digg

Join DiggAbout

Scientific Visualization of 9/11 Attack watch!

youtube.com — Sorry, no scientific visualizations on the preplanned explosions or the molted steel or the controlled demolition style fall of the buildings or even how WTC 7 fell all by itself. This is just a computer animated plane crashing into a computer animated building.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • LewP, on 05/16/2008, -34/+62Interesting!
    • mark076h, on 05/16/2008, -4/+14very
    • lament, on 05/16/2008, -1/+8Added: June 13, 2007
    • gplpark92, on 05/16/2008, -2/+23they shoulda used Cryengine 2
    • neuens07, on 05/16/2008, -58/+28I want to do a Digg test. Those who believe the towers fell because of planted explosives (or other conspiracy theories) digg me up and everyone else digg me down. I want to do it this way because I think that there are less people who believe in conspiracy theories, therefore giving me a buried score (I'm not looking for up diggs, this is solely for comparison).

      So conspiracy theorists, dig me up
      Everyone else, digg me down

      (as an added note, I am doing this at the top because I am too late to post at the bottom, nobody would see it)
    • jawagas, on 05/16/2008, -2/+1I tried to get an idea of this when I started playing with the new comment system. God speed Neuens
    • Ne007, on 05/16/2008, -9/+9This is OLD!

      Been on digg before
      http://digg.com/politics/Purdue_researchers_create ...

      and was on wired last year!
      http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2007/06/purdue_ ...
      • Herkimer56, on 05/16/2008, -6/+6Since when does a Ronbot and a member of the Cult of 9/11 concern themselves with the age of a piece of information. You people have been recycling the same old crap for years.
      • Ne007, on 05/17/2008, -2/+2I AM a proud member of the cult of Ronbots...so ***** YOU!
    • sjl127, on 05/16/2008, -15/+8How the hell did this make digg's front page? I thought most diggbats were tinfoil hat paranoid 9-11 kool aid drinking truthers.
    • SilverStandard, on 05/16/2008, -12/+10Who financed this study again? Oh yeah, that's right.
      http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/june2007/2206 ...
      • rpebble, on 05/16/2008, -5/+7GASP. The NSF partially funded the project! Do you have any idea how NSF funding works, or the breadth of the projects funded by them? That link is ridiculous, it's like they are playing the seven degrees of government money game. Hint: it's everywhere. Doesn't mean they control everything.
      • Mothrog, on 05/16/2008, -5/+4*gasp* It was funded by the NSF?!? ZOMG!

        Christ, you twoofers get dumber by the minute.
      • Ne007, on 05/17/2008, -2/+1You can't even spell dumbass.

        -diggs!
    • ExplosivesWTC, on 05/16/2008, -12/+6I just dare them to try make an animation of the collapses without the use of explosives blowing every column. THEY CAN'T! Explosives are the only thing that could have brought the towers down and this is proven time and again. Everyone start by watching the film Loose Change 2nd Edition and Loose Change Final Cut, and then watch 9/11 Mysteries.

      The evidence is off the charts overwhelming. 9/11 was an inside job.
      • MScrip, on 05/16/2008, -4/+7Explosives? How about a 400,000 lb aircraft filled with fuel, that entered one side of the building, and then fire and ***** blew out the other side? Don't you think that caused some kind of damage inside? And wasn't the outside of the Twin Towers made of steel... and the plane cut right through it?
        • Herkimer56, on 05/16/2008, -3/+2@ExplosivesWTC
          Where in this video did they say that explosives were used to blow every column you disingenuous *****? I've told you about this dozens of times but since you insist on spreading this particualr lie I'm going to tell you again. There was absolutely NO evidence of explosives found in any of the WTC debris. If you believe that there were explosives then please provide us with any evidence at all that they were present. I know that you can't because I've been asking you to do so for more than a year in all of your various and sundry screen names and you have never been able to provide a shred of evidence to support your claim. It's time to man up and post the evidence. Your lies and ignorance are getting really, really old.
    • squidbob, on 05/16/2008, -5/+10Law of Conservation of Momentum-
      This law of physics means that the hundreds of
      thousands of tons of material in the way must slow the upper
      part of the building because of its mass, independent of deformation
      which can only slow the fall even more.
      (Energy and Momentum must both be conserved.)
      Published papers have argued that this negligence by
      NIST (leaving the near-free-fall speeds unexplained) is a
      major flaw in their analysis. NIST ignores the possibility
      of controlled demolitions, which achieve complete
      building collapses in near free-fall times by moving the material
      out of the way using explosives.
      • jamdogg, on 05/16/2008, -5/+6Why digg this comment down? Blind faith in the official version?
        • Mothrog, on 05/16/2008, -3/+3No, common sense and the monumental stupidity of twoofers. See, when explosives go off, they kinda tend to make really loud noises, yet no one seemed to record those noises when the WTC collapsed.
      • Herkimer56, on 05/16/2008, -8/+3It's called kinetic energy. Google it.
      • LadyKofNYC, on 05/16/2008, -6/+4LOL, Herkle. I see you're still holding onto that conversation I had with your boyfriend Onetimer (in which I spanked him). You didn't understand that conversation. You have no idea what kinetic energy is. And you have no idea what the ***** you're talking about.
        • Herkimer56, on 05/16/2008, -6/+5I know that you're an idiot that attacks everything that you don't understand. Onetimer, as always, handed you your ignorant ass in that conversation. You're just another typical uneducated truther who doesn't understand anything. Now go read some more Palestinian propaganda. That's the only thing you seem to believe anyway
        • LadyKofNYC, on 05/17/2008, -2/+4LOL. Your little boyfriend parroted a ***** website that calculated the total amount of energy that could *hypothetically* be released from the collapsing towers IF no energy was released and there was no resistance. It did not take into consideration resistance from any of the 84 massive steel columns. It did not take into consideration the thousands of tons of concrete and glass that was pulverized into fine breathable dust. And, it did not explain how the collapse could have possibly began.

          In other words, it calculated a scenario that did not and could not ever happen in real life. But the "author" threw in dazzling descriptives like "as much energy as a small nuclear bomb" for simple minded idiots like you and Onetimer.

          Also note, herkle, that you posted another page from that same ***** website in which the "author" couldn't even distinguish between North and South. And like a moron, you eat it up. In fact, you STILL parrot that ***** even today. LMAO!!!
        • Herkimer56, on 05/17/2008, -4/+2Actually the only thing that they didn't consider in their equations was that total morons like you would read them and assume that they knew more than they did. Based on your comments here and in previous posts it's clear that you lack the mathematical ability to make change for a dollar. Now go away, troll. You've become boring.
        • LadyKofNYC, on 05/17/2008, -1/+4"""Based on your comments here and in previous posts it's clear that you lack the mathematical ability....."""

          How was my post wrong? Please be specific.
    • aajjcckk, on 05/16/2008, -11/+7This is on the same level as a Disney animation. PURE FANTASY.

      9/11 has been proven to be an inside job, and no amount of insults or lame counter-arguments will undermine that.

      Here's the truth: http://www.911truth.org

      Some people just can't handle the truth.... (sadly they all seem to hang out on Digg)
      • Herkimer56, on 05/16/2008, -8/+4So you know more about physics and engineering than the Purdue University Engineering Department? And you talk about other people making lame counter-arguments. Clearly you have no idea what you're talking about.
    • vidaliasweet, on 05/16/2008, -2/+3Very....
      "Santiago Pujol, an assistant professor of civil engineering, worked with the researchers to develop experimental data to test the accuracy of the simulation by using an "impact simulator" to shoot 8-ounce beverage cans at high velocity at steel and concrete targets at Purdue's Bowen Laboratory. These data enabled the researchers to fine tune and validate the theoretical model for the simulation."
      http://news.uns.purdue.edu/html4ever/2006/060911.S ...
  • DeathWish808, on 05/16/2008, -66/+41Interesting, yes, but accurate...no. The actual structure doesn't look like that so this simulation is almost completely useless. Cool software though.
    • SkubaEL, on 05/16/2008, -5/+22What are you talking about wrong structure? The brown beams are the core columns. There is a large space between that structure and the exterior columns, but the angle they use may be confusing you into thinking the columns are running through the entire floor area.

      http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/imagenes_sociopo ...

    • Hangly, on 05/16/2008, -2/+13Yeah, this video doesn't attempt to prove anything one way or the other.

      At least it's better than the Nova animation where they tried to explain the pancake theory by leaving out the core support columns altogether.
    • exformation, on 05/16/2008, -3/+8Useless? Not accurate?

