Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

The Purdue Crash Simulation - Method to Verify?

page: 1
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 06:54 AM
link   
Most here are probably aware of the Purdue University's simulation of a jet colliding with the World Trade Center, created back in 2007.

If not, here it is:



www.rcac.purdue.edu...

Now before everyone goes on about this being "old news" and "proves nothing", let me throw an idea out there.

Clearly, most 911 truthers wouldn't accept this simulation as proof, due to the fact that they could make it to show anything they wanted to, it is after all an animation.

Although I don't completely agree that that is a fair rebuttal, since there is a lot of documentation to back the simulation up with...I can see why it would be dismissed as well.

So, let's do a hypothetical.

The first step is to set up a controlled situation of a similar nature to the WTC plane impact, doesn't have to be as big but the more similarities the better.

So now we have a controlled situation and all factors needed for a simulation are known beforehand.

The next step is to run the simulation to get the results.

Now we have a control with which to compare a real world test to, using the same factors and figures as the simulation.

I'm hoping people can see where I am going with this...if the simulation can be verified to be accurate by carrying out the above controlled test, that would make the WTC simulation accurate, correct?

Thoughts?




posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 07:15 AM
link   
reply to post by Chadwickus
 


Well, my question is simply that the "truth" movement often boasts of including thousands of engineers and other technical professions. Why not ask them to present and alternative scenario?



posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 07:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by Chadwickus
Most here are probably aware of the Purdue University's simulation of a jet colliding with the World Trade Center, created back in 2007.

If not, here it is:



www.rcac.purdue.edu...

Now before everyone goes on about this being "old news" and "proves nothing", let me throw an idea out there.

Clearly, most 911 truthers wouldn't accept this simulation as proof, due to the fact that they could make it to show anything they wanted to, it is after all an animation.

Although I don't completely agree that that is a fair rebuttal, since there is a lot of documentation to back the simulation up with...I can see why it would be dismissed as well.

So, let's do a hypothetical.

The first step is to set up a controlled situation of a similar nature to the WTC plane impact, doesn't have to be as big but the more similarities the better.

So now we have a controlled situation and all factors needed for a simulation are known beforehand.

The next step is to run the simulation to get the results.

Now we have a control with which to compare a real world test to, using the same factors and figures as the simulation.

I'm hoping people can see where I am going with this...if the simulation can be verified to be accurate by carrying out the above controlled test, that would make the WTC simulation accurate, correct?

Thoughts?




This did not show a building collapse. This does not show how the buildings emploded and fell directly into their own footprints instead of falling over at any point. This does not explain building seven falling within its own foot print at the spped of gravity. Why don't you go try to label someone else before you are labeled as a moron. Do you think if you label people with this little moniker, "truthers" that they will be discredited enough to have the majority of evidence disregarded. If the evidence wasn't there this would have died by now. Just like JFK we know something is not right and it will never rest. If you truly believe that 19 hillbillies from the middle east, people who were kicked out of flight school because they could not even handle a small plane, pulled this off without help you must be more gullible than most.



posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 07:46 AM
link   
reply to post by Turkenstein
 


Hi, I asked for thoughts.

When you are capable of having an original one without name calling, I might take what you say seriously.



posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 08:03 AM
link   
9/11 MADNESS
post removed because of personal attacks

Click here to learn more about this warning.



posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 08:11 AM
link   
I know, why not go into the burned out remains of the building and compare the physical damage with the simulation results...

Oh, wait there the US Government blew it up with explosives so we can't!



posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 08:26 AM
link   
lol so the plane can melt into the building even tho its very fragil stay intact going thru the building knocking out the collums,, while the engines supposely disintegrate and they find the mans pass port? Give me break seriously. Why didnt the Empire State building collapse after being hit by a plane? It must have been buit better? history1900s.about.com...


Rockefeller... means garbage ...... come on people lets use common sense for once, send a message if you want to debat this.



posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 08:31 AM
link   
reply to post by Guarnere09
 


Thats a very good point where was the layer showing the fire-proof passport element! LOL



posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 11:29 AM
link   
reply to post by Guarnere09
 


The B-25 that hit the Empire State Building was alot smaller and moving alot slower.

As far as the simulation is concerned, I don't think that we have enough understanding of how certain materials would react in that situation, to create an accurate simulation.

I have heard some people state that the aircraft was too fragile to have had as much of an effect on the Towers' steel structure as it did. Has anybody ever heard of an anti-tank warhead called a "self-forging projectile"? The projectile is made of Copper which is much softer than steel.

I could buy into some of the Truthers' theories about the WTC, except for one thing. The towers' failures occurred at the aircraft impact points.



posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 05:11 PM
link   
So...

No one has any thoughts about verifying the simulation then?

You know, something that could turn out factual and useful, not just an opinion.



posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 05:25 PM
link   
reply to post by JIMC5499
 




As far as the simulation is concerned, I don't think that we have enough understanding of how certain materials would react in that situation, to create an accurate simulation.


Which is why I propose a controlled simulation.



posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 05:56 PM
link   
lol ya i want to know where he gets his passport and how much rumsfield paied for it... you know the day before 9/11 he announced that over 2trillion was missing from the pentagon amazingly where the "plane" hit, but the guy who made the plans for the tower built it in mind to take on a massive plane loaded down going at 600mph... and he says could with stand at least two strikes if not more. Thats a great video who ever posted it Ae911.org one.



posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 07:11 PM
link   
The warhead you speak of form a plasma of super hot metal which burns through the armour plate.
hardly a fair comparison to a primarily aluminium aircraft which travels far slower than the projectile.
The engines of the planes in question weigh tons, and the intakes are 8 feet across.
There is no way in hell that they could have been consumed by the pentagon fire.
And the nose of the plane wouldnt have gotten past te wall in the same shape it started with, much less the C ring of the pantagon.
Top that off with survivors of the pentagon smelling burnt cordite as they escaped the building.
Cordite is the explosive used in warheads of missiles and shells etc.



posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 07:27 PM
link   


No one has any thoughts about verifying the simulation then?


