Computer Simulation vs Facts

Haven't seen the piece, but there were some idiots who claimed that WTC was brought down by explosives "secretly" planted weeks before 9/11.

They brought no FACTS to the table.

YOU should watch the piece....there are 2 simulations of the plane into the pentagon and the 'facts' are local news videos showing the actual fire and collapse. An IDIOT would not question or notice the differences. I question the ethics and intelligence of the "civil engineers" doing the simulations.

"Haven't seen the piece, but" also brings up similar questions! :)

I started witching the piece, but was stunned when some jerk from the "Power Hour" started talking about bringing out the "truth". then read some bogus (for all we know) "SCIENTIFIC" statements from "experts".

Give me a break folks! The Power Hour - Program Information is nothing more than a radical right wing propaganda mill.

This reminds me of the "truthers" from Utah, (Search for Truth) who invented new words to "validated" their insane conspiracy theories to "prove" that super-explosives were planted in the WTC without anybody noticing it. I suppose these same invisible people planted this in the Pentagon?

I'm done here, I can't stand it. I'll try to watch the piece, if I can find the time.

It's interesting that the thousands of co-conspirators who would have to have been involved in this super conspiracy have remained silent all this time.

Right wing, left wing, pre-formed opinions...that doesn't change the FACTS, viewed as local news. The effing hole in the pentagon was SMALL, the roof line was undamaged until it collapsed, there was no damage at the spread of wings of the supposed plane, there was no damage at the points the engines would have made contact. WTF, I am asking about the integrity of civil engineers and the companies that produced the simulations. And that brings up another question, if the large hijacked passenger plane did not impact here, what happened to it?

I am asking all of the engineers who read this to watch and THEN express their opinion. I would think these things are important, as many value the opinions of educated, experienced, people with background knowledge. This is a forum where people come to learn, hopefully not just opinion of retentive a holes.

Give me a break, folks!

The effing fuselage is the most dense, longest part of the effing plane at 155 feet. Compared to the wings and empennage at a fraction of that length, I can understand how the hole came to have the form it had.

You are free to believe whatever you want. As misguided as it may be.

I'm forced to quote Mark Twain in response to your last offering, "Never argue with a fool, onlookers may not be able to tell the difference."

You are an engineer with many years experience, and you are asking me to believe that the wings and large engines mounted appx. 30' off the centerline, and the tail, roughly 45' tall, neatly folded and followed the fuselage through a roughly 16' diameter hole. And what of the thousands of gallons of fuel released? A relatively small fire compared to the balls of fire at the twin towers. I am asking from an engineering standpoint, how is that possible? You refuse to watch the local news coverage of the incident because it seems to be presented by a 'right wing' 'conspiracy theorist'. It is still local news coverage. It still presents facts that don't jive with the simulations. It still makes me question how much petroleum jelly was used to make that large plane slide into that little hole. How does an engineer accept this as fact? How is this questioning misguided?

I think your political views are blinding you. I think any real engineer would have questions after viewing this in its complete form.

I've seen most local and national news accounts over the years many times, since my wife and her mother were stranded in Colorado as a result, as well as watching both aircraft fly into WTC numerous times.

I've watched the conspiracy trash before too.

The construction of the different buildings may be lost on some, but not me. Many of my years as an engineer were spent building things to government specifications.

"American Airlines Flight 77 struck the portion of the building that had already been renovated. It was the only area of the Pentagon with a sprinkler system, and it had been reconstructed with a web of steel columns and bars to withstand bomb blasts. The steel reinforcement, bolted together to form a continuous structure through all of the Pentagon's five floors, kept that section of the building from collapsing for 30 minutes--enough time for hundreds of people to crawl out to safety."

The Pentagon Renovations Completed on 9/11/2001

I have no reason to doubt that Flt 11 flew into the Pentagon. None.

The WTC buildings had no such reinforcement. They showed the outline of the wings more clearly.

With regard to the WTC buildings going down, the terrorists were instructed by another terrorist, who was an architect, to "fly into the throat" of the buildings. I don't remember the exact analogy but it had anatomical implications of where to hit the building so that their total destruction would be assured when the floors of impact collapsed onto the rest of the building.

Yes, it had the appearance of a controlled demolition, because that's exactly what it was. They just didn't need any explosives on the structure below the impact zone to destroy the building, with tons of debris collapsing from above, one floor at a time.

Remember the firefighter's recollection of, boom, boom, boom as each floor collapsed onto the one below. He's one of the ones that ended up in the stairwell at the bottom and survived.

I've gone on too long, but.............................................................

No. The hole created in the pentagon building wall follows the same principle as any projectile such as an arrow with fletching penetrating an object.

