posted on Sep, 17 2011 @ 10:45 AM
reply to post by psikeyhackr
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.
How do you know its flaw in the simulation? Have you considered that it might be a flaw in your understanding of the simulation?
What if the simulation shows the columns positions relative to the plane and not the external world?
That would be much like the way they do auto crash tests. The barrier does not move but the car does. Now in the real world we all know that in a head
on crash the other car will move or change speed. But the data from the static barrier is just as valid. It will still show how the car crushes and
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.
Sometimes the answer is so obvious that you don’t need to break out the computer simulations. How many times have they worked up this much fuss when
a plane hit a structure?