It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Purdue tower1 crash sim missing vital info. Why?

page: 1
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 4 2009 @ 01:32 PM
link   
As I sat and watched the presentation that was put on for the NATGEO special by Purdue explaining how their simulator worked, a thought crossed my mind.

Why is it that they did not show the how and why of the fuel that supposedly fell to the lobby then exploded out of the elevators blowing out all of the giant windows. Blowing all of the marble panels off the wall and incinerating people in the lobby. Causing other heavy damage in the lobby, described mostly by firefighters in witness testimony and also shown in the Naudeut Brothers video.

THEN continuing down to the B levels and again exploding out of the elevators doing considerable damage completely destroying heavy equipment and also incinerating more people. Also described by multiple eye witnesses that day.

Considering that this was all one event, that is, the 767 crashing into the building and the jet fuel exploding out the bottom of the towers. And the fact they took time to extensively model the way that the fuel load was dispersed throughout the tower and the damage that was caused by the initial crash.

One has to wonder why didn't they include this part of the crash and subsequent damage? Was it b/c they themselves could not get their simulator to perform this scenario(fuel falling at least a thousand feet causing multiple violent explosions on at least two floors.

One last thing to consider, from there own site.

www.cs.purdue.edu...



Purpose of the Effort

Use the simulation results to understand what the extent of damage done by the impact has been. Effects of the subsequent fire are not under consideration in this phase of the project.

Use the simulation results also to construct animations and visualizations that vividly reenact of the impact, as it plausibly has been.


That would have without question included the fuel that fell to the lobby causing extensive damage.




From our modeling of the aircraft crash into the Pentagon building, we knew that a critical issue in defining the damage was the modeling of the fuel in the aircraft.


I couldn't agree more, so why leave out the fuel that undoubtedly caused damage to the lobby and basement levels.

Would have been nice to have that little mystery cleared up, especially when there are multiple witnesses that believe a bomb was set off on the bottom of the tower right as or right before f11 struck the tower.

Simulator:www.youtube.com...




posted on Sep, 4 2009 @ 01:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Stillresearchn911
 


I would suggest that the Purdue model didn't bother with this scenario as it did not contribute to the events that initiated the global collapse.

I would imagine that there was a lot of other damage caused by the crash and explostion, however, the stated purpose of the model was to discover the structural failure process and not to inventory the total result of the impact.



posted on Sep, 4 2009 @ 01:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Stillresearchn911
Why is it that they did not show the how and why of the fuel that supposedly fell to the lobby then exploded out of the elevators blowing out all of the giant windows.


Because that would expose their fantasy. By the time the fuel ball expanded
down 1000 feet of elevator shaft, the pressure would be so low, it couldn't
blow a fly's ... you know what.

Besides that, you would have to bet that the elevator car was above the
impact point and the doors are open on the lobby to make that fantasy
even remotely possible.


THEN continuing down to the B levels and again exploding out of the elevators doing considerable damage completely destroying heavy equipment and also incinerating more people. Also described by multiple eye witnesses that day.


see above.


Considering that this was all one event, that is, the 767 crashing into the building and the jet fuel exploding out the bottom of the towers. And the fact they took time to extensively model the way that the fuel load was dispersed throughout the tower and the damage that was caused by the initial crash.


Did notice the simulation does not include 6 inches of concrete
on any of the floors?

Funny they didn't show how the fireproofing comes off?

Did you also notice it appears the aircraft went through on a more
shallow bank than what really happened? That means the wings
encountered less resistance across the 1 acre concrete floors.

How about the funny part when the rear stabilizer dips down and fits
into the wing openings? That's kinda funny because a 767 / 757 has
this section higher on the fuselage. See picture below.

Maybe someone can explain how that stabilizer fits through the fuselage
hole as seen in their 'animation':



Their presentation is a joke like most other government summaries of
this day.

[edit on 4-9-2009 by turbofan]



posted on Sep, 4 2009 @ 04:18 PM
link   
reply to post by hooper
 


Hoop, you might want to visit the site. They were not interested in what caused the global collapse. They were not interested in what the fire did after the crash, which supposedly led to the global collapse.

The stated purpose was to show exactly what damage occurred as a result of the crashing of the 767, particularly how the fuel also caused damage.

The explosion in the lobby and the B level happened at exactly the same time as we see the massive explosion of fuel on the Nauduet video. So according to Purdue's "Purpose of" statement they should have included this part of the crash in their simulation.



posted on Sep, 4 2009 @ 04:58 PM
link   
Doesn't sound like they were interested in Mr Rodriguez testimony (among others) of explosions going off in the sub-basement levels either. what a sham. what a shame.



posted on Sep, 4 2009 @ 06:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
I would imagine that there was a lot of other damage caused by the crash and explostion

Sorry, but there was minimal damage to the towers and the ignition of fuel is not an explosive. The "explosive" fireball barely knocked off a few pieces of aluminum cladding around the impact zones.