The pentagon building structure is quite different and much stronger than the world trade towers as it is designed to withstand direct military attack.

Of course the wings, tail, and verything else extending from the fuselage were sheared off when the commuter plane hit the pentagon building heavy cement walls.

The aircraft that hit the pentagon was significantly smaller and had much less fuel than those that were used to hit the world trade towers. (Less fuel, less fire, smaller explosion.)

The larger airliners that carried a much greater quantity of fuel were flown into the world trade buildings of which the walls consisted largely of glass.

There cannot be any logical comparison of the two incidents.

You are correct as far as computer modeling is concerned in that the results are extremely different.

I saw the another computer simulation of the crash at the pentagon.

There was a question from the skeptics about why remains of the passengers on the aircraft..... (what was left of them) that the remains that were seated up front of the aircraft where on the outer ring, while the remains of the passengers that were seated near the back of the plane were further in on the inner rings.

The outside surveillance camera did catch what is thought to be the tip of the nose of the airplane just entering the frame of the picture of the video. the next frame of the video.... the plane already enter the wall.

When I was about 10 years old, I could not believe a BB shot at a thick (1/4" thick) window pane from a BB gun could not make such a nice almost polished 5/8" diameter crater. but it does.

And after numbers tries..... ah....... experiments. I excepted that it does.

Well don't forget that Richard Feynman's observation of the elasticity of the Challenger O-ring material at 0°C was originally relegated to a minority report opinion. There are also people that believe the myth of the Philadelphia experiment. Don't get me started on Roswell.

You should not be surprised how money and influence can change anything. In this case I believe the engineering firms were contracted to simulate the 911 alternate theories regardless of their validity.

Let's not belittle the psychological comfort some people get from the idea that only a convoluted, highly organized on multiple fronts conspiracy had to be the actual cause of such a catastrophe as 911. A small group of suicidal maniacs luckily finding an architectural weakness in one of the premier buildings of Western Civilization makes so many things suspect.

I was in agreement with Mr. Feynman's opinion from the time of launch. It gets stiff, and it SHRINKS.

I also still firmly believe that the White House DID influence the decision to launch.

Well, you can make computer programs do what ever you want them to do.

Hollywood has been doing it for years, and are getting better with each new release.

I've used FEA and CMD. It's save me a lot of time and work. It wasn't real complicated, but I still did confirmations. Saved me a lot of time.

But if a company use software such as Compress for ASME, you the company that operated is responsible for the calculations, not the software and its results.

What did the computer simulations purport to show? What were the supposed facts beforehand?

Your rant is inarticulate as to any facts or principles, making it hard to tell what your point is, if any.

The simulations ( which were shown on national tv years ago) show the damage of the plane flying into the pentagon. They were supposedly based on the facts of the incident.

My rant concerns the local news coverage shown in the 'documentary' on Netflix. This news coverage shows damage that IS NOT congruous with the damage that would have been caused by a plane the size of the one that supposedly did the damage. This is obvious when you watch the documentary. I am asking about this difference and how civil engineers might be involved in the simulations. I am asking for engineers to view the documentary and THEN enlighten me. Not to just say it is 'right wing conspiracy theory' "so believe what you want." IMHO the damage shown by local news coverage in the documentary is not equivalent to what is claimed in the simulations.

Not to mention, what input was also put into the program.

Any computer simulation, or indeed any sort of prophesy, can only be as good as the inputted data. The omission or corruption of even very minor relevant pieces of information, or of facts both known and unknown, can greatly alter the expected outcome.

The old adage of "garbage in garbage out" possibly applies more to computer simulation than to any other field.

Pretty hard to argue with the obvious factual evidence of this case.

"Pretty hard to argue with the obvious factual evidence of this case."

1. Are you an engineer?

2. Could you elaborate on the obvious factual evidence?

I have no political agenda, I just hate being fed BS, and I no longer trust national news media.

Re.

"1. Are you an engineer?

2. Could you elaborate on the obvious factual evidence?"

1. Yes, but I have no knowledge of the case other than what I have seen in the media, and I have no knowledge of the construction of the building to enable me to garner an opinion of the damage that may or may not have ensued from the collision. I am, however, hard pressed to see any reason why they would, en-masse, distort the evidence. Perhaps they are in league with the government to mislead all of those poor gullible souls out there into thinking that there really is a terrorist threat.

2. Eyewitness accounts and photographic evidence - ignoring, of course, the distinct possibility that it is all a Photoshop prank.

Now I will follow Lyn's lead and leave you to it.

