[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Sign-in]  [Mail]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

Supreme Court Rules that Corrupt Biden DOJ Overcharged 350 Innocent Americans for Crimes Related to Jan 6 John Deere announces mass layoffs in Midwest amid production shift to Mexico Trillion dollar trainwreck: US super stealth fighter is eating the next generation RFK Jr. Leaves Dr. Phil Stunned As He Explains Huge Kickbacks Fauci And NIH Have Earned From Moderna Vaccines (VIDEO) 79,000 DACA Recipients Were Approved Despite Arrest Records, Some Arrested 10x or More Davos Forum Founder Schwab Reportedly Facing Sexual Harassment Allegations FAB-3000 is breaking the Ukraine military Secret Negotiations! Jill Biden's Demands for $2B Library, Legal Immunity, and $100M Book Deal Supreme Court FREES HUNDREDS of January 6th Political Prisoners | Nukes TRUMP Charges Diseases Increase Exponentially With Each Added Vaccine Given to Babies Mexican cartels boast of increased lethal firepower, including some weapons from the U.S. US Military Bases in Europe Declare Highest Security Alert in a Decade Amid Terror Threats 5 Devices You Cant Hide From- The Government Alphabet Agencies How your FedEx driver is helping cops spy on YOU ‘Historically ludicrous’: Jewish leaders speak out against comparing vaccine passports to Holocaust Israeli Officials Hiding Data About Forced Starvation of Gaza Prisoners: How the F*** Are You Going to Put All These White People Ahead of Kamala? Protests Erupt In Paris After Marine Le Pens Party Wins Big In Parliamentary Elections Supreme Court Rules Trump Has Immunity For Official Acts, Likely Delays Trial Past Election Rising Debt Means a Weaker Dollar Lefties losing it: Sky News host roasts 'leftie' Jill Biden after Trump rant JiLL THe SHRiLL... Lefties losing it: Jill Biden ‘gaslights’ crowd after presidential debate Why will Kamala Harris resign from her occupancy of the Office of Vice President of the USA? Scroll down for records/details Secret Negotiations! Jill Biden’s Demands for $2B Library, Legal Immunity, and $100M Book Deal to Protect Biden Family Before Joe’s Exit Mark Levin: They lied to us about Biden RIGGED: Pfizer cut deal to help Biden steal 2020 election It's Dr. Kimmy date night! Glenbrook Dodge will raise a new American flag just before the 4th of July Horse's continuing struggles with getting online.

9/11
See other 9/11 Articles

Title: Purdue researchers create 9/11 computer simulation
Source: http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Purdue_researchers_create_911_
URL Source: http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Purdu ... _computer_simulation_0620.html
Published: Jun 21, 2007
Author: David Edwards and Nick Juliano
Post Date: 2007-06-21 09:00:13 by Kamala
Ping List: *9-11*     Subscribe to *9-11*
Keywords: 911
Views: 227
Comments: 12

Purdue researchers create 9/11 computer simulation

David Edwards and Nick Juliano

Published: Wednesday June 20, 2007

Print This Email This

More than five-and-a-half years have passed since terrorists toppled the World Trade Center, and questions still remain about how the buildings came down. Researchers at Purdue University have created a computer model attempting to answer some of those questions.

The simulation found jet engine shafts from airlines flown into the World Trade Center "flew through the building like bullets," according to an Associated Press vide report.

Flaming jet fuel cascaded through the tower stripping away fireproofing material and causing the building to collapse, the AP video reports.

"The weight of the aircraft's fuel, when ignited, acted like a flash flood of flaming liquid," according to the video.

However, the website TRUTHORLIES.ORG believes that the simulation "raises more questions then answers."

Josh Reeves and Mike Swenson write, "The following statement was used in the Purdue simulation: 'The weight of the aircraft's fuel, when ignited, acted like a flash flood of flaming liquid.' This is a direct contradiction of the FEMA report (which can be viewed HERE) which stated: 'despite the huge fireballs caused by the two planes crashing into the WTC towers each with 10,000 gallons of jet fuel, the fireballs did not explode or create a shock wave that would have resulted in structural damage.'”

The site also notes that "the National Science Foundation (NSF), the agency that funded the Purdue study, is an agency whose board was appointed by George W. Bush and confirmed by the United States Senate," and that its director, Dr. Arden L. Bement Jr. worked for employers such as General Electric Company, Battelle Northwest Laboratories, and DARPA (the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency), the agency responsible for the development of new technology for use by the military.

144 Comments

Poster Comment:

There is a video at the link. Its cartoon reality.

By the way, Arden L. Bement Jr. the current director of the NSF and the funder of this garbage, was the director at the NIST while the WTC Report was being constucted. Subscribe to *9-11*

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  

#1. To: Kamala (#0)

There is a video at the link. Its cartoon reality.

What a joke - thanks for the synopsis.

Join the Ron Paul Revolution

Lod  posted on  2007-06-21   9:03:02 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

http://georgewashington.blogspot.com/2007/06/purdue-simulation-full-of-hot-air.html

Wednesday, June 20, 2007

Purdue Simulation: Full of Hot Air

The newest volley in the disinformation campaign regarding 9/11 is a simulation of the Twin Towers created by Purdue University. As summarized by Raw Story:

The simulation found jet engine shafts from airlines flown into the World Trade Center "flew through the building like bullets," according to an Associated Press vide report.

Flaming jet fuel cascaded through the tower stripping away fireproofing material and causing the building to collapse, the AP video reports.

"The weight of the aircraft's fuel, when ignited, acted like a flash flood of flaming liquid," according to the video.

However, Kevin Ryan has already demonstrated that there was not enough energy from the airplane impacts to have knocked much of the fireproofing off. See also this article.

And very few of the core columns were severed by the planes' impact. And tests by NIST showed that temperatures in the Twin Towers never got hot enough to significantly weaken the structural steel of the 47-column inner core.

Researchers have stated that the Purdue simulation contradicts the observed facts in other ways, and in the next couple of weeks, they will publish their findings.

Moreover, the Purdue simulation still does not address the flies in the ointment which NIST also ignored:

(1) The simulation either fails to include, or inaccurately represents, the 47 core columns holding up each of the Twin Towers.

(2) Most of the jet fuel burned outside the buildings, especially in the case of the South Tower - which produced a glowing orange fireball as the building was struck at an oblique angle. So the simulation could not hold true for the South Tower.

