Does 9/11 simulation 'raise more questions than answers?'

Does 9/11 simulation 'raise more questions than answers?' -

More than five-and-a-half years have passed since terrorists toppled the World Trade Center, and questions still remain about how the buildings came down. Researchers at Purdue University have created a computer model attempting to answer some of those questions.

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, the website TRUTHORLIES.ORG believes that the simulation "raises more questions then answers."

Josh Reeves and Mike Swenson write, "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.'"

More at the link above.. Be sure to check out GW's great writeup on this here as well.

For the Record - Regarding Purdue...

They also produced a Pentagon Simulation in 2002 !!!


Similar proposal with a wall of fuel destroying all (even though April Gallop claims no sign of any fuel)...

More info at :

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.


Also note, in the article, the name "Mete Sozen" jumped out at me as one that Kevin Ryan listed in his excellent blog...

Looking for Truth in Credentials: The WTC “Experts”


Thanks to Loose change forum (member Buddy) for info...

Best wishes

And several engineering

And several engineering professors had a hand in the original NIST WTC simulation.

about this study, it was

about this study, it was touted by this bullshit radio show today to show how wrong those damn "conspiracy theorists" are. drop them a line if you feel so inclined.

"The Central Intelligence Agency owns everyone of any significance in the major media." ~ William Colby, Former Director, CIA

Debunker Bullet-Proof

Just quote this article if you need help against the debunkers. Who can argue with the building designers when they designed the buildings to survive plane crashes of similar type on 9/11?

The World Trade Center Building Designers: Pre-9/11 claims strongly implicate that the Towers should have remained standing on 9/11

“We're an empire now, and when we act we create our own reality."

i already sent them a bunch,

i already sent them a bunch, but i definitely included the designers statements.

"The Central Intelligence Agency owns everyone of any significance in the major media." ~ William Colby, Former Director, CIA

The common debunker position seems to be

that 9/11 was simply an anomalous event. That's it. They put away their thinking caps, and proclaim the original architects and other experts wrong because, in a wicked case of arguing from the consequent, the buildings fell.

That is, instead of recognizing that the buildings should have stood, debunkers simply say, "The buildings fell; therefore, the architects were wrong."

Anyone can invent a series of just-so arguments to explain why the buildings may have fallen, but the fact of their falling does not necessarily mean the architects were wrong.

So when you say "who can argue with the building designers," the answer is, "the debunkers can." What someone clever should do is make a computer simulation that manipulates the data such that the plane crashes could have produced another absurd result, like having the interior of the towers collapse but leave the perimeter standing. We need to demonstrate that the simulation (a) can be made to show many results, and (b) does not account for the cumulative evidence we have (eyewitnesses, explosions in the basement prior to impact, squibs, CD expert testimony, etc.).

You make good points

An honest person would look at what the building designers said, read the stunning contradictory statements after 9/11 by Robertson (i.e. they didn't think about a fast plane, the jet fuel, or other outrageous lies), and realize something fishy is going on.

How can a building designer claim that they designed the plane to survive jet fuel fires, and then another come forward after 9/11 and claim he doesn't "remember" them thinking about that.

I know that the debunkers will debate anything, but in this case they can't go to their cherished appeals to authority on this issue. There is no higher authority than the building designers. I agree, that simply because the building designers said the buildings would survive, does not mean that they would... but it ignores of course, all of the other suspicious evidence of controlled demolition, and explaining this is critical to converting the skeptics. Free fall speed, is the real killer here.

I consider the building designer statements to be another piece of devastating evidence to counter the official story. The fact that the official reports IGNORE the designer statements is itself a tip-off. The fact that they did not consider alternative explanations when the designers claimed the building could survive the events of the official story hypothesis is incredibly suspect.

“We're an empire now, and when we act we create our own reality."

They keep pumping up that jet fuel...

"No, REALLY... It burns at about one MILLION degress! The force of the impact plus the buring fuel was like Tsar Bomba!!"

Yeah, but explain what happened AFTER the towers began to collapse.

"Huh? ................."

They're compounding their lies, drawing attention to the subject, and making it increasingly obvious that they refuse to touch the actual "collapse" part of the event. I think we should push this aspect of it. How many more gummint or "expert" reports is it going to take for them to fully NOT explain the "collapse".

