The newest volley in the disinformation campaign regarding 9/11 is
a simulation of the Twin Towers created by Purdue University. As summarized
by Raw
Story:
The simulation found jet engine shafts from airlines flown into the
World Trade Center "flew through the building like bullets," according
to an Associated Press vide report.
Flaming jet fuel cascaded through the tower stripping away fireproofing
material and causing the building to collapse, the AP video reports.
"The weight of the aircraft's fuel, when ignited, acted like a flash
flood of flaming liquid," according to the video.
However, Kevin
Ryan has already demonstrated that there was not enough energy from
the airplane impacts to have knocked much of the fireproofing off.
See also this
article.
And very
few of the core columns were severed by the planes' impact. And tests
by NIST showed that temperatures in the Twin Towers never got hot enough
to significantly weaken the structural steel of the 47-column inner
core.
Researchers have stated that the Purdue simulation contradicts the observed
facts in other ways, and in the next couple of weeks, they will publish
their findings.
Moreover, the Purdue simulation still does not address the flies in
the ointment which NIST also ignored:
(1) The simulation either fails to include, or inaccurately represents,
the 47 core columns holding up each of the Twin Towers.
(2) Most of the jet fuel burned outside the buildings, especially
in the case of the South Tower - which produced a glowing orange fireball
as the building was struck at an oblique angle. So the simulation could
not hold true for the South Tower.
(3) The
people who designed the Twin Towers did not think that an airplane
plus fire from the jet fuel could bring the buildings down. Indeed,
they assumed that "all
the fuel (from the airplane) would dump into the building", and yet
assumed "The building structure would still be there." Since most
of the fuel (especially with the South Tower) exploded outside
of the buildings, shouldn't they "still be there"?
(4) Even if the planes and fire had initiated a collapse sequence,
why did the towers totally collapse, when no modern steel-framed
building has ever before completely collapsed due to fire?
(5) Why did they collapse at virtually free-fall speed? And
why did WTC7 -- which wasn't even hit by a plane -- totally
collapse at free-fall speed later that same day?
(6) How
could the buildings have fallen at near free-fall speed, indicating
very little resistance, and yet produce tremendous pulverization
of concrete, which indicates great resistance?
(7) No one can explain why "steel
columns in building 7 were "PARTLY EVAPORATED in extraordinarily high
temperatures" (pay-per-view). Absent controlled demolition, how
could such temperatures have been generated by jet fuel or diesel?
As if that's not enough, Kevin Ryan pointed out to me today by email
that the Purdue simulation contradicts many aspects of NIST's
findings:
"1. Were columns on the south face of WTC severed by aircraft impact?
NIST says maybe one, but Purdue now suggests several. NCSTAR1, p.
22-23.
2. Was there any jet fuel in AA11's center fule tank? NIST says no,
but Purdue now says yes, it was completely full. NCTSAR1-5A, p liii,
lviii.
3. How did the fieproofing get "widely dislodged"? NIST suggests
the aircraft debris turned into shotgun blasts to affect this. Purdue
now suggests the jet fuel did it. Thanks to Purdue for invalidating
NIST's work. NCSTAR1, p 119."
In other words, not only does the Purdue simulation contain many of the
same errors as the NIST reports, but, as if that's not bad enough, it
stretches the truth
beyond even what NIST itself has done.
Moreover, as pointed out by the blog Truth
Or Lies:
"The following statement was used in the Purdue simulation:
'The weight of the aircraft's fuel, when ignited, acted like a flash
flood of flaming liquid.' This is a direct contradiction of the FEMA
report (which can be viewed HERE)
which stated: 'despite the huge fireballs caused by the two planes crashing
into the WTC towers each with 10,000 gallons of jet fuel, the fireballs
did not explode or create a shock wave that would have resulted in structural
damage.'”
As
Crockett
L. Grabbe, PhD, research scientist and visiting scholar, department
of physics and astronomy, university of Iowa 1980, and former researcher
at Naval Research Laboratory put it:
“Many may conclude that the building structure of the World Trade
Center twin towers was poorly designed with fire retardants that the
heat from the airliner explosions within an hour caused catastrophic
destruction of the south tower, and in less than 2 hours the north
tower. However, the evidence overwhelmingly supports a different conclusion:
this collapse was in fact caused by explosive devices planted well
in advance."
Indeed,
numerous
scientists, engineers and demolition experts have said the official
version of the destruction of the World Trade Centers is impossible.