How about we back up and let the people who created the simulation verify what kind of data was used? What's going on inside of the building in the animationis nothing more than unproven speculation which supports the OS. How did they determine which interior columns, if any, were severed without being able to examine the damage? Maybe they have x-ray vision?
edit on 15-9-2011 by SphinxMontreal because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 08:41 PM
link   
Regardless of how accurate the Purdue simulation is I don't see how that proves the building could collapse straight down as a result.

But there is a flaw in the Purdue simulation. The core columns do not move horizontally when the plane impacts. The NIST has a graph of the motion of the south tower due to that impact. The building moved 15 inches horizontally and underwent damped oscillated for four minutes after the impact.

Since the north tower was hit higher up there should have been less mass and stiffness than the south tower at the point of impact. But the plane also had a lower velocity. The NIST admitted in two places in the NCSTAR1 report that knowledge of the distribution of weight in the towers was necessary to analyze the impacts. BUT THEN THEY DIDN'T DO IT!

The fact of the matter is that the Physics Profession has screwed up for TEN YEARS by not demanding accurate distribution of mass data on the steel and concrete in the towers. Those distributions must be gotten correct just so ANY SKYSCRAPER can hold itself up against gravity and withstand the wind. All talk of simulations without getting that data correct is nonsense. The effect of mass and its distributions on a vertical flexible structure due to sheer forces is easy to demonstrate.

www.youtube.com...

This shows the data is necessary for an accurate impact simulation but the distributions will affect any vertical collapse also. But we are supposed to believe that the physics profession has not figured out stuff this obvious in TEN YEARS.

Ni@@uh Please!

Our engineering schools can't even make a model that can completely collapse.

www.youtube.com...

I think telling lies about Newtonian Physics is hilariously stupid. The only thing more stupid is most of the people in the world believing the lie. But it says obvious things about the faultiness of global education. Newtonian Physics is only 300 years old. Most of the people in the nation that put men on the Moon can't figure it out either.

I emailed 3 people at Purdue and got responses form 2. Professor Sozen did not respond. Chris Hoffman said to email Sozen to get mass distribution of data. Sozen says nothing.

psik
edit on 15-9-2011 by psikeyhackr because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 09:17 PM
link   
The only problem with the simulation is that it doesn't explain how the tower imploded against the path of most resistance. I could see the top of the tower maybe sagging to the side, maybe falling off, but I just can't see it falling downward against the path of most resistance against the many 4-5 foot wide columns with 5 inches of steel on each side...



posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 10:51 PM
link   
reply to post by Chadwickus
 


There is a reason why they use good old fashioned physical tests in military tests and medical trials.

People generally have a hugely overestimated opinion of the real world power of computer simulations.

Think of it this way: Your brain is producing a real-time multi-variable simulation of the world around you all the time. Yet a computer fails to even replicate simple tasks such as object identification with anything approaching passable verisimilitude.

Yet these guys think it is perfectly okay to try to model complex physical interactions and present it as reality?

There is a rule for things like this: The simpler the better. Computers are great at modelling the behavior of a well defined set of elements under well defined conditions with well-defined tolerances.

Psikey is 100% correct, if you are modelling something complex the effects of miscalculation multiplies exponentially. When you start leaving out key global details like mass distribution you are producing nothing but a cartoon. Angry birds physics.

Computers are great for lots of things, accurately modelling reality is not one of them.



posted on Sep, 17 2011 @ 03:11 AM
link   
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 


Thanks for the reply.

This is more akin to what I was looking for...rather than the immature attacks.




posted on Sep, 17 2011 @ 10:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by Darkwing01
reply to post by Chadwickus
 
There is a rule for things like this: The simpler the better. Computers are great at modelling the behavior of a well defined set of elements under well defined conditions with well-defined tolerances.

Psikey is 100% correct, if you are modelling something complex the effects of miscalculation multiplies exponentially. When you start leaving out key global details like mass distribution you are producing nothing but a cartoon. Angry birds physics.

Computers are great for lots of things, accurately modelling reality is not one of them.


I am not sure I quite agree with this. I think computer modeling the WTC should be a lot simpler than climate modeling and trying to project that out 100 years.

But we had two nearly identical buildings hit by nearly identical planes which supposedly had identical results. But the results do not make sense in terms of skyscraper design and function. So either these results are likely on the basis of the known inputs because of the building's design or they are impossible and are the results of other factors that we do not have data on.

A simulation that would make sense to me would be to completely remove 5 levels, 91, 92, 93, 94 and 95. That would leave 15 stories floating in the air with 90 intact stories below and a 60 foot gap. Simulated gravity should cause the 15 stories to take almost 2 seconds to impact at 44 mph or 65 ft/sec. So the mass of the 15 stories and that velocity are all of the momentum and kinetic energy the system has to work with. From there on the energy required to destroy the levels below should slow things down.

The simulation should either collapse or stop and it should not be a borderline thing. But the mass at every level would have to be correct. So the physics profession has ten years of egg on its face for not bringing that up.

psik



posted on Sep, 17 2011 @ 10:28 AM
link   
reply to post by Darkwing01
 




Computers are great for lots of things, accurately modelling reality is not one of them.


How do you think they design airplanes?





new topics

top topics



 
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join