(3) The people who designed the Twin Towers did not think that an airplane plus fire from the jet fuel could bring the buildings down. Indeed, they assumed that "all the fuel (from the airplane) would dump into the building", and yet assumed "The building structure would still be there." Since most of the fuel (especially with the South Tower) exploded outside of the buildings, shouldn't they "still be there"?

(4) Even if the planes and fire had initiated a collapse sequence, why did the towers totally collapse, when no modern steel-framed building has ever before completely collapsed due to fire?

(5) Why did they collapse at virtually free-fall speed? And why did WTC7 -- which wasn't even hit by a plane -- totally collapse at free-fall speed later that same day?

(6) How could the buildings have fallen at near free-fall speed, indicating very little resistance, and yet produce tremendous pulverization of concrete, which indicates great resistance?

(7) No one can explain why "steel columns in building 7 were "PARTLY EVAPORATED in extraordinarily high temperatures" (pay-per-view). Absent controlled demolition, how could such temperatures have been generated by jet fuel or diesel?

As if that's not enough, Kevin Ryan pointed out to me today by email that the Purdue simulation contradicts many aspects of NIST's findings: "1. Were columns on the south face of WTC severed by aircraft impact? NIST says maybe one, but Purdue now suggests several. NCSTAR1, p. 22-23.

2. Was there any jet fuel in AA11's center fule tank? NIST says no, but Purdue now says yes, it was completely full. NCTSAR1-5A, p liii, lviii.

3. How did the fieproofing get "widely dislodged"? NIST suggests the aircraft debris turned into shotgun blasts to affect this. Purdue now suggests the jet fuel did it. Thanks to Purdue for invalidating NIST's work. NCSTAR1, p 119."

In other words, not only does the Purdue simulation contain many of the same errors as the NIST reports, but, as if that's not bad enough, it stretches the truth beyond even what NIST itself has done. Moreover, as pointed out by the blog Truth Or Lies:

"The following statement was used in the Purdue simulation: 'The weight of the aircraft's fuel, when ignited, acted like a flash flood of flaming liquid.' This is a direct contradiction of the FEMA report (which can be viewed HERE) which stated: 'despite the huge fireballs caused by the two planes crashing into the WTC towers each with 10,000 gallons of jet fuel, the fireballs did not explode or create a shock wave that would have resulted in structural damage.'” As Crockett L. Grabbe, PhD, research scientist and visiting scholar, department of physics and astronomy, university of Iowa 1980, and former researcher at Naval Research Laboratory put it:

“Many may conclude that the building structure of the World Trade Center twin towers was poorly designed with fire retardants that the heat from the airliner explosions within an hour caused catastrophic destruction of the south tower, and in less than 2 hours the north tower. However, the evidence overwhelmingly supports a different conclusion: this collapse was in fact caused by explosive devices planted well in advance."

Indeed, numerous scientists, engineers and demolition experts have said the official version of the destruction of the World Trade Centers is impossible. posted by George Washington at 10:30 AM

13 Comments: eugene davis said... Damn! My wood stove didn't come with any fire proofing....I guess it is gonna melt.

11:40 AM Anonymous said... Everytime you drive, be careful and keep checking, maybe your engine is weakening and will soon turn to molten metal.

That's the Friggin story about 9/11 they are hoping we are going to buy. No chance morons. 9/11 was an inside job.

11:46 AM Anonymous said... Why has no one hit on this fact? Why do welders use oxygen when cutting, and welding steel? Because there is not enough free oxygen in our atmosphere (21%) to allow a flame to reach the temperture REQUIRED to melt steel. OXYGEN MUST BE ADDED TO THE FUEL TO REACH THE MELT TEMPERTURE OF STEEL. When welders use a cutting torch, the cutting torch has a valve on the handle to allow MORE oxygen to flow into the torch head. The more oxygen, the hotter the flame. Too much oxygen = too much heat, and the oxidizing flame will actually oxidize(burn) the metal creating weak welds. If the towers fell due to fire alone, then the open atmosphere in, and around them was oxygen rich, way over the natural 21% oxygen that we breath every day on planet Earth.

12:00 PM

Mark

"I was real close to Building 7 when it fell down... That didn't sound like just a building falling down to me while I was running away from it. There's a lot of eyewitness testimony down there of hearing explosions. [..] and the whole time you're hearing "boom, boom, boom, boom, boom." I think I know an explosion when I hear it... — Former NYC Police Officer and 9/11 Rescue Worker Craig Bartmer

Kamala  posted on  2007-06-21   9:03:05 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

http://arabesque911.blogspot.com/2007/05/world-trade-center-building-designers.html

Thursday, May 3, 2007

The World Trade Center Building Designers: Pre-9/11 claims strongly implicate that the Towers should have remained standing on 9/11

The World Trade Center Building Designers: Pre-9/11 claims strongly implicate that the Towers should have remained standing on 9/11

By Arabesque[1]

The World Trade Center (WTC) Towers[2] were the largest buildings ever conceived in 1960.[3] This meant that there was a considerable amount of planning:

“The structural analysis carried out by the firm of Worthington, Skilling, Helle & Jackson is the most complete and detailed of any ever made for any building structure. The preliminary calculations alone cover 1, 200 pages and involve over 100 detailed drawings… The building as designed is sixteen times stiffer than a conventional structure. The design concept is so sound that the structural engineer has been able to be ultra-conservative in his design without adversely affecting the economics of the structure.”[4]

In July of 1971, the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) presented a national award judging the WTC Towers to be “the engineering project that demonstrates the greatest engineering skills and represents the greatest contribution to engineering progress and mankind.”[5]

Like many modern structures and buildings, the WTC Towers were over-designed to withstand weight distribution in the event of structural damage. According to calculations made by the engineers who helped with the design of the Twin Towers, “all the columns on one side of a Tower could be cut, as well as the two corners and some of the columns on each adjacent side, and the building would still be strong enough to withstand a 100-mile-per-hour wind.”[6] As well, “Live loads on these columns can be increased more than 2,000% before failure occurs.”[7]

In the planning of the buildings the designers considered potential attacks, and the WTC towers were designed to survive them. Between Early 1984 and October 1985 it was reported that:

“The Office of Special Planning (OSP), a unit set up by the New York Port Authority to assess the security of its facilities against terrorist attacks, spends four to six months studying the World Trade Center. It examines the center’s design through looking at photographs, blueprints, and plans. It brings in experts such as the builders of the center, plus experts in sabotage and explosives, and has them walk through the WTC to identify any areas of vulnerability…”O’Sullivan consults ‘one of the trade center’s original structural engineers, Les Robertson, on whether the towers would collapse because of a bomb or a collision with a slow-moving airplane.’ He is told there is ‘little likelihood of a collapse no matter how the building was attacked.’”[8]