NIST's own numbers state that only 15% of the columns in the impact areas were damaged or severed. And that's only on one side of a 4-sided tower. 85% of the structure and 3 other sides of each tower were all intact. 15% damage is not significant enough to consider collapse. And fire has never globally collapsed a steel-structured highrise, so fires are ruled out as well.

You can imagine what that leaves you with.

Jetliners are mostly aluminum. The only parts of a jetliner that would even budge the core columns would be the landing gear and engines. The aluminum body and wings would do zero damage to the massive core columns.

People need to go back to school and learn some physics.



posted on Sep, 4 2009 @ 08:03 PM
link   
reply to post by _BoneZ_
 




Jetliners are mostly aluminum. The only parts of a jetliner that would even budge the core columns would be the landing gear and engines. The aluminum body and wings would do zero damage to the massive core columns.


And the wing spars, keel beam and other heavy structures ...

Also at 500 mph the fuel would have acted as a sand blaster stripping away the fireproofing from all steel in the path.

The fireproofing was very friable and easily peeled off with a finger nail

Was found that air movements from HVAC over time could dislodge it.
Not to mention human activities - workers are famous for knocking holes
in fire walls and stripping insulation off while running cables and pipes.



posted on Sep, 4 2009 @ 09:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by thedman
And the wing spars, keel beam and other heavy structures ...

None of which would have done any significant damage to the massive, 4-inch thick core columns. The core columns were connected together vertically, horizontally, and diagonally. The core was a nearly impenetrable fortress of massive steel columns. No part of a plane, besides it's landing gear or engines, was doing any considerable damage to any core column.

It doesn't matter. NIST's own numbers show that the physical damage to the towers was minimal and only 15% of the columns in the impact areas being damaged or severed was not a significant amount to cause concern for collapse.



posted on Sep, 4 2009 @ 09:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by turbofan
Their presentation is a joke like most other government summaries of
this day.


Spoken like the true modeling and simulation professional that you are!

That is another of the interesting aspects of the P4T crowd. They like to claim they are "experts". FDR experts...now simulation experts. Just curious - what sort of criteria do you folks measure your "expertise" against?



posted on Sep, 5 2009 @ 10:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by trebor451

Originally posted by turbofan
Their presentation is a joke like most other government summaries of
this day.


Spoken like the true modeling and simulation professional that you are!

That is another of the interesting aspects of the P4T crowd. They like to claim they are "experts". FDR experts...now simulation experts. Just curious - what sort of criteria do you folks measure your "expertise" against?


Thats ironic coming from you, considering one of the most interesting aspects of the so called "Debunkers". Is that you all really believe you know everything about everything, and your knowledge is infallible.

And once you have been around long enough one can plainly see that Debunkers only challenge the most ridiculous claims.

More importantly than that is Debunkers claim to be on the "real side of truth" yet most of you don't give a damn about 9/11 your only here for the pot shot.

You Trebor are a classic example, instead of coming to the thread to add something, anything to the thread you just simply come to take a sucker punch.



[edit on 5-9-2009 by Stillresearchn911]



posted on Sep, 7 2009 @ 07:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by Stillresearchn911
You Trebor are a classic example, instead of coming to the thread to add something, anything to the thread you just simply come to take a sucker punch.


Eh. I has to calls 'em like I sees 'em. We obviously have a different definition on what "adding something to the thread" means.

I have said before that accuracy is the hearbeat of credibility - the very soul, the foundation. If you are impressed by these shoddy, less-than-amateur, home-made and useless "simulations" that TF is putting out in defense of their cockamamie theory, bully! That just shows your inability to understand the criteria, verification and validation what goes into a simulation.

Perhaps you are content (happy? pleased?) to sit there and watch TF call the Purdue sim "a joke", which is fine - those who are versed and experienced in this bidness know that his claim/accusation is more of a joke. It doesn't reflect well on your inability to understand my point - that being to have a rank amateur - no, less than that - someone completely ignorant of the technical elements of a simulation - call a sim done by a major engineering university "a joke" is hilarious, and needs to be pointed out.

Let me ask you this. Would you put TF up on a witness stand at "The Trials" as an expert witness in the debate about modeling and simulations? If not, why do you ascribe any legitimacy to him here? If so, go about your merry way.



posted on Sep, 7 2009 @ 10:49 AM
link   
Hey "Treb",

Show me where the 6 inch concrete floors, and steel floor pans appear in that simulation, then we'll talk.

Unless you believe six inches of concrete has no mass, and people/furniture
somehow suspended themselves in mid-air for all of these decades?


