Simulation Finds 9/11 Fireproofing Key

[Amianthus]

Jun 20, 6:36 AM (ET)

By STEVE HERMAN
INDIANAPOLIS (AP) - A computer simulation of the 2001 World Trade Center attacks supports a federal agency's findings that the initial impact from the hijacked airplanes stripped away crucial fireproofing material and that the weakened towers collapsed under their own weight.

The two-year Purdue University study, funded in part by the National Science Foundation, was the first to use 3-D animation to provide visual context to the attacks, said Christoph Hoffmann, a professor of computer science and one of the lead researchers on the project.

"One thing it does point out... is the absolute essential nature of fireproofing steel structures," Hoffmann told The Associated Press. "This is something that wasn't done originally in the World Trade Center when it was built. It wasn't code at that time."

Mete Sozen, a professor of structural engineering and a lead investigator on the simulation, said Purdue researchers hope their work leads to better structural design and building codes to prevent similar collapses.

"In the unfortunate development that we shall have to design structures to survive such events, the methods we have developed and will be developing will be of great use to designers," Sozen said.

The animation, intended in part to help engineers design safer buildings, begins with a map of lower Manhattan as it appeared on Sept. 11, 2001. The video then shows a plane slicing through several stories of the World Trade Center's north tower and follows the disintegrating plane through the interior and out the opposite side.

The report concludes that the weight of the aircraft's fuel, when ignited, produced "a flash flood of flaming liquid" that knocked out a number of structural columns within the building and removed the fireproofing insulation from other support structures, Hoffmann said.

The simulation also found that the airplane's metal skin peeled away shortly after impact and shows how the titanium jet engine shafts flew through the building like bullets.

Ayhan Irfanoglu, a Purdue professor of civil engineering, said half of the building's weight-bearing columns were concentrated at the cores of the towers.

"When that part is wiped out, the structure comes down," Irfanoglu said. "We design structures with some extra capacity to cover some uncertainties, but we never anticipate such heavy demand coming from an aircraft impact. If the columns were distributed, maybe, the fire could not take them out so easily."

A 2005 report following a three-year investigation by the National Institute of Standards and Technology, a federal engineering agency, recommended that cities raise fire standards for skyscrapers and develop new materials that can better protect tall buildings from fire. That analysis did not blame the collapse on the steel or design of the towers, but instead focused on the damage to the fireproofing.

Shyam Sunder, the lead NIST investigator, said he was aware of the Purdue study and called it and his own agency's study "among probably the most prominent analyses that have been conducted in the United States."

The animation is the latest project by the Purdue team to assess the structural damage from the Sept. 11 attacks. The team also studied the impact of the crash into the Pentagon.

---

On the Net:

See the Purdue study:

http://www.cs.purdue.edu/news/6-15-07WTC.htm
Article

[_JS]

I watched a program recently (I don't recall the channel, but I want to say it was Discovery or History Channel) that concluded that if the steel used in building the WTC had contained a small percentage each (1% or less) of Molybdenum and Chromium the buildings would have at least stood for quite a while longer, though they may have still collapsed.

Of course that would have been some really advanced and costly thinking for the time when the WTC was built. According to the program, even today, only German and Japanese engineers are producing buildings with this type of extremely high temperature resistant steel.

[Amianthus]

Fireproofing the supports has been code for a while now, though it wasn't at the time the WTC was built, as the report notes.

[MissusDe]

I wonder if this report will finally put the conspiracy theories to rest.

[sirs]

LOL.......Unfortunately, I seriously doubt that, Miss De.  In fact, this just may fuel the fire of how deeply engrained the neo-cons have become, actually able to manipulate computer simulations.  Because of course, the lack of such evidence is proof positive      

[_JS]

LOL.......Unfortunately, I seriously doubt that, Miss De.  In fact, this just may fuel the fire of how deeply engrained the neo-cons have become, actually able to manipulate computer simulations.  Because of course, the lack of such evidence is proof positive      

But isn't their right to hold such inflammatory views something you proudly uphold?