      Eh... I'm not gonna bother explaining finite element analysis to some ignoramus.
      • DeathWish808, on 05/16/2008, -3/+3Oh yes, you almighty god of all knowledge. Please bestow upon me your great plethora of knowledge and wisdom so that I may be able to see the world in the true light that you see it in. Eh....Meh!
  • Surferess, on 05/16/2008, -95/+34I'm sticking with my planted C4 conspiracy theory.
    • MrKeeboard, on 05/16/2008, -4/+12Very well. :D
    • TGMD, on 05/16/2008, -23/+28Because you're a fool and an idiot.
    • mark076h, on 05/16/2008, -28/+3no planes did hit the tower they were just being remote controlled
    • robbh66, on 05/16/2008, -18/+48That's fine. Everyone else who isn't a moron is sticking with the "A ***** fully fueled 767 flew into the building."
      • ndesantis, on 05/16/2008, -10/+2is it that hard to believe that Bush masterminded a terrorist attack for no reason? just like how your lungs are made from the scrotum of Scientologist dark lord Xenu.
        • JaNkz, on 05/16/2008, -2/+1No it's not hard to believe but unlike the plane which flew into the building, the president masterminding a terrorist attack that killed over 3000 Americans is unsubstantiated, and is merely the opinion of a few people who refuse to look at the actual evidence.

          I wouldn't even consider your hypothesis a theory, theories are usually rooted in some form of factual evidence. And this is why people who think rationally will always come to a clearer and more precise conclusion.
        • antiorblkflag9, on 05/16/2008, -1/+3It's not really for no reason, I mean people make the argument that it allowed him to go to war with Iraq, but since there wasn't a link between 9/11 and Saddam, that's a pretty weak argument.
        • Wargalas, on 05/16/2008, -1/+5Hey I have a question:

          How is it that Bush masterminded this attack, but is a moron in every other way? You mean to tell me this guy pulled off the most coordinated attack against it's own citizens in US history, but he's dumb enough to talk about giving up his golf game?

          Sorry guys, you lost me there. Either he's an idiot or an evil genius, you can't have it both ways.

          There's a reason why the Loose Change guys keep changing their story across every iteration of their movie. Yes, it's a movie, not a documentary. Documentaries have facts in them.

          You don't need Loose Change pt. 2 if you just present the facts.
        • gameforge, on 05/16/2008, -0/+1It really is quite absurd that Bush would have "masterminded" anything.

          For one thing, why would HE have to have something to do with it besides simply giving a "go ahead"? I mean, that's if he even knew anything was going to happen at all. I give credible merit to the idea that it *could* have been a conspiracy which various key organizations including our own government *could* have played a role in. But the idea that it was all thunk up by Bush himself is about as plausible as a moon made of cheese...

          I'm still sticking with my story - the 9/11 commission report is famous for being total ***** regardless of who you ask and I believe it's incredibly important to find out exactly what happened. There just isn't enough information available to say much more than that.
        • ndesantis, on 05/16/2008, -0/+1it is a JOKE... I hate how sarcasm cannot be seen through the internet
      • amilo000, on 05/16/2008, -1/+1I get what you mean but by what you wrote you're suggesting that he isn't a moron.
    • hiphoc, on 05/16/2008, -20/+9Actually it was Thermate. http://stj911.org/
      See what Physics professor Steven Jones says about the thermate, or not.
      • DrivinWest, on 05/16/2008, -1/+8You might want to read Steven Jones' "bombshell" paper that was supposed to "blowing the lid off the 9/11 inside job" according to all the Loose Change fry-cooks.

        It is titled, "Fourteen Points of Agreement with Official Government Reports on the World Trade Center Destruction."

        Not even he really believes it anymore.
        • NonServium, on 05/16/2008, -1/+2That is an incredibly interesting read! Diehard 911 truthers really should read this, (I was one before I read it). And honestly I think ardent debunkers should as well to see what convinced one of the top figureheads of the so-called 911 truth movement to come around and find himself defending 14 key points in the official 911 explanation in a way that is sure to be very convincing to many other 911 truthers as well!

          It's a short read and well worth it. Here's the link. http://www.bentham-open.org/pages/gen.php?file=35T ...
  • BarryChuckle, on 05/16/2008, -9/+49Really makes you think about the poor souls on those two floors and what they experienced.
    • shandar, on 05/16/2008, -0/+45The people on those two floors were probably not even aware of what happened, the guy in the video said it simulated three quarters of a second. So that's 0.75 seconds with high speed debris and close to explosive combustion of the fuel, I doubt you'd be able to react much to it.
      • HotSaucePanCake, on 05/16/2008, -2/+5Ya but even if you get tagged by something, regardless of bodily functions stopping you still feel something. I mean they talk about people that died at the guillotine still being alive after there heads were separated from their body. In anycase, It must have been a terrible experience.
        • Bersy, on 05/16/2008, -1/+5A clean slice through the neck and a full cranial impact are entirely different things... Have you never fallen or got hit on your head and got knocked out or temporarily blacked out? The very moment of impact, you're out. Except in this case, they're out for good. Many of them probably didn't suffer at all. That said, I'm sure many of them not directly in the impact zone did.
        • Joeyrev, on 05/16/2008, -0/+2Yeah, I got hit in the head with a hockey puck once. Don't remember anything except waking up on the ground.
      • falafelkiosken, on 05/16/2008, -0/+1probably yet worse for those in the floors above
    • roebeet, on 05/16/2008, -0/+26As horrible as this was for the poor souls on the 92nd floor, it was surely worse for the short-term survivors on the floors above.
    • protocolor, on 05/16/2008, -0/+4they experienced vaporization.
  • Minarchian, on 05/16/2008, -42/+7Wait a minute here.

    Watch this video: http://youtube.com/watch?v=1UQVF_Av-Vk

    Now why does the video posted here show the wrong tower being hit?

    It's obvious that it's the first tower they''re talking about. But their CG shows the building on the opposite side of the street compared to the actual video of the first plane hitting the building.

    I don't know if I can trust the video posted here.
    • pitlord, on 05/16/2008, -0/+2Because in this video, the virtual camera is positioned on the opposite side of the buildings to give a better view than you see in the video you watched.
      >.>
      Duh!
  • savethegobbos, on 05/16/2008, -69/+164If you've seen Loose Change maybe you should see this:
    http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-321402495 ...
    • Yage2006, on 05/16/2008, -19/+64Sad your getting dugg down by the stupid 911 truthers everyone should see that.
      • SilverStandard, on 05/16/2008, -4/+9Not all truthers are fans of Loose Change. I wish Loose Change didn't even come out. That stupid film has hundreds of inaccuracies and makes people who question what happened that day look like morons.
      • diggingaround, on 05/16/2008, -0/+4Seriously .... I would like to see any other footage than 3 frames of "jet-liner hitting" the Pentagon.
      • jeriqo, on 05/16/2008, -1/+1wow, this video is lame... much more lame than loose change.
    • cowman80i9, on 05/16/2008, -5/+34and read this
      http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=91 ...
    • Hangly, on 05/16/2008, -28/+28A hatchet job is not a debunking. That video is even worse than the one it's attempting to discredit. The title should be a giveaway. (screw-loose change, har har har.)

      Most truthers know that a good deal of Loose Change is speculative and poorly substantiated. For a better understanding of what happened people should read physics professor Steven E. Jones's paper on the subject:
      http://tinyurl.com/zpyt3
      • DrivinWest, on 05/16/2008, -4/+14A physics professor. As in the ONLY one.

        Besides, that paper is old and busted. His new work is the new hotness: "Fourteen Points of AGREEMENT with Official Government Reports on the World Trade Center Destruction."

        While you're at it, you might as well read some other papers from this nutjob, I mean physicist: "Behold My Hands: Evidence for Christ's Visit in Ancient America" and his "work" on Cold Fusion.

        I wish I were kidding. This is the best "expert" that the truthers can come up with.
        • Hangly, on 05/16/2008, -8/+4I don't really know how to contend with the assertion that the paper is "old and busted." Perhaps if someone would care to address the allegations contained therein we could discuss those.

          The evidence of thermite/thermate completely closes the case for me. Demolition, no question.
        • ShadowMerchant, on 05/16/2008, -0/+1"Behold My Hands: Evidence for Christ's Visit in Ancient America"

          Undoubtedly a Mormon. They have some odd beliefs about the relationship between the Israelites and the Native Americans.
        • darienphoenix, on 05/16/2008, -0/+4Of course it closes the case for you, Hangly - you're easy to convince.
      • Mothrog, on 05/16/2008, -2/+3Yeah, it's so wonderful that Jones won't submit it to an academic journal for peer review and he got forced into retirement by BYU for writing such tripe and was ripped to shreds by the civil engineering faculty at BYU.
      • someidiotinnj, on 05/16/2008, -2/+1Why are all almost the links in the video to tinyurl.com? Is that a credible place to get information from?
        • someidiotinnj, on 05/16/2008, -0/+2Never mind I should have checked out a few of the links before I made the comment. My bad
    • J0eM0mma, on 05/16/2008, -17/+14Wow. Isn't it funny how the trolls always get in first here. Check out ae911truth.org for real science.
    • sakeser, on 05/16/2008, -4/+8You're kidding right? I've seen this and I am pretty sure it was produced by teenagers who probably post comments on youtube frequently. If you want to debunk loose change, this is definitely the video that does it. Even If you thought loose change was stupid, you'll think this is even stupider.

