PDA

View Full Version : Purdue Scientists and engineers simulate jet colliding with World Trade Center



Lurker
2007-Jun-21, 05:01 PM
Hey!! This is my Alma mater and do they do it right or what???

From: http://www.rcac.purdue.edu/news/news_wtc.cfm:


Researchers at Purdue University have created a simulation that uses scientific principles to study in detail what likely happened when a commercial airliner crashed into the World Trade Center's North Tower on Sept. 11, 2001

The simulation is available there or can be viewed on YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cddIgb1nGJ8)

There is lots more available at their project site September 11 WTC Attack Simulations Using LS-Dyna (http://www.cs.purdue.edu/homes/cmh/simulation/phase3/). It's very well done!! The article referenced from the Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities, ASCE can be found here ([url=http://www.cs.purdue.edu/homes/cmh/simulation/phase3/WTC-1_EP.pdf)



Damn!! This is what science and engineering is all about!! They took the publicly available data associated with the aircraft and building structure and performed a finite element analysis using supercomputing resources. That the result conforms to the videos that we are all so familar with is very, very strong evidence that there was no conspiracy to blow up the buildings. It certainly shows that the failure behavior can be explained by normal failure physics.

My hat's off to the Men and Women of Purdue University. They have always been and continue to be the best that this country can produce. It with greatest humble pride that I say that I too am a Purdue Engineer. It is a great honor; one that I will always cherish.

01101001
2007-Jun-21, 05:21 PM
That the result conforms to the videos that we are all so familar with is very, very strong evidence that there was no conspiracy to blow up the buildings.

This forum no longer does 9-11 conspiracies

See topic New Change for Conspiracy Theory section: only space and astronomy (http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?t=52887)

Lurker
2007-Jun-21, 05:23 PM
This forum no longer does 9-11 conspiracies

See topic New Change for Conspiracy Theory section: only space and astronomy (http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?t=52887)
oops... I've been away for too long. I guess I'm in a bit of trouble now... :)

And its such a good bit of research too...

NEOWatcher
2007-Jun-21, 05:38 PM
oops... I've been away for too long. I guess I'm in a bit of trouble now... :)

And its such a good bit of research too...
It's happened to me too, and I was going to comment. But; I don't see that much of a CT angle to the story. More of an interesting study and analysis of a historical situation.

So, let's keep it, but maybe move it.

ToSeek
2007-Jun-21, 05:44 PM
Moved from CT to OTB, with a redirect.

Doodler
2007-Jun-21, 06:15 PM
Interesting, if tragic, credit to the engineers that designed the 767. Those wings remained intact a LOT longer than I thought they would. I would have thought they would have sheared soon after impact, but their approach suggests the plane was intact well into the core.

Noclevername
2007-Jun-21, 06:20 PM
. That the result conforms to the videos that we are all so familar with is very, very strong evidence that there was no conspiracy to blow up the buildings. It certainly shows that the failure behavior can be explained by normal failure physics.

And of course, these results will have no real effect on the CTers, as they'll just say that Purdue is part of the Conspiracy... :wall:

Lurker
2007-Jun-21, 06:33 PM
And of course, these results will have no real effect on the CTers, as they'll just say that Purdue is part of the Conspiracy... :wall:
It's true... I was paid by TPTB to post here. :)

Gillianren
2007-Jun-21, 06:41 PM
And, of course, Purdue itself to hype their school, right?

Larry Jacks
2007-Jun-21, 07:06 PM
Interesting, if tragic, credit to the engineers that designed the 767. Those wings remained intact a LOT longer than I thought they would. I would have thought they would have sheared soon after impact, but their approach suggests the plane was intact well into the core.

The wings are probably the strongest pieces of the plane's structure. They carry the fuel loads, the engine loads, and a lot of the aerodynamic forces. Those planes that hit the WTC were probably carrying at least 40,000 pounds (probably a lot more) of jet fuel, so they had a lot of mass and momentum to carry them through the impact.

tbm
2007-Jun-21, 08:54 PM
Not to be outdone, the CT's are already pooh-poohing the report. That doesn't surprise me since they are full of ka-ka anyway.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/june2007/200607animation.htm

tbm

Lurker
2007-Jun-21, 09:07 PM
Not to be outdone, the CT's are already pooh-poohing the report. That doesn't surprise me since they are full of ka-ka anyway.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/june2007/200607animation.htm

tbm
Wow... how can people take such a detailed study and still not understand it... :doh:

Noclevername
2007-Jun-21, 09:09 PM
Wow... how can people take such a detailed study and still not understand it... :doh:

Constant practice.

