It's an interesting video for certain; I'm not sure I would've applied the "politics" tag to it, though.

Only reason I put the politics tag on it is because there isn't exactly a "science" or "engineering" tag and "politics" was as close as I could get to the subject matter. I should have added "geek" in hind sight. =/

It would be interesting to see what happened with the other tower as the plane didn't hit in the center. instead going through the side.

Evan though i think this puts more wait on the pancake theory its hard to ignore the multiple explisoins and the fact that boulding 7 fell exactly the same way and yet wasn't hit by a plane

Glad they are doing something..are there any conclusions drawn though, or will there be....if the official story is supported by the endeavor,....we can call it dick.

Pancaking is one thing, but free fall in 10 seconds, is another entirely..and a pancake, DOES NOT LEAVE THIS
http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:JOUGyPVLzx4beM:http://www.911lies.org/images2/thermite_thermate_explosives_wtc_911.jpg

These columns, cut at an angle with a thermite shape charge, at an angle to allow collapse in a desired direction, tell all. Or at least, enough of an all, to have made this masturbative, highly enjoyable simulation, simply some team at Purdue's effort, a mute endeavor, with regard to real answers.

oh and hey, doc_m, posted june 1 on youtube, sure you are not on the team of folks who made this piece of expert analysis??? Aww, who cares, you been here since march anyhow, thanks for the post, hope it gets to the front, this and all discussion on 911, pro-con or con-con.....Al Qaida did it, with their masterful use of Jets, their expert piloting skills, and some box-cutters.....America will believe any goddamn thing, as long as they have enough diversion......welcome to Howard the Duck's world, surrounded by the brain dead.....

Is it bad that I've only been here since march and I already know that choggie will inevitably post to start a fight? hehe /love

and I'm sure I could select another extremely small and selective picture of the collapse site to support any conclusion I want to support. One image is not representative of a MASSIVE collapse of 2 100+ floor towers. Nothing so large has ever collapsed or been destroyed, so there is no control to compare this event to in order to draw conclusions out of simple pictures of that sort.

First off, no, I'm not affiliated with these people at Purdue. I am a scientist, but I don't know these folks. I just thought they did good work and wanted to share it with you folks.

Second, of course the obvious conclusions that can be drawn from this are that it is perfectly reasonable for the towers to collapse by their own weight when you look of the structure of those floors that were hit. And no, if you look at the 2 collapses, they did not occur in the "same way." Note one collapsed first diagonally at the impact site and the other collapsed evenly. And answer this for me, if they were done by explosives, how the hell did they know exactly where the planes would hit the buildings so that they were able to start the "demolition" at that exact spot on both buildings (one evenly as the plane hit and one diagonally as the plane hit off center). You can argue till you're blue in the face that it was an inside job, but this and a HUGE and growing number of unbiased, scientific studies are supporting the conclusion that it was... as they admitted... Al Qaeda. I don't know a SINGLE scientist or engineer or physicist who thinks these buildings were demolished and i know crap-load of scientists, etc. srsly

and I think I (even) could fly a jet in to a building that big, and I'm saying this as the brother of a jet pilot. He says it's basically a piece of cake, so there goes that argument. and I love how people always call them box-cutters. lol. They have freaking razor blades on them, they can cut you better than even your average "knife." I guarantee that murder with a "box cutter" is a very easy thing. Fear teh boxcutterz.

Anyway Choggie, I have a link and a video you must see. I don't pretend to think that I'll ever be able to convert a "9/11-was-an-inside-job" person, but if you haven't seen this video, ya ought'a just so you can say you did if people ask. Ya gotta see all the evidence in order to be able to argue either way right? ...and honestly the video is kinda funny. I loled a few times I'll admit.

http://video.google.com.au/videoplay?docid=-6243624912447824934

Maybe I'll submit this video if I ever get a first video through the queue in the fist place.

zomg long postage.

Downvote. The central columns were encased in high-grade, reinforced concrete.

