....good thing these guys are not as smart as Alex Jones!

NDIANAPOLIS — A computer simulation of the 2001 World Trade Center attacks supports a federal agency's findings that the initial impact from the hijacked airplanes stripped away crucial fireproofing material and that the weakened towers collapsed under their own weight.

The two-year Purdue University study, funded in part by the National Science Foundation, was the first to use 3-D animation to provide visual context to the attacks, said Christoph Hoffmann, a professor of computer science and one of the lead researchers on the project.

"One thing it does point out... is the absolute essential nature of fireproofing steel structures," Hoffmann told The Associated Press. "This is something that wasn't done originally in the World Trade Center when it was built. It wasn't code at that time."

Mete Sozen, a professor of structural engineering and a lead investigator on the simulation, said Purdue researchers hope their work leads to better structural design and building codes to prevent similar collapses.

"In the unfortunate development that we shall have to design structures to survive such events, the methods we have developed and will be developing will be of great use to designers," Sozen said.

The animation, intended in part to help engineers design safer buildings, begins with a map of lower Manhattan as it appeared on Sept. 11, 2001. The video then shows a plane slicing through several stories of the World Trade Center's north tower and follows the disintegrating plane through the interior and out the opposite side.

The report concludes that the weight of the aircraft's fuel, when ignited, produced "a flash flood of flaming liquid" that knocked out a number of structural columns within the building and removed the fireproofing insulation from other support structures, Hoffmann said.

The simulation also found that the airplane's metal skin peeled away shortly after impact and shows how the titanium jet engine shafts flew through the building like bullets.

Ayhan Irfanoglu, a Purdue professor of civil engineering, said half of the building's weight-bearing columns were concentrated at the cores of the towers.

"When that part is wiped out, the structure comes down," Irfanoglu said. "We design structures with some extra capacity to cover some uncertainties, but we never anticipate such heavy demand coming from an aircraft impact. If the columns were distributed, maybe, the fire could not take them out so easily."

A 2005 report following a three-year investigation by the National Institute of Standards and Technology, a federal engineering agency, recommended that cities raise fire standards for skyscrapers and develop new materials that can better protect tall buildings from fire. That analysis did not blame the collapse on the steel or design of the towers, but instead focused on the damage to the fireproofing.

Shyam Sunder, the lead NIST investigator, said he was aware of the Purdue study and called it and his own agency's study "among probably the most prominent analyses that have been conducted in the United States."

The animation is the latest project by the Purdue team to assess the structural damage from the Sept. 11 attacks. The team also studied the impact of the crash into the Pentagon.

I read this article and had planned to post it. You beat me to it.

Now we sit & wait for all the naysayers.

Purdue is one heck of a good engineering school even if they do have a sucky basketball team.

quid pro quo...?

President Bush Proposes to Double the National Science Foundation Budget
http://csd.tamu.edu/news_item.2006-03-02.1870688104

"When that part is wiped out, the structure comes down," Irfanoglu said. "We design structures with some extra capacity to cover some uncertainties, but we never anticipate such heavy demand coming from an aircraft impact. If the columns were distributed, maybe, the fire could not take them out so easily."

sigh...

Twin Towers Engineered To Withstand Jet Collision
http://archives.seattletimes.nwsource.com/cgi-bin/texis.cgi/web/vortex/display?slug=1687698&date=19930227

"Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel (from the airplane) would dump into the building. There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed," he said. "The building structure would still be there."

quid pro quo...?

President Bush Proposes to Double the National Science Foundation Budget
http://csd.tamu.edu/news_item.2006-03-02.1870688104



sigh...

Twin Towers Engineered To Withstand Jet Collision
http://archives.seattletimes.nwsource.com/cgi-bin/texis.cgi/web/vortex/display?slug=1687698&date=19930227

"Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel (from the airplane) would dump into the building. There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed," he said. "The building structure would still be there."

here they come ES!
:corn:

As we all seen on TV or if in NYC real time,the twin towers took severe impacts from pretty big airplanes,Ive seen the Discovery channel theory that indeed the towers did fall 'strait drop' under they're own weight.
My attention has always been drawn to building 7,Im not sure what,but something isnt right in the events surrounding its collapse.