      The whole thing is full of logical fallacies, insults, and spelling and grammatical mistakes!
    • Zera, on 05/16/2008, -9/+16With all due respect to the makers of that video..... The BBC did their own investigation, and created their own documentary that investigated the credibility of all the claims made by Loose Change, and other Truther *****.

      It's called 9-11, the Conspiracy Files.
      http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=BBC+conspira ...

      Its an hour long, and it ruthlessly exposes the truth, which isn't hard with total ***** like Loose Change, but still, it's fun when you hear how truly little research the Loose Change morons did.
      • Zera, on 05/16/2008, -6/+1Oh no, the Truthers are burying me.... hahahahahahahahaha

        The thing about conspiracy nuts, is that they are so terrified by the truth..... the idea that one individual can bomb a building to bits.... that they'd rather protect their fragile view of the world by making up a ***** story about how it was hundreds of people in power.... like the government... who made an event like 9/11 happen.

        These are people who cannot handle reality, even given that you are more likely to die in a car accident tomorrow than you are of dieing from terrorism in your entire lifetime. But what scares the crap out of them is that one crazy individual can bring wreak such incredible havoc, and so instead of believe it, they make up nonsense.
      • jamdogg, on 05/16/2008, -5/+4Is that the same BBC that reported building 7 as collapsed while it was still standing? Oh yes, I see it is.
      • elcapitanp, on 05/16/2008, -0/+2Hadn't seen this, good looking out.
    • diskit, on 05/16/2008, -1/+2"NOTE: There are some grammatical and spelling errors in this video due to lack of proofreading on my part. I greatly apologize for this."

      Wow, this is really credible
  • onetimer, on 05/16/2008, -25/+16Buried for incorrect building structure and underlying troofer nonsense in the description.
    • maximumrebel1, on 05/16/2008, -13/+1You have a star of David avatar and dislike 9/11 truth what a surprise.
      • DrivinWest, on 05/16/2008, -4/+8Could you be any more of a stereotypical truther? Anti-Jew? Check. Believes 9/11 was an inside job? Check. Let me guess, you like Ron Paul too?
    • rpebble, on 05/16/2008, -3/+7Uhg learn how these simulations are performed before burying it for "incorrect building structure". You are right on the truther stuff though, it really is funny seeing people carrying on about planned explosions and molten steel...when there are perfectly normal explanations for everything that those people base their theories on.
  • damndj, on 05/16/2008, -21/+6Wow this is ***** old.
  • mark076h, on 05/16/2008, -8/+17i remember reading that both the towers had a central column that was its main support?
    • Butros, on 05/16/2008, -3/+10there was a central sleeve and the outer sleeve, which was of course the exterior of the building. The sleeves were connected by the floors themselves, and it was at these connections where the temperature weakened joints failed causing a domino effect.
      • Saltor, on 05/16/2008, -12/+3domino effect?
        it doesnt make sense, when weight was falling OFF, not piling up. and seriously, the truth will always come to light... Always.
        • DrivinWest, on 05/16/2008, -3/+7The truth ALWAYS comes to light? Like that it wasn't an inside job? I dunno... 141,000 members of the American Society of Civil Engineers claim that the building fell due to structural damage and fire yet you "truthers" put your fingers in your ears.
        • JimmyTheClam, on 05/16/2008, -2/+7Saltor, You can't be THAT stupid.
          Oh yeah, you're a 'truffer'... never mind.
      • usgovterrorists, on 05/16/2008, -8/+5Jones presents evidence that an “aluminothermic process” called “thermite” was used to weaken and sever the 47 massive core columns that held up the towers. The official version fails to explain how these critical columns failed. When ignited, thermite, a combination of finely ground aluminum and iron oxide (rust), cuts through steel like a “warm knife through butter,” Jones said, especially when mixed with 2 percent sulfur. The resulting combination, called “thermate,” lowers the melting point of steel.

        The towers' perimeter walls comprised dense grids of vertical steel columns and horizontal spandrel plates. These, along with the core structures, supported the towers.
        • Mothrog, on 05/16/2008, -2/+4One big problem retard: THERMITE AND THERMATE DOESN'T ***** BURN SIDEWAYS.
    • NJank, on 05/16/2008, -0/+5Here's the NIST report if you want to read a full scientific analysis of the building structure and events that occurred. Draw your own conclusions about their statements, assumptions, approaches, and conclusions, but read their full story first.

      http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NISTNCSTAR1Draft.pdf
  • PocketWatch, on 05/16/2008, -36/+105Truthers in 3...2...1...
    • Surefly, on 05/16/2008, -15/+7Others in 3...2...1...
    • Picaroon, on 05/16/2008, -8/+23Actually, the truther idiots were here when it was submitted--hence the ***** description.
    • ferreth, on 05/16/2008, -12/+2Burying 1... 2.. 3, 4,5-6-7891011 I can't keep up!!!
    • Hangly, on 05/16/2008, -18/+5Truthers aren't coming, we're here. We're everywhere. We haul your trash. We connect your calls. We drive your ambulances. We guard you while you sleep. Do not ***** with us.
      • Mothrog, on 05/16/2008, -0/+5"We're everywhere. We haul your trash. We connect your calls. We drive your ambulances. We guard you while you sleep."

        While, there's certainly one place you're not: science jobs. Go back to flipping your burgers, twoofer.
    • jessehadden, on 05/16/2008, -15/+12What is it with lumping everyone who rejects the white-washed official story into one category, then dismissing us with a silly name? There are enough unanswered questions -- and certainly enough "forbidden-to-ask" questions -- that demand a real, scientific, impartial investigation.
      • SpeedSteamBoat, on 05/16/2008, -4/+2Go on...
      • theright, on 05/16/2008, -2/+4One unanswered question, please.
        • mugicha, on 05/17/2008, -2/+11. Why was the Able Danger intelligence ignored by the 9/11 commission?
          2. Why did the chairmen of the 9/11 commission, Thomas Kean and Lee Hamilton, believe - as they wrote in their book - that the 9/11 commission was set up for failure?
          3. Why did Bush and Cheney only agree to talk to the 9/11 commission under a strict set of conditions?

          There's 3 for starters. There's plenty more if you're willing to stop believing everything you hear on Weasel News.
        • theright, on 05/18/2008, -2/+31. Please substantiate your assertion that the 9/11 Commission "ignored" Able Danger intelligence. I might as well not bother waiting for a response.

          2. Hamilton explained this quote in a 2006 interview for CBC. Asked why he thought the Commission was "set up to fail", he answered:

          "Well, for a number of reasons: Tom Kean and I were substitutes - Henry Kissinger and George Mitchell were the first choices; we got started late; we had a very short time frame - indeed, we had to get it extended; we did not have enough money - 3 million dollars to conduct an extensive investigation. We needed more, we got more, but it took us a while to get it.

          We had a lot of skeptics out there, who really did not want the Commission formed. Politicians don’t like somebody looking back to see if they made a mistake.

          The Commission had to report right, just a few days before the Democratic National Convention met, in other words, right in the middle of a political campaign. We had a lot of people strongly opposed to what we did. We had a lot of trouble getting access to documents and to people. We knew the history of commissions; the history of commissions were they.. nobody paid much attention to 'em.

          So there were all kinds of reasons we thought we were set up to fail. We decided that if we were going to have any success, we had to have a unanimous report, otherwise the Commission report would simply be filed."

          It is worth noting that this quote was from the opening chapter of their book. In the book, Hamilton and Kean go on to state that the Commission was a great success. This quote is not a criticism of the final Commission Report, and is not reason enough to call for a new investigation. Any new investigation would be met with similar stonewalling.

          3. As far as I'm aware there is no explanation for Bush and Cheney's preference to testify privately to the Commission. Regardless, do you believe, if Bush and Cheney gave their testimony under oath, they would spill the beans on the whole elaborate conspiracy?
  • mbauer14, on 05/16/2008, -7/+19interesting, but i dont think i have heard someone say "visualizes" that many times in my life.
  • mvarelas, on 05/16/2008, -28/+19Buried before the retarded conspiracy theories begin to pour in.
    • MacSuxWindozSux, on 05/16/2008, -2/+4You're an idiot if you believe people who are given unsupervised power are incapable of abusing that power.