<unsubscribe>

<good>

"essentially, all models are wrong, but some are useful"

-E.P. Box

Winchester97 · 29 weeks ago

Here are some interesting thoughts (not mine):
"Future Engineer:
No matter if it weakens it or not:
1. No steel building other than the WTC has ever collapsed due to any fire of any sort.
2. A certain temperature may weaken the iron, but it is incapable of melting any of it o matter how large or or how small.
Jet A is the same stuff burned in conventional steel wall heaters. In an open-air office fire such as that at WTC (called a "dirty burn"winking smiley kerosene or any hydrocarbon will burn at around 500-700F (260C to 371C). The FEMA report on 911 said that the jet fuel burned off after a few minutes and the fires from the office furniture and carpets were about 560F (293C) The special structural steel of the WTC has over 98% of its strength at those temperatures, and the WTC was built to hold 5 times its load.
In a "controlled burn" (where oxygen and fuel are regulated in an optimal mix), jet fuel will reach a maximum temperature of 1800F(982C), which is still not anywhere near the temperature required to weaken the steel girders of a building to the point that the entire building plummeted to the ground. Yet molten steel was reported below the towers, suggesting that a very powerful "fuel" was used, set to burn or explode BELOW the building, not at its top. Thermite, an HTA (high-temperature accelerant) typically used in military operations, would have been able to liquefy the steel. Thermite can reach a temperature of 4500F (2482C) in 2 seconds, and steel begins to melt at 2750F (1510C)."
These are mine.
Why did the "pile" burn underground for months, and why was there molten steel?
Based on science and physics, that is not an improbability. It is an impossibility.
Read more: http://www.storyleak.com/911-russia-presents-evidence-against-us-uk-and-israel-co-conspirators/#ixzz3MujfKpiX

Suggested PostLiked

Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth

Sponsored ·

On Behalf of the People of the United States of America, the undersigned Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth and affiliates hereby petition for, and demand, a truly independent investigation with subpoena power in order to uncover the full truth surrounding the events of 9/11/01 - specifically the collapse of the World Trade Center Towers and Building 7. We believe there is sufficient doubt about the official story to justify re-opening the 9/11 investigation. The new investigation must include a full inquiry into the possible use of explosives that might have been the actual cause of the destruction of the World Trade Center Twin Towers and Building 7.

Sincerely,
The Undersigned

Sign the PetitionEveryone can sign the AE911Truth petition and call for an independent investigation.www2.ae911truth.org

If there were explosives, why bother with planes?

I had questions about the strike on the Pentagon when it happened. It seems others have questions about the 'airliner' hitting the Pentagon. As the story goes, the airliner hit with such force it penetrated the Pentagon entirely, leaving no wreckage on the outside. The videos on national TV purport to show this damage of this large (150' wingspan with 2-12,000lb engines, 30' apart, in wing tanks loaded for intercontinental flight (6000gal +) hitting the Pentagon in a dive at some 500+mph, and penetrating entirely into the Pentagon.

This conflicts with the actual local news footage shown in the documentary, where you can see the damage on the outside of the Pentagon....a less than 70' wide by 45' tall area, small fires (nothing that would equate to 6000gallons + burning), a roughly 16' diameter hole which NO calculus, or vector equation would put every piece of this airliner through. The roof line area collapsed roughly 20 minutes after the fire trucks arrive, you can watch happen in the news coverage in the documentary. None of this was shown on national news.

There is an obvious conflict in this story which needs to be researched. There are facts regarding the 'building 7' collapse, and the fact that the fires at the twin towers burned for almost 3 (THREE) months.

I should make every one of us ask WHAT??? WHY???

Real engineers and science should be able to truthfully answer these questions.

that is not true. The wreckage inside was for the most part incinerated.

There was only small items that remain, and the remains were on the outer ring was the front of the aircraft, and further as you went into the inner rings were items found that were present were further back on the aircraft.

"that is not true"

Again I ask, "did you watch the local news coverage" ??? How do you fit an airliner through a 16 foot hole? You are just parroting national news. How did 2- 12,000 pound engines, 30 feet apart, traveling at high speed, go through 1 (one) 16 foot diameter hole? How did the wings (150' span) and fuel (6000+ gallons) do so little damage (70'x45') to the outside of the Pentagon. Watch the Netflix documentary (at least the first 20 minutes) where it shows the local news coverage of the fire and roof collapse. You can see the damage, how did this airliner disappear, in total, through this 16 foot hole?

You took a lot of words to fail to answer my simple question.

I think your earlier post about fuel temperatures and steels contains inaccurate "information." What grade was the alleged "special" steel?

I think this conspiracy theory is offensively stupid.

"What we have here, is a failure to communicate"

Forget about 'foil hat conspiracy theory's' for a moment and contemplate the question I was asking in my original post concerning the actual local news footage of the damage to the Pentagon shown in 9:11 In Plane Site which no one seems to have any inclination to view as it's offensively stupid.