One of these hypothetical examples was put to the test in the 1993 WTC bombing. This attack prompted more discussions about the safety of the WTC towers. In response to these concerns, WTC building designer John Skilling explained that they “looked at every possible thing we could think of that could happen to the buildings, even to the extent of an airplane hitting the side… A previous analysis carried out early in 1964, calculated that the towers would handle the impact of a 707 traveling at 600 mph without collapsing.”[9]

This indicates that the building designers considered Boeing 707 airplane impact speeds of 600 mph. It is likely that the designers considered this speed of impact for the reason that the cruse speed of a Boeing 707 is 607 mph.[10] Both of the planes that hit the WTC Towers on 9/11 were Boeing 767’s. The FEMA report indicates that Flight 11 flew at a speed of 470 mph into the North Tower, and that the second plane flew at a speed of 590 mph into the South Tower.[11] Not only were these speeds anticipated by the building designers, the Boeing 707 is similar in size to the ones flown into the towers on 9/11. According to Jim Hoffman, the planes used on 9/11 were “only slightly larger than 707s and DC 8s, the types of jetliners whose impacts the World Trade Center's designers anticipated.”[12] This statement is supported by the following chart:

property[13] Boeing 707-340 Boeing 767-200

fuel capacity 23,000 gallons 23,980 gallons

max takeoff weight 328,060 lbs 395,000 lbs

empty weight 137,562 lbs 179,080 lbs

wingspan 145.75 ft 156.08 ft

wing area 3010 ft^2 3050 ft^2

length 152.92 ft 159.17 ft

cruise speed 607 mph 530 mph

In fact, Hoffman observes that “a 707 in normal flight would actually have more kinetic energy than a 767, despite the slightly smaller size.”[14]

Commercial airliners typically fly with jet fuel, so it is not surprising that the designers would consider this. In 1993, Skilling explained that they performed an analysis that concluded that the WTC towers would survive the impact and jet fuel fires from a Boeing 707:

“Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel (from the airplane) would dump into the building. There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed… The building structure would still be there.”[15]

In fact, no steel-framed building structures had ever collapsed due to fire before or since 9/11.[16] This further supports Skilling’s analysis about the possibility of jet fuel destroying the WTC towers. According to Paul Thompson, “the analysis Skilling is referring to is likely one done in early 1964, during the design phase of the towers. A three-page white paper, dated February 3, 1964.”[17] This ‘white paper’ concluded that:

“The buildings have been investigated and found to be safe in an assumed collision with a large jet airliner (Boeing 707—DC 8) traveling at 600 miles per hour. Analysis indicates that such collision would result in only local damage which could not cause collapse or substantial damage to the building and would not endanger the lives and safety of occupants not in the immediate area of impact.”[18]

Thompson explains that “besides this paper, no documents are known detailing how this analysis was made.”[19] In fact, many of the building documents are unavailable because “the building owners, designers and insurers, prevented independent researchers from gaining access—and delayed the BPAT team in gaining access—to pertinent building documents largely because of liability concerns.”[20]

The lack of access to WTC building documents remains a problem to this day. Indeed, in March of 2007, Steven Jones and Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice finally obtained the WTC blueprints from a ‘whistle-blower’.[21]

Although the WTC was “over-designed to withstand almost anything including hurricanes, high winds, bombings and an airplane hitting it,” [22] the designers did not apparently consider controlled demolition:

“Skilling—a recognized expert in tall buildings—doesn't think a single 200- pound car bomb would topple or do major structural damage to a Trade Center tower. The supporting columns are closely spaced and even if several were disabled, the others would carry the load. ‘However,’ he added, ‘I'm not saying that properly applied explosives—shaped explosives—of that magnitude could not do a tremendous amount of damage.’ Although Skilling is not an explosives expert, he says there are people who do know enough about building demolition to bring a structure like the Trade Center down. ‘I would imagine that if you took the top expert in that type of work and gave him the assignment of bringing these buildings down with explosives, I would bet that he could do it.’”[23]

One week before 9/11, WTC building designer Leslie Robertson reiterated the fact that the towers were designed to survive plane crashes:

“Leslie Robertson, one of the two original structural engineers for the World Trade Center, is asked at a conference in Frankfurt, Germany what he had done to protect the twin towers from terrorist attacks. He replies, ‘I designed it for a 707 to smash into it,’ though does not elaborate further.”[24]

Also according to Robertson, the WTC towers were “in fact the first structures outside the military and nuclear industries designed to resist the impact of a jet airplane.”[25]

Not only were the towers designed to survive plane crashes, they were designed to potentially survive multiple plane crashes. This fact is supported by Frank A. Demartini, the on-site construction manager for the World Trade Center, who said on January 25, 2001:

“The building was designed to have a fully loaded 707 crash into it. That was the largest plane at the time. I believe that the building probably could sustain multiple impacts of jetliners because this structure is like the mosquito netting on your screen door—this intense grid—and the jet plane is just a pencil puncturing that screen netting. It really does nothing to the screen netting.” [26]

Demartini appeared to be so confident that the towers would not collapse that he stayed behind to help save at least 50 people.[27] As a result of his actions, he lost his life on 9/11.

In summary, the World Trade Center designers not only contemplated jet fuel fires—they considered the plane crashes that would have caused them. They anticipated impact speeds of 600 mph as well as aircraft similar in size to the planes used on 9/11. The towers were designed to survive substantial column loss along with 100 mph winds. They were intended to survive bombings, earthquakes, and hurricanes. If the designers were sufficiently competent in the planning and realization of their award-winning WTC Towers as intended, they should have remained standing. Tragically, they did not. From this irreconcilable fact there can only be two conclusions; either the designers were inadequate in their designs, or there is an alternate explanation for their destruction on 9/11.

However, these are not all of the facts. After 9/11, WTC building designer Leslie Robertson has made statements which directly contradict previous comments by other building designers—including himself.

