses (which after $20 million, is yet to be simulated). The most remarkable thing I noticed in 3D modeling is how much redundancy was put into the design of the towers (core columns, perimeter columns, and the trusses). My simulation was going to include the planes showing the damage, but it became clear that I would be using the planes as a diversion, like in the actual crash. I can show the openings were consistent with 767's though. 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. I was also amazed on my final fly-by scene of WTC 1 (after the collapse of WTC 2) and on how little damage it appeared to sustain in the perimeter columns (the opening wasn't changed and I didn't include smoke which might have caused an optical illusion). 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.
I also modeled WTC7 (in a different animation) and was also amazed how easy it would have been to remove the 18 core columns (in red) which was probably the cause of the collapse. NIST would have been better off saying the firefighters had the capability to set charges in three hours (to support Silverstein's confession) rather than produce a report explaining fires taking out base girders which was the most robust part of the building. I also created scale models of the pentagon crash but the most I can prove is the downing of lightpoles is consistent with a 757 wingspan, but is also consistent with a Global Hawk wingspan.
As for me, I have a BS and an MS in Mechanical Engineering. I have a Professional Engineer's license and have worked in construction. I created these simulations to push for a REAL independent investigation of 9-11. The next step is naturally building a scale model and either support or refute the simulation. But I don't have that type of budget.
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. Also popular blog sites like this one and "youtube.com" help increase the distribution of simulations like mine and spread the word to reopen the 9-11 investigation. Thanks for watching.
) there is a Confernece called The Amazing Meeting held in January 2007. Since the theme is "Skepticism and the Media", thought you might be interested.