Down here in Florida, the only place that I had to deal somewhat with fire retardant building codes, materials are required that give particular time delays for a fire to penetrate it.
I do not remember the temperature of the flame coming into play. Could be that they take into consideration temperatures from materials that are average combustibles present.

Burning jet fuel, fed by the oxygen in winds in a high rise, were probably much higher temperatures than were normally considered.

Burning jet fuel, fed by the oxygen in winds in a high rise, were probably much higher temperatures than were normally considered. much of the fuel from the South tower combusted out the other side of the building. You can see a gigantic fireball.

Plus "weakened" beams do not just collapse. They would bend and tilt and warp. The building would have fallen sideways.

much of the fuel from the South tower combusted out the other side of the building. You can see a gigantic fireball.

Plus "weakened" beams do not just collapse. They would bend and tilt and warp. The building would have fallen sideways.

You may be correct, but I have seen scenes on the news where overpasses have collapsed due to a burning fuel truck accident under it.

A big part of the conspiracy theorists' crap is the fact that the new owner collected big time insurance money.

I heard on NPR the other day that his ownership of the building was so recent that the insurance agreements were still "in the mail" and as a result it has been in dispute for years.
Wouldn't he have waited a couple more months before blowing it up?

Also, the amount of time it would take to secretly set the charges would mean the project would have to have started before he was the owner.

Burning jet fuel, fed by the oxygen in winds in a high rise, were probably much higher temperatures than were normally considered.


http://www.serendipity.li/wot/pop_mech/reply_to_popular_mechanics.htm


# The fires in the Twin Towers were not raging infernos. They gave off lots of black, sooty smoke, indicating an oxygen-poor fire. Oxygen-poor fires do not produce high temperatures.

# The Boeings which allegedly hit the Twin Towers had both taken off with enough fuel for a transcontinental flight, but most of the jet fuel in the South Tower impact was consumed in the spectacular fireball, so presumably much more fuel was available for the fire in the North Tower. If the fires were the cause of the collapse then we would expect the North Tower to have collapsed more quickly than the South Tower. But the opposite happened: the North Tower collapsed 104 minutes after impact whereas the South Tower collapsed after only 56 minutes.

# Steel is an excellent conductor of heat, so when you apply heat to a steel structure the heat spreads quickly. So the heat from the fires would have spread through the entire steel structure of each tower. The Twin Towers contained 200,000 tons of steel. Are we expected to believe that the fires from two loads of jet fuel provided sufficient heat to raise 200,000 tons of steel to the point where it became critically weak?

# Based on data provided by Corus Construction Centre, and assuming that the WTC architects followed the usual safety margins for load-bearing steel structures, we may conclude that even if the fire had heated the steel to 1022°F (550°C) that would not have been sufficient to cause the towers to collapse.
# Fire tests in open sided car parks in four countries revealed that the maximum temperature reached was 680°F (360°C), far below that needed to cause steel to weaken significantly.

Other "coincidences"? You tell me.....

http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=af07

Steel cannot melt, spectacular fireballs account for all the supposed 'fuel' that was on those planes, Ronald Reagan ordered the towers 'pulled', and buildings cannot fall at the speed of gravity!!

What's so hard to understand?
Why can you people just not accept the simple laws of physics??

PS If you disagree with me, you are all liars.

http://www.fotosearch.com/comp/DSN/DSN005/1769598.jpg

Instead of simply arguing against the official story, perhaps the conspiracy theorists here would like to provide a viable alternative theory. What do YOU think really happened?

Please, allow me;

In an effort to drive this nation headlong into an evil, morally-bankrupt war for oil and money, George Bush ordered his goons to train some Saudi Arabian pilots to fly their airplanes into the World Trade Center towers.

