Simulation shows Pentagon crash with "scientific"

by **nomo** » Wed Oct 19, 2005 3:53 pm

Uh huh: <blockquote>Quote:<hr>"Most of the computer-simulated crashes you see in movies or on TV are not realistic from the point of view of physics," said Voicu Popescu, an assistant professor of computer science. "They are designed to be spectacular rather than realistic."<hr></blockquote> But not this one: September 10, 2002 New simulation shows 9/11 plane crash with scientific detail <a href="http://news.uns.purdue.edu/UNS/html4ever/020910.Sozen.Pentagon.html">news.uns.purdue.edu/UNS/h...tagon.html</a> WEST LAFAYETTE, Ind. – Engineers, computer scientists and graphics technology experts at Purdue University have created the first publicly available simulation that uses scientific principles to study in detail what theoretically happened when the Boeing 757 crashed into the Pentagon last Sept. 11. Researchers said the simulation could be used as a tool for designing critical buildings – such as hospitals and fire stations – to withstand terrorist attacks. The simulation merges a realistic-looking visualization of the airliner approaching the building with a technical, science-based animation of the plane crashing into the structure. "This is going to be a tremendous asset," said Mete Sozen, Purdue's Kettelhut Distinguished Professor of Structural Engineering. "Eventually, I hope this will be expanded into a model that we can use to help design structures to resist severe impact loads. "Using this simulation I can do the so-called 'what-if' study, testing hypothetical scenarios before actually building a structure." The simulation can be recorded on a DVD and played on an ordinary personal computer. The software tool is unusual because it uses principles of physics to simulate how a plane's huge mass of fuel and cargo impacts a building. The plane's structure caused relatively little damage, and the explosion and fire that resulted from the crash also are not likely to have been dominant factors in the disaster, Sozen said. The model indicates the most critical effects were from the mass moving at high velocity. "At that speed, the plane itself is like a sausage skin," Sozen said. "It doesn't have much strength and virtually crumbles on impact." But the combined mass of everything inside the plane – particularly the large amount of fuel onboard – can be likened to a huge river crashing into the building. The simulation deals specifically with steel-reinforced concrete buildings, as opposed to skyscrapers like the World Trade Center's twin towers, in which structural steel provided the required strength and stiffness. Reinforced concrete is inherently fire resistant, unlike structural steel, which is vulnerable to fire and must undergo special fireproofing. "Because the structural skeleton of the Pentagon had a high level of toughness, it was able to absorb much of the kinetic energy from the impact," said Christoph M. Hoffmann, a professor in the Department of Computer Sciences and at Purdue's Computing Research Institute. Sozen created a mathematical model of reinforced concrete columns. The model was then used as a starting point to produce the simulation. Hoffmann turned Sozen's model into the simulation by representing the plane and its mass as a mesh of hundreds of thousands of "finite elements," or small squares containing specific physical characteristics. "What we do is simulate the physics of phenomena and then we visualize what we have calculated from scientific principles as a plausible explanation of what really happened," Hoffmann said. "We hope that through such simulations we can learn from this tragic event how to protect better the lives of our citizens and the civil infrastructure of the nation." The simulation may be the first of its kind for merging realistic-looking animation with scientifically rigorous computations. "Most of the computer-simulated crashes you see in movies or on TV are not realistic from the point of view of physics," said Voicu Popescu, an assistant professor of computer science. "They are designed to be spectacular rather than realistic. What hasn't been done much, or, to our knowledge hasn't been done at all, is to create a visualization that looks realistic in the sense that you would recognize the Pentagon and the plane and is, at the same time, true to physics." The mesh of finite elements in the model require that millions of