"We've written 15 separate, mutually exclusive reports on the very stunning plane crashes at the WTC, and I think we've made it abundantly clear that we're not going to talk about the collapse events. Plane hit tower, tower go boom. What more do you want from us for god's sake!?"
"Peace comes from within. Do not seek it without." - Buddha
"What you do will be insignificant, but it is very important that you do it." - Gandhi
"The Sun never shined on a cause of greater worth." - Thomas Paine

I doesn't need to be explained

Like that guys from NIST said - we can see it collapsing on the videos, so no need to investigate it further.

show me... no no, prove me

First of all I cannot find any paper that would describe how and how much of the fireproofing was dislodged (should I ingeniously deduce it from the animation??). Has the Purdue's study been peer-reviewed and/or published?

Prof. Popescu who designed animation software himself points out FLAWS in the simulation:
on Page 6 we read:

"One of the shortcomings of the simulation is that the dispersing fuel is treated by LS-DYNA as a non-volatile liquid. However, it created an explosion and subsequent fire. Thus, SPH elements should have a death frame associated that attenuates the mass of liquid over time. This and other fire-related effects should be revisited in future work."

Another thing, is that animation shows bare columns without gypsum walls, furniture, etc. I ask: how could they confirm that fireproofing was dislodged if they didn't include all the other stuff, like walls, that covered columns?

And where can I read a paper that describes this alleged dislodging scientifically?
As for now we have Mr. Soze's (check K.Ryan's article on him and his fellows) OUTRAGEOUS statements which try to confirm official explanation and bolster it with Purdue's study. Soze's managed to include "column buckling", "heat from an ordinary office fire would suffice to soften and weaken the unprotected steel.", "collapse would follow whatever the number of columns cut" in his statement about Purdue's study, while this study has NOTHING to do with those topics. OUTRAGEOUS!
The worst thing is that mainstream media will buy it.

Yeah, and

I don't see al-Satami's passport in their simulation. Or did he chuck that from the cockpit window just prior to impact? ;-)

For RAW Story, this is

For RAW Story, this is pretty good. Hope it is a sign of better things to come from them. The sim should be shredded as it is pure junk science/cartoon nonsense, but RAW has never gone this far into questioning the OCT, so it is positive in that respect.

JFK on secrecy and the press

RAW reader comments - a good indicator

I have been a daily reader of RAW STORY for over a year now. What struck me the most about this article was the reader comments I checked on Wednesday evening. There was a very large and fast response - it seemed like about 140+ reader comments which is a lot for RAW . Six months ago - any story about 911, would have had about a 10-20% response from Truthers - which always seemed like a fringe position on there. But today, except for about 2-3 posters - every single post was from a very strong pro 911 Truth position with lots of clearly informed people. I was stunned at how things have turned so quickly in the past 6 months. I have noticed the same thing on Huffington Post - now 911 Truth comments seem to be overtaking the number of die hard official story supporters. What is even more encouraging is that I have noticed some of the old "regulars" who frequent these sites and never said anything about 911 truth - are all of a sudden speaking up, as if they just got clued in.

I am seeing a big shift in perception on various reader comment threads in the past 6 months - and I think it is because people are starting to check all the links Truthers are posting. has some great articles sometimes, but I think they have proven themselves to clearly be Left Gatekeepers as they have tried to bash 911 truth several times in the past year with a few articles. But likewise, the reader comment response has been a landslide in favor of 911 Truth. The readers are not taking that crap anymore and are calling out people like Monbiot and Holland for the hacks they are. What is really funny about Alternet is that as hard as they try to bash 911 Truth with their articles - each time, the reader comments (clear majority of which are Pro-911 Truth) have catapulted these articles to the "most discussed" - to the point they sometimes had to close down the comments section a bit early it seemed to me. If you do a search for the "most discussed" articles in the past year - 4 of the top 5 most discussed articles are about 911.
It is getting clearer and clearer what people want to discuss - even when these sites try to ridicule the topic.

This is great news of course - but at the same time probably brings us closer to another false flag sooner than later. But if we can keep this trend growing virally - maybe the next time they call for a war ...nobody will show up?

"All that is necessary for evil to succeed is for good men to do nothing."
- Edmund Burke, 1729 - 1797

I noticed this too!

This article really brought out the Truthers in the Comments section. There was like one troll, 'A.E. Neuman' - but other than that, everyone was bringing it on! HuffPo too...though RAW draws a more cynical crowd. Good stuff. I have noticed this trend too.

"Out of these troubled times, our fifth objective — a New World Order — can emerge..." - George H.W. Bush, 9/11/91

I am seeing a shift, too. It

I am seeing a shift, too. It started last summer but has really grown over the past three-six months. This is good. Let's just keep at it--answer bs wherever we find it, promote the facts, and don't give an inch when dumbass politicians spin the usual nonsense--"never heard that before, but I'll get back to you after I've studied it, promise...."

