Purdue computer simulation of 9/11 attacks

[Regorium]

Originally Posted by Burninator

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.

Basically. This is what I want as well. I have no problem believing how two massive planes can blow up the two buildings.

I don't understand how WTC 7 fell (yes, a simulation and scientific data would help).

And the pentagon was weird because I don't like how they released file footage of the plane hitting it, but even though it is a state of the art facility, the best picture we can get is extremely grainy, blurry, and about 1 FPS. It just feels like there's something to hide.

Also, it was extremely weird that the plane had a direct angle on high ranking officers' offices (the front), but it made a 270 degree turn at extremely low altitude to hit the only part of the pentagon that was renovated to resist a direct impact. Also this happened to be in a storage room with very few people working there at the time.

Conspiracy? Naw, I just want more data to satiate myself.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Regorium

Also, it was extremely weird that the plane had a direct angle on high ranking officers' offices (the front), but it made a 270 degree turn at extremely low altitude to hit the only part of the pentagon that was renovated to resist a direct impact. Also this happened to be in a storage room with very few people working there at the time.

What is so weird about that? It's not like these guys were good enough to pick out specific offices. They just wanted to hit the building.

[Regorium]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

What is so weird about that? It's not like these guys were good enough to pick out specific offices. They just wanted to hit the building.

Well exactly. They had a direct angle into the front of the pentagon, yet they flew over it, did a 270 degree turn, and hit the side instead.

If they were such bad pilots that they failed out of pilot school, why try such a risky manuveur when the target is right in front of you?

Again...it COULD be due to the fact that they were too high up and miscalculated the distance so they needed some extra distance to lower themselves a bit. I'm no pilot, so I'm not exactly sure of the physics of the situation, but I would love for someone to explain it to me.

[Burninator]

I haven't heard about the wierd flight pattern, that doesn't really point to misdoings imo. But some things that never made sense to me are:

The hole in the pentagon is a lot smaller than a plane. The wings would do a lot of damage too. Same with the tail. That should have taken down part of the roof, but it didn't appear to.

It didn't go very far into the building. The planes that hit the towers had damage go out the other side. Now speed of the planes could be a factor here.

I've also heard that there isn't any plane wreckage. This just what I've heard, there very well could be a couple tons of it recovered.

Lack of video. How such a high security building have one terrible angle of the impact? A angle that doesn't show anything outside of an explosion. It could be that they haven't released it, but I don't see any reason why they wouldn't.

Still none of these things point to a conspiracy, but some of them I wouldn't mind seeing answers to.

EDIT: I wouldn't be surprised to see answers for everyone of these points, as I am sure some of these videos on the internet that talk about 9/11 leave information out to make their theory work.

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Originally Posted by Burninator

The hole in the pentagon is a lot smaller than a plane. The wings would do a lot of damage too. Same with the tail. That should have taken down part of the roof, but it didn't appear to.

It didn't go very far into the building. The planes that hit the towers had damage go out the other side. Now speed of the planes could be a factor here.

Keep in mind that one of these buildings is a concrete fortress that is built to house the most important people in the American Military, and the other is a glass and steel office building. Comparing the damage to these two is like comparing the damage done if two Honda Civics were to run into a pickup truck and a tank. Can't really infer much about one from the other.

[Muta]

Originally Posted by Regorium

I don't understand how WTC 7 fell (yes, a simulation and scientific data would help).

My current boss lived and worked about 2 blocks away from WTC 7 the day when it fell. She 110% guarantees it was from immense heat melting the metal core at the base of the building.

[ken0042]

Originally Posted by Regorium

Again...it COULD be due to the fact that they were too high up and miscalculated the distance so they needed some extra distance to lower themselves a bit. I'm no pilot, so I'm not exactly sure of the physics of the situation, but I would love for someone to explain it to me.

I recall seeing news reports that light posts 100s of metres away had been knocked down. It could very well be that they were aiming low, got too low, over corrected back up, and overshot it. Or it could have been something else entirely.

I have very limited piloting experience, but maintaining a window of a few dozen feet above the ground is enough of a challenge; never mind in-experienced pilots trying to avoid other ground obsticals like light posts, etc.

[moon]

So one of the theories or part of it is that the government after taking down the two main towers didn't think that would be enough so they said "lets take down number 7. That will be the event that will rile the people up. Those two 100 story towers won't be enough." Doesn't believing that seem insane?

[Cowboy89]

Funny how nerds in their basement justify the 'nerds in the basement' arguement. Sorry your hate for Cheeny and Bush isn't powerful enough to refute real life. Yes they head up a horrible administration but it doesn't mean they blew up the towers. Fact is the 'scientists' who take exception to the truth only offer anecdotal evidence comepletely devoid of any access to the site to even gather real evidence. It's all fine and dandy if you want to live and die by anecdotal evidence but using that logic all anyone needs to do anything in life (including things beyond one's capacity is an internet connection and a little imagination.

[MacDougalbry]

Stephen Lewis, Canada's leading pinko socialist, actually saw the plane that hit the pentagon. I heard him discuss it in a radio interview. Bush must have bought him off too!

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Regorium

If they were such bad pilots that they failed out of pilot school, why try such a risky manuveur when the target is right in front of you?

Nothing is too risky for a pilot who plans on being dead at the end of the flight.