calculations be solved for every second of simulation. Creating only one-tenth of a second of simulation took about 95 hours of computation time on a supercomputer. Researchers originally used a bank of computers and also worked closely with Information Technology at Purdue (ItaP) to harness IBM supercomputers at Purdue and Indiana University. "The majority of the work had to do with producing the right models and then setting up the particular mesh so that we could work out accurately how this scenario unfolded," Hoffmann said. In the simulation, the plane crashes into the building's concrete support columns, which were reinforced with steel bars. In this simulation the columns were assumed to be "spirally reinforced," a technique popular in the 1940s in which steel bars were wound around columns in a helical shape. The coiled steel provided added strength to the columns and probably is responsible for saving many lives, Sozen said. The simulation might be especially useful for engineers who are trying to design reinforced concrete structures that better withstand terrorist attacks or accidents involving aircraft crashes. "Our focus was on modeling the impact effect of the liquid fuel in the tanks of the aircraft – the amount of energy transferred to the building's structural load-carrying system, which is mainly the reinforced concrete columns, and the condition of those columns after the impact," said Sami Kilic, a civil engineering research associate who specializes in earthquake engineering. A major challenge has been learning how to combine commercially available software with the special models needed to simulate an airliner hitting a building, Kilic said. The Purdue team used commercial software that is normally used by auto manufacturers to simulate car crashes. But adapting the software to simulate the plane crash and then combining the realistic-looking graphics with scientific simulation has been especially difficult, Kilic said. "Integrating these two animations is uncommon," he said. "We are discovering a new territory. We had some interaction with aeronautical engineers, and they had never heard of this kind of a simulation, with an aircraft hitting a building. "This kind of a structure/aircraft interaction is not done commercially." The work was funded, in part, by a grant from the National Science Foundation. IMAGE CAPTION: This image was taken from a simulation, believed to be the first of its kind, that merges a realistic-looking visualization with a precise, physics-based animation that shows what likely happened to the Pentagon's steel-reinforced concrete structure when it was hit by the Boeing 757 last Sept. 11. The simulation, created by a team of engineers, computer scientists and graphics technology experts at Purdue University, could be used as a tool for designing critical buildings – such as hospitals or fire stations – to withstand terrorist attacks. This image shows a representation of the aircraft just before impact. (Departments of Computer Sciences and Computer Graphics Technology, Purdue University) ftp://ftp.purdue.edu/pub/uns/sozen.pentagon.jpeg. IMAGE CAPTION 2: This image, showing a representation of the aircraft shortly after impact, is another realistic-looking graphic from the same simulation. The simulation shows what likely happened to the Pentagon's steel-reinforced concrete structure when it was hit by the Boeing 757 last Sept. 11. (Departments of Computer Sciences and Computer Graphics Technology, Purdue University) ftp://ftp.purdue.edu/pub/uns/sozen.pentagon2.jpeg. IMAGE CAPTION 3: This physics-based image shows what likely happened to the Pentagon's steel-reinforced concrete columns as they were struck by the aircraft. The orange-colored portion represents the large amount of fuel onboard as it crashed into the building like a massive river of fluid. Civil engineers specializing in reinforced concrete structures teamed up with computer scientists to create this image. Because the simulation is scientifically precise, it could be used as a tool for designing critical buildings – such as hospitals or fire stations – to withstand terrorist attacks. (School of Civil Engineering and Department of Computer Sciences, Purdue University) ftp://ftp.purdue.edu/pub/uns/sozen.pentagon3.jpeg. -- When all else fails... panic.Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=nomo@rigorousintuition>nomo</A> at: 10/19/05 2:59 pm

