Purdue computer simulation of 9/11 attacks

[Cowperson]

Just to light a firecracker . . . .

Scientists at Purdue University have completed a two-year study and produced a computer simulation demonstrating how single airliners were able to bring down the World Trade Center towers in New York on 9/11.

The purpose of the study was to give structural engineers information on how these kinds of structural failures can be prevented in future events.

You can read the story and activate the simulation here:

http://www.purdue.edu/uns/x/2007a/07...ffmannWTC.html

No doubt there will be some out there who will disagree with this.

Cowperson

[calculoso]

Amazing work

[Cube Inmate]

Yeah, they've got fancy graphics, but until they can replicate the collapse with a 1/1000 scale model made of toothpicks and chicken wire, I'll never be convinced.

[FlamingLonghorn]

Did they include all the bombs that Bush and Cheney planted inside the building the day before the "attacks"?

[Frank the Tank]

Sort of off topic, but not really....where is Looger?

[Burninator]

Originally Posted by Frank the Tank

Sort of off topic, but not really....where is Looger?

Yeah I was thinking that too. He was always good to get a debate going.

Maybe people starting agreeing with him and buying into his conspiracy's, so he left.

Also where is Cheese? He pops in every once and a while, but I haven't seem much at all in the past couple months.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Frank the Tank

Sort of off topic, but not really....where is Looger?

In the sin bin.

Don't know why.

I saw this article a few days ago...didn't want to post it because certain people here seem to have a problem believing all the structural engineers who have complied information in this simulation and the NIST report, explaining how the towers fell.

I guess all these people are part of the conspiracy too.

[Frank the Tank]

Originally Posted by Azure

In the sin bin.

Don't know why.

I saw this article a few days ago...didn't want to post it because certain people here seem to have a problem believing all the structural engineers who have complied information in this simulation and the NIST report, explaining how the towers fell.

I guess all these people are part of the conspiracy too.

Thats hilarious. I read it a couple of days ago as well, or maybe yesterday, can't remember....anyhow, I didn't post it for the exact same reason.

[Burninator]

Originally Posted by Azure

In the sin bin.

Don't know why.

I couldn't find his name in the members list.

Perhaps he knew too much and the government had him erased.

[Frank the Tank]

Originally Posted by fotze

Is that your kid in your avatar? Good, it helps remind me how stupid you are!

Haha! Oh you're such an arse! Hahaahhaaaaaaa!!

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Burninator

I couldn't find his name in the members list.

Perhaps he knew too much and the government had him erased.

If you read through past threads where we was posted something....it says he is in the sin bin.

I think it was the government...so sudden, his disappearance and all.

[Bobblehead]

Originally Posted by Azure

In the sin bin.

Don't know why.

I saw this article a few days ago...didn't want to post it because certain people here seem to have a problem believing all the structural engineers who have complied information in this simulation and the NIST report, explaining how the towers fell.

I guess all these people are part of the conspiracy too.

What would structural engineers with years of experience know about something like that? Everyone knows you can find out everything you really need to know on the internet.

Next you'll be telling us man has actually walked on the moon. pfft.

[Bobblehead]

Originally Posted by Burninator

I couldn't find his name in the members list.

Perhaps he knew too much and the government had him erased.

If they're in the Sin Bin you can't search for them (I guess it is a forum setting).

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Bobblehead

What would structural engineers with years of experience know about something like that? Everyone knows you can find out everything you really need to know on the internet.

Next you'll be telling us man has actually walked on the moon. pfft.

Pretty much.

[ken0042]

Well duh! Everybody knows the first people on the moon were whalers.
http://www.gotfuturama.com/Informati...s/lyrics.dhtml

[worth]

One thing we need to consider is that there are structural engineers, physicists and other academics on the opositeside of the argument as well. It's not like 100% of the scientists are on one side, and only crazy people in their basement on the computer are on the other side.

Also one other thing to conisider is that, from what I can see anyway, these people are examinimg the collapse of WTC 1 and 2, while WTC 7 also collapsed that day which wasn't hit by a plane. I think that's the kicker for most people who are skeptacle.

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Originally Posted by worth

One thing we need to consider is that there are structural engineers, physicists and other academics on the opositeside of the argument as well. It's not like 100% of the scientists are on one side, and only crazy people in their basement on the computer are on the other side.

Also one other thing to conisider is that, from what I can see anyway, these people are examinimg the collapse of WTC 1 and 2, while WTC 7 also collapsed that day which wasn't hit by a plane. I think that's the kicker for most people who are skeptacle.

I'd really like to see some links to CREDIBLE scientists who have actually shown that the planes could not have caused the collapses.

As for WTC 7. I for one do not think it is so far fetched that it is possible that two 100 storey buildings collapsing across the street from another builging could possibly cause severe structural damage to that other building.

[Burninator]

The scientists that claim something else caused the attack always seem to be focused on one thing, and one thing alone. Like the guy with the thermite (or whatever it is). Where as this study takes a multitude of scientists from several disciplines and produces a finding.

And I am not going to believe some internet nerd who has pieced together youtube videos and uncovered a conspiracy. Gimme a break. Or some quote of a guy saying "we had to pull the building." That could mean anything, especially when you take it out of context.

The WTC 7 I would like to know more about as well as the pentagon. There are things about both of those that don't seem to add up. But I won't jump on the conspiracy bandwagon until I see real evidence or at least a compelling case. Just because all the details aren't there, doesn't mean there is a conspiracy. The leap to that doesn't make sense in my mind.

[JBR]

Cool. Too bad they couldn't construct Greg Brady's volcano!

[ken0042]