Knowing that this would only cause a fire, (because we all know that steel cannon melt or bend), he also ordered a small but discrete team of demolition experts to go into the WTC, and lay thousands of miles to det-cord and drill several hundred pounds of C-4 explosives into several supporting pylons on several floors of those buildings. All of this without being detected by the thousands of people who work in those buildings every day.

After the unwitting Saudi’s drove their planes into the WTC towers, GW Bush waited until after he was done reading a book to some school children to climb aboard Air Force One, and give the order to fire a series of carefully-coordinated explosions that would ultimately topple the tall buildings.

And for fun, he had one of his goons order that Building Seven of the WTC be ‘pulled’, just for dramatic effect.

What the hell about that is so difficult to understand??

And Ted Olsen, President Bush's friend and Solicitor General, willingly sacrificed his wife in order to make the story more convincing.

1. The fires in the Twin Towers were not raging infernos. They gave off lots of black, sooty smoke, indicating an oxygen-poor fire.
2. If the fires were the cause of the collapse then we would expect the North Tower to have collapsed more quickly than the South Tower. But the opposite happened: the North Tower collapsed 104 minutes after impact whereas the South Tower collapsed after only 56 minutes.
3. Steel is an excellent conductor of heat, so when you apply heat to a steel structure the heat spreads quickly. So the heat from the fires would have spread through the entire steel structure of each tower.
4. Fire tests in open sided car parks in four countries revealed that the maximum temperature reached was 680°F (360°C), far below that needed to cause steel to weaken significantly.1. As viewed from the outside they didn't seem like such a big deal maybe. But people many stories above the actual impact area (as heard on cell phones) were literally being cooked. You need a rather large inferno for the heat to go through several floors and make the people that far above it feel that much heat.

2. The South Tower was hit much lower than the North. The weakened area had to support millions and millions and millions more tons of weight.

3. Yes, steel does dissipate heat. But to where would that heat have been dissipated? The entire inner steel structure was on fire.

4. Talk to a foundry worker or blacksmith about the chimney effect on a fire. The most intense point of a fire in an open sided parking garage would be at the very beginning unless more and more fuel could be added.
Now imagine a fire in the world two tallest chimneys with the constant addition of fuel.
Bad, bad comparison.

Another point just occurred to me. I'd really like it if someone who believes this crap would address it.

The Towers only collapsed at the point of impact and below, in perfect order.

Did the people who set the charges know exactly where the planes would hit, and on which building???

Wouldn't it have been really embarassing if the pilots and charge-setter got their signals crossed and the North Tower started collapsing fifteen stories below the point of impact?

So with elevators, electricity, etc. all out of service, the connecting lines between the charges remained intact well enough to perfectly coordinate the demolition.
And start at just the right floor.

# The fires in the Twin Towers were not raging infernos. They gave off lots of black, sooty smoke, indicating an oxygen-poor fire. Oxygen-poor fires do not produce high temperatures.

It indicates that parts of the fire were oxygen-poor. It does not indicate that all of the fire was oxygen starved.

# The Boeings which allegedly hit the Twin Towers had both taken off with enough fuel for a transcontinental flight, but most of the jet fuel in the South Tower impact was consumed in the spectacular fireball, so presumably much more fuel was available for the fire in the North Tower. If the fires were the cause of the collapse then we would expect the North Tower to have collapsed more quickly than the South Tower. But the opposite happened: the North Tower collapsed 104 minutes after impact whereas the South Tower collapsed after only 56 minutes.

Fireballs tend to be the result of a cloud of vaporized fuel, not a large quantity of liquid. So it's most likely that most of the fuel was not consumed in the initial fireball.

# Steel is an excellent conductor of heat, so when you apply heat to a steel structure the heat spreads quickly. So the heat from the fires would have spread through the entire steel structure of each tower. The Twin Towers contained 200,000 tons of steel. Are we expected to believe that the fires from two loads of jet fuel provided sufficient heat to raise 200,000 tons of steel to the point where it became critically weak?