Doodler
2007-Jun-21, 09:26 PM
Interesting, if tragic, credit to the engineers that designed the 767. Those wings remained intact a LOT longer than I thought they would. I would have thought they would have sheared soon after impact, but their approach suggests the plane was intact well into the core.

The wings are probably the strongest pieces of the plane's structure. They carry the fuel loads, the engine loads, and a lot of the aerodynamic forces. Those planes that hit the WTC were probably carrying at least 40,000 pounds (probably a lot more) of jet fuel, so they had a lot of mass and momentum to carry them through the impact.

Chalk that up to something learned today.

Eric12407
2007-Jun-22, 04:48 AM
Not to be outdone, the CT's are already pooh-poohing the report. That doesn't surprise me since they are full of ka-ka anyway.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/june2007/200607animation.htm

tbm

After reading the prison planet article I would say that you are the one that is full of it ....

Damien Evans
2007-Jun-22, 07:15 AM
After reading the prison planet article I would say that you are the one that is full of it ....

Then you'd be wrong.

Gillianren
2007-Jun-22, 07:20 AM
Wow... how can people take such a detailed study and still not understand it... :doh:

Willful ignorance or paranoid schizophrenia?

Nicolas
2007-Jun-22, 07:50 AM
Interesting, if tragic, credit to the engineers that designed the 767. Those wings remained intact a LOT longer than I thought they would. I would have thought they would have sheared soon after impact, but their approach suggests the plane was intact well into the core.

The wings are probably the strongest pieces of the plane's structure. They carry the fuel loads, the engine loads, and a lot of the aerodynamic forces. Those planes that hit the WTC were probably carrying at least 40,000 pounds (probably a lot more) of jet fuel, so they had a lot of mass and momentum to carry them through the impact.

Expanding on that, I think that if you somehow completely disassembled the plane right before impact (but kept things in place), it would also continue quite some distance in its original shape through the structure because of the huge kinetic energy of the individual parts.

That said, the 767 appears to be a plane that is up to or above all safety standards, a solid piece of engineering like we're used to see from the big aircraft companies.

Grand_Lunar
2007-Jun-22, 12:35 PM
The YouTube video on their site only plays some 10 seconds or so, even though the bar indicates it's fully loaded. Is there a version that's non-YouTube?

farmerjumperdon
2007-Jun-22, 12:50 PM
Expanding on that, I think that if you somehow completely disassembled the plane right before impact (but kept things in place), it would also continue quite some distance in its original shape through the structure because of the huge kinetic energy of the individual parts.

That said, the 767 appears to be a plane that is up to or above all safety standards, a solid piece of engineering like we're used to see from the big aircraft companies.

So speed as a major factor. Kind of like the outrageous things that happen when a tornado turns objects not usually seen as missles into, . . . missles.

farmerjumperdon
2007-Jun-22, 01:18 PM
Prison Planet. A cute and fitting name for a site that panders to paranoia. It is telling that the first option in their Services menu is Shopping Cart. The advertisers seem to be casting a net wide enough to draw in everybody, without regard their nuerosis of choice. The chat there must be like watching a Seinfeld episode.

Doodler
2007-Jun-22, 02:24 PM
Expanding on that, I think that if you somehow completely disassembled the plane right before impact (but kept things in place), it would also continue quite some distance in its original shape through the structure because of the huge kinetic energy of the individual parts.

That said, the 767 appears to be a plane that is up to or above all safety standards, a solid piece of engineering like we're used to see from the big aircraft companies.

I suppose I should explain that by sheared off, I mean separated from the fuselage moreso that shredded, but given the description given by Larry Jacks, it would suggest there's probably more tying them together than I'd given them credit for.

Larry Jacks
2007-Jun-22, 05:56 PM
According to this source (http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_ch1.pdf), the Boeing 767-200ER aircraft that were used to attack the towers had an estimated gross weight of 274,000 pounds and flight speeds of 470 to 590 MPH upon impact.

However, the planes were designed to a much higher gross weight. According to the this website (http://www.answers.com/topic/boeing-767), the 767-200ER was designed to a maximum gross weight of 395,000 pounds. In order to meet the mandated structural limits, those wings were build to handle positive loads of well over a million pounds (I estimate about 1.9 million pounds based on a G load of 3.2 and a safety factor of 50%) before breaking. Each of the engines produce over 62,000 pounds of thrust (max) and the wings have to handle those loads as well. Airliner wings are very strong.