I must admit I don't know anything about this "they were going to hit a part of the building with high ranking people in it but changed course", but if that happened, it doesn't seem suspicious or weird to me. They were crazy people on a suicide mission. Their lives and beliefs were already ######ed. If they took a crazy turn, so what? Crazy people take crazy turns.

[Burninator]

Originally Posted by Bring_Back_Shantz

Keep in mind that one of these buildings is a concrete fortress that is built to house the most important people in the American Military, and the other is a glass and steel office building. Comparing the damage to these two is like comparing the damage done if two Honda Civics were to run into a pickup truck and a tank. Can't really infer much about one from the other.

I think you are underestimating an office tower, especially the strength of the twin towers. There is a lot of forces on a building of such massive proportions. Just to keep them standing is an engineering marvel. For example there is a lot of consideration that goes into the windows so they don't get sucked out because of the wind pressure alone.

Either way, I know the pentagon is built to with stand attacks. And I don't believe there was any foul play involved. Like a missile or any kooky stuff like that. As far as WTC 7 is concerned I agree with moon. It doesn't make any sense why someone would believe that. But like I said in my post I am more then open to evidence that showcase what really happened. I haven't invested much time into looking at the attacks. But just doing a quick search I have already found a lengthy analysis of the pentagon attack. Link. When I compare it to the videos that I have seen, that propose a plane didn't hit the building, they are not showing a lot of the same information. Not really a surprise as I stated before "I am sure some of these videos on the internet that talk about 9/11 leave information out to make their theory work." It's hard to take the other theories seriously when they are not showing all the information.

[worth]

This site says suggests this simulation isn't an independent investigation as it is claimed because the study was funded by the NSF which was created by the Government. Currently, the members of the board that sit on the NSF were appointed by George Bush.

Read it here:

http://truthorlies.org/911trutharticle015.html

[Cowperson]

Originally Posted by worth

This site says suggests this simulation isn't an independent investigation as it is claimed because the study was funded by the NSF which was created by the Government. Currently, the members of the board that sit on the NSF were appointed by George Bush.

Read it here:

http://truthorlies.org/911trutharticle015.html

A predictable response . . . . since it was also part of the response given to Purdue's study of the Pentagon attack a few years ago.

That's a lot of scientists at Purdue who need to be part of the conspiracy.

The government bought bingo. Ever wonder why all the mods are RIGHT WINGERS?

I can think of three moderators off the top of my head who have, in the past, posted sympathetically in conspiracy threads like this.

Of course, I'm not one of them.

Cowperson

[worth]

Perhaps predictable, but is it worth mentioning? Absolutley.

[halibut]

This is a very interesting thread. I find this topic interesting because of a video that I watched not too long ago talking about the conspiricy theory behind the towers fall. Whether or not it was the american government that was drumming up support to attack different areas of the world that they felt didn't follow the same morality of the States but the evidence is very conclusive to a preplanting of explosives in the building before the planes hit.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by halibut

This is a very interesting thread. I find this topic interesting because of a video that I watched not too long ago talking about the conspiricy theory behind the towers fall. Whether or not it was the american government that was drumming up support to attack different areas of the world that they felt didn't follow the same morality of the States but the evidence is very conclusive to a preplanting of explosives in the building before the planes hit.

Would this video be Loose Change?

[Cowperson]

Originally Posted by worth

Perhaps predictable, but is it worth mentioning? Absolutley.

From the point of view of someone who needs a conspiracy to make sense of his world, it is indeed worth mentioning since it helps disqualify something contrary to his belief.

All sides of an argument engage in the practice, some more than others.

Cowperson

[Azure]

So, despite the evidence being there that the towers fell on their own...people still believe that Bush planted explosives?

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Originally Posted by Burninator

I think you are underestimating an office tower, especially the strength of the twin towers. There is a lot of forces on a building of such massive proportions. Just to keep them standing is an engineering marvel. For example there is a lot of consideration that goes into the windows so they don't get sucked out because of the wind pressure alone.

Either way, I know the pentagon is built to with stand attacks. And I don't believe there was any foul play involved. Like a missile or any kooky stuff like that. As far as WTC 7 is concerned I agree with moon. It doesn't make any sense why someone would believe that. But like I said in my post I am more then open to evidence that showcase what really happened. I haven't invested much time into looking at the attacks. But just doing a quick search I have already found a lengthy analysis of the pentagon attack. Link. When I compare it to the videos that I have seen, that propose a plane didn't hit the building, they are not showing a lot of the same information. Not really a surprise as I stated before "I am sure some of these videos on the internet that talk about 9/11 leave information out to make their theory work." It's hard to take the other theories seriously when they are not showing all the information.

Trust me, I do appreciate how strong buildings like this are:
I am an enginner (not civil, but I'd say I'm more informed than your average person) and my grandfather had a relatively large demolition company that did imposions (not to this scale obviously, but the company did bid on the general hospital back in the day ) so I've picked a few things from that too.

Anyway, what goes into a building to keep it from falling over in the wind, and to keep the windows in their sills is completely different than what would be required to keep it from being penetrated by an airplane.

Keep in mind that the WTC was basically trusses surrounding a concrete core. Most of the building is open space, so if you run into it with a plane in the right spot, you could damn near fly right through it (exagerating of course).

The pentagon on the other hand is a short solid concrete structure, which is presumably going to be a lot more rigid than a glass and steel building made primairly from trusses.