Posted: Dec 01, 2010 8:29 pm
by psikeyhackr
byofrcs wrote:Why waste 30 bucks when someone has already done this years ago...

http://news.uns.purdue.edu/x/2007a/0706 ... nnWTC.html


ROFLMAO

That is SCIENCE for you alright.

I emailed Prof. Sozen and two of his cronies at Purdue. Sozen didn't respond but his cronies referred me to him.

http://the911forum.freeforums.org/post2525.html#p2525

First of all that is just an animation of the airliner going into the north tower. It says nothing about the collapse. So bringing that up is a demonstration of vast brilliance.

Second there is an OBVIOUS scientific flaw in it. Watch the core columns as the plane comes in. Notice that they do not move. If you check the NIST report you will find that it says that the south tower was deflected by the impact 12 inches at the 70th floor which was 130 feet BELOW where the plane hit. So how is it that Purdue has the core columns remaining stationary for the north tower at the level where the plane hit?

And yet where are the EXPERTS that have been pointing out this obvious discrepancy for the last 3 years?

I did a physical model impact simulation also but it costs more than $30 and is much more difficult to build.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z0kUICwO93Q

The mass and its distribution had to affect the impact analysis also. The NIST admitted that in two places in their 10,000 page report but then they didn't do it.

There are at least THREE REASONS for wanting to know the TONS of STEEL and TONS of CONCRETE that were on every level to analyze what happened to the twin towers on 9/11.

psik