physorg.com — Researchers at Purdue University have created a simulation that uses scientific principles to study in detail what likely happened when a commercial airliner crashed into the World Trade Center's North Tower on Sept. 11, 2001.
Sep 11, 2006 View in Crawl 4
lucasvbSep 12, 2006
There were no explosives, and these simulations have been showing that the towers collapsed purely from the damage caused by the plane crashes and the resulting fire.So please, don't believe these goddamn conspiracy theories. Things were bad enough as they truly were.
corduroySep 12, 2006
The big conspiracy is that people don't understand the characteristics of metals. The story on the simulation doesn't go into details and I wish it had. All it says is that they tested some characteristics and proceed to show a wire-frame of one of the buildings... Now, I'm a Biology major with a year in physics, chem, ochem, etc. But that article really makes it seem that the simulation didn't do much.OK, a property of metals is that they expand and contract depending on temperature. It's not only of metals but of nearly all materials. This is why railroad tracks have centimeter gaps in them, concrete/steal bridges have sections that expand/contract, mercury in thermometers, etc. This is called thermal expansion.12 feet of steel that undergoes 80 degrees F change, will change it's length by 0.075 inches (coefficient of expansion x change in temperature x length). That doesn't seem like much but the metal was much longer than 12 feet and the temperatures increased to roughly 1600 degrees F. It appears (as hard as it is to believe) that the simulation *only* took this into account. However, if the metal expands, the rivets that held floors together are also pushed farther from each other, increasing stress. Another property of metals is that they becomes substantially weaker the hotter they get, if they didn't, blacksmiths' jobs would be much harder.Now there's a combination of increased stress of holding a floor (or floors) combined with decreased tensile strength due to increased temperatures. It appears that the floor supports (rivets, support beams, etc) would not be able to hold a very heavy floor (especially under severe conditions), it falls down, increases the tension of the floor supports under that floor by at least 2x, that fails and a cascading effect would be seen. Furthermore, the exterior "skin" of the WTC towers would fall after the floors and inwards because they were load-bearing walls and constructed of steel that weren't put to the same stresses as the main floor supports in the center of the buiding. When a cake goes flat, the middle sinks and the sides stay up.That articles seem to fail to mention whether they took into account the inter-dependencies of the materials and parts.
Closed AccountSep 12, 2006
You're all misusing the term 'conspiracy theory'.It is a *theory* that 19 hijackers *conspired* to hijack and fly planes into various buildings.It is only fact if you believe the official account in the official media, rather than actually looking at the facts of the day (you do realise that the official account has changed multiple times to try and explain the vast amounts of new contradictory evidence that has come to light?)It is a *theory* that the US government *conspired* to cause effectively a 'new Pearl Harbour', as the Project For a New American Century (whose members now run the government) said needed to happen to further global American dominance. If you look at the current FACTS of the case (NOT what the big media tell you, which is NOT fact) - by this I mean actual video and audio records from the day, witness testimony, and all the other associated facts and evidence to back it up (material evidence, laws of physics etc.), out of the two conspiracy theories it is the latter which holds by far the greatest weight.And one things for sure - anyone who solely believes what the big media has told them about 9/11 now believes a lie. Those who look for themselves are the true patriots.
suckfoneSep 12, 2006
@sakuraz: looks like someone has read maddox lately...
coldchilliSep 12, 2006
GO BOILERS!!!
doghumpsmonkeySep 12, 2006
"OBL even came out DENYING it right after 9-11 in subsequent videos even pointing to 'inside' job for it.."Well, if you can't believe Osama, who can you believe?I'm getting tired of the whole "anyone that doesn't believe the conspiracy hasn't looked at the facts" routine. I have looked at the facts, have you? After looking at the facts, it seems clear to me that 19 men orchestrated a devastating attack that we were ill prepared for. The result of that attack was the World Trade Center ended up in a pile of rubble. The reasons these buildings collapsed has been thoroughly explained by scientists, engineers and architects, both public and private. These people are dealing in facts. The loosechange crowd deals in fantasy and wishful thinking. For whatever reason, they need to think it was something more than what it was: An act of terror committed by those that think murder and mayhem are valid political tools.If you want to delude yourself into believe this was some grand conspiracy, be my guest. Just try not to get to mad when the rational "sheeple" laugh at you.
guitarsenalSep 13, 2006
* There's also the fact that WTC buildings 1, 2, and 7 are the _only_ steel structure high rise buildings _ever_ to sustain total structural failure "due to fire". There's also the fact that the WTC towers _were_ hit by planes and _did_ collapse. The probability that this event happened is 1.0.Why don't you conspiracy guys go for the whole enchilada and prove that the towers actually didn't fall (because that was clearly impossible), and are secretly still there?
Closed AccountJun 13, 2007
Purdue Rocks, sorry Rosie truthers owned.
greenmtboyJun 14, 2007
This is a poorly based simulation, not unlike their Pentagon simulation, IIRC. In the first place, half of the 10,000 gallons of fuel blew up on impact, and the second half burned off within minutes. Forensic data from NIST shows that the core columns were not heated past 500 F. These guys treat the columns like they would melt like butter without fireproofing. I've got news for y'all... Tests have been conducted in decades to follow the building of the WTC, where steel-framed buildings were stuffed with flammables and lit on fire, and the steel was later analyzed. In these tests, the columns were never heated past 650 F, and in the WTC, we don't have samples past 500 F. At that temperature, they don't lose strength.Every column and beam in these towers were welded together. In fact, even the steel floor pans were welded to horizontal members running around them, on both the core and perimeter sides. This is a 100,000 ton contigous (welded) steel structure, and it wicks heat quite effectively. That's why it doesn't come close to the temperatures of the flames. Now, let's look at it like mechanical engineers Gordon Ross or Tony Szamboti would, and look into the mechanics of these towers, and see what they can handle. You can find what you're looking for at the Journal of 911 Studies (www.journalof911studies.com) and Architects and Engineers for 911 Truth (www.ae911truth.org). This is also supported by a cadre of architects of AE911Truth. That the initiation of collapse was not possible based upon NIST figures - that 20% of the columns gone was not enought oconsider failure, especially since the fires did not weaken the structure further. That what was really needed was to take out half of the columns on a given floor to compromise the buildings ability to deal with its gravitational load. Lateral loading with missing columns is a given in this type of structural design, and all the columns and beams are welded together to support that. The fact that all the columns above and below a collapse point are welded gives the overall structure strength under these conditions. With half the columns on a lower floor gone, the only load the building would not be able to handle would be additional, environmental forces, such as high winds or seismic stresses. When we get beyond the matter of debating collapse intiation, at the 80th or 90th floor, depending upon which tower we're referring to, we're talking about global tower collapse - all into debris. What the papers by Gordon Ross and Tony Szamboti (I think) clearly show is that there's no way that the top 20 or 30 floors are going to crush the 80 or 90 floors beneath them. The falling mass will crush itself against an ever-greater (tapering) column width, alot of debris will befalling off to the side, and the structure underneath will soon prevail. This is what we see when we go into the physics of it - check the exchange between Gordon Ross and Frank Greening (Greening tried arguing Ross down, but Ross used Greening's variables, and proved his point anyways - you can't overcome the underlying steel structure!) Outside of controlled demolition, noone has to date provided a satisfactory argument for the global collapses. And there you have it.