      Mistrust, Dissent, Doubt, and Criticism, are as much a part of being a patriot, as sacrifice and courage.
      • buddypriefert, on 05/17/2008, -0/+0No one said they were not "incapable of abusing power". The point is that only a tiny population of idiots (like you) believe it was an inside job.
  • Rodalli, on 05/16/2008, -11/+4To quote a vulcan: "Fascinating."
    • Spottswood, on 05/16/2008, -0/+3They are a rather esoteric bunch, aren't they?
  • chrissku, on 05/16/2008, -48/+7Buried for bringing up 9/11. We need to move on. Dwelling on past drama is very unhealthy.
    • lazerus9, on 05/16/2008, -8/+4So is allowing the real perpetrators to remain free to do another heinous crime!
    • BryanJK, on 05/16/2008, -2/+6it's called history my friend, we don't just forget about anything like that
    • SilverStandard, on 05/16/2008, -1/+6Need to move on? Our entire foreign and domestic policy is based on what the government and media told us about what happened on that day.
  • MavRevMatt, on 05/16/2008, -52/+22Very interesting but I still fail to believe the collapse was solely due to structural damage from a plane.
    • HotSaucePanCake, on 05/16/2008, -9/+14Fire weakened many materials, once things become weak they will break.
    • issachar, on 05/16/2008, -6/+14Your failure has no effect on reality.
    • DrivinWest, on 05/16/2008, -5/+14So tell me, is your engineering doctoral degree from CalTech or MIT?
    • rpebble, on 05/16/2008, -3/+6So you like the bomb idea? The one based on the fact that as the buildings fell, the windows on the floor below the collapsing mass blew out in series? Because that's easily explained by the fact that that same collapsing mass would have hugely increased the pressure beneath it as it fell, to the point where the windows on the level below would burst out, just as in an explosion. Got anything better?
  • DaDrake, on 05/16/2008, -16/+7The simulation never shows the towers falling down.... obviously it didn't happen. Fox news with Bush must of covered it up using the talents of Chuck Norris. /sarcasm
  • The_Red_Monkey, on 05/16/2008, -61/+87The conspiracy theorists always talk about how the steel could not melt, well it got hot enough to lose its structural stability. The design of the the towers had central supports so once one is gone the whole building is gone and they slid down the other columns directing them to fall in on themselves.

    Buried because I am sick of the conspiracy retards.
    • jra75, on 05/16/2008, -12/+25Agreed. These are probably the same people who believe Elvis was seen last month pumping gas at a Chevron station.

      Conspiratards love to point out that "jet fuel doesn't burn hot enough to melt steel" but they forget how that tanker truck melted the piss out of that overpass in San Francisco which.....class....is structurally made out of steel. Also, it wasn't just jet fuel burning in there there were desks, papers, etc. and who knows how much wind to fan the flame.

      This lack of common sense is driving me nuts!
      • SilverStandard, on 05/16/2008, -11/+7You debunkers really wipe the floor with those twoofers! But there is one thing I never hear you guys talk about: the hundreds of cases of US government sponsored terror.
        • rpebble, on 05/16/2008, -2/+8Because...that's a completely separate discussion? Any other shady government activities aside, the "controlled demolition" and "molten steel" theories are stupid.
      • hemetae, on 05/16/2008, -3/+3That's funny, I can't believe the lack of common sense displayed when someone can watch bldg 7 go down demo style & think that's what normally happens when a NYC building has some facade damage & a few fires.
        " Yep, that's what happens, the building just goes straight down into it's own footprint at free-fall speed, isn't that what all buildings do in similar situations? Excuse me? The first time in history that's ever happened?! F**k You, You HATE AMERICA!!" .. man if it wasn't so sad, it would be hilarious.

        Extreme denial and/or extreme lack of education are the only things that could lead to such ignorance.
        Which of course then leads to the time honored tradition of 'ridicule', as the only reaction you ever see from the mass of mental midgets too afraid to face the implications.

        What a sad bunch of cowards you deniers are...
        • Rustymetal, on 05/16/2008, -0/+3Exactly. WTC7... What happened to you? People are so ignorant when faced with simple questions. I was talking to a lady the other day, and she did not know 3 towers fell.
      • shig, on 05/16/2008, -1/+1You should be surprised to know that the all of the concrete involved in that little fire didn't explode into micro-particles. And the road deck below the collapsed portion didn't explode. And none of the columns collapsed or exploded in a symmetrical fashion. Totally weird. You should start a 4/30 Truth movement.
    • noangelcame, on 05/16/2008, -10/+6Sorry,. your logic is flawed. Because the building went down does not prove that the steel got hot enough. Also the buildings were hit around the 80th floor. The top portion of the building above the impact zone made up roughly 20% of the structure. The bottom 80% was undamaged below the impact zone. Now, try to really think, how can 20% of a structure, absolutely pulverize, bursting into powder the bottom 80% of a structure, with only gravity. Oh, and lets not forget, the entire 20% that was used to pulverize the 80%, that must completely be pulverized as well.

      You can try this with any object, take 20% of that object, and try to destroy the other 80%,.. see if you can do it.
      • ShadowMerchant, on 05/16/2008, -3/+11Dumb ***** never heard of potential energy.
      • Bkaufman, on 05/16/2008, -1/+6Its funny. I don't think most of these people are science/engineering folks. They lack even the most basic understanding of physics.
      • knifesideleft, on 05/16/2008, -1/+4I'm going to point out right now Im not a engineer but god damn you got to be retarded cause what you said isnt even logical. First to be even correct you would have to build a scale model of the building. Its not something retarded like stacking 8 bricks then dropping 2 on top and seeing the last 8 didnt crumble which is what your statement brought to mind. Then when scaling it down you might have to change the materials inside to something other then steel since Im not sure if those materials can accurately show weight at that size good chance Im wrong with that cause like I said Im no engineer.

        Ill take my own uneducated stab at it. But yeah look you got 20% of the building beginning to fall straight down as one mass on a single floor below it. Now this isnt some solid object like you seemed to retardedly suggest in some backyard experiment. Its got hundred of steel beems inside with lots of open space in between. Lets say its 200m tons falling down. The floor compromised from fire begin to weaken and finally gave way. The beams snap at that level and the whole part of the building from that floor up falls as one force downward. The falling weight is now more like 400m tons hitting that one floor. Those beams on the floor isnt made to take that kind of sudden blow. Those beams snap and from there on the whole thing begins to snowball downwards picking up speed. You then have 30% hitting 70, 40 hitting 60, 50 hitting the other 50 and so on. So it wasnt just 20% that destroyed the whole building it was 20 that destroyed the upper floor then gradually increased.

        The building was probably mostly empty space concrete and steel. The concrete somewhere on the bottom 80 floors probably got pretty ground up from the sheer force which created most of the dust, and things on the bottom of the building was probably pressurized and compacted into a small space just from the force of the rest of the building. The top floors since there wasnt so much weight may be what you see in all the debris photos since they may have not been subjected to so much force with all the remaining crap under those layers.The building also had sub floors I thinking and that compacted debris probably filled up that area.
        • noangelcame, on 05/16/2008, -2/+1There's a huge flaw in your logic. You are supporting the Pancake Theory, which even the NIST has backed away from.

          The problem with the Pancake theory, is that, you would have expected to see a stack of floors, like slabs of rubble, at the base of the towers after their destruction. There were no stacked floors, at the base of the towers, because each floor was being blown outwards symmetrically from top to bottom. There was no concentration of material at the top to act on the intact building structure below.

          Reminder: Even NIST has backed away from the Pancake Theory. They so far are only willing to attempt to explain the state of the structure up to the initiation of collapse, and not the actual collapse itself.
      • jamdogg, on 05/16/2008, -4/+4Almost every post here that defends the official story has words like "retarded", "dumb *****", "truther" - (which isn't even an insulting word, the tone and context is full of bile and poison) "conspiratard" etc. The only argument you have is to insult your opponent. This shows inherent weakness.
        • Joeyrev, on 05/16/2008, -2/+4Yeah, their only argument is insults...oh, and all those science type facts I don't understand. ***** Bush!
        • jamdogg, on 05/16/2008, -1/+1Perhaps you might look up the chemical composition of thermate. That will be at least one scientific fact you can understand.
        • MedHead, on 05/17/2008, -0/+2I think, in this case, it merely shows exhaustion.
      • deadbaby, on 05/16/2008, -0/+1"Only gravity"

        The American education system truly has failed you.
    • MacSuxWindozSux, on 05/16/2008, -13/+12The building did a free-fall, collapsing without any delay of the floors crashing into each other, which strongly implies explosives were planted within the structure.

      Building 7 (much smaller building next door) was not hit, yet exploded and collapsed. Initial reports to 911 included claims of multiple explosions separate from the crashes. (perhaps falling plane debris?)

      This was followed by the FBI being denied access to the wreckage to investigate and test for bomb residue, as the Bush Administration fast tracked the disposal of the building remains.