According to Paul Thomspon, it was reported on Sept 3-7, 2001 “the Boeing 707 was the largest in use when the towers were designed. [Leslie] Robertson conducted a study in late 1964, to calculate the effect of a 707 weighing 263,000 pounds and traveling at 180 mph crashing into one of the towers. [Robertson] concluded that the tower would remain standing. However, no official report of his study has ever surfaced publicly.”[28]

Surprisingly, Robertson claimed that the WTC Towers were designed to survive plane crashes at speeds of on 180 mph.[29] He also repeated this claim in an interview with Steven Jones in October 2006.[30] However, these statements are contradicted by Skilling, who indicated that “a previous analysis, carried out early in 1964, calculated that the towers would handle the impact of a 707 traveling at 600 mph without collapsing.”[31] Robertson is also somewhat contradicted by his own statement in 1984-5 that there was “little likelihood of a collapse no matter how the building was attacked.”[32]

Immediately after 9/11 it was reported that “the engineer who said after the 1993 bombing that the towers could withstand a Boeing 707, Leslie Robertson, was not available for comment yesterday, a partner at his Manhattan firm said. ‘We're going to hold off on speaking to the media,’ said the partner, Rick Zottola, at Leslie E. Robertson Associates. ‘We'd like to reserve our first comments to our national security systems, F.B.I. and so on.’”[33]

Later, in 2002, Robertson said: “to the best of our knowledge, little was known about the effects of a fire from such an aircraft, and no designs were prepared for that circumstance.”[34] In 2005, NIST also claimed that they had been “unable to locate any evidence to indicate consideration of the extent of impact-induced structural damage or the size of a fire that could be created by thousands of gallons of jet fuel.”[35]

These statements ignore the fact that Skilling claimed in 1993 that “Our analysis [in 1964] indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel (from the airplane) would dump into the building. There would be a horrendous fire… The building structure would still be there.”[36]

As well, Robertson said the following in an interview with Steven Jones in October 2006:

“I support the general conclusions of the NIST report… The [WTC] was designed for the impact of a low flying slow flying Boeing 707. We envisioned it [to be like] the aircraft that struck the Empire State building [during] WW II. It was not designed for a high speed impact from the jets that actually hit it… Yes there was a red hot metal seen [in the WTC rubble] by engineers. Molten—Molten means flowing—I’ve never run across anyone who has said that they had in fact seen molten metal, or by the way if they had seen it, if they had performed some kind of an analysis to determine what that metal was.”[37]

Three of these claims are demonstrably problematic. The claim about “slow flying” aircraft has already been discussed.[38] The statement about molten metal is also contradicted by many eyewitness statements.[39] In fact, it is possible that Robertson himself saw this molten steel, but this fact is not confirmed at the present time.[40]

Not only had many witnesses claimed to have seen this molten metal, FEMA had performed an analysis of it. Their observations were recorded in Appendix C of their WTC Building Performance Study.[41] Ironically, Robertson stated that he was not aware if anyone had performed an analysis on the molten steel in an interview with Jones—who had also performed an analysis of previously molten metal samples from Ground zero.[42] Jones’ findings appear to be corroborated by the FEMA report which described “a phenomenon never before observed in building fires: eutectic reactions, which caused ‘intergranular melting capable of turning a solid steel girder into Swiss cheese.’”[43] The New York Times described this as “perhaps the deepest mystery uncovered in the investigation.”[44] NIST did not even mention the presence of molten steel and called it “irrelevant to the investigation.”[45] Amazingly, NIST’s 10 000 page, $20 million report couldn’t find the space to mention the earlier findings about the molten steel analyzed in the FEMA report. There have even been reports of evaporated steel.[46]

The presence of molten steel would be very surprising because jet fuel fires are incapable of melting steel.[47] In fact, NIST reported that the highest recorded temperatures of the jet fuel fires from the WTC were not even enough to weaken the steel.[48]

Conclusions

It is demonstrable that the WTC building designers claimed that the Twin Towers would survive an event similar to 9/11. Either the WTC building designers were tragically wrong in their calculations and designs, or there is another explanation for the destruction of the WTC Towers. After 9/11, WTC building designer Leslie Robertson has made claims that are contradicted by statements and documents from as many as 40 years ago. These contradictions must be resolved through the release of all of the pertinent WTC documents that have been withheld since 9/11.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[1] Arabesque, Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice Member and 9/11 Researcher: http://www.911blogger.com/blog/877.

[2] Research based on Paul Thompson’s Complete 9/11 Timeline and other sources. http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/entity.jsp? entity=leslie_robertson

[3] James Glanz and Eric Lipton, The Height of Ambition, New York Times, September 8, 2002.

[4] James Glanz and Eric Lipton, City in the Sky: The rise and fall of the World Trade Center, Times Books, Henry Hold and Company, LLC, 2003, pages 134- 136.

[5] Angus K. Gillespie, Twin Towers: The Life of New York City's World Trade Center (New Brunswick, N.J.: Rutgers University Press 1999), 117

[6] Glanz and Lipton, City in the Sky, page 133.

[7] How Columns Will Be Designed for 110-Story Buildings, Engineering News- Record, April 2, 1964: 48-49.

[8] Glanz and Lipton, City in the Sky, Page 227. See also Paul Thompson’s Complete 9/11 Timeline.

[9] Ibid. pages 131-132.

[10] Jim Hoffman, Towers' Design Parameters: Twin Towers' Designers Anticipated Jet Impacts Like September 11th's, http://911research. wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/design.html.

[11] World Trade Center Building Performance Study: Data Collection, Preliminary Observations, and Recommendations, FEMA Report 403, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, Washington, DC, 2002. Page 31.

[12] Hoffman, Towers' Design Parameters.

[13] Ibid.

[14] Ibid.

[15] Eric Nalder, Twin Towers Engineered To Withstand Jet Collision, Seattle Times, February 27, 1993.

[16] James Glanz, and Eric Lipton, Towers Withstood Impact, but Fell to Fire, Report Says, Fri March 29, 2002, New York Times.

“Experts said no building like it [WTC7], a modern, steel-reinforced high-rise, had ever collapsed because of an uncontrolled fire.”

Norman Glover, Fire Engineering, Fire Engineering journal, October 2002.

“Almost all large buildings will be the location for a major fire in their useful life. No major high-rise building has ever collapsed from fire…”

[17] Thompson, Complete 9/11 Timeline. February 27, 1993: WTC Engineer Says Building Would Survive Jumbo Jet Hitting It

[18] Glanz and Lipton, City in the Sky, pages 131-2.

[19] Thompson, Complete 9/11 Timeline. February 27, 1993: WTC Engineer Says Building Would Survive Jumbo Jet Hitting It

[20] Hearing before the Committee on Science, House of Representatives, One Hundred Seventh Congress, Second Session, March 6, 2002, Serial No. 107–46.

[21] Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice, Independent Investigators Release Suppressed Blueprints of Destroyed World Trade Center Tower, March 27, 2007. http://www.stj911.org/.