That website states that the empty weight of a 767-200ER is approximately 182,000 pounds. Given the estimated weight at impact of 274,000 pounds, that means that the plane was carrying approximately 92,000 pounds of fuel, passengers, baggage, and crew. The planes weren't nearly full that day, so I'll offer the SWAG that the fuel load at impact was approximately 70,000 pounds (a bit more than 10,000 gallons). That's a lot of mass in those wings and the wings were moving very fast when they hit the building. It wouldn't stop instantly even when hitting a building.

farmerjumperdon
2007-Jun-22, 06:07 PM
I suppose I should explain that by sheared off, I mean separated from the fuselage moreso that shredded, but given the description given by Larry Jacks, it would suggest there's probably more tying them together than I'd given them credit for.

I remember watching a show about the development of one of the Boeing jets, and the tests they did were outrageous. They took a full size prototype and set it up in a jig so that the fuselage was firmly anchored, then attached some powerful lifting devises to each wing tip. They proceeded to lift on the wing tips until the plane broke. It was amazing how much force it took and how far the arched in an upward curve before they broke. It looked like a huge bird with it's wings on the upstroke. When they finally went it was like an explosion.

They also did kind of a brakestand (trying to hold the plane in place with the brakes while they amped up the engines). They did this until the brakes were ablaze, and then some. Not sure I'd want to be in a plane in which the landing gear was intentionally set on fire.

Makes me feel good though about the efforts that go into their designs.

tbm
2007-Jun-22, 06:33 PM
After reading the prison planet article I would say that you are the one that is full of it ....

Perhaps you misunderstand my meaning. I feel that the CTs are those that are filled with ka-ka, not the Purdue scientists.

tbm

Addendum:

After perusing Eric's posts, it seems that he is one who believes in the CT viewpoint. While his intent is now clear, his facts still aren't.

Gillianren
2007-Jun-22, 07:57 PM
The chat there must be like watching a Seinfeld episode.

Tedious, whiny, and thinking it's funny and clever?

Noclevername
2007-Jun-22, 09:15 PM
Tedious, whiny, and thinking it's funny and clever?

...Or stretching a one-note unfunny joke out to a half-hour of blathering?

Gillianren
2007-Jun-23, 11:23 AM
I'm always so happy when I encounter other people who didn't like Seinfeld, either. It was amazing how much of an outcast it made you in certain social circles in the '90s.

Sticks
2007-Jun-23, 01:12 PM
I'm always so happy when I encounter other people who didn't like Seinfeld, either. It was amazing how much of an outcast it made you in certain social circles in the '90s.

What was Seinfeld :confused:

Tucson_Tim
2007-Jun-23, 03:31 PM
What was Seinfeld :confused:

I'm one of the few people who have never seen an episode of Seinfeld. Did I miss something? :confused:

Noclevername
2007-Jun-23, 03:54 PM
I'm one of the few people who have never seen an episode of Seinfeld. Did I miss something? :confused:


Nope. It was a show about nothing, after all. If you've ever seen a commercial for it, you've basically seen everything that's going to happen.

Tucson_Tim
2007-Jun-23, 04:14 PM
Nope. It was a show about nothing, after all. If you've ever seen a commercial for it, you've basically seen everything that's going to happen.

Well, to be honest, I have seen a minute or two of an episode or two and it didn't look interesting enough to me. But I've never been too fond of Seinfeld's stand-up comedy either.

Sticks
2007-Jun-23, 05:02 PM
I'm one of the few people who have never seen an episode of Seinfeld. Did I miss something? :confused:

Apparently so am I :confused:

Gillianren
2007-Jun-23, 09:21 PM
Sticks, Seinfeld was a very popular American sitcom of the '90s. It actually bragged about being a show about nothing. It was four obnoxious people hanging out together, essentially; often, wildly improbable things would happen to them. Its star, Jerry Seinfeld, is the only one of the four I've never seen in anything I liked. (Though someone I knew who'd gone to Evergreen, my alma mater, with one of the actors said he was a jerk, he was still good in UHF.) He's a stand-up comedian. I don't merely not find him funny, I find him actively irritating.

Noclevername
2007-Jun-23, 09:43 PM
Well, to be honest, I have seen a minute or two of an episode or two and it didn't look interesting enough to me. But I've never been too fond of Seinfeld's stand-up comedy either.

Good thing you missed it then, because he actually put his standup routine into the show. In between "acts", they'd cut to a clip of Seinfeld in front of a brick wall doing his usual bla-bla-bla "who aaare these peeeople?" Blech.