But it gets an upvote for effort. Either that or I'm stupid and accidentally upvoted. Hey, I don't have to be smart.

This is not a proof.

It is an explanation, based largely on conjecture.

There is little if anything truly scientific about it.

I don't get it; where are all the explosives the government put in there?

Agree with rougy on this one - the speed required to cause almost the entirety of the plane(composed primarily of carbon fiber and aluminum) to virtually slice the central columns, after having passed through the outer steel columns, would simply be astounding(quite greater than ~500-600mph).

Density of steel is ~7.8g/cm^3 - aluminum/aluminum alloys generally run ~2.8g/cm^3. I'm not even going to go into the density of carbon fiber.

That's not to say that the engines, composed primarily of titanium/aluminum, could not have gone through a center column or two - density of titanium is ~4.5g/cm^3.

Sure, the planes have a large amount of mass, but the WTC towers weren't exactly low mass themselves.

More fun stuff to keep us talking...

Well, crypto, I'll first ask where you're getting that 500-600 mph estimate. Come on now. In this case a computer model is an ideal way to examine these sort of events. Assuming that these scientists didn't know the density of steel is ...well...dense to say the least. You says that the solid titanium cores of the jet engines traveling at hundreds of mph could not have gone through more than a column or 2. That sounds like a wild guess to me. No offense, but I'll trust first the people who've spent the last couple years spending 40-60hours a week thinking about it and calculating it.

And I should argue rougy, that explanations are what science is all about. We do experiments, look at the data, and form explanations of it. We can't build and destroy another set of WTCs to test our hypotheses so we build them and destroy them in computers. Computer models are of course flawed in that they cannot take into account every single variable, but this one takes into account a crap-load of those variables. Oh, but of course you're right that it is not a proof. It's a theory.

I still highly recommend the google-video I linked above.
It basically argues better than I could in a stupid post, without wasting a perfectly good day typing.

*geek

Video added to geek channel (geek called by gold star member ant)

Doc_M: 500-600mph estimate is based on min/max from NIST report, and backed up by the book "Debunking 9/11 Myths."

Also, the engines are not "solid titanium" - most of the engine's components are an aluminum/titanium alloy, which further decreases the density of the titanium(which is why "the engines...could not have gone through (more than - your edit) a central column or two" - they would have been quite shredded after going through the steel OUTER columns first - the fan blades themselves would have already ejected from the engine[as they are designed to do], and all that would have been left, after the collision with the outer columns, would have been scraps of the casing, fuel system, and the internal rotor/cooling system).

This is actually one subject I have more extensive knowledge about, even, as I did quite a lot of work on GE's GEnx series of engines. Even though they are most certainly NOT the same series present on the planes that crashed into the WTC buildings, well, look at it this way: using solid titanium increases both the weight and the cost of the engines(just for starters - if you'd like, I can list multitudes of reasons that engine manufacturers do NOT use "solid titanium").

Call it a "wild guess" if you want - if you're interested, it's actually quite easy to test what I'm saying here using simple, proven, Newtonian Physics. Check the comments section of theo47's profile for a good creative commons book on that. Take a look, specifically, at the section on "Force and Motion."

Oh, and p.s. - I have spent 40-60 hours per week for the past couple of years "thinking about" and "calculating it." If you want to debunk me, please do so - Newtonian physics is most certainly NOT difficult in any sense of the term, and heck - you'll be able to prove just how much "guessing" I have done.

Again, I repeat - more fun stuff to keep us talking...

Well, if it's any defense, it's impossible to know who you're talking to in here if they don't state credentials or how expert they are. Now you've made me curious.

And what I meant about the 500-600 mph was not where you got the numbers per se, but why you don't believe that is sufficient.