All 200,000 tons of steel doesn't need to be heated to the point of weakness, just enough beams to weaken one floor of the building. Once that floor collapses onto the floor beneath it, that floor will be overloaded and collapse as well, continuing on down.

# Based on data provided by Corus Construction Centre, and assuming that the WTC architects followed the usual safety margins for load-bearing steel structures, we may conclude that even if the fire had heated the steel to 1022°F (550°C) that would not have been sufficient to cause the towers to collapse.

Had the fire insulation not blown off during the impact, perhaps.

# Fire tests in open sided car parks in four countries revealed that the maximum temperature reached was 680°F (360°C), far below that needed to cause steel to weaken significantly.

That doesn't even provide enough information to draw any conclusions from.

You may be correct, but I have seen scenes on the news where overpasses have collapsed due to a burning fuel truck accident under it. yes but that was merely one slab held in place by x number of beams that were all heated. In the twin towers only some of the upper beams were heated. Those at the very top and those below the hole were not. Yet they suppossedly collapsed virtually straight down.

And again this report says absolutly nothing about building #7. Why?

yes but that was merely one slab held in place by x number of beams that were all heated. In the twin towers only some of the upper beams were heated. Those at the very top and those below the hole were not. Yet they suppossedly collapsed virtually straight down.
Perhaps you'd like to take a shot at the question I asked earlier... what do you think really happened to the Twin Towers?

And again this report says absolutly nothing about building #7. Why?It doesn't say anything about the migratory patterns of the African buffalo either. Perhaps because it wasn't the focus of the study?

It doesn't say anything about the migratory patterns of the African buffalo either. Perhaps because it wasn't the focus of the study? A 3rd steel building suppossedly collapsing from fire and teh 9/11 attacks ins't relevent to the study?

Perhaps you'd like to take a shot at the question I asked earlier... what do you think really happened to the Twin Towers? I don't know. I think bombs are a definate possibilty since many firefighteres (and others) reported hearing multiple explosions throughout the building. The way the buildings collapsed also lends credence to this. Also given that this study found no reason for secondary explosions it makes them quite peculiar.

http://whatreallyhappened.org/911_firefighters.html

The fact that Bush refused to form an investigative panel about 9/11 is also curious. Then when pressed so much he couldn't refuse named Henry Kissenger as the head of the panel. PNAC, Skull and bones, the Mossad and the CIA connections aren't very reassuring.

At the very least I believe the government allowed it to happen (possibly even making sure the towers collapsed for maximum impact/propaganda value). At the most they orchastrated the whole thing.

why would the government want to destroy the WTC? wouldnt the planes hitting it be enough?

At the very least I believe the government allowed it to happen (possibly even making sure the towers collapsed for maximum impact/propaganda value). At the most they orchastrated the whole thing.

Yea, and JFK and MLK were both killed by Castro.

Terrorists affiliated with Al Qaeda were behind 9/11, not the United States.

:) Knowing that this would only cause a fire, (because we all know that steel cannon melt or bend), he also ordered a small but discrete team of demolition experts to go into the WTC, and lay thousands of miles to det-cord and drill several hundred pounds of C-4 explosives into several supporting pylons on several floors of those buildings. All of this without being detected by the thousands of people who work in those buildings every day.

And for fun, he had one of his goons order that Building Seven of the WTC be ‘pulled’, just for dramatic effect.


Could you have layed thousands of miles of det-cord and drill several hundred poundsof C-4 explosives into the WTC WITHOUT thousands of people noticing.

And why order building seven be 'pulled' "for fun"

:)


Could you have layed thousands of miles of det-cord and drill several hundred poundsof C-4 explosives into the WTC WITHOUT thousands of people noticing.

And why order building seven be 'pulled' "for fun"

I thought he was being sarcastic....

