Purdue University Research Confirms Government 9/11 Findings

[USMC the Almighty]

Here's the full report:

http://www.cs.purdue.edu/cgvlab/projects/pentagon.htm
http://www.cs.purdue.edu/homes/cmh/simulation/index.html

 

[Napoleon]

A few points:

1. The melting point of steel is 2,500-2,750 degrees Fahrenheit. For steel to to become malleable requires exposure to temperatures approaching 2,000 degrees Fahrenheit. Yet, only 3 out of 170 perimeter and core columns retrieved from the site had been exposed to temperatures above 482 degrees Fahrenheit. We're expected to believe that the towers collapsed after the columns from the core and perimeter became too malleable at temperatures over 1,500 degrees LOWER than their malleability point. I don't buy it and neither should you.

2. FEMA's metallurgical analysis of those 3 samples revealed that a "liquid euctectic mixture containing primarily iron, oxygen, and sulfur" began severely corroding the steel at approximately 1,800 degrees Fahrenheit. In some cases, eating large holes into it. The source of the large quantities of sulfur have yet to be identified, FEMA was not permitted to retrieve anymore samples for testing, and it's requested investigation into the source of the mixture and, specifically, the sulfur was and continues to be ignored. Even if that mixture alone didn't cause the collapse, it certainly accelerated it.

3. Witnesses, including office workers and firemen that were inside the towers, reported hearing and/or seeing primary and secondary explosions. Specifically, in the basement, lobby, and lower floors. Video footage in the lobby confirms that an explosion did take place at least there and most of these have been attributed to jet fuel. William Rodriguez, Phillip Morelli, Mike Pecoraro, Felipe David, Salvatore Giambanco, and Jose Sanchez, all of whom worked in the basement of the WTC, reported hearing, feeling, and seeing the effects of a large explosion in the basement BEFORE Flight 11 struck the North Tower. No investigation into the cause of these explosions has ever been conducted nor were they mentioned or considered as factors in the collapse of the buildings despite the testimony of Mr. Rodriguez to the 9/11 Commission.

4. Nearly every simulation compiled by those supporting the conclusions of the government required that the planes remain largely intact, that they collided with the core, and that the core and perimeter columns be exposed to extreme heat in excess of what they were actually exposed to. This despite the fact that the whole world saw the planes blow apart almost immediately upon impact on national and international television and even though chunks of the planes were scattered all over lower Manhattan! Much of the damage to the core was attributed to the "intact steel engines". Tell me, how did the "intact steel engines" make it unscathed all the way to the core then end up three blocks away in the opposite direction on the corner of Church and Murray Street before the collapse?

 

[USMC the Almighty]

So you didn't watch the video?

 

[Napoleon]

So you didn't watch the video?

I did watch the video.

 

[USMC the Almighty]

I did watch the video.

What you said has nothing to do with it. You conspiracy nuts are impossible to debate. There is no amount of scientific evidence that would ever convince you.

The purpose of this science and the research is not to convince the fringe radicals who refuse to believe that evil exists and that everything is America's fault, but to sway the logical, reasonable ones who were skeptical of the government's version (justifiably).

 

[Napoleon]

What you said has nothing to do with it.

It has everything to do with it. The data collected and testimony of those inside the towers does not support the conclusion that the impact of the planes and flaming aviation fuel alone caused the collapse. The conclusion is in direct contradiction with the facts. Even this simulation has to contradict itself in order to support the preconceived conclusion of those who authored it. For example, in one frame we see the plane "peeling" apart immediately after entering the building. In the next we see the plane entirely intact as it strikes the core.

...but to sway the logical, reasonable ones who were skeptical of the government's version (justifiably).

We're skeptical of the government's conclusions because they aren't supported by their own data. A programmed simulation doesn't change that.

 

[USMC the Almighty]

It has everything to do with it. The data collected and testimony of those inside the towers does not support the conclusion that the impact of the planes and flaming aviation fuel caused the collapse. The conclusion is in direct contradiction with the facts.

We're skeptical of the government's conclusions because they aren't supported by their own data. A programmed simulation doesn't change that.

Fine, but there is no amout of scientific evidence that will convince you guys. The 9/11 official report has been upheld by thousands of scientists, physicists, engineers, etc. and you guys are still in denial and that's the problem.

We have the facts. You just have questions.

 

[Napoleon]

Fine, but there is no amout of scientific evidence that will convince you guys.

You can't even be convinced by your own data.

The 9/11 official report has been upheld by thousands of scientists, physicists, engineers, etc. and you guys are still in denial and that's the problem.

It's interesting to note that these same people often present conclusions which contradict the official report also.

We have the facts. You just have questions.

You have preconceived conclusions and opinions which don't fit the data. We have facts which lead to questions no one wants to answer. All of the data and testimony strongly indicates that there was a coordinated attack on the ground as well as in the air.

 

[USMC the Almighty]

You can't even be convinced by your own data.

https://www.houseofpolitics.com/forum/showthread.php?t=789

I'll repeat what I said there -- To me, scientific evidence and proof is a lot more convincing then simply asking questions and stringing together a couple of odd coincidences. There were a lot of firsts and unprecedented events that day. Never before had a 767 loaded with jet fuel launched full speed into skyriser, so of course there were some surprising outcomes.

You have preconceived conclusions and opinions which don't fit the data. We have facts which lead to questions no one wants to answer. All of the data and testimony strongly indicates that there was a coordinated attack on the ground as well as in the air.

Wrong. There are logical answers to every question you can ask. You just have to be willing to accept the answers when they are given. The whole problem is that the conspiracy nuts don't want answers and so they refuse to acknowledge when they are given.

Why do people feel the need to buy conspiracy theories? Topic for another thread.