I guess my biggest problem with the thought that the buildings were demolished (with explosives) is the sheer number of people that would have to be kept quiet in order to pull it off and have no one say otherwise even after the fact. I'd say it would probably be upwards of a thousand, and I'd consider that a conservative extimate! Every one of these people have to have zero moral character. I mean, anyone with any sense of decency would see this attack as crazy and evil. Bottom line is people are simply never reliable when it comes to keeping big secrets. And if the building were demolished as people say, there is no way that the proposed 26 hours was sufficient to load all the explosives. Buildings take huge numbers of people many days to rig. So lets say they only rigged the floors that buckled first... meaning the floors that were struck by the planes. OK, then they had to know exactly where the planes would hit. If you can believe the site the planes hit was planned... even the off-centered-ness of the second, then it's almost possible to believe they rigged it, but if you think the planes only hit where they hit by luck or opportunity, then those are some psychic demolitions people.

http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm on building 7.
http://www.debunking911.com/thermite.htm on thermite and diagonal cuts.

I agree with you(and many many other people) on the skepticism you present concerning the buildings' destruction as a result of demolition. I do not believe that it is my place, or within the scope of my knowledge, to speculate as to WHO would be responsible for such an atrocious act(if indeed it was caused by some form of controlled demolition).

The reason I do not believe 500-600 mph is sufficient speed for the aircraft to go through more than a central column or 2, is basically this:

The engine itself has a mass of about 4,000 kg spread across what is basically a 2m x 2m x 3m soda can, with internal systems that ARE meant to detach from the engine upon impact at those speeds, lowering the mass of the engine significantly, and reducing it to basically the outside shell and some structural aluminum(most of the titanium alloys in an engine are spent on things that have to withstand TREMENDOUS force - fan, compressor, and turbine blades - blades which will fly off in an impact[as a matter of fact, I think you can buy a couple as collectibles on eBay these days]).

Good explanation/vid of basic structure of an engine: http://www.geae.com/engines/commercial/genx/index.html

The outside of the engine is basically an aluminum shell, and deforms pretty much just like a soda can does - since much of the engine's mass is removed from the engine upon first impact(granted, you have titanium alloy fan blades all over the place, but much of the mass IS gone, as a safety feature of the engines), the second impact usually just deforms the last structural sections of the engine.

It is not a "solid block of titanium," or even close - Titanium is expensive to buy, expensive to machine, and relatively massive compared to the materials in the rest of the engine, and even the rest of the plane. Plane and engine manufacturers like to go lightweight and strong, which is why aluminum and titanium alloys are often used.

(continued below)...

As for the amount of people needed to carry off such an operation, well I don't see how it would be in the thousands.

Think about it - Dick Cheney orders a couple of different exercises to be carried out by the Nation's military on the day of the event, to keep them busy. Those exercises have the nicely added effect of putting false radar signals on various control tower's radar, etc - as they are taking part in the exercises, and thus NEED to be able to instruct various military personnel as to where the false planes are, all as part of normal military exercises(yes, former mil here, too - all of what I'm saying is actually well documented).

To get some form of explosive in the tower - well, I don't know where you heard the "proposed 26 hours" that you cite above, but the WTC towers were being worked on for about 2 weeks prior to 9/11. Various parts of the towers were having power turned on and off, and only during the last weekend, both building's power and security systems were shut down.

Now, the people to plant the explosives, etc - would they really have to have very little moral character? How did 9/11 benefit the American economy?

Well, prior to 9/11, Iraq's Saddam Hussein had announced that it would start accepting Euros as payment for Oil("In November 2000, Iraq became the first OPEC nation to begin selling its oil for Euros." - http://www.projectcensored.org/Publications/2004/19.html). Due to our embargo on Iraq, and the subsequent "Oil for Food" program that the UN announced, it made sense that, in order for them to get at least some funding to feed their economy in at least the slightest way...maybe to be able to afford weapons - maybe even just to be able to buy building materials for their own country - who knows?

Thing is, as part of a 1972-1973(can't remember which year) agreement between President Nixon and OPEC, OPEC agreed to accept only USD as payment for oil. This subsequent agreement occurred one or two years after Nixon stopped the backing of the USD by gold for foreign investors, on August 15, 1971. The USD hadn't been backed by gold for citizens of the U.S., but foreign investors could cash in their USD for gold up until that point.