"How does an airliner manage to wad itself up and insert itself through a roughly 16' hole in the exterior wall of the Pentagon" The local news coverage shows no wreckage as one would expect.

Why did not one but two computer simulations show up on national news that completely distort the facts as evidenced by the local news coverage and why was local coverage of the crash site suppressed?

The 2 postings that you refer to are other peoples assessment of the situation, and in light of what transpired at the Pentagon and the handling of it by national news and government agencies, I think the overall situation needs further examination.

The website showed up as a Facebook post and contains names and credentials of several hundred engineers and they are asking for congress and courts to reopen this investigation.

I feel the supposed airliner crash into the Pentagon is a blatant lie as evidenced by the local news coverage. This airliner that didn't crash into the Pentagon was supposed to be one of the four hijacked airliners, what really happened to it?

How is that being 'offensively stupid'?

A lot more words, still failing to answer my simple question, which clearly pertains more to the WTC than to the Pentagon.

IF the lie about the Pentagon exists, I believe there is a possibility of a lie about the WTC....I will do further research and get back to you.

As I said earlier, you are incapable of accepting anything that disagrees with your preconceptions, you sadistic bastard.

[Place round in chamber.]

Do you really think that the local reporters got close enough to the attack site of the Pentagon to obtain fine detail images? Local reporters are not allowed to get close pictures of an abandoned warehouse fire.

[Remove safety.]

You love the fallacy of composition. That is until you are called out for attempting this lie.

[Insert muzzle into mouth.]

You do not care about hurting anyone with your delusions.

[Pull....

I will not weep.

You are correct on one thing. I have not seen "911: In Plane Site". With a reviewer calling this "exceedingly annoying crackpot theorist and outlandish, unsubstantiated allegations".^[1] I will not waste my patience, emotions, intellect or one shred of sanity of such trash. This film is a cruel hoax for profit. This, just like most crackpot conspiracy theories have a lengthy parade of errors with a similar theme. The conspiracy is never questioned.

Oh, I know that you can find links that agree with this conspiracy. One can even find advocates of the Flat Earth on the web. You will also find the colorful writings of sadists, schizophrenics, narcissists, and other afflictions of the mind somewhere on the web.

People will believe in the most preposterous things if they are presented Welles.

I guess that I shouldn't be so surprised that someone that would accept such absurdities blindly would be blind to others feelings.

The cheap pun "In Plane Site" is enough of a clue.

Your post #27 is problematical. As I said before, I doubt the fuel combustion temperatures, which I suspect are too low, based on simple colorimetry if nothing else.

The reason for fire-resistant techniques such as encasing steel members in sheetrock is precisely because some steel structures have warped in past fires.

The yield strength of most structural steels reduces to 77% at 800dF, 63% at 1000dF, and 37% at 1200dF. Your source is completely out to lunch on that point.

Ok, post # 27 is problematical....I will do research and get back to you.

Back to my original post....you can see the fire and smoke, you can see the fire truck, you can see the hole in the wall, you can see the roofline intact, you can see the damage on that stretches along the outside of the building, you can see the wire spools left during construction. You can see the damage done by something, obviously not what would equate to an airliner crashing into the wall, obviously not what was portrayed in the two nationally televised videos. Then you can watch the roof line collapse. This all occurs in the first part of the documentary.

Did you watch it? How pray tell, could an airliner with a 150' wingspan fit through that 16' foot hole? One of the video simulations showed the wings cutting supports, if all that support was removed, (after the plane re-inflated after going through the 16' hole) would that not have caused an immediate collapse?

Or are you just basing your opinion on the parroted news coverage? I'm trying to get beyond that old adage "opinions are like a$$holes...everybody has one".

"malevolent vitriol" ???

Fred, I am truly sorry your friend lost his life.

While we have a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, we need to be aware of things that are happening. I would think that you, being so closely affected, would most of all, have questions.

It is most likely that no one will weep when my life comes to an end. My friends will be happy for me.

I hope you resolve your issues in the coming year...

I lost three friends and over a dozen acquaintances that day. Frank was filling in for another friend that day, too. What is your fracking point of dredging up this horrific day? Do you wish to torture those that actually lost people that day for your own callous whimsy? I know, you wish to simultaneously prove your ignorance along with your naturally uncaring nature for other human beings until they get in your face. Well congratulations, you proved your point.

It is one thing to comment on a 9/11 conspiracy program shortly after you've viewed it. It is another thing to bring it up with gross inaccuracies three months later during holidays that focus on friends and family.

The least you should do today is sit in the naughty chair and think of someone you've lost.

I'll be laying a rose next to Frank and the others names.