 

[TVoffBrainOn]

There is no amount of scientific evidence that would ever convince you.


There are logical answers to every question you can ask. You just have to be willing to accept the answers when they are given.

Is this not scientific evidence?

2. FEMA's metallurgical analysis of those 3 samples revealed that a "liquid euctectic mixture containing primarily iron, oxygen, and sulfur" began severely corroding the steel at approximately 1,800 degrees Fahrenheit. In some cases, eating large holes into it. The source of the large quantities of sulfur have yet to be identified, FEMA was not permitted to retrieve anymore samples for testing, and it's requested investigation into the source of the mixture and, specifically, the sulfur was and continues to be ignored. Even if that mixture alone didn't cause the collapse, it certainly accelerated it.

I'd like the logical answer to the following questions?
- Why was there molten steel at ground zero?
- Why was Norman Mineta's testimony stricken from the 9/11 commission report?
- What were Cheney's orders that were upheld throughout the flight of 77 (pentagon plane)
- Why was the testimony of William Rodrigues and others who were in the basement of WTC stricken from the record?
- Will you watch this presentation? It provides just as much scientific research as your video and it includes more factual evidence to make its simulation. it has to do with flight 77
http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=2833924626286859522

Will you accept the evidence?

Why are you so certain? Im not certain about anything about 9/11, so i like to keep digesting all the information out there.

 

[USMC the Almighty]

TVBrain -- you'll be able to find answers to all your questions here:
https://www.houseofpolitics.com/forum/showthread.php?t=789

 

[TVoffBrainOn]

TVBrain -- you'll be able to find answers to all your questions here:
https://www.houseofpolitics.com/forum/showthread.php?t=789

I've read many of those sites. Will you watch the presentation on the 9 month research done based on the information provided by the flight data recorder of flight 77? Will you watch it?

as for the links. Ive read many of those sites. Maybe since you are more familiar with these sites you could point me in a direct direction to some of my questions.

Im not interested in arguing physics back and forth with links. Im interested in the simpler anomalies of 9/11 and more recently im interested in the confirmed flight path and maneuvers of flight 77. Would you like to watch the presentation i provided? It's quite interesting.

Are you aware of Norman Mineta's testimony?

 

[USMC the Almighty]

I've read many of those sites. Will you watch the presentation on the 9 month research done based on the information provided by the flight data recorder of flight 77? Will you watch it?

I'd really rather not waste an hour of my day. What is the basic conclusion of the video?

as for the links. Ive read many of those sites. Maybe since you are more familiar with these sites you could point me in a direct direction to some of my questions.

Im not interested in arguing physics back and forth with links. Im interested in the simpler anomalies of 9/11 and more recently im interested in the confirmed flight path and maneuvers of flight 77. Would you like to watch the presentation i provided? It's quite interesting.

This is pretty typical of the theorists. "I don't want to talk about the hard evidence [science]. I'd rather just ask questions." Like you say that you're more interested in the anomalies of 9/11, I'm more interested in the logical, reasoning ideological arguments.

For instance, an evident flaw in the whole story is that the plot you propose must have involved tens of thousands of people. It could not have been executed without the help of demolition experts, the security firms guarding the World Trade Centre, Mayor Giuliani (who hastily disposed of the remains), much of the US air force, the Federal Aviation Administration and the North American Aerospace Defence Command, the relatives of the people "killed" in the plane crashes, the rest of the Pentagon's staff, the Los Alamos laboratories, the FBI, the CIA, and the investigators who picked through the rubble.

Approaching it from your angle -- how is a president willing (and able) to bring down the World Trade Center, murdering nearly 3,000 Americans without inspiring a single whistle-blower or attracting a solitary eyewitness, somehow morally or logistically incapable of planting some exculpatory WMDs in Iraq?

The fact is the Bush and Co. does not have the competence to pull this off and moreover the administration is too leaky to not let this get out before it actually took place.

At any rate -- I'll try to find the answers to your questions a little bit later.

Are you aware of Norman Mineta's testimony?

Yes.

 

[TVoffBrainOn]

I've never said the gov't plotted this attack. And until all questions are thoroughly investigated and answered i see no reason to firmly plant myself at the feet of one belief.

I've been through the debunking sources. Frankly i wish FEMA, NIST, and the 9/11 commision report put the same amount of effort into the actual investigation. It's funny that the conspiracy/debunking groups put so much effort into it. All the answers are not there. Both sides have photos, eyewitness accounts, professors, firefighters, etc. I will continue to keep an open eye to all information, not just the information that supports one sides beliefs.

Will you watch the video i linked about flight 77.

My mind is not made up, and probably never will be. Beliefs are hard to change, ideas are not. I have ideas, it seems you have your beliefs.

Can you provide me one direct link to any debunking talk about Cheney's bunker, Cheney's orders, and Norman Mineta's testimony? or can you not?

 

[TVoffBrainOn]

I'd really rather not waste an hour of my day. What is the basic conclusion of the video?

That's pretty typical of you.

This is pretty typical of the theorists. "I don't want to talk about the hard evidence [science]. I'd rather just ask questions." Like you say that you're more interested in the anomalies of 9/11, I'm more interested in the logical, reasoning ideological arguments.

I don't really believe in a grand gov't conspiracy theory. If i had to pin down my ideas about 9/11 under one umbrella it would be that it was allowed to happen. I think there is plenty of evidence of thaT.

The reason i said im not interested in arguing physics back and forth is not because i want to "ignore the facts". It's because it's nothing new. I rbing my links, you bring yours. and then we argue about the validity of those sources and whose political payroll they are on... is that really what you want to talk about? I think you have enough people on this board to do that with.

Yes

and? What in your opinion were Cheney's orders? If their is a logical explanation in your opinion. Im not asking you to back it up with facts, im just curious?