What does this mean? Well, basically it means that the USD stopped being backed by gold in 1971 and OPEC started accepting ONLY USD for oil in 1972 or 73...essentially backing our currency by what?....oil!

So, as you can probably understand, it's quite a threat for Iraq to start accepting Euros for oil(and the USD has taken a hit because of it - around 17% loss in value, so far).

Now, however(and this might explain a lot to you), Iran has opened it's "Oil Bourse" - accepting what for oil?....Euro and Yen. What further complicates matters with Iran, however, is that China is now buying 50% of it's oil from Iran in Yen, because, of course, it's easier for them(easier than having to try to get USD to buy oil from OPEC with).

Well, that kindof complicates things on a global geopolitical stage. What it means is that, as more countries start buying oil with Euro and Yen, they will stop trying to get USD, and even use the last of their USD and not really have a need to get more(since they can now buy oil in Euro or Yen - or even diversify between Euro, Yen, and USD - either way, the demand for USD lowers).

On a global scale, this will most certainly disrupt the value of the USD like never seen before.

Had Iraq actually gotten clients for his "Oil for Euro/Yen" program, it would have been devastating for the USD back in 2001...but 9/11 happened, giving us a "reason"(even if only superficially and even a lie) to go into Iraq.

In effect, those that may have taken down the towers did us a favor - they stopped millions from being killed by what would be an ensuing recession/depression in the value of the USD(as is kindof happening now) by killing only 2000 people in the towers, and a couple thousand killed in a war to hold onto Iraq's oil as a type of backing for USD.

Don't believe me, though - look into it yourself. All of the above described events and places are well documented. Look into the "Iranian Oil Bourse" in particular.

Good explanation of what I was trying to say above: http://www.videosift.com/video/Quick-explanation-of-Banking-in-the-US-and-Oil#leavecomment

(of course, I didn't use this video as the source of info for what I said in the previous post - I've known this stuff for quite a while by actually having read through history of Federal Reserve, etc. from past discussions)

Purdue Study Has Links to US Government:

"A newly released Purdue University animation showing how fire caused the collapse of the World Trade Center towers on 9/11 claims to be independent but in reality has been federally funded and was conducted by individuals with direct links to the Pentagon and the White House."

Source
http://thetruthproject.us/2007/06/22/new-911-study-has-direct-links-to-government-pentagon-black-ops/

Computer models are of course flawed in that they cannot take into account every single variable, but this one takes into account a crap-load of those variables.

Not really. It seems to do quite the opposite.

It seems to take the official story given by the Bush administration and look for explanations that would support that excuse, ignoring any variable that might contradict it, like why WTC 7 fell at all, and the speed with which each building fell.

First, Irishman's comment is especially notable, because it is true that much of science's research is government-funded, but it is ENTIRELY WRONG to say that that sways the results. If you think that, then you better never take another drug of any kind for the rest of your life, because government funding MADE them ALL. Just about every one of them. So OMG, Purdue got funding from the Gov't, just like every other institution in the entire United States. It's a conspiracy! OMG! If you believe that, then don't believe anything science has ever told you because science is 90% government (tax) funded.

www.debunking911.com addresses all concerns voiced in these posts and quite well, including building 7... which I linked btw rougy. No offense, but it might answer some of your questions about the situation there.

I think I've decided that arguing about 9/11 against 9/11 conspiracy devotees is pointless and painfully endless. I'll post fun, entertaining stuff from now on. I tired a music video a while back and it almost made it, I'll try again.

Posting anything political or religious in Videosift is an exorcise in asking for flames, especially as a Christian and a conservative... oh well. I knew it coming in. hehe.

Soooo, Google earth is now a high tech physics demonstration tool?

Sure thing.

So I've recently been informed that the "steal core" of the WTC was not encased in concrete but was of a new design at the time and was instead coated with a simple fire-proofing foam... which this video claims to take into account. So if you down-voted because it was embedded in concrete, you might re-check your sources.

false-flag, baby-