Surely, after talking like a big boy you can point out the location of the
concrete floors? The wings would have encountered 7 floors of massive
concrete resistance. (208' x ~ 60' x 6" ) x 7

Once we find those floor pans and all that concrete, we'll get onto the
other errors which I listed.



[edit on 7-9-2009 by turbofan]



posted on Sep, 7 2009 @ 02:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_


Jetliners are mostly aluminum. The only parts of a jetliner that would even budge the core columns would be the landing gear and engines. The aluminum body and wings would do zero damage to the massive core columns.

People need to go back to school and learn some physics.



i discussed with brother. he works as an aircraft engineer (although, technically he is a technologist, he's just that good they use him as an engineer, now), and has around twenty five years experience. he pointed out that the wing spars are also very strong. although there are made of composite, the composite must resist extreme force, obviously, while in flight at near mach speeds. so, these wing spars should be considered in any argument concerning the strength of the wings.
i do think, though, that once they collided with the external columns, they would not have enough integrity to do much damage to the core.
in the "scientifically accurate" purdue sim, notice thin sheets of shredded wavy aluminum cutting or passing through core columns.



posted on Sep, 7 2009 @ 02:13 PM
link   
reply to post by turbofan
 


it's actually 4 inches of concrete on the floors outside the core. i don't want "us" to look uninformed.



posted on Sep, 7 2009 @ 02:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by turbofan
Hey "Treb",

Show me where the 6 inch concrete floors, and steel floor pans appear in that simulation, then we'll talk.

Unless you believe six inches of concrete has no mass, and people/furniture
somehow suspended themselves in mid-air for all of these decades?


Surely, after talking like a big boy you can point out the location of the
concrete floors? The wings would have encountered 7 floors of massive
concrete resistance. (208' x ~ 60' x 6" ) x 7

Once we find those floor pans and all that concrete, we'll get onto the
other errors which I listed.
[edit on 7-9-2009 by turbofan]


Hey "Turb",

We're either talking about different simulations, or you are more off your rocker than anyone thinks.

The PURDUE UNIVERSITY Rosen Center for Advanced Computing, School for Civil Engineering and the Computing Research Institute at Purdue simulation of the aircraft slamming into WTC-1, as depicted in this video:



Pay particular attention to the floor slabs at time 1:19 and following of the video.

Now what the heck are you saying about no floor slabs being modeled?


The wings would have encountered 7 floors of massive
concrete resistance.


I *hope* you are saying the wings should have "bounced off" that "massive concrete resistance"!!!!!



posted on Sep, 7 2009 @ 03:46 PM
link   
reply to post by billybob
 


I've read 4 inches and up to eight inches in some areas of the building
and mechanical floors for instance.

I'll give Treb. the benefit of using 4 inches to give his plane wings a chance
of survival.

The video is different from what I have seen, but still does not account
for the concrete as the wings pass through the perimeter columns and
void floor area at the same rate as they 'cut' through the floor concrete,
floor plans and perimeter columns.

That is a scientific joke - especially the wing tips.

Treb., Do you believe the wing tips and tail section can cut through that concrete?






[edit on 7-9-2009 by turbofan]



posted on Sep, 7 2009 @ 04:06 PM
link   
reply to post by turbofan
 


i hope you know we're on the same side of the argument.
i just wanted to dispel some misconceptions.
one, that airplane wings are exclusively constructed of aluminum, and two, that the floors were six inches thick. if "we" are going to argue with "them", "we" should at least have our facts right. i don't mind being corrected when i'm wrong. it's not personal, just the facts.
and, yes, it's true the mechanical floors were much more robust, possibly even having i beams instead of trusses for support. lightweight concrete on the floors, and thicker reinforced aggregate in the cores and mechanical floors.
the steel pans that the concrete was poured into were not exactly flimsy, either, not too mention heavy furniture and room dividers, filing cabinets et al.
i don't believe there could be much left of the plane after it smashed through the outer wall. the APU, landing gear and engines were probably the only things with any real punch left.

[edit on 7-9-2009 by billybob]



posted on Sep, 7 2009 @ 04:31 PM
link   
reply to post by billybob
 


No worries, and thanks for the info. I agree with your posts and I'm not
taking it personal.

As for the aircraft: you would have to imagine an entire floor section
launched at the wing tips at 500+ MPH.

There is no chance the wing would cut through the steel and concrete...
let alone mutliple floors against the wings.



posted on Sep, 11 2009 @ 04:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by turbofan
As for the aircraft: you would have to imagine an entire floor section
launched at the wing tips at 500+ MPH.


More Troother physics.

Would you like to amend the above statement?



posted on Sep, 11 2009 @ 04:46 AM
link   
ha!

Why would I want to change that statement?

Maybe I should add the mass of the building (since it was connected) to
account for interia?

Explain it Treb.



new topics

top topics



 
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join