      It doesn't prove anything, it just casts serious doubt.
      • rpebble, on 05/16/2008, -2/+7Fast tracked the disposal? That's why they still have tons of steel and marked building materials sitting around at NIST out in the open, where anyone on campus can go check it out? Or maybe it's that the companies wanted to scrap it as fast as possible to salvage some money out of it?
        • MacSuxWindozSux, on 05/16/2008, -1/+3No they sent most of it to land fills right away. All that's left is scraps compared to what was there to begin with.
      • burketo, on 05/16/2008, -1/+5i would rate full FEA and engineering evaluations over eye witness accounts because of the day that was in it. people could be forgiven for having scattered memories or being dazed and confused.
        by the way, that demonstration is more detailed then it aludes to.... FEA packages literally take every engineering property imagineable into account. it probably took several days just for the computer to compile the video once all the work had been done.

        as i said in another thread on the topic of the WTC, talk about jet fuel is of no value because even if you modeled the plane without fuel it severely damages the structure. frankly, i am surprised they lasted so long.
      • mgpenguin, on 05/16/2008, -0/+2Ummm... the buildings didn't free fall. It's easy to see in the videos- the debris falls faster than the rest of the structure.
      • buddypriefert, on 05/17/2008, -0/+1I suppose you think glaciers falling into the ocean up in Alaska are an "inside job" too since they free-fall staight down. Those little guys with the plungers are hiding alongside of the cruise ships - if you look hard enough, you'll find them (and oh yeah, you can do this same with the strange lights in Phoenix).
      • buddypriefert, on 05/17/2008, -0/+1With a name like "MacSuxWindozSux" is it any wonder where this "hate everything" comes from.
    • anarcurt, on 05/16/2008, -2/+3I hate coincidence theorists.

      Nothing can be the result of collusion. It's just a coincidence that most of our Air Force was diverted in an exercise. It's just a coincidence that the planes that were eventually launched were flown east to sea. Its a coincidence that invasion plans for Iraq and Afghanistan were already written before 9/11. We can argue about steel melting points all day and it will not solve a thing. Most if not all of us know nothing about the engineering of skyscrapers. But the actions of our government before during and after point to at the very least willful ignorance (Know it's coming, let it happen) and at the worst full collusion.
      • buddypriefert, on 05/17/2008, -0/+1And coincidence that you happen to be born a retard and I am replying to your post. Oh hey, did you check that story on the government coverup in Roswell? Man, I knew there was something going on there!
    • toshibu, on 05/16/2008, -0/+2"The design of the the towers had central supports [...]"
      Not entirely correct. "The towers were designed as framed tube structures." [1]
      The outer columns supported the lateral loads, whereas the core columns supported gravity loads. While fires did not reach sufficient temperatures to melt steel, they did weaken it to a point within range of plastic deformation.

      "they slid down the other columns directing them to fall in on themselves"
      That, however, is not accurate at all, although you do have the right idea.
      The plastic deformation metioned above, namely creep, occurs at extremely fast speeds. Anyone having spent any amount of time in a university lab playing with metals will attest. This is a possible explanation for the top part of the tower to collapse, the kinetic energy of this collapse propagated down the structure at the speed of sound. Hence, the near free fall speeds which bother conspiracy theorists so much.

      Simple science people... Why do I get the feeling that nobody on either side of the conspiracy theories has read the NIST reports?.. (or taken a course in materials engineering :P)

      [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Trade_Center#St ...
      • toshibu, on 05/16/2008, -0/+2A little clarification before some Wikipedia armchair scientist tries to debunk me...
        "namely creep, occurs at extremely fast speeds" should read
        "namely creep which occurs over a period of time (explaining why the towers didn't immediately collapse), resulting in deformation ultimately leading to mechanical failure of the metal, which occurs at extremely fast speeds"

        PS: About the pulverized concrete.
        Concrete is a material which is good at supporting compressive loads. Try to apply tension to concrete and it will simply burst (this is why steel is added, making reinforced concrete).
        Now, a shockwave (such as one caused by mechanical failure of a large bulk of metal, e.g. a support column) travels at the speed of sound in a material and is essentially extreme compression followed immediately by extreme vacuum. The enormous shockwave(s) created by the falling top part of the tower--which would pale in comparison to the oscillations of the floors upon impact of the jets (as seen in the video)--is more than enough to pulverize any material, including metals, let alone concrete.
    • xenoploid, on 05/16/2008, -2/+2Explaing Building 7's collapse, smartass.
      • excalpius, on 05/22/2008, -0/+1Simple enough for a "truther" to understand:

        There's a big hole in the building which was caused by falling bigger buildings.

        It's easily visible in the pictures the "truther" tards refuse to look at. And even in the ones you will look at, you can see the sagging of that corner of the building very clearly.

        Stuff above big hole very heavy. Eventually causes collapse.

        It's really not that hard.
    • DigDugDigger, on 05/18/2008, -1/+1Before everyone gets an erection acting like they are engineers familiar with this topic, let's just look at what is NOT contested.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_of_Tonkin_Incide ...

      I'm not pretending to be an expert in history nor foreign policy, but it just seems to raise some questions when looking at current day events.
      • excalpius, on 05/22/2008, -0/+1No, it shows examples of previous deceptions. While this has no correlation to the events of September 11, 2001, it is probably relevant to how Bushco got us into Iraq.
  • Hegemony, on 05/16/2008, -8/+2I totally thought that was going to be some sort of joke at the expense of the conspiracy theorists.
  • guillebravo6, on 05/16/2008, -34/+23This video shows clear evidence, if you haven't already known from common sense that some sabotage was done to the towers prior to the flight crash. There is no way that one plane could bring down such a massive building, its just not possible.

    Check out this familiar clip:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8n-nT-luFIw&NR=1
    • yubpro, on 05/16/2008, -3/+8I'm sorry, I see no explosions. I only hear the sounds of bodies plummeting to the ground and impacting roofs. The rescue officials understandably saw any suspicious objects as something potentially dangerous. Find me some other evidence, please.

      These poor people were not prepared in any way for what they faced that day. The human brain, under extreme distress, draws neither necessarily logical nor reliable conclusions.
    • alperea, on 05/16/2008, -3/+6Check out this familiar link:
      http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=91 ...
      • Joeyrev, on 05/16/2008, -1/+1God damnit Maddox is the *****. I have to start checking his page again.
    • 3leggedHorse, on 05/16/2008, -2/+6 The impact weakened the buildings the fire weakened them further, then the weight of the above floors could not be held, and concertinaed onto the lower floors. That is why the building that got hit lower down and second collapsed first, there was more weight above the impact.
      ***** I sound like a nerd but ***** it I have had enough of ***** conspiracy *****. Not sabotage just a well executed attack.
    • Barackalypse, on 05/16/2008, -5/+2Open a can of Coke, dump out the cola, stand on the can and notice how it supports your weight. Have a stupid friend flick the side of the can hardly with his finger so as to dent it, watch as your weight collapses the can. Same principle as the Twin Towers collapse roughly. The outer shell of those towers were responsible for supporting a large amount of the building's weight. The fire from the jet fuel weakened the horizontal supports and combined with the severed vertical columns in the outer shell allowed the building to fail just like your Coke can did when your friend dented it.
      • KennMac, on 05/16/2008, -1/+2Your silly analogy assumes that the structure is already withstanding its near maximum threshold of vertical load that a relatively light horizontal force could compromise its integrity. The underlying structure of that building was nowhere near its maximum load.

        Your silly analogy also fails to apply HEAT which is the debatable variable in this case.

        "The outer shell of those towers were responsible for supporting a large amount of the building's weight."
        - No. You're spewing ***** again. The core vertical support columns located in the center (the core) of the building supported a majority of the load.

        Nice work, Sherlock.
        • Barackalypse, on 05/16/2008, -1/+1You misunderstand the analogy, so I've linked some pictures and explanation from the Civil Engineering department at an Australian University to help you.

          http://www.civil.usyd.edu.au/latest/wtc_graphic.gi ...
          The outer perimeter columns of the WTC shell are analogous to the cylindrical metal Coke can. The plane impact severed several of those perimeter columns on the building, analagous to denting the Coke can (denting it is easier than having you cut out a piece of it, which would accomplish the same thing). The heat of the fire weakens the steel floor joists tying the central core to the outer shell (this is what prevents buckling of the columns, which is the same mode of collapse of the Coke can in my analogy). When the perimeter columns get destroyed and the joists tying them to the central core weaken through heat, you can no longer support the load and a floor collapses and that collapses the floor below it and so on.

          So, thanks for your snarky attack, but you're wrong, which is what you get to assuming your average Digg user is a moron instead of an engineer. Though I was mistaken regarding the primary loads on the outer shell, which isnt actually the buildings weight so much as lateral loads from wind and such.
    • KennMac, on 05/16/2008, -3/+3I'm always interested to see how people respond to the notion of secondary explosions. I really don't have an opinion on what happened to those 3 buildings. I just know there's a lot of conflicting evidence. Let's be honest, if the 9/11 investigation were to be reopened (just speculation here), there's no doubt that the witness reports of secondary explosions would be a real deal breaker. There are far too many reported injuries and documented explosions that do not coincide with aircraft impacts.
    • Tommydukes, on 05/16/2008, -3/+2You being the expert in building destruction with jets?

      what a weird field to be an expert in....considering it has never happened before.