[22] Christopher Bollyn, Some Survivors Say ‘Bombs Exploded Inside WTC’, American Free Press, October 22, 2001.

[23] Nalder, Twin Towers Engineered To Withstand Jet Collision

[24] Towers Built to Withstand Jet Impact, The Chicago Tribune, September 12, 2001.

[25] Leslie E. Robertson, Reflections on the World Trade Center. National Academy of Engineering, Volume 32, Number 1 - Spring 2002.

[26] http://Prisonplanet.com, WTC Construction Manager: Towers Were Designed to Take Numerous Plane Crashes, http://www.prisonplanet.com/, November 14, 2004.

[27] “DeMartini will be in his office on the 88th floor of the north tower when it is hit on 9/11. He will die when the tower collapses, after helping more than 50 people escape.” [Associated Press, 8/29/2003; New York Times, 8/29/2003]

[28] Glanz and Lipton, City in the Sky, pages 138-9, 366.

[29] Nalder, Twin Towers Engineered To Withstand Jet Collision

[29] Towers Built to Withstand Jet Impact. See also: Thompson, Complete 9/11 Timeline, Between September 3, 2001 and September 7, 2001: WTC Structural Engineer Says Trade Center Designed for 707 Crashing Into It. These articles from the day after 9/11 make clear the fact that this statement was made before 9/11: “Les Robertson, the Trade Center's structural engineer, spoke last week at a conference on tall buildings in Frankfurt, Germany.”

[30] See a partial transcript of this interview included below.

[31] Thompson, Complete 9/11 Timeline, February 27, 1993: WTC Engineer Says Building Would Survive Jumbo Jet Hitting It

[32] Glanz and Lipton, City in the Sky, Page 227. See also Paul Thompson’s Complete 9/11 Timeline.

[33] James Glanz, Believed to Be Safe, the Towers Proved Vulnerable to Jet Fuel Fire, The New York Times, September 12, 2001

[34] Robertson, Reflections on the World Trade Center

[35] National Institute of Standards and Technology, 9/2005, page. 13

[36] Nalder, Twin Towers Engineered To Withstand Jet Collision

[37] Steven Jones in discussion With Leslie Robertson, by KGNU Radio, Denver, CO, Oct 26, 2006. http://www.911podcasts.com/files/audio/StevenJones_LeslieRobertson_200610 26.mp3

[38] See another statement by Robertson here: “The buildings survived the impact of the Boeing 767 aircraft, an impact very much greater than had been contemplated in our design (a slow-flying Boeing 707 lost in the fog and seeking a landing field).” Taken from: Robertson, Reflections on the World Trade Center

[39] ‘George Washington,’ Why was there Molten Metal Under Ground Zero for Months after 9/11? December 06, 2005. http://georgewashington.blogspot.co m/

[40] Someone, quite possibly Leslie Robertson “describes fires still burning and molten steel still running 21 days after the attacks.”[40]

[41] See here for pictures and comments in FEMA’s report mentioning the melted steel: http:/ /www.911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/metallurgy/index.html

“Although virtually all of the structural steel from the Twin Towers and Building 7 was removed and destroyed, preventing forensic analysis, FEMA's volunteer investigators did manage to perform "limited metallurgical examination" of some of the steel before it was recycled. Their observations, including numerous micrographs, are recorded in Appendix C of the WTC Building Performance Study. Prior to the release of FEMA's report, a fire protection engineer and two science professors published a brief report in JOM disclosing some of this evidence.”

“The results of the examination are striking. They reveal a phenomenon never before observed in building fires: eutectic reactions, which caused "intergranular melting capable of turning a solid steel girder into Swiss cheese." The New York Times described this as "perhaps the deepest mystery uncovered in the investigation.” WPI provides a graphic summary of the phenomenon.”

[42] Paul Watson, Scientific Analysis Proves Towers Brought Down By Incendiaries, June 20, 2006. http://www.prisonplanet.com/ “using advanced techniques we're finding out what's in these samples [of iron taken from Ground Zero]—we're finding iron, sulphur, potassium and manganese—these are characteristic of a variation of thermite which is used to cut through steel very rapidly, it's called thermate.” See also:

Griffin, The Destruction of the World Trade Center and Jones, Why Indeed Did the World Trade Center Buildings Completely Collapse?

[43] Joan Killough-Miller, The ‘Deep Mystery’ of Melted Steel, WPI Transformations, Spring 2002.

[44] Ibid.

[45] Jim Hoffman, NIST's World Trade Center FAQ A Reply to the National Institute for Standards and Technology's ‘Answers to Frequently Asked Questions’. August 30, 2006.

[46] “Engineers have been trying to figure out exactly what happened… ‘Fire and the structural damage… would not explain steel members in the debris pile that appear to have been partly evaporated’” from:

James Glanz, Engineers are baffled over the collapse of 7 WTC; Steel members have been partly evaporated, New York Times, November 29. 2001.

[47] “The maximum flame temperature increase for burning hydrocarbons (jet fuel) in air is, thus, about 1000 °C -- hardly sufficient to melt steel at 1500 °C.” Taken from: Eagar, T. W. and Musso, C. (2001). “Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse?” Science, Engineering, and Speculation”, Journal of the Minerals, Metals and Materials Society, 53/12:8-11 (2001).

[48] Kevin Ryan, A New Standard for Deception, June 4, 2006. See also: NIST and the World Trade Center.

Posted by Arabesque at 1:23 PM

Labels: Building Designers, John Skilling, Leslie Robertson, World Trade Center

Newer Post Older Post Home

Mark

"I was real close to Building 7 when it fell down... That didn't sound like just a building falling down to me while I was running away from it. There's a lot of eyewitness testimony down there of hearing explosions. [..] and the whole time you're hearing "boom, boom, boom, boom, boom." I think I know an explosion when I hear it... — Former NYC Police Officer and 9/11 Rescue Worker Craig Bartmer

Kamala  posted on  2007-06-21   9:07:26 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/june2007/200607animation.htm

New Study Props Up Official 9/11 Conspiracy Theory

Does not refute a single issue the 9/11 truth movement has raised

Steve Watson Prison Planet

Wednesday, June 20, 2007

A new study into the collapse of the World Trade Center towers has been released that correlates with the findings of the 2005 National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) report and supports the theory that intense fires weakened the structure and initiated "global collapse". Much like the NIST report however, it is fatally flawed.

The AP reports:

A computer simulation of the 2001 World Trade Center attacks supports a federal agency's findings that the initial impact from the hijacked airplanes stripped away crucial fireproofing material and that the weakened towers collapsed under their own weight.