Van Rijn
2007-Jun-23, 10:37 PM
I'm always so happy when I encounter other people who didn't like Seinfeld, either. It was amazing how much of an outcast it made you in certain social circles in the '90s.

I didn't hate it, but I didn't like it much either. There were one or two episodes I caught that were okay. There were a few more times where I started watching it, then found something more interesting to do. I don't think I tried watching it more than six times or so.

Moose
2007-Jun-24, 12:19 AM
Agreed. Seinfeld didn't do it for me, although there are a couple of first season episodes I'd watch again.

I tend to end up disliking just about anything considered even remotely mainstream. It's not some conscious effort at elitism or anything like that, I just tend to like relatively obscure things, and/or shows/music aged at least fifteen years.

Right now, I'm listening to something described as "Authentic Pirate Hip-Hop".

Noclevername
2007-Jun-24, 12:20 AM
Right now, I'm listening to something described as "Authentic Pirate Hip-Hop".

:eh:
Yo-ho-hoes?

Moose
2007-Jun-24, 01:54 AM
One of the songs is called "Round the Corner Sallies", with many many "Yo-ho-ho" style puns. You can check out a review (http://www.bilgemunky.com/reviews/music/captaindan_piratehiphop.php) for Captain Dan and the Scurvy Crew if you like. The review has a link to the band's page, which has links to sample tracks IIRC.

You can also do a youtube search on the band's name to see their "official" video, which includes stop-motion break-dancing. No direct links because the lyrics aren't exactly BAUT friendly (pirate-like swearing).

Lurker
2007-Jun-24, 05:05 AM
My thread has been reduced to pirate hip-hop??? :doh:

:p

Moose
2007-Jun-24, 10:33 AM
YARR!!! :D (Hee)

tbm
2007-Jun-24, 01:26 PM
My thread has been reduced to pirate hip-hop??? :doh:

:p

Why not? Pirate hip-hop makes more sense than the drivel the 9/11 CT's come up with.

tbm

Swift
2007-Jun-25, 12:53 PM
Agreed. Seinfeld didn't do it for me, although there are a couple of first season episodes I'd watch again.

I tend to end up disliking just about anything considered even remotely mainstream. It's not some conscious effort at elitism or anything like that, I just tend to like relatively obscure things, and/or shows/music aged at least fifteen years.

Right now, I'm listening to something described as "Authentic Pirate Hip-Hop".
I watched Seinfeld on and off the first season, but it was kind of all the same. I think there was some episode about passing gas that was kind of the end of it for me. Glad to see I'm not the only freak who hasn't memorized all of it.

I'm like you Moose, I really don't think I'm a snob, but I to tend to not like "pop", particularly among movies and TV. And it is almost guaranteed that anyone I vote for loses.

I like the idea of Pirate Hip-Hop, I might have to check it out. There is some commercial I've heard on the radio (can't remember for what - a very effective commercial ;) ) that has a bit about Hip-Hop-pera (hip-hop opera) that's pretty funny.

farmerjumperdon
2007-Jun-25, 01:32 PM
Tedious, whiny, and thinking it's funny and clever?

Exactly. Every nuerosis known to man balled up in one little package. It's why I liked it. The title of the show could have easily been What's My Nuerosis?

Gillianren
2007-Jun-25, 06:46 PM
Well, neurosis. But close enough.

Actually, that's part of why I didn't like it, ditto Catcher in the Rye. They both, in my opinion, help devalue people with real problems.

Doodler
2007-Jun-25, 07:11 PM
I'm always so happy when I encounter other people who didn't like Seinfeld, either. It was amazing how much of an outcast it made you in certain social circles in the '90s.

Didn't care for much of it myself, except the Soup Nazi episodes. The last one was hysterical.

Fazor
2007-Jun-25, 07:21 PM
Well I guess that makes me the only person on BAUT that loved Seinfeld. Oh well, win some lose some.

Now my TV habits are reduced to the occasional Simpsons (I'm a Simpsoholic, I don't need to watch them I can rehearse most episodes line by line from memory ;)) and the Tribe games (Browns and Buckeyes in the Fall, with the futbol americano). And I watch Iron Chef: America every week, and Ninja Warrior on G4 nightly (who doesn't love people face-planting into various pylons and platforms? :lol:).

Noclevername
2007-Jun-25, 07:21 PM
The only ones I recall clearly are the first Soup Nazi ep, and the one about Teri Hatcher's breasts. (Wonder why? :)) I vaguely recall the "Anti-George", when George desides that acting like his complete opposite will get him women, and something about Neo-Nazis and a limousine. Oh, and some stupid one about being stuck in a chinese restaurant.