      O wait....you work at burger king......my bad. NM
  • SwiftKick34, on 05/16/2008, -91/+20That computer simulation is all wrong; this video shows what really happened. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eBGIQ7ZuuiU
    • omenmedia, on 05/16/2008, -1/+19You used the uuiU one, amateur! :P
      • NJank, on 05/16/2008, -0/+6no, in the context he placed it in, it's humor. if it wasn't uuiU it wouldn't have been as funny.
        • Avaseal, on 05/16/2008, -4/+2Is this really what mankind has digressed to? c'mon guys
        • skankyBacon, on 05/16/2008, -0/+6You mean "regressed?"
    • scarz99, on 05/16/2008, -2/+5Aha thanks to my YouTube Title Adder script for greasemonkey you have failed!
    • JakeyG14, on 05/16/2008, -6/+3***** off SwiftKick.
    • smeenz, on 05/16/2008, -0/+1I'm actually clicking on them hoping to get Rick.. one of these days someone will rickroll my rickroll !
    • dlite922, on 05/16/2008, -1/+3a swiftkick, to your effing jaw.
  • Typhoon2009, on 05/16/2008, -27/+14░░░░░░░░░▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄░░░░░░░░
    ░░░░░▄█████████████▄░░░░░
    ░░▄██████████████████▄░░░
    ░░████████████████████▄░░
    ░██████████████Wow! ████░░
    ░██████████████████████░░
    ░██████████████████████░░
    ░░█████████▀▀▀█████████░░
    ░░▀█████▀░░░░░░░▀█████░░░
    ░░░▀▀███░░█░░░█░░███▀░░░░
    ░░░░░░░█░░░░▀░░░░█░░░░░░░
    ░░░░░░▄██▄░░▀▀░▄█▀▄░░░░░░
    ░░░░▄▀░▀▄▀▀███▀▀▄▀░▀▄░░░░
    ░░░░█░░░░▀▄▀░▀▄▀░▄░░█░░░░
    ░░░░█░█░░░█░░░█░░█░░█░░░░
    ░░░░█░█░░░░▀▄▀▀▀▀█░░█░░░░
    ░░░░█░█░░░░░▄░░▄██▄▄▀░░░░
    ░░░░█░█░░░░░▄░░████░░░░░░
    ░░░░███▄░░░▄▄▄░░░▄▀░░░░░░
    ░░░░░▀▀█▀▀▀░▄░▀▀▀█░░░░░░░
    ░░░░░░░█░░░░█░░░░█░░░░░░░
    ░░░░░░░█░░░░█░░░░█░░░░░░░
    ░░░░░░░█▄▄▄▄█▄▄▄▄█░░░░░░░
    ░░░░░░░██████▄▄▄▄▀░░░░░░░
    ░░░░░░░░▀▀▀▀▀░░░░░░░░░░░░
  • dukeeeey, on 05/16/2008, -16/+9http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bdhmAL7weDY
  • lazerus9, on 05/16/2008, -34/+27....Now do the one where the plane knocks down building 7............Oh! A plane didn't hit building 7? Well what the heck knocked that building down?
    • SkubaEL, on 05/16/2008, -5/+13http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm

      Asking empty questions without investigating the facts helps no one.
      • lazerus9, on 05/16/2008, -11/+1Investigations always start by asking questions.Perhaps the emptiness your experiencing is inside of your head! Your a member since 2006 and only 30 comments? I feel so honored!
        • SkubaEL, on 05/16/2008, -0/+1"Your" obviously not getting it. Way to dodge the entire argument and attack me. Stop asking questions that have already been answered.
        • lazerus9, on 05/16/2008, -0/+1Oh! I get it alright israEL!
    • PWoT, on 05/16/2008, -6/+18It was hit by something much bigger than a plane: the debris from a collapsed tower.
      • lazerus9, on 05/16/2008, -2/+1I have seen the video of the demolition of building 7 via BBC and other news outlets. That building was in tact then suddenly dropped into it's own footprint. Sell your nonsense else where "shill".
    • HotSaucePanCake, on 05/16/2008, -2/+6They shared the same foundations
      • lazerus9, on 05/16/2008, -1/+2So do you and your fellow disinformation dupes.
    • Hangly, on 05/16/2008, -7/+3Dust and flaming toilet paper from the towers!
      • lazerus9, on 05/16/2008, -2/+1Exactly! Or maybe the building just lost it's will to survive after seeing the towers being intentionally destroyed!
  • etnuts, on 05/16/2008, -18/+8interesting..... the commenter sounds like an arab
    • SteveIsTheDude, on 05/16/2008, -1/+3Yeah, and it was posted on September 10th!!! 2001, the day BEFORE it happened!!!!!
    • SpeedSteamBoat, on 05/16/2008, -0/+2interesting... etnuts sounds like a bigot.
  • DavidTTT, on 05/16/2008, -8/+3No thats all wrong the downs never went down..they are in a airforce base in a Arizona!
  • YourRealFather, on 05/16/2008, -5/+91This is so *****, Imagine you're standing there making some copies, printing out some ***** for the payroll department and then this ***** flies in and you're like oh ***** this is how it ends.
    • gryphon50, on 05/16/2008, -0/+34they said some people in other states were in conference calls with people in the Twin Towers, then all of a sudden they hear screaming and then the line goes dead. How is that for creepy. I guess the people must have looked out the window and saw what was coming.
      • ethomas046, on 05/16/2008, -0/+3That happened to me. I was in Midtown on a call with my downtown offices. Creepy to say the least. No screaming though. Just dead phones.
    • scamper22, on 05/16/2008, -11/+3yeah, you never think about those people.
      You never talk about that iraqi janitor just cleaning the floors of Sadaams offices when US planes decide to bomb them.

      All you think is they're bombing Sadaam's offices.
    • Whatup, on 05/16/2008, -2/+3Kinda like this: http://waynecoe.com/paintings/pages/lenticular_coe ...
      • garrettnb, on 05/16/2008, -3/+1Am i the only one shocked and appalled by this so called artwork? This is no better than that starving dog.
    • garrettnb, on 05/16/2008, -3/+1deleted
  • Rosh37, on 05/16/2008, -9/+4boiler up!
  • ZeroIce, on 05/16/2008, -11/+91World's most boring narrator - give him an award.
    • WaveyRavey, on 05/16/2008, -4/+9Who cares what the narrator sounds like?
      We are not watching MTV.
      • zephc, on 05/16/2008, -0/+9What's up, homeskillets. Yo, check out this fresh computer simulation of the WTC getting hit by a plane.
      • Dohko_Xar, on 05/16/2008, -0/+5Doesn't need to sound anything special, just avoid to be monotonous.
    • Stonekeeper, on 05/16/2008, -1/+1Yeah, i mean if only he was PUMPED UP! and RARING TO GO! It would have just given the piece so much more credability....
      o.O
    • enjinere, on 05/16/2008, -6/+1We are Anonymous.
      We are legion.
      We do not forgive.
      We do not forget.
      Expect us.
    • topace3000, on 05/16/2008, -1/+1Needs more ominous voicing and music to be believable clearly.
    • estat, on 05/16/2008, -0/+3Clearly, it is a video made by engineering students.
  • wrenchone, on 05/16/2008, -2/+21Those YouTube comments are some of the worst I've ever seen.
    • sleeknerve, on 05/16/2008, -1/+12you make it sound like thats new
    • ferreth, on 05/16/2008, -1/+5I thought the same thing, bad comments, even for YouTube. So many ijdits, so little time to block them all...
    • WaveyRavey, on 05/16/2008, -1/+4Then you haven't seen many.
    • kineticworm, on 05/16/2008, -0/+5yeah, someone should tell those guys that the comments on digg are so much better! ***** youtube comment people! WE'LL DO IT LIVE! ***** IT! ***** THING SUCKS!
  • Marc39, on 05/16/2008, -15/+6An Arab narrator from Purdue. Nice choice.
  • LongShlong, on 05/16/2008, -23/+5This video was a state of the art piece of *****. Nor was it accurate, as the concrete floor didn't break apart... Nor show bombs going off.
    • SpeedSteamBoat, on 05/16/2008, -1/+5"This contradicts my conspiracy theory! Buried as inaccurate."
  • forceuser, on 05/16/2008, -24/+32I don't see what's so state-of-the-art about that animation
    • bokep, on 05/16/2008, -3/+23Clearly you haven't done any physics simulations.
      • forceuser, on 05/16/2008, -11/+1Yes I have.. I saw nothing special in that one.
    • sylvok, on 05/16/2008, -1/+10Dont expect graphics. We expect math from this
    • NJank, on 05/16/2008, -2/+21simulation != animation

      an animation is a cartoon where you draw what happens. THAT was a computer model calculating the rather complex physical interactions and the result is based on the physics at play. I.e., it attempts to depict real interactions instead of dictating them.
    • exformation, on 05/16/2008, -1/+9I did an FEA model of a truss, and that took 20 hours. Let's put this in perspective: it's not even moving.
      • mrSt1klBak, on 05/16/2008, -0/+0I'd be pissed if our CAE team took 20 hours to mesh a truss. Hopefully that includes your simulation and iterations.
  • darlyn, on 05/16/2008, -3/+9It is great that there is software out there that can simulate different materials hitting each other, but WHERE CAN I GET IT? Is it developed by Purdue or something?
    • NJank, on 05/16/2008, -0/+7Well, if you're lacking serious computer hardware, you're probably not going to get much.