by **slimmouse** » Wed Oct 19, 2005 4:30 pm

Where DO they get this stuff lol. 4 questions about this "Scientific analysis", and one observation. 1. Wheres the pentagon SRC wall ? 2. Where are the planes engines ? 3. Why is the tail section left intact ? 4. This video and the supporting report , if im not mistaken, claims that the plane took out 50 support columns. You have a look at some photos of the Pentagon, immediately after impact and prior to the collapse and ask yourself Which support columns those might be ? Compare the building with the Support columns removed on the video. And now an observation. I love the simulated piccy of the plane hitting the building. (its a pity there isnt a regular one out there )You know the part of the building which mysteriously had just been renovated, and was uncannily devoid of all the major players. But heres my problem. Even if a plane DID hit the pentagon ( which I very much doubt) , a guy who cant fly to save his life, has somehow managed to bank a practically fully fuel laden passenger jet in on a 270 degree angle, at 500 mph, at what looks no more than 3 feet off the ground. It doesnt help convince me any more that it was a plane, when this kinda nonsense is the best they can do by way of an explanation lol. Ive seen the "official" flight path. You should check it out yourself sometime. He flies directly over the East wing ( full of top brass, and Rumsfeld and co) prior to completing a triple sukhahara turn and hitting the other end. His nose cone must have been special too. Most nosecones from a 757 collapse when a starling hits them. But not this one It managed to penetrate 3 rings of steel reinforced concrete and leave a perfect exit hole on the other side ! Almost makes you wonder why they bother tipping Bunker buster missiles with DU, when a Carbon fibre or some similarly constructed nose cone will do the same job.<img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/ohwell.gif ALT=":\">

by **michael meiring** » Wed Oct 19, 2005 4:40 pm

Does the simulator explain how the plane managed to fit inside an impact hole of a few feet? And also how the debris from the plane along with the body parts gets 'evaporated into thin air? Not to mention the complete vanished into thin air black box theory? maybe the black box, (black pudding theory) will be out next year)? Well we have had the syrup and pancake theory, should have been expecting the 'sausage skin' theory.

by **robertdreed** » Thu Oct 20, 2005 1:06 am

I think that the Oil Empire and Sander Hicks websites have pretty much the last word on these questions, but obviously, that's just my opinion. There's an interview with John Judge in the latest issue of Steamshovel Press magazine where he whole-heartedly endorses the view that the Boeing 757 jet Flight 77 did in fact hit the Pentagaon- the same view as Oil Empire and Sander Hicks. Judge also gives his opinion that the most likely case was that the airliner was steered into the building by a human pilot, standing on the pedals and fighting the stick to keep the flaps down at top speed. Judge doesn't seem to think that the pilot was the kid in the official version of events, Hani Hanjour. He also suspects that only the suicide pilot knew the ultimate mission behind the hijacking. As far as Hani Hanjour- I find it easier to think that he clowned around and acted incompetent purposely in order to throw off an American flight instructor, than that some missile hit the Pentagon. Much easier. Much, much easier... Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=robertdreed>robertdreed</A> at: 10/19/05 11:14 pm

by **slimmouse** » Thu Oct 20, 2005 7:28 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>I think that the Oil Empire and Sander Hicks websites have pretty much the last word on these questions, but obviously, that's just my opinion.<hr></blockquote> Well unfortunately RDR, thats but one of my major problems. It goes beyond both the stunning aeronautics of ANYBODY involved in pulling off that "Plane" Crash, and beyond the "scientific" lies of the A.S.C.E and other associated Liars ( since liars is plainly what they are given their "video evidence"). As if both of the above werent sufficient on their own, we then find that this kind of stuff is being peddled by "Peak Oil" 9/11 crowd.<img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/ohwell.gif ALT=":\"> So we have a virtual act of impossible flying, supported by a couple of the Usual media Whopper lie documentaries, supported by a myth ( IMO) I'll tell you what would be nice. A pic of a plane. The failure of anyone to show us a plane does raise the obvious question; Is this part of a sophisticated double bluff by the PTB ? I very much doubt it personally, but I guess we'll see.

by **Ferry Fey** » Thu Oct 20, 2005 9:47 am

I love the simulated piccy of the plane hitting the building. (its a pity there isnt a regular one out there ) If the FBI would release the gas station security camera tape they confiscated, they could work with actual data rather than assumed data. <a href="http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2001/12/1211_wirepentagon.html">news.nationalgeographic.c...tagon.html</a> <a href="http://www.defenselink.mil/news/May2000/20005022a.jpg">www.defenselink.mil/news/...05022a.jpg</a> The model indicates the most critical effects were from the mass moving at high velocity. "At that speed, the plane itself is like a sausage skin," Sozen said. "It doesn't have much strength and virtually crumbles on impact." But the combined mass of everything inside the plane – particularly the large amount of fuel onboard – can be likened to a huge river crashing into the building.  See, it wasn't the airplane itself that took out the walls, but the mass of the passengers and fuel hitting it. And then the fuel made everything burn up so badly that there was almost nothing left of the metal of the plane. The DNA of the passengers had the asbestos coating that some of the girders in the WTC lacked, which is why they said they could identify almost everyone.