He actually believes that is what happens... ?

:)


Could you have layed thousands of miles of det-cord and drill several hundred poundsof C-4 explosives into the WTC WITHOUT thousands of people noticing.

And why order building seven be 'pulled' "for fun"
Wow.

:D

Could you have layed thousands of miles of det-cord and drill several hundred poundsof C-4 explosives into the WTC WITHOUT thousands of people noticing. Youre the one saying it was brought down by one plane. Why would anyone need such a huge amount of explosives to bring down the building then?
Yea, and JFK and MLK were both killed by Castro.
Actually JFK was killed by the CIA on LBJs orders (see - E.E. Hunt's deathbed confession). As for MLK the CIA probably engineered that as well.
Terrorists affiliated with Al Qaeda were behind 9/11, not the United States.Probably carried out by Al Q. But it would be quite easy for the CIA to help such a plan succeed. All it takes is a plant to suggest an idea. There plenty of people that hate the US enough to try something like 9/11.

Elites see the world and people as peices on a chess board. If its advanatgous for you to sacrafice a couple pawns so you can take out a bishop, so be it.

I thought he was being sarcastic....

He actually believes that is what happens... ? Wait lemmie get this straight. You actually believe that 19 guys who were living in caves took four planes with boxcutters and evaded the most sophisticated military in the world, to crash them into buildings?

You see you believe in crazy shit too. You just happen to believe what the government is spouting off, regardless of evidence unaccounted for.

Psst- the government wanted to kill US citizens and destroy infrastructure through terrorism to justify attacking Cuba - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods

LMAO. Conspiracy nuts aways give me a good laugh. I really should feel sorry for them, they need help, not ridicule.

:)


Could you have layed thousands of miles of det-cord and drill several hundred poundsof C-4 explosives into the WTC WITHOUT thousands of people noticing.

And why order building seven be 'pulled' "for fun"


That was just sarcasm, Schnurbusch sir.

I was having fun with the conspiracy-theorist fanatics.

Is it normal for allforums moderators to delete the majority of a thread like they did to this one... ?

Or did it just disappear... ?

I didn't touch a thing, Mr. Cooper.

What exactly turned up missing?

:confused:

1. I don't know. I think bombs are a definate possibilty
2. since many firefighteres (and others) reported hearing multiple explosions throughout the building.
3. The fact that Bush refused to form an investigative panel about 9/11 is also curious.
1. I'll ask this again:
Did the people who set the charges know exactly where the planes would hit, and on which building???
Wouldn't it have been really embarassing if the pilots and charge-setter got their signals crossed and the North Tower started collapsing fifteen stories below the point of impact?
So with elevators, electricity, etc. all out of service, the connecting lines between the charges remained intact well enough to perfectly coordinate the demolition.
And start at just the right floor.

2. That sound was the collapsing floors hitting each other.

3. Honestly, what did we learn from that over-politicized expensive cowardly committee?

1. I'll ask this again:
Did the people who set the charges know exactly where the planes would hit, and on which building???
Wouldn't it have been really embarassing if the pilots and charge-setter got their signals crossed and the North Tower started collapsing fifteen stories below the point of impact?
So with elevators, electricity, etc. all out of service, the connecting lines between the charges remained intact well enough to perfectly coordinate the demolition.
And start at just the right floor.

2. That sound was the collapsing floors hitting each other.

3. Honestly, what did we learn from that over-politicized expensive cowardly committee?

No need to practically Filiabuster this entire Crazy notion.
Why would there even need be ANY Planes crash,let alone TWO,into
the Trade Towers {great visuals,BTW} if the demolition charges were
already in place.Seems redundant.
Witch is why some tend to stretch their logic past the point of
No Refund.I coulda said Return.

Just thought that I would throw this in about the 1945 crash of a B-25 into the Empire State Building.

http://www.911myths.com/html/empire_state_b-25.html

No two events are the same.. those structures WERE very fortified... but any guess of the impact and the exact result that would happen is theory, not fact. So many intangibles...