      That said, if you also don't have a lot of cash, you won't get much.

      UNLESS, that is, you aren't afraid of a linux distribution:

      www.CAElinux.com is a (primarily) mechanical engineering focused distribution of PCLinuxOS. You can burn a LiveDVD and start putting together simulations using Code-Astor, Salome, open-foam, and others. It's all free. The documentation's improving (it was all french).
    • scarz99, on 05/16/2008, -6/+1*coughtorrentcough*
    • goldisalie, on 05/16/2008, -0/+0NASTRAN, ANSYS and Strand7 are three. These packages won't really produce much meaningful data unless you have a few years of an engineering degree under your belt to understand whats going on, so don't expect to just grab one and start making cool simulations. Its hard enough simply defining the problem correctly and accurately let alone interpreting the results.
    • zspeed78, on 05/16/2008, -0/+1SolidWorks has an addon pack that does FEA I believe. Theres also a few educational 'inventor' or 'physical model' type programs that let you create objects, forces, pulleys, whatever you want. Youd probably have more fun and learn more from that than trying to setup a massive multi-item simulation of even a simple roof trust.
  • usgovterrorists, on 05/16/2008, -63/+46"Photos of the steel, evidence about how the buildings collapsed, the unexplainable collapse of WTC 7, evidence of thermite in the debris as well as several other red flags, are quite troubling indications of well planned and controlled demolition"
    "Why would all 110 stories drop straight down to the ground in about 10 seconds, pulverizing the contents into dust and ash - twice. Why would all 47 stories of WTC 7 fall straight down to the ground in about seven seconds the same day? It was not struck by any aircraft or engulfed in any fire. An independent investigation is justified for all three collapses including the surviving steel samples and the composition of the dust."
    "WTC 7 Building could not have collapsed as a result of internal fire and external debris. NO plane hit this building. This is the only case of a steel frame building collapsing through fire in the world. The fire on this building was small & localized therefore what is the cause?"
    "In my view, the chances of the three buildings collapsing symmetrically into their own footprint, at freefall speed, by any other means than by controlled demolition, are so remote that there is no other plausible explanation!"
    • greenlight2001, on 05/16/2008, -10/+8There you are! I knew I'd find you here.
    • jerrycurley, on 05/16/2008, -15/+19"Why would all 110 stories drop straight down to the ground in about 10 seconds, pulverizing the contents into dust and ash - twice....

      Let me ask you something...which direction do you think that gravity acts?
      • Synyk, on 05/16/2008, -1/+3I see what you did there.
      • JoeRW, on 05/16/2008, -4/+6It can either fall at freefall speed and do no work, or it can do work crushing concrete and smashing support columns and fall much much slower than freefall speed. It can't do both, that would violate conservation of momentum. Therefore since it falls very close to freefall speed, something must have removed the resistence below.
        • SpeedSteamBoat, on 05/16/2008, -2/+7Or maybe it was just an incredible amount of mass falling on top of a structure whose integrity (which is derived from it's networking of materials) is already compromised. The Twin Towers were NOT standard iron frame buildings. Their strength was providing by the sharing of load between the outer shell (which was pushed outwards) and the inner core which wouldn't support the building without the outer shell.

          It doesn't matter though since you are not an engineer and they all agree with me.
        • jerrycurley, on 05/16/2008, -1/+0And it didn't do both. It did not fall at free fall speeds. You may notice that part of the facade fell away just before the collapse. It landoed on the ground long before the rest of the building. How would that happen? Did hte facade fall at ACCELERATED speeds?

          You see, dumb ***** like to stop your stop watch when the building disappears behind the dust cloud. That was not the ground. The actual time of hte fall was considerably more than a free fall. More than enough to account for all the crushing, etc.
    • dcshiderly, on 05/16/2008, -5/+5only that WTC7 had significant structural damage, and extensive fires on that same face.
    • Henwood, on 05/16/2008, -4/+4BECAUSE THE JEWS DID IT you moron.
    • buddypriefert, on 05/17/2008, -0/+0I suppose you think glaciers falling into the ocean up in Alaska are an "inside job" too since they free-fall staight down. Those little guys with the plungers are hiding alongside of the cruise ships - if you look hard enough, you'll find them.
    • gl77, on 05/17/2008, -0/+1dude i dugg you up, but in the 5 minutes between when the comments page loaded and i dugg you up, it was too late, you were already down 16 diggs. sorry.
  • RSMiller, on 05/16/2008, -11/+6/sigh
  • TipsyMcDoodle, on 05/16/2008, -16/+8Holy ***** when did this ***** happen!????
    • Dunge, on 05/16/2008, -1/+4hahaha
    • Envark, on 05/16/2008, -1/+2Don't worry, dude. It is just an animation. It hasn't happened -- yet.
  • usgovterrorists, on 05/16/2008, -21/+7"Photos of the steel, evidence about how the buildings collapsed, the unexplainable collapse of WTC 7, evidence of thermite in the debris as well as several other red flags, are quite troubling indications of well planned and controlled demolition"
    "Why would all 110 stories drop straight down to the ground in about 10 seconds, pulverizing the contents into dust and ash - twice. Why would all 47 stories of WTC 7 fall straight down to the ground in about seven seconds the same day? It was not struck by any aircraft or engulfed in any fire. An independent investigation is justified for all three collapses including the surviving steel samples and the composition of the dust."
    "WTC 7 Building could not have collapsed as a result of internal fire and external debris. NO plane hit this building. This is the only case of a steel frame building collapsing through fire in the world. The fire on this building was small & localized therefore what is the cause?"
    "In my view, the chances of the three buildings collapsing symmetrically into their own footprint, at freefall speed, by any other means than by controlled demolition, are so remote that there is no other plausible explanation!"

    http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4182115161 ...
    • brianara3, on 05/16/2008, -1/+2You really need to get some new content... the same copy/paste is getting boring.
  • Sogui, on 05/16/2008, -17/+10Digg, show some common sense and bury the stupid truther comments.
  • marklar69, on 05/16/2008, -22/+59Why do people not understand that steel is weakened by heat? It does not have to be molten steel, we are talking about beams that are supporting millions of pounds of steel concrete and lots of other stuff. It only takes a little bit of heat to make it bend when its under such a load.
    • JensenSteve, on 05/16/2008, -31/+18Thats exactly what the government wants you to believe. There are proven experiments that show the steel was cut with thermite, and that molten pools of steel were found below both towers and WTC7. Wake up, shut off the idiot box, and realize that you have been fed exactly what the government wants you to believe, conditioned with fear for a life of compliance and servitude in their new world police state.
      • DrivinWest, on 05/16/2008, -4/+16"There are proven experiments that show the steel was cut with thermite,"

        Wrong. Steven Jones claims he found sulfur, a byproduct of thermite, on the steel beams. He has since misplaced those beams (sure...). Also, sulfur is a prime ingredient in drywall.

        "and that molten pools of steel were found below both towers and WTC7."

        Not relevant. Any molten metal (which may have been confused as being steel), would have been caused in the massive kiln that the burning rubble created. Wood burns at a few hundred degrees in the open. Put it in a kiln or oven and it can burn at over a thousand degrees. Simple physics, but you "truthers" wouldn't know anything about that now would you?
      • deepbl, on 05/16/2008, -0/+5Actually, he found iron-rich microspheres. You would know that if you actually read his paper.
    • twtmc, on 05/16/2008, -10/+10There was melted steel in the basement a day or two after the crash. Not a truther, just pointing it out.
      • ensceptico, on 05/16/2008, -2/+1Evidence? There is none. Only anecdotical.

        Please read:

        wtc7lies.googlepages.com/canofficefirescauselargesteelcolumnsandb
      • deepbl, on 05/16/2008, -1/+3"Only anecdotal" - in other words, testimony from over 15 eye witnesses claiming to have seen it (and that's only counting the ones that were mentioned by the media).

        That's evidence - unless you live in debunker fantasy land.
        • theright, on 05/16/2008, -1/+2That's great, deepbl. You think there was molten steel. Wonderful.