In reality the new study by structural engineers at Purdue University does not provide any scientific evidence to explain the collapses, it merely confirms the NIST fireproofing claim in its animation and then jumps to the same conclusions as NIST, conclusions that fly in the face of the laws of physics.

watch the animation

"The aircraft moved through the building as if it were a hot and fast lava flow," Mete Sozen, a professor of structural engineering and a lead investigator says. "Consequently, much of the fireproofing insulation was ripped off the structure. Even if all of the columns and girders had survived the impact - an unlikely event - the structure would fail as the result of a buckling of the columns. The heat from an ordinary office fire would suffice to soften and weaken the unprotected steel. Evaluation of the effects of the fire on the core column structure, with the insulation removed by the impact, showed that collapse would follow whatever the number of columns cut at the time of the impact."

There are a number of problems with these claims. Lets take them one by one:

1. Even if the fireproofing had been removed the idea that a regular office fire could weaken steel and cause buckling requires a leap of faith to say the least.

Statements made by Kevin Ryan of Underwriters Laboratories, the company that certified the steel components used in the construction of the World Trade Center towers confirm that the claim is ridiculous. In a 2004 letter to NIST Ryan wrote:

We know that the steel components were certified to ASTM E119. The time temperature curves for this standard require the samples to be exposed to temperatures around 2000F for several hours. And as we all agree, the steel applied met those specifications. Additionally, I think we can all agree that even un-fireproofed steel will not melt until reaching red-hot temperatures of nearly 3000F.

Now I'm no physicist but given that Jet fuel doesn't even burn to those temperatures (No fuel, not even jet fuel, which is really just refined kerosene, will burn hotter than 1500 degrees Fahrenheit) the idea that "ordinary office fires" would is patently farcical.

2. Intense fires lasted only minutes

The NIST report states that: “The initial jet fuel fires themselves lasted at most a few minutes and office material fires would burn out within about 20 minutes in a given location." (NIST, 2005; p. 179.)

This is further corroborated by the fact that intense dark choking smoke was being emitted from the towers before they collapsed indicating the fires were oxygen starved and burning at low temperatures.

In addition NIST stated that of the more than 170 areas examined on 16 perimeter column panels, only three columns had evidence that the steel reached temperatures above 250ºC… Only two core column specimens had sufficient paint remaining to make such an analysis, and their temperatures did not reach 250 ºC. … Using metallographic analysis, NIST determined that there was no evidence that any of the samples had reached temperatures above 600 ºC. (NIST, 2005, pp. 176-177)

At any given location, the duration of [air, not steel] temperatures near 1,000oC was about 15 min to 20 min. The rest of the time, the calculated temperatures were near 500oC or below.” (NIST, 2005, p. 127, emphasis added.)

In addition the firefighter tapes released to the New York Times clearly indicate that right before the towers collapsed the fires were minimal and under control.

So even if you believe unprotected steel can be melted by office material fires, the official NIST report states those fires would not last more than 20 minutes and also states that beams recovered show that they were not exposed to high enough temperatures to be significantly weakened.

3. The study contradicts multiple statements made by the structural engineers who designed the buildings:

Ayhan Irfanoglu, a Purdue professor of civil engineering, said half of the building's weight-bearing columns were concentrated at the cores of the towers.

"When that part is wiped out, the structure comes down," Irfanoglu said. "We design structures with some extra capacity to cover some uncertainties, but we never anticipate such heavy demand coming from an aircraft impact. If the columns were distributed, maybe, the fire could not take them out so easily."

This is directly contradicted by the following statements from the designers of the buildings:

“A previous analysis [by WTC building designers], carried out early in 1964, calculated that the towers would handle the impact of a 707 traveling at 600 mph without collapsing”[2]

(Between Early 1984 and October 1985):

“However, O’Sullivan consults ‘one of the trade center’s original structural engineers, Les Robertson, on whether the towers would collapse because of a bomb or a collision with a slow-moving airplane.’ He is told there is ‘little likelihood of a collapse no matter how the building was attacked.’”[3]

1993

“[Building designer] John Skilling recounts his people having carried out an analysis which found the twin towers could withstand the impact of a Boeing 707. Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel (from the airplane) would dump into the building. There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed.” But, he says, “The building structure would still be there.”[4]

“The analysis Skilling is referring to is likely one done in early 1964, during the design phase of the towers. A three-page white paper, dated February 3, 1964, described its findings: “The buildings have been investigated and found to be safe in an assumed collision with a large jet airliner (Boeing 707—DC 8) traveling at 600 miles per hour. Analysis indicates that such collision would result in only local damage which could not cause collapse or substantial damage to the building and would not endanger the lives and safety of occupants not in the immediate area of impact.” However, besides this paper, no documents are known detailing how this analysis was made.”[5]

2001

“Leslie Robertson, one of the two original structural engineers for the World Trade Center, is asked at a conference in Frankfurt, Germany what he had done to protect the twin towers from terrorist attacks. He replies, ‘I designed it for a 707 to smash into it,’ though does not elaborate further.”[6]

[Leslie Robertson:] “The twin towers were in fact the first structures outside the military and nuclear industries designed to resist the impact of a jet airplane.”[7]

[Frank A. Demartini:] “The building was designed to have a fully loaded 707 crash into it. That was the largest plane at the time. I believe that the building probably could sustain multiple impacts of jetliners because this structure is like the mosquito netting on your screen door -- this intense grid -- and the jet plane is just a pencil puncturing that screen netting. It really does nothing to the screen netting.” Frank A. Demartini, on-site construction manager for the World Trade Center, spoke of the resilience of the towers in an interview recorded on January 25, 2001.[8]

Sept 3-7, 2001—just before 9/11

“The Boeing 707 was the largest in use when the towers were designed. [Leslie] Robertson conducted a study in late 1964, to calculate the effect of a 707 weighing 263,000 pounds and traveling at 180 mph crashing into one of the towers. [Robertson] concluded that the tower would remain standing. However, no official report of his study has ever surfaced publicly.”[9]

4. The study, like NIST's, only focuses on a portion of the building:

"To estimate the serious damage to the World Trade Center core columns, we assembled a detailed numerical model of the impacting aircraft as well as a detailed numerical model of the top 20 stories of the building," Sozen says. "We then used weeks of supercomputer time over a number of years to simulate the event in many credible angles of impact of the aircraft."

So they only focused on 20 stories of the building.