by **proldic** » Thu Oct 20, 2005 1:19 pm

oh, believe me, you'll get your video, when they're good and ready.

by **robertdreed** » Thu Oct 20, 2005 5:26 pm

Numbers of people who actually witnessed a United Airlines jet blasting across Shirley Highway at top speed toward the Pentagon- hundreds Number of people at close range who saw a cruise missile or small plane on a trajectory toward the Pentagon- 0 Numbers of people reading websites theorizing that a cruise missile or small plane hit the Pentagon- millions Number who feel qualitifed to blow off the witness testimony in favor of the website theories- unknown, undoubtedly more than the number of firsthand witnesses to the event The next level is going to be claiming that nothing hit the Pentagon, that it was simply a bomb placed inside. "The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." Donald Rumsfeld I consider the number of people applying the same specious reasoning to the events of 9-11, and shake my head.

by **michael meiring** » Thu Oct 20, 2005 5:44 pm

Robertdreed What is your 'specious reasoning' begind the following? 1.attas passport, miraculously found X number of blocks away from the towers? 2. collapse of WTC7 despite no planes hitting it? 3. The fact 9 of the named 19 hijackers turning up alive and well.? 4. The 'vaporisation' of 4 black boxes? 5. The 5 dancing high fiving, middle eastern intel men waiting to film the collapse of the towers? 6. The absence of any plane parts or body parts from impact on pentagon? theres hundreds more anomalies with the official conspiracy theory, shall we all just ignore these and not think, would our governments lie to us? just bury our heads in the sand and when the next one comes along, just hope its not you or your families as well as mine thats hurt, and carry on as normal. theres many many hundreds of victims famillies who ahave actually looked and questioned the offiial conspiracy theory, and guess what? they are onboard the reopen 9/11 INDEPENDANT INQUIRY 'crusade'.

by **slimmouse** » Thu Oct 20, 2005 6:21 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>Number of people at close range who saw a cruise missile or small plane on a trajectory toward the Pentagon- 0<hr></blockquote> Wrong. Several have said what looked like a small commuter jet. One interviewed ON THE DAY, said it looked like a "cruise missile with wings" Meanwhile. As to any Eye witness testimony. Im reminded of John Does recent post regarding "reliable eye witness accounts" of the De Menezes shootings. Notwithstanding the similarities in the mysterious fact that no CCTV cameras captured either event - dang - another "coincidence", there may well be another similarity; Eyewitnesses speaking of a man with a bulky coat on with wires sticking out of it. Several other "credible" accounts of a man vaulting the turnstiles and running. Accounts of any number of police warnings. Hey guess what ? Every last one of them was a LIE. And as the Leaked photograph to a national paper clearly showed, the guy had a blue denim jacket on. So, having demonstrated how easy it is to fabricate any amount of Eye Witness testimony, perhaps we can look at the problems I have with the pentagon incident. Namely the Bunker busting ability of a carbon fibre nosecone. The unearthly skills of the suicide pilot - particularly the flight path, which took him right over the Top Brass offices, and were followed by a 270 degree turn at 500 mph at what appears in the "simulation" to be 6" off the ground, into the mostly deserted opposite end of the building The lack of any reasonable amount of wreckage - other than what appears to be a 7ft peice of tin. The hideous and blatant lies within the "official documentaries". Your thoughts on those RDR ? Sausages anyone ? Prol. I think youre right. I think we will get a video of the incident in due course or when they are good and ready. Im predicting possibly around late september 2101. Im looking foreward to that very much ! One might almost say "I cant wait". That being the earliest time at which such "classified" information is eligible for declassification. Assuming of course they havent moved the goalposts again by then. I now understand how Morgan Freeman felt in "The shawshank redemption" <img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/smile.gif ALT=":)"> Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=slimmouse@rigorousintuition>slimmouse</A> at: 10/20/05 4:23 pm