I didn't touch a thing, Mr. Cooper.

What exactly turned up missing?

:confused:

Wrong thread, ha!

Continue on.

2. That sound was the collapsing floors hitting each other.
http://whatreallyhappened.org/911_firefighters.html

Why should I even bother responding if you are not going to even read my links and waste time with a question that contradicts the evidence I've already provided.

well gee if we believe these guys then I guess it's required we have to believe the swiftvets too...

I'm not saying they are wrong.. but just because something fits your agenda doesn't mean IT could be corrupt.

All of you, really;

The words, 'internet', and 'evidence' are mutually-defeating. They cancel each other out is what I am saying.

There is so much goodness and information-sharing going on here on the internet. What a wonderful resource!! For that I am grateful.
And of course, there is also so much misinformation, disinformation, willful deception, crap, spam, and junk-science it isn't even funny.

So, please.
In the future, if you are going to shove your opinions and your passionate beliefs and fervent wishes down somebody's throat?
Do not cloak or tag them as 'evidence'.

Thank you.
Please carry on.

:thumbs:

Why should I even bother responding if you are not going to even read my links and waste time with a question that contradicts the evidence I've already provided.Are you kidding me?
These are the words of extremely scared people, without any specific expertise in bombs.

Ok folks here is what really happened:

After the U.S. Air Force pilots crashed their planes into the towers, the police and firemen ran into the buildings, carrying the explosives and det cord, wired both towers, called Bush on their cell phones, so he could push the button, setting off the explosives. (Whew, almost ran out of breath on that one.)

Ok folks here is what really happened:

After the U.S. Air Force pilots crashed their planes into the towers, the police and firemen ran into the buildings, carrying the explosives and det cord, wired both towers, called Bush on their cell phones, so he could push the button, setting off the explosives. (Whew, almost ran out of breath on that one.)

Along with that, all the firemen assigned to respond were actively suicidal. This little known fact was buried deep inside Cheney's vaults of secrecy, and found only when his archivist turned them over to the media. Turns out the archivist is the great-grand nephew (and sometimes incestual lover) of the lawyer Cheney shot while hunting and he was determined to extract a pound of flesh (as it were). Those firemen had been given hallucinogenic drugs and hypnotherapy over a period of several months to ensure their full compliance with the plan.

:rant:

All of you, really;

The words, 'internet', and 'evidence' are mutually-defeating. They cancel each other out is what I am saying.

There is so much goodness and information-sharing going on here on the internet. What a wonderful resource!! For that I am grateful.
And of course, there is also so much misinformation, disinformation, willful deception, crap, spam, and junk-science it isn't even funny.

So, please.
In the future, if you are going to shove your opinions and your passionate beliefs and fervent wishes down somebody's throat?
Do not cloak or tag them as 'evidence'.

Thank you.
Please carry on.

:thumbs:

gee sparky, I couldnt agree with you more, as far as people like Freethinker, dharma, 500, and others go...

It's about time they learned what the definition of the word EVIDENCE means

The whole notion of this being a well-planned, coordinated effort perpetrated by our government is so beyond stupid, it's offensive. People like 500 and FT will resort to whatever tactic necessary to indict America. Like it's not already bad enough that we caused the carnage (in their opinion) - we had to destroy the buildings, too. Give me a fuckin' break. To be completely honest, it borders on pathetic. Really pathetic.

Let it go, losers.

The whole notion of this being a well-planned, coordinated effort perpetrated by our government is so beyond stupid, it's offensive. People like 500 and FT will resort to whatever tactic necessary to indict America. Like it's not already bad enough that we caused the carnage (in their opinion) - we had to destroy the buildings, too. Give me a fuckin' break. To be completely honest, it borders on pathetic. Really pathetic.

Let it go, losers.


I would be surprised by any event, that required planning and coordination for its success, to be fully accomplished by our present government. :)