The Purdue Crash Simulation - Method to Verify?

page: 2
1
<< 1   >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 17 2011 @ 10:45 AM
link   
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 comes apart.




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?




posted on Sep, 17 2011 @ 12:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by samkent
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 
How do you know its flaw in the simulation? Have you considered that it might be a flaw in your understanding of the simulation?


You can make whatever stupid assumptions you want. I give not a #.

If the motion is not shown relative to a stationary camera then they are simply demonstrating another version of stupidity.

psik



posted on Sep, 17 2011 @ 01:50 PM
link   
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 





If the motion is not shown relative to a stationary camera then they are simply demonstrating another version of stupidity.


So since the crash barriers don't move then the crash tests are not valid?

Some one had better tell the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety because that is the method they use. All the auto insurance companies accept their data to apply to auto insurance rates.
I guess the insurance companies don't what they are doing either.



posted on Sep, 17 2011 @ 02:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by samkent
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 





If the motion is not shown relative to a stationary camera then they are simply demonstrating another version of stupidity.


So since the crash barriers don't move then the crash tests are not valid?

Some one had better tell the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety because that is the method they use. All the auto insurance companies accept their data to apply to auto insurance rates.
I guess the insurance companies don't what they are doing either.


So when have you seen a camera on a crash barrier or designed to move with the crash barrier on impact?

Come up with more absurd comparisons. I could use the laughs.


psik



posted on Sep, 17 2011 @ 09:58 PM
link   
The barrier is fixed and the cameras are positioned external to the car and barrier.
The end result is the same as the 911 simulation.

So if it's good enough for the insurance companies then it should be good enough for 911 simulations.



posted on Sep, 17 2011 @ 10:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by samkent
The barrier is fixed and the cameras are positioned external to the car and barrier.
The end result is the same as the 911 simulation.

So if it's good enough for the insurance companies then it should be good enough for 911 simulations.


We are talking about an airliner hitting a skyscraper dude.

Skyscrapers sway due to the wind.

The wind is a sheer force to the skyscraper. An airliner is a sheer force to the skyscraper.

The NIST has already confirmed that the south tower deflected due to the airliner impact.

www.youtube.com...

psik



posted on Sep, 18 2011 @ 03:28 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 





top topics
 
1
<< 1   >>

log in

join