Purdue Creates Scientific Animation of 9/11

Originally posted by snoopy
Could you point out these flaws and non-existent studies?

For one, they never tested the idea that heated trusses would sag and pull in the perimeter columns significantly. They could have, they had the resources, and this was THE point of their hypothesis, but they never tested it.

[I should also stress that there are no other scientific precedents for that behavior, either, and so NIST doesn't reference any other work, either. Steel expands when it is heated before it becomes soft enough to sag.]

They also never did any other testing to confirm any other aspects of their proposed failure mechanisms, including getting trusses to sag. In fact, they did one fire test and couldn't get the trusses to sag. That's probably why they never went on to see if it could also pull the perimeter columns inward. So this is lab results that contradict their hypotheses.


For contradictory results, you have the above, and you also have the computer-simulated fire tests in which they admitted adjusting parameters to unrealistic levels and still being unable to produce the theoretical capacity for failure. This is in their report, if you dig into it and go to their computer-simulated fire tests, though they obviously don't emphasize the above.


Those are the most important tests that they either never did or else did but ignored the results from.

[edit on 17-6-2007 by bsbray11]

They most certainly did do such testing. It's the foundation of the hypothesis. It's the bulk of the work they did. It was their testin that concluded that was the general cause of the failure.

Originally posted by snoopy
They most certainly did do such testing.

Then show me. Link me to the page where they show in lab that a sagging truss can significantly deflect a perimeter column, because I've never seen it once in my life.


No more words, just link me to it. I contend it does not exist, prove me wrong.

Purdue is full of crap.

news.uns.purdue.edu...

The pentagon image they fabricated out of na-na land to brain wash the whole united states into believing that a 757, moving at top speed could instantly maneuver from 20 ft. off the ground to less than inches off the ground.

Take the light posts on the street, broken part way up, followed by a downslope to the pentagon lawn and in the released camera frames, the above picture is completely and utterly impossible. The plane would have hit the building at an ANGLE, not flying parallel to the ground.

I'll give them Kudos for using the latest technology to simulate stuff, though. I find it interesting that a small piece of aluminum aircraft can slice a box beam in two and continue it's course almost completely unimpeded.

Removing the horizontal supports is just stupid and contributes to disinformation. Horizontal supports aren't just for looks, they help spread the weight if beams should collapse or !!! get cut somehow.

i wonder what led the firemen to say that the building was in danger of a 'pancake' structural collapse due to fire if it had never happened before?

i would like at the very least one example of a building other than wtc7 behaving in the same fashion.

if that cannot be produced there is no basis whatsoever for a fireman to beLIEve that it would collapse in such manner.

That is a really well done animation, whether true or not. It does make sense, and gives a clear impression of massive damage that maes collapse seem plausible. But it would, wouldn't it?

Here's some pages for it:
purdue.edu
Purdue release
sorry if already posted.

Mete Sozen was the conceptual designer for this - same guy that did Purdue's engineless 757 model of the Pentagon attack in 2002. He was the #2 guy with Mlakar on ASCE's Pentagon Building Performance Report that misidentified three "intact columns" but was otherwise pretty good. Him and Mlakar worked with Corley on the Murrah bombing in 95. Corley inspected the Pentagon with Mlakar and Sozen, tho he wasn't directly involved, as he was heading up FEMA/ASCE's WTC investigation.

Anyway... That might be Sozen narrating this video. I dunno.

Sozen says the actual damage to the building's facade that was observed was identical to the damage shown by the numerical simulation.

FWIW

[edit on 20-6-2007 by Caustic Logic]

it's a short clip of anime (copmuter aided cartoon for all residents of the moon's far side) and unless someone can point out that this video is actually based on some kind of proven simulating technique, i think the following thread sums it up best:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

These are the students and school that I admire.
FOX40 News At 10 - 9/11 inside job & controlled demolition

this is a clip from a broadcast aired on FOX40 news, they focus
on Loose Change in particular

My post:

teslaandlyne (1 hour ago) Marked as spam
Thanks to those students and school, they have my courage and anti ignorance award.
The entire floor explodes to start the sequential explosions.

That goes double due to other 'unofficial' thread.
Here





[edit on 6/20/2007 by TeslaandLyne]