In a similar fashion NIST admitted that it didn't even attempt to model the undamaged portions of the buildings and only modeled a portion of each tower in any detail -- its "global floor model" which consisted of "several stories below the impact area to the top of the structure." Thus the structurally intact floors 1-91 of WTC 1 and floors 1-77 of WTC 2 were excluded from the so called "global" models of the towers. NIST provides no evidence that its model even predicted "collapse initiation".

Neither the NIST report nor the new Purdue report nor any other report has ever explained how all of the critical columns can suffer buckling at the same time to precipitate the complete and nearly symmetrical collapse observed.

Physics Professor Steven Jones points out that the total annihilation of the building, core columns and all, defies the laws of physics unless it was artificially exploded:

"Where is the delay that must be expected due to conservation of momentum – one of the foundational Laws of Physics? That is, as upper-falling floors strike lower floors – and intact steel support columns – the fall must be significantly impeded by the impacted mass. If the central support columns remained standing, then the effective resistive mass would be less, but this is not the case – somehow the enormous support columns failed/disintegrated along with the falling floor pans."

More unexplainable mysteries:

The study does not explain how the concrete in the buildings was completely pulverized.

The study does not explain the presence of molten metal at the base of the buildings after their collapse, which was confirmed by multiple sources as well as eyewitnesses.

The study does not even take into account building 7 which was not hit by a plane and collapsed in 6.5 seconds into its own footprint at 5.30pm. The fireproofing in that building was certainly not dislodged yet all its core columns collapsed at exactly the same time despite fire (caused by falling debris from the towers) being restricted to just a few floors.

In addition there are literally hundreds of eyewitnesses, including reporters, firefighters and rescue workers, who stated that they heard explosions prior to the collapses. There were so many that CNN's news feed even displayed the words "Third Explosion collapses World Trade Center" and the FBI announced that they believed secondary devices were involved.

Yesterday we revealed details of another high level official who is on record stating that he witnessed explosions in building 7 before either tower collapsed.

In conclusion the new study, like NIST's before it, is yet another case of a body attempting to prove a pre-determined hypothesis. It does not discount any of the points we have continually raised and does not make the case for an independent investigation any less imperative.

[1] http://www.911blogger.com/blog/877

[2] Paul Thompson’s Complete 9/11 Timeline: (see February 27, 1993)

[3] http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/entity.jsp? entity=leslie_robertson

See here: [Glanz and Lipton, 2004, pp. 227; New York County Supreme Court, 1/20/2004]

[4] [Seattle Times, 2/27/1993]

[5] [Glanz and Lipton, 2004, pp. 131-132; Lew, Bukowski, and Carino, 10/2005, pp. 70-71]

[6] [Chicago Tribune, 9/12/2001; Knight Ridder, 9/12/2001]

[7] [Robertson, 3/2002; Federal Emergency Management Agency, 5/1/2002, pp. 1- 17]

[8] http://www.prisonplane t.com/articles/november2004/ 141104designedtotake.htm

[9] [Glanz and Lipton, 2004, pp. 138-139, 366]

Comments (41) | Trackback

Mark

"I was real close to Building 7 when it fell down... That didn't sound like just a building falling down to me while I was running away from it. There's a lot of eyewitness testimony down there of hearing explosions. [..] and the whole time you're hearing "boom, boom, boom, boom, boom." I think I know an explosion when I hear it... — Former NYC Police Officer and 9/11 Rescue Worker Craig Bartmer

Kamala  posted on  2007-06-21   9:10:29 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Purdue sucks.

"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win." ~ Mahatma Ghandi

wudidiz  posted on  2007-06-21   9:53:36 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

OH MY GOODNESS!

"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win." ~ Mahatma Ghandi

wudidiz  posted on  2007-06-21   10:16:45 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/june2007/210607Purdue.htm

Purdue 9/11 Study: Rebuttal

Russell Gentile

Prison Planet

Thursday June 21, 2007

A Purdue University computer simulation of the 9/11 World Trade Center attacks shows a 3-D animation of how the hijacked airplanes plowed into the towers, stripping fireproofing material and causing the skyscrapers to collapse. (June 18

http://video.aol.com/video/computer- simulates-world-trade-center- attacks/1928677

Now to counter this which I consider more propaganda.

Let us assume this is possible. Then an explaination needs to be made of the complete collapse of WTC 7 which was not hit by a plane in 6.5 seconds in it's own neat footprint. How could this cause molten pools of metal?

To counter this I'll add excerpts from my paper which can be found online called - 9-11: Can You Handle The Truth? Please click on the supporting video links and you be the judge. Steve Watson from http: //www.prisonplanet.com is quoted also in this rebuttal. WTC 7 and TWIN TOWERS

The media never fully investigated issues like the "official" cause of the twin towers collapse , their speed of collapse, the demolition style, and one of the biggest smoking guns of them all, the incredible "collapse" of Building 7.

Never before in the history of man had steel structures like this collapsed due to fire, especially in the way these did. Building 7, not hit by an airplane and right next to or further than significantly more damaged burning buildings that did not collapse, collapsed perfectly and "symmetrically" in demolition style in about 6.5 seconds into its own neat footprint.

News reports at the time remarked how significantly similar this collapse looked to controlled demolitions. This included Dan Rather and other prominent mainstream media personnel. For a short video of this go here. Most people today are unaware of the collapse of this building. Go here to listen and view a live report on ABC with Peter Jennings describe the similarities of demolition from the first tower collapse.

The ABC correspondent mentions demolition, and Peter Jennings repeats this, then amazingly, the eyewitness who is a quarter of a mile away, changes his tune to describe the overwhelming fire, which was actually burning cold (thick black smoke) and the top of the building weakened caused the collapse. Nice pancake collapse theory (official theory) on the spot, after first admitting it looked like controlled demolition. Very strange wouldn't you say?

Neither the Media nor any government agency ever fully investigated or explained how the BBC reported Building 7's collapse a full 20 minutes before it happened. This discovery in particular led to a firestorm of controversy on the internet. The media never fully investigated nor held to task the leaseholder of the WTC complex Larry Silverstein, when he said on a PBS documentary that they decided to "pull" WTC 7. To watch a quick video of this go here. Here is another video.

For extensive analysis and follow-up go here.

To quote Wikipedia: Silverstein said: "We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it. And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse." Silverstein's spokesperson, Dara McQuillan, said in September 2005 that by "pull it" Silverstein was referring to the contingent of firefighters remaining in the building, and confirming that they should evacuate the premises."