JFK on secrecy and the press

I'm with you there

On websites that have traditionally eschewed 9/11 truth topics -- statements about which would be deleted often and fast -- the moderators seem to have grown more tolerant of our point of view.

Fuselage too narrow? Too strong?

The Purdue video seems to show the fuselage as narrower in diameter than the space between floors. This is a lie. As MIT's Wierzbicki pointed out in his paper, the fuselage has to come into contact with one or two floors, depending on point of impact, because it is 5 meters in diameter while the length between floors is 3.7 m. He says the floors were 0.9 meter thick or about 3 feet. See this paper, pages 38-39:

On second thought, the animation may be showing the fuselage being cut by the floor, with the other portion passing above the visible floor. If so, that raises another question--how does the fuselage penetrate when impacting external columns backed by a floor? Is penetration of the external columns followed by cutting by the floors, really plausible? Wouldn't the fuselage crush and fragment against the columns backed by floors, particularly since energy would be distributed up and down the columns and into the floor?

NIST gives a better idea of where each fuselage hit, at NIST NCSTAR 1-2B pages 170-171, but with a 4 foot uncertainty up or down.

I question this--why can't the exact point of impact be determined from the photographs? I would like Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth to address this problem. It relates to analysis of NIST's claims about core column damage, since more interaction with the floors means less damage to core columns. Therefore, this analysis is both necessary and politically correct. Where did the engines and fuselage hit on each tower?


can simulate a fantasy.

Put Lucy Liu in mine.

Ya thanks!! ;)
"Peace comes from within. Do not seek it without." - Buddha
"What you do will be insignificant, but it is very important that you do it." - Gandhi
"The Sun never shined on a cause of greater worth." - Thomas Paine


hey guys, i was just mentioned by name on this radio show this morning and i need your help. they discussed 9/11 a bit yesterday and i sent them a bunch of links to enlighten them. well it didnt seem to work because when i turned on the show this morning they were talking about me and how you cant argue with "people like me" etc. they dismissed us basically. this isnt the first time that they talked 9/11 so do me a favor and send them heat.

"The Central Intelligence Agency owns everyone of any significance in the major media." ~ William Colby, Former Director, CIA

Time for more e mails.....

Everybody send Purdue some mail.....tell them to sell their fiction/pretty pictures to Hollywood, covering up mass murder with simulators, total bullshit.

Purdue 9/11 Study:

Purdue 9/11 Study: Rebuttal
Russell Gentile

A Purdue University computer simulation of the 9/11 World Trade Center attacks shows a 3-D animation of how the hijacked airplanes plowed into the towers, stripping fireproofing material and causing the skyscrapers to collapse. (June 18

Now to counter this which I consider more propaganda.

To counter this I'll add excerpts from my paper which can be found online called - 9-11: Can You Handle The Truth?
Please click on the supporting video links and you be the judge. Steve Watson from is quoted also in this rebuttal.

"The Central Intelligence Agency owns everyone of any significance in the major media." ~ William Colby, Former Director, CIA

Wow, that Ed Brown story has some headline...

Tax dodgers taunt police from hilltop compound

Nice impartial and factual news broadcasting by CNN, no spin hey !!!

Best wishes

"Zis is zee compound of my mastairrrrrr, Ed Brown!!"

"Now go away, you seely looking CIA person, or I shall taunt you a second time!!"

If government thugs surround my house, will it become a "compound" too? And "taunting"? LOL!!!

"'Allo, daffy government kannnnnnnniggets and Monsieur Bush-king, who is afraid of a duck, you know! So, we French fellows out-wit you a second time! How you Americans say, I one more time-a unclog my nose in your direction, sons of a window-dresser! So, you think you could out-clever us French folk with your silly knees-bent running about advancing behavior! I wave my private parts at your aunties, you heaving lot of second-hand electric donkey bottom biters!"

Journalism... HA HA!!!! I really can't believe adult human beings are falling for this shit. Even before I "woke up" I was starting to tune out the MSM, because it was becoming so ridiculous.

"Peace comes from within. Do not seek it without." - Buddha
"What you do will be insignificant, but it is very important that you do it." - Gandhi
"The Sun never shined on a cause of greater worth." - Thomas Paine

LOVED this line from the CNN story!

