Why is the Purdue simulation such a joke?

[spooked911]

Here's a video of the Purdue cartoon "simulation"of the WTC hit:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cddIgb1nGJ8


Here are two screen grabs of the hole they say was made by the plane in tower 1:




Here was the hole in WTC1 on 9/11:


So the Purdue cartoon fails on every level:

1) Simple reality that a real plane would not slip past spandrel plates like a ghost. Simple reality that aluminum sheets would not slice through thick steel column like a knife through butter. Simple reality that steel spandrel plates would not wave in the wind like paper. I mean, what the f%$#??? The government paid them for this crap?

2) Common logic in terms of how an aluminum plane would act when crashing into a steel and concrete tower and how a fuel-laden wings would behave when crashing into a steel and concrete tower

3) REALITY in terms of how there was a massive explosion at the point of entry (as shown in actual videos of the 1st hit) that they do not model

4) Reality in terms of the hole that was produced in the tower by the "event". Why are the spandrel plates so prominent and the massive steel columns like toothpicks?

It seems to me that the money that Purdue spent on this computer model would be much better spent trying to figure out how (or even if) a Boeing 767 crashing into the tower could produce this odd hole in the tower that was seen with the column sections dangling down blocking the entry hole and the 97th floor blown away somehow.

But maybe they would have problems supporting the official fairy tale that way, I suppose, so they made their own fairy tale.

[LARED]

1. I know this has been mentioned before, but it is worth repeating

Get an understanding of computer simulations before you post. It will help.

[spooked911]

8. Perhaps you could explain then.

Shouldn't a computer simulation conform to reality in some way?

[LARED]

10. When most people ask me if something should

conform to reality I would not hesitant to answer. But since you are asking, I'm not sure how to answer as your reality is not the same as the vast majority of the rest of the world.

[spooked911]

13. please try

to explain why this video doesn't bother to conform to reality.

E.g. the plane's tail slides through a spandrel plate without any breakage of either.

Is this YOUR reality?

[LARED]

17. "doesn't bother to conform to reality."

You make it sound like there is a huge gap between reality and the simulation. As if Purdue is trying to pass off a stick figure animation one sees in a flip book to a real event. A simulation represents a real event. The creators are going to create the simulation to serve some defined purpose. I can assure you the purpose is not to represent each detail in a flawless manner. If you actually listen to the video you would understand the video simulation is build upon a model. The visual part is just a nice piece of animation used to show the uninitiated what the model is doing.

My reality is that I understand how these types of models and simulations are used. Your reality is finding some small perceived flaw - engage in hyperspeculation - cram it all into a distorted understanding - post some inane BS that knowledgeable people scratch their heads over.

Just because there are small differences between the real event and the simulation does not mean much. In fact it is expected.

[spooked911]

18. what is the point of showing this to the public if it doesn't match reality

or explain anything?

Everyone laughs at my wirecage expts, but they were just as "realistic" as the Purdue cartoon-- and in some ways more so, because at least I was dealing with solid objects.

Just curious-- what did the Purdue animation tell you?

Why didn't they bother to have a spandrel plate break or a tail section break after they collided? What does this tell us?

[LARED]

19. my wirecage expts, but they were just as "realistic" as the Purdue cartoon

Nuff said.

An apt analogy between your bunny cage experiment and the Purdue simulation is you are a three year old with a crayon and Purdue is painting the Mona Lisa. And that's being kind.

I would love to explain this to you, but if after all this time and all the folks that patiently tried to explain this you're not going to get it

[spooked911]

20. No, obviously you don't "get it" or at least you pretend not to "get it"

You still haven't explained why the Purdue cartoon is worth anything except to laugh at.

[LARED]

21. The value of the Purdue work and the basic process to create it has been

explained to you no less the 30 times. What makes you think me or anyone else explaining it again will change your understanding?

[SidDithers]

2. Should their modelling have used bunny cages instead?...nt

Sid

[Flatulo]

3. I suggest we let Twist, JackRiddler, or petgoat field this one...

This is their side of the litter pan.

[LARED]

6. Don't get your hopes up

(Ecc 7:5) It is better to hear the rebuke of the wise, than for a man to hear the song of fools.

[William Seger]

4. Computer sims, common logic, and reality

This joke doesn't even need a punchline.

[spooked911]

9. do you think the simulation is "realistic"?

???

[William Seger]

15. I think it's about as good as can be done on today's computers

It was based on real physics and real calculations, Spooky, not on your ridiculous imaginary physics and naked assertions ("aluminum sheets would not slice through thick steel column like a knife through butter"). The sim parameters were fine-tuned using experimental data collected by firing liquid-filled aluminum cans at steel, which can indeed cut through steel "like a knife through butter" if you get them moving fast enough. (You don't even need the aluminum can; you can do the same thing with just water. And I know you've seen that before, you just prefer to ignore it. If your "common logic" doesn't inform you that the only significant factor is the amount of stress placed on the steel, not on the material doing the stressing, then your "common logic" can't explain how explosives cut through steel, since the only thing hitting the steel would be gas. You call that "common logic" -- I call it "amazingly stubborn ignorance.")

The sim results speak for themselves: The sim is in very good agreement with what we know happened outside the building, so the things it showed about what happened inside the building are probably fairly accurate. And that was the purpose of the sim -- not to try to convince a bunch of invincibly ignorant "no-planers" that a plane really did hit the building. As for "common logic" and how "realistic" I think the sim is, frankly I am dumbfounded that some people are so lacking in common sense that they can't understand how a plane hitting that building at over 500 MPH could destroy both, and that the momentum would carry most of the debris into the building. You try to wave it all that away with pseudo-scientific blather that makes no sense at all, claim the videos are all fake, and accuse the Purdue researchers of faking their results to protect murders -- all to protect your other preposterous delusions that no plane hit the building. Incredible.

[jberryhill]

5. "REALITY .....as shown in actual videos"

Oh man....

I was having a slow morning, and I really want to thank you for brightening my day with that.

So now, there are "actual videos" of something that hit something, are there?

May we see one of the "actual videos" of a "hit" to which you refer?

[spooked911]

7. are you not aware of the Naudet firemen's video?

what's your point?

[wildbilln864]

11. pay it no mind spooked.

the point was to ridicule those who want truth by those who seek to continue to hide the truth.
You are a patriot IMHO. Keep up the great work man!


First they ignore you,
then they laugh at you,
then they fight you,
then you win!

[spooked911]

12. thanks, man

appreciate it

[William Seger]

16. No, wildbill

The point is to ridicule people who say completely ridiculous things over and over and over.

[wildbilln864]

22. well that's your tale....

I'm sitting on mine! :eyes:

[jberryhill]

14. Are you now saying that the Naudet video shows "reality"?

I'm sorry, I thought your position was that the Naudet video was faked.

In your OP, you refer to "actual video" of the first hit. Now, either the Naudet video is faked or it is actual. Can you remind me of which it is?