It is interesting that it took almost a full 2 years to get an official response for this strange statement and no media or 9-11 Commission inquiry compelled the response. Patriotic citizens trying to gather facts helped force this revelation. That being said, the spokesperson's claims are dubious at best.

On the very same PBS documentary Silverstein used the term "pull", another expert at the WTC clean-up also used the term pull to obviously mean demolish while describing how WTC 6 was going to be brought down. According to researcher Steve Watson, "The insurmountable problem with this explanation of Silverstein's statement is that there were no firefighters inside WTC 7."

Watson's thesis includes: "The FEMA report on the collapses, from May, 2002, says about the WTC 7 collapse: "no manual firefighting operations were taken by FDNY."

And an article by James Glanz in the New York Times on November 29, 2001 says about WTC 7: "By 11:30 a.m., the fire commander in charge of that area, Assistant Chief Frank Fellini, ordered firefighters away from it for safety reasons."

Watson adds, "Furthermore, even if he did mean "pull the firefighters" then why did he say "pull it", with no reference to anything other than the building?

Consider also the timing: "they made that decision to pull and then we watched the building collapse." Could it really be possible that some (nonexistent) fire brigade was removed from the building and just at that moment ("then") the building collapsed? Is there really any doubt here about what Silverstein meant?"

Silverstein ultimately made billions of dollars in insurance claims he had conveniently established before 9-11, having coverage that included terrorist attacks. According to Watson, "We have an owner who let slip that the building was "pulled" and we have firefighters on video telling people to get back as the building was going to ' blow up.'"

It takes weeks, maybe even months to plan demolitions of this nature. How did this happen? No investigation. No media analysis or pursuit from any government agency including the 9-11 Commission.

MOLTEN METAL AND CORE COLUMNS ERASED FROM MEDIA

The media never fully investigated why there were impossible pools of molten metal at all three collapses. Amazing video of streams of molten metal can be seen flowing out of the building right before the collapse. Also check pictures and analysis here.

Jet fuel cannot possibly get hot enough to melt steel let alone cause steel to become molten and stay that way for weeks. The media never fully investigated the false claims that the Twin Towers were built poorly when these were some of the most robust, extensive structures with massive core columns and redundant steel sub frames, steel outer meshing, and steel networks designed to survive multiple plane strikes of similar severity that hit them on Sept. 11th.

The 9-11 Commission Report denied the very existence of these massive, over- engineered core columns!! Instead they stated that the core of each of the Twin Towers was "a hollow steel shaft".

The media never fully investigated evidence of thermite or thermate which is routinely used to cut heavy steel and which photo evidence shows columns in the debris cut at 45 degree angles common with massive demolitions. A great Google video montage can be viewed here on this.

Mark

"I was real close to Building 7 when it fell down... That didn't sound like just a building falling down to me while I was running away from it. There's a lot of eyewitness testimony down there of hearing explosions. [..] and the whole time you're hearing "boom, boom, boom, boom, boom." I think I know an explosion when I hear it... — Former NYC Police Officer and 9/11 Rescue Worker Craig Bartmer

Kamala  posted on  2007-06-21   14:30:56 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

http://www.cs.purdue.edu/homes/cmh/simulation/phase3/WTC-1_EP.pdf [PDF]

http://tinyurl.com/29nld6 [HTML]

The Purdue cartoon, funded with U.S. taxpayer dollars from the National Science Foundation, guesses that the number of core columns severed or heavily damaged is double the NIST worst case estimate.

The Purdue cartoon then finds that the building would collapse when the core reached 700ºC.

Of course, no test found that any steel sample reached a temperature anywhere near 700ºC.

"The demand and full-core capacity curves in Figure 11 suggest that if 95th story core columns had free heights of 3.6 m, i.e. if they were restrained at the top and bottom of the story, when the core reached approximately 700ºC, the structure would not be able to sustain the axial loads from the stories above and a core collapse would be initiated."

* * *

THE PURDUE DAMAGE ESTIMATE

Table 1. Number of core columns estimated to be destroyed or heavily damaged during the aircraft impact.

Location - No of damaged columns
Story 99 ............. 1
Story 98 ............. 1
Story 97 ............ 16
Story 96 ............ 14
Story 95 ............ 17
Story 94 ............. 3

THE NIST DAMAGE ESTIMATE

• Less Severe Impact Analysis ... 1 severed + 2 heavily damaged; story 96

nolu_chan  posted on  2007-06-22   21:34:10 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Again, nothing more than a computer research project.

Purdue has even more damage than the other reports. Are the "magical soffits" still intact to jack up the computer thermal temps?

Please, this "study" is nonsense.

Mark

"I was real close to Building 7 when it fell down... That didn't sound like just a building falling down to me while I was running away from it. There's a lot of eyewitness testimony down there of hearing explosions. [..] and the whole time you're hearing "boom, boom, boom, boom, boom." I think I know an explosion when I hear it... — Former NYC Police Officer and 9/11 Rescue Worker Craig Bartmer

Kamala  posted on  2007-06-23   7:00:48 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Hey! Look who showed up at the JREF forums.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php? p=2713931#post2713931

Mark

"I was real close to Building 7 when it fell down... That didn't sound like just a building falling down to me while I was running away from it. There's a lot of eyewitness testimony down there of hearing explosions. [..] and the whole time you're hearing "boom, boom, boom, boom, boom." I think I know an explosion when I hear it... — Former NYC Police Officer and 9/11 Rescue Worker Craig Bartmer

Kamala  posted on  2007-06-23   13:01:05 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

More funded propaganda from 2002.

http://www .purdue.edu/UNS/html4ever/020910.Sozen.Pentagon.html

Mark

"I was real close to Building 7 when it fell down... That didn't sound like just a building falling down to me while I was running away from it. There's a lot of eyewitness testimony down there of hearing explosions. [..] and the whole time you're hearing "boom, boom, boom, boom, boom." I think I know an explosion when I hear it... — Former NYC Police Officer and 9/11 Rescue Worker Craig Bartmer

Kamala  posted on  2007-06-23   13:51:08 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Please, this "study" is nonsense.

This study proves that you can get government grants of millions of dollars (if you will assume, in the absence of evidence, that the core was heated to 700ºC, and you simply remove core columns until a collapse is initiated).

They assume that core columns in the flightpath, for the entire depth of the building, were severed or severely damaged. It is not clear if this would affect the indestructible soffits. If only they had made the core columns using the same material they used for the soffits!

nolu_chan  posted on  2007-06-23   16:06:33 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Sign-in]  [Mail]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register]