by **robertdreed** » Thu Oct 20, 2005 6:56 pm

Enough. As I've said, Oil Empire and Sander Hicks have already enumerated the arguments that hold sway with me. If you think their endorsement of Peak Oil automatically disqualifies their opinions on every other issue, I think it's a non sequitur. But you're entitled to your opinion. I haven't seen anyone go through the specifics of their arguments point-by-point and use any logical rigor in debating them. Instead, attempts are made to turn the debate into arguments about what isn't there. I don't get the reasoning behind mixing posited loose ends associated with other cases with the Pentagon attack. "So, having demonstrated how easy it is to fabricate any amount of Eye Witness testimony" You haven't demonstrated anything of the sort. Talk about a sweeping generalization. It doesn't do much to supply credibility to your other comments. The "no airplane" jive makes more sense as a way of dragging down the entire spectrum of 9-11 citizen's inquiries than anything else, to me. A simple explanation as to the possibility that video evidence is being withheld, perhaps the simplest- it makes it easier for people like Thierry-Myssen to cook up any story they want about the topic. Be that as it may, you all can go back at staring at the ink, the squid is somewhere else. It's like this- XX Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=robertdreed>robertdreed</A> at: 10/20/05 5:16 pm

by **rapt** » Thu Oct 20, 2005 7:07 pm

Methinks you are a bit gullible RDR. Don worry, you have plenty of company.

by **Ferry Fey** » Thu Oct 20, 2005 7:12 pm

There has been analysis of the Pentagon eyewitness claims showing a multitude of contradictions, some of which contradicted each other and others which contradicted reality. I'm pretty busy tonight, but if I can find you the link I'll post it.

by **slimmouse** » Thu Oct 20, 2005 7:15 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>It's like this- XX<hr></blockquote> Gee RDR. Thanks for that sophisticated analysis of how a 767 nosecone develops bunker buster capabilities, and all the rest of it. I guess youve cleared it all up in my mind nicely. And as for the squid being elsewhere. Where would that be ? It wouldnt be where the "sophisticated" minds insist we go would it ? Or was your metaphor a suggestion that we should all just "move on" from 9/11 ? If not, I apologise at this point, but if so, where amongst 9/11 Truthseekers have I heard that before ? 9/11 is THE mother of all smoking guns. You can please yourself, but Im going nowhere from this. If your follow the squid metaphor however is avoiding the physical evidence of the pentagon crash or the WTC collapse or other such blatant examples of the obvious, then Quo Vadis ? It wouldnt be that place which takes understanding the Whopper that is 9/11 beyond the capabilities of your average person, instead of concentrating on that which is far more obvious ? It would ? I thought so. Mission accomplished.

by **robertdreed** » Thu Oct 20, 2005 7:29 pm

I'm not even supplying an argument. I'm merely offering my endorsement of the points made regarding the 9-11 attack on the Pentagon by the websites of Oil Empire and Sander Hicks, and directing lurkers over there. Anyone thinking there's a debate over Flight 77 going on here must be so intellectually unmotivated that they doesn't even have the inclination to type the names "Oil Empire" or "Sander Hicks" into a search engine, along with relevant terms like "Flight 77." I think the page on Flight 77 on either site will handily kick the ass of any reasoning supplied by the "no 757" people on this page. But lurkers, don't take my word for it. Check for yourselves. Yours in non-pseudonymity, Robert D. Reed Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=robertdreed>robertdreed</A> at: 10/20/05 5:35 pm

Simulation shows Pentagon crash with "scientific"

Simulation shows Pentagon crash with "scientific"

Re: Simulation shows Penatgon crash with "scientific de

simulator?

the Pentagon crash

Re: the Pentagon crash

Passengers did it

Re: Passengers did it

Let's do the numbers

your specious reasoning

Re: Let's do the numbers

basta ya

basta?

Eyewitness testimony contradictory

Re: basta ya

rapt, "michael meiring", slimmouse

Who is online