[sirs]

LOL.......Unfortunately, I seriously doubt that, Miss De.  In fact, this just may fuel the fire of how deeply engrained the neo-cons have become, actually able to manipulate computer simulations.  Because of course, the lack of such evidence is proof positive      

But isn't their right to hold such inflammatory views something you proudly uphold?

ABSOLUTELY.  And laugh hysterically at the same time such a view is demonstrated to be so beyond outlandish        Supporting their right to spew dren doesn't equate to respecting it.  Then again, you knew that

[_JS]

Yeah.

I have to be honest, I've heard of a lot of conspiracies and other wild theories. I remember the black helicopter people back in the late 90's (are they still around?). But I really don't understand these guys. I mean, this one is rather cut and dry.

The Kennedy assassination I can understand. In fact, even with the new vogue of defending the Warren Commission and the Oswald was a lone nut theory (hey, you have to take a new angle to sell books) I still have problems with that one. My biggest problem is why Jack Ruby walked right up to the only man in custody with some answers and murdered him on live television. I don't really buy the "I didn't want Jackie to suffer through a trial" line from Ruby.

But this 9/11 was staged stuff is right up there with the most bizarre stuff.

[sirs]

Dead on, Js.  I to have "issues" with some of the conclusions of the Warren Commission, and how easily Ruby shot Oswald.  What I don't really have an issue with is the conclusion that Oswald did fire the fatal shot.  And some of the 911 stuff is, as you say, quite bizzare, though that's being kind     

[Xavier_Onassis]

I wonder if this report will finally put the conspiracy theories to rest.

===============================================
Why would it?  A conspiracy theorist would say that it was already KNOWN what a plane full oif fuel would do to the WTC. It isn't too hard to imagine the Al Qaeda or anyone else doing some research about what an effect the collisions might be.
Bombing the WTC in 2001 was not something totally unexpected, like the assassination of John Lennon. Al Qaeda had tried to bring down the WTC once before.

The 9-11 attacks have been used to change all manner of personal liberties of Americans that would have been impossible had 9-11never have occurred. They will get their computer chipped ID card in the form of all of our driver's licenses. All of our movements in and out of the country are being tracked, and we need a passport to go to Mexico or Canada.

Plus we have the never-ending War on Terror to replace the Cold War to keep the Military Industrial Complex a-humming. 

It really does not matter whether Al Qaeda alone planned 9-11, Darth Cheney manipulated it into happening, or it was just allowed to happen. The results are the same, and they are not good.

[Jwmcc]

I've always felt that most of the 9/11 conspiracy theories stem from people who just don't grasp physics. They just assume that since they never saw some huge steel structure melt and collapse before that it's IMPOSSIBLE to that have happened to the Trade Center, that there had to have been explosives placed inside the towers beforehand etc.

[BT]

There is healthy skepticism of government and then there is unhealthy skepticism of government.

A congressional approval rating in the 40's may be healthy. A congressional approval rating in the teens may not be.

[Universe Prince]

A congressional approval rating in the teens may not be.

For whom?

[BT]

For the country as a whole.

Do you think institutional distrust of that magnitude is healthy?

[Universe Prince]

That depends on the reasons for the distrust. And possibly on what you mean by healthy. Frankly, I think there is not enough healthy distrust of the government, as the government is now. But I'm libertarian, so I tend to think distrust of the government is generally healthy. I'll go so far as to say if people distrusted government more, the nation would be healthier socially, politically, and financially.

As I say that, I realize we may not be approaching this subject with the same ideas in mind as to what "distrust of the government" means. I mean distrusting the government as the government. I am thinking perhaps you mean distrusting the individuals holding office in the government. To come at the question from that angle, I'd say, again, much depends on the reasons for the distrust. People should be able to trust the individuals in the positions of government. If the people do not, but have good reason to not do so (for example, the state treasurer here was quite recently charged with possession of cocaine and intent to distribute), then obviously the distrust is healthy. If the people do not trust the individuals in government because of some sort of unfounded paranoid fear of conspiracy or some such, then yes, that is unhealthy, but then I'd have to ask, aren't those same people the ones who voted for the individuals in office? Why would someone vote for individuals he did not trust?