"The only thing they didn't anticipate is the fire. If the crash impacts the water line, then a fire can burn for a long time."

Yeah, such a long time.

Man, the people that come up with these "studies" are actually WORSE than the people that carried out the attacks.

You're right

"Man, the people that come up with these "studies" are actually WORSE than the people that carried out the attacks."

The people that did this likely have justified it to themselves on utilitarian grounds -- the greatest good for greatest number of people. Access to oil for all Americans is the benefit, and the families of the 3,000 people were compensated monetarily, even more than they would get in the tort system, so they actually benefitted by being paid more than they would have earned working. (Sick, yes, but that's the mindset of our market economy taken to extreme, where we are "human resources" and "consumers.")

Another justfication is preventing a worse attack. In a National Geographic special on 9/11, a terrorism "expert" is quoted as saying that FBI agents told him that 9/11 wasn't big enough and we need another 9/11 to convince the American people that terrorism is a threat. (This is my recollection, and gets the gist. The show was the second in NG's 9/11 series and the quote is near the end. I can't remember the "expert's" name.)

Scholars, on the other hand, can only justify their actions by pursuit of truth. They have betrayed their ideals and duty by creating this fraudulent animation.

Fireproofing lasts only 2-3 hours

As Richard Gage has pointed out in his lectures, fireproofing is only meant to last 2-3 hours. The idea that the fireproofing in the WTC "made all the difference" is absurd. Even if it had not been dislodged entirely, at some point the building would have to deal with fire (potentially for several hours, as we have seen from other skyscraper fires). You mean to tell me someone designed the tallest buildings in the world (at the time) without anticipating a fire? C'mon.

And, of course, as you say, Tired, 56 minutes is hardly a "long time" for a fire to burn.

surprise surprise......

New 9/11 Study Has Direct Links To Government, Pentagon Black Ops
"Independent" study financed by Feds

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.

Earlier this week we covered the news that the new study roughly correlates with the findings of the 2005 National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) report and supports the official line that the airplanes stripped away crucial fireproofing material and that the weakened towers collapsed under their own weight.

While the New York Times today lauds the study as "a counterpoint to the conspiracy theories promulgated by such outspoken figures as Rosie O’Donnell", has actually done some research into the origins of the study.

In addition to the inerrant flaws and conflicts we pointed out in our previous article, it has now come to light that the so called "independent" structural engineers behind the study are anything but.

The Study was funded by the National Science Foundation (NSF), a federal agency created by Congress in 1950 "to promote the progress of science; to advance the national health, prosperity, and welfare; to secure the national defense…".

The board of the NSF was appointed by George W. Bush and confirmed by the United States Senate. Its director, Dr. Arden L. Bement Jr, has worked for the Department of defense, where he was under secretary for research and engineering, and DARPA (the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency), which is responsible for the development of new technology for use by the military and famed for its black op projects and offshoot offices.

Last year the Bush Administration doubled the NSF's budget to $6.02 billion.

At the time Arden L. Bement, Jr. stated:

"This is a great day for NSF, and that means it's a great day for the nation, there has been a lot of rhetoric about doubling the NSF budget, but now the Administration is behind it. The FY 2007 Budget Request is the first installment. We are grateful to the Administration for its recognition and leadership,"

In addition it turns out that structural engineer Mete Sozen, the lead investigator in the Purdue study, was also on the American Society of Civil Engineers research team that confirmed the government's story about the OKC bombing in 1995, despite the huge amounts of inconsistencies and conflicting testimony.


From the ASCE web site

Mete A. Sozen, Ph.D., S.E.
Kettlehut Distinguished Professor of Structural Engineering, Purdue University
Specialty: Behavior of reinforced-concrete structures

Dr. Sozen is currently the Kettlehut Distinguished Professor of Structural Engineering at Purdue University in West Lafayette, Ind. Prior to joining Purdue in 1994, Dr. Sozen was a professor of civil engineering at the University of Illinois for over 35 years. Dr. Sozen also served on the ASCE team that studied the Murrah Federal Office Building collapse.

So while it claims to be independent the study was in fact funded by the government and carried out by long time government hired hands. The study clearly set out not to attempt to discover anything new but to prove the preconceived official fire theory.

Again this underscores the fact that a truly independent investigation into 9/11 is the only way the mountains of evidence pointing towards a controlled demolition will even be considered.

"The Central Intelligence Agency owns everyone of any significance in the major media." ~ William Colby, Former Director, CIA

Worthy of it's own blog...

Thanks and Dugg !!!