          ...and the significance of this? Molten steel doesn't support any explosive or thermite/ate controlled demolition theory.
    • Chandon, on 05/16/2008, -1/+4Having looked into the question a bit, I can assure you that it's impossible for you to understand the question of how the building collapsed simply by intuition. The only way to differentiate between the "official" story and the "truther" story would be to run a simulation like this one.
      • lead2thehead, on 05/16/2008, -3/+2Yeah... or... you could watch the video of the plane slamming into it and listen to 10,000 eye witness accounts and show some signs of common freaking sense.
        • Rustymetal, on 05/16/2008, -1/+3No plane hit WTC7

          How did it get destroyed freefall style with a small fire?
        • lead2thehead, on 05/17/2008, -0/+0From several thousand tons of debris from the two main buildings crashing into it at 100 mph. And I'd hardly call that a "small fire".
    • mhw1986, on 05/16/2008, -4/+4an interlocking steel grid is one of the strongest, most flexible structures in the world. You think those buildings weren't over-engineered enough to support itself minus a few beams? I guarantee they used a safety factor of at least double the necessary strength.

      Molten pools of ??? (thermite) that remain at thousands of degrees for weeks. You can believe what you want, but there were too many coincidental events that day for me to accept any one answer as the definite truth. And BTW planes do not slice through concrete and steel - its the other way around.
      • theright, on 05/16/2008, -0/+3Thermite burns quickly, as it doesn't require the presence of oxygen. Thermite would not explain the alleged molten steel in the Pile weeks and months after collapse.
    • dlite922, on 05/16/2008, -8/+8To be honest, I'm completely shocked by by the reaction of digg to 9-11.

      Digg me down, I'm a "truther." You (digg) effing destroy bush, Co$, and Clinton, but fail to give an open minded second look at the towers.

      As far as your comment, How about

      1. Being the first building in history to "collapse" by fire. LA fire didn't do it: http://img529.imageshack.us/img529/1822/lafirelgcn ...

      If you see some quick pictures of the beams before they were hauled off and MELTED (if that doesn't raise any red flag in your tiny little brain I don't know what will), they were cut by the special explosive used by demolitions to diagonally cut the beam to slide towards the center, hence building implodes on itself.

      Regardless of what a metal worker might say about the details of cutting steel beams, I have always had this problem with the "collapse" of the wtc buildings:

      If a building falls at a speed close to free-fall, then very little energy is taken away from the collapse to tear the building apart.

      If the building must be torn apart, then that energy has to be accounted for. The gravity collapse of the building might supply enough to tear itself apart, but then in doing so it would slow down the collapse rate.

      Given that the buildings fell so quickly, something else seems to be required to explain the utter destruction of those buildings.

      You can't have a huge steel and concrete structure fall down at free fall and tear itself apart at the same time. The supply of energy comes from the falling debris. So,

      1) If the falling debris reaches the ground at free-fall speed, then none of its energy was used to tear the building apart. (Meaning that if the building WAS torn apart, that energy came from somewhere else)

      Or,

      2) If the building was torn apart by the falling debris, then the debris would spend a lot of its kinetic energy breaking the building up, thereby slowing its descent to the ground.


      You can't have both. You can't have a building that tears itself apart completely AND reaches the ground very fast. If it does so, then the energy to disassemble the building came from something other than the kinetic energy of the fall.

      Either the building collapses slowly and tears itself apart, or collapses quickly and was already in pieces. "
      http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread269194/p ...


      I could go on, but go suck Bush's c*ck some more. I'm done with you.



    • toshibu, on 05/16/2008, -3/+2You are wrong and would fail any undergraduate materials engineering course.
  • Pinkertinkle, on 05/16/2008, -3/+8Video not so bad but they really need to work on the audio.
  • HotSaucePanCake, on 05/16/2008, -1/+10I wonder how long that took to render
    • Zarxrax, on 05/16/2008, -8/+6I'd think not very long, since the N64 can put out better graphics than that.
      • scarz99, on 05/16/2008, -1/+5Its not supposed to have rich graphics, its mainly focused on the physics and simulation.
    • Synyk, on 05/16/2008, -7/+3OVER NINE THOUSSAAANDDDD!!!!
      minutes, more or less.
    • rpebble, on 05/16/2008, -1/+4Yeah a week or so sounds about right, maybe more, on a supercomputer. Zarxrax, this isn't an animation, it's a simulation, big difference. Animations are essentially glorified cartoons, in simulations they are modeling to see what happened without knowing the outcome.
  • chrisbosh123, on 05/16/2008, -10/+21Doesn't matter if it was government planned or not, the fact remains that thousands of people died and that's just not right. Events like these will scar a country for centuries and most of all, the family of those who lost.
    • KennMac, on 05/16/2008, -0/+5Because learning from history isn't valuable at all right?

      That's like someone shooting your brother in the face, you grieving for a little while, shrugging your shoulders and never pursuing the vigilante. If anything, those families deserve to know why this happened to their loved ones.
    • vermax, on 05/16/2008, -0/+7"doesn't matter if it was government planned or not"?
      welcome to the stupidest comment ever hall of fame
    • Chachuka, on 05/16/2008, -3/+1OH c'mon, you you have put that so much better! Your words are fake, thus BURIED.
    • gl77, on 05/17/2008, -0/+1christ, it was almost 7 years ago....get the ***** over it.
  • sonofashoe, on 05/16/2008, -16/+8I know it all happenned very fast so thank goodness for the brilliant scientist that was finally able to conclude that on 9/11 a big plane with lots of combustible fuel caused that fire at the WTC.

    What I'd like to know is whether this video won a ribbon at the school science fair.
  • Murrabbit, on 05/16/2008, -16/+54The science just isn't there! How could a massive jet-fuel fire possibly weaken steel?


    (Steel tends to lose most of it's strength after being bought to about half of it's melting point)
    • IphtashuFitz, on 05/16/2008, -2/+14(and that point where it loses most of its strength is BELOW the temperature at which jet fuel burns)
      • gudnbluts, on 05/16/2008, -2/+6In the open. In an enclosed space it burns a great deal hotter.
      • obliviousfool, on 05/16/2008, -7/+2(And the jet fuel should have burned off in the initial fireball.)
        • TheNik, on 05/16/2008, -0/+5What if the jet fuel mixed with the various foams found around the building and created a napalm-esque mixture that stuck to things and kept burning?
        • obliviousfool, on 05/18/2008, -0/+1That would be mighty cool, and something worth studying.

          Of course, you could see the low temperature of the fire from the black smoke. So you still have to get the really hot mystery substance to burn hotter than what was observed.
    • NJank, on 05/16/2008, -4/+17BUT that's just what the government wants you to think. They've gone back, rewritten every textbook and website with steel stress-strain diagram or yield-strength vs. temperature curve. This includes the past several hundred years worth of archived technical documents detailing the structural effects of prolonged exposure to moderately high temperatures on a loaded structure.
      • scarz99, on 05/16/2008, -1/+5You probably should have died.
      • Whadabala, on 05/16/2008, -0/+3Sau....Ahem.... Source?
      • Bkaufman, on 05/16/2008, -6/+3I really hope this is a case of forgotten /sarcasm tags. If you think that is even remotely possible you are completely insane.
    • MacSuxWindozSux, on 05/16/2008, -2/+6I would think that in the very worst possible case, the Government new about the attacks, planned to use them as an excuse for (patriot act / war) but probably were shocked at how successful the attacks were.

      I'm not saying that Bush and Co. were behind the attacks, just that I think at worst they new ahead of time, but didn't think the buildings would fall.
      • jeriqo, on 05/16/2008, -0/+2Of course they knew about it.
        How about all the gold removed from WTC underground on 9/10?

        They just didn't expect the tours to collapse.. Bin Laden said himself it was surprised by the damage, he didn't expect that neither.
        • MacSuxWindozSux, on 05/16/2008, -0/+1When I wrote that, I was thinking about the gold the entire time. I see people in Govt. as being capable of planning that sort of theft.

          It's one thing I can't reconcile. If they didn't think the towers would fall then they wouldn't have tried to move the gold. They wouldn't try to steal it because they would have no cover, the crime would be discovered.

          I can however see them realizing that the towers could fall and then nab the gold on the fly without much planning.
    • doctorfungi, on 05/16/2008, -1/+5Steel is only 20% of its original strength when exposed to temperatures the same as those in the towers.
    • dlite922, on 05/16/2008, -6/+3fine, it faukeen melted for crying out loud.

      That STILL doesn't explain how the entire building fell the ground in under 10 seconds.

      "Oh! Don't mind the other damn floors, they were made of foam!"

      How do you like sarcasm, jerk.
  • FoxOrian, on 05/16/2008, -1/+10What was the relevance of stating that the fuel is rendered with reflections and refractions and some objects are rendered with magical transparent materials? It seemed out of place...
    • dperren, on 05/16/2008, -0/+2Because it's a video designed to show the results of someone's research project, and that is relevant information to anyone to anyone with interest in what was achieved, rather than what was demonstrated.
    • Somedude2137, on 05/16/2008, -0/+1I don't know but it looked cool.... so i'm believing it
  • fenderjazz, on 05/16/2008, -16/+6Definitely photoshopped. The reflections are all wrong.
  • DDMX, on 05/16/2008, -19/+13Proof there were not bombs planted. This took out the support, plus the fire, which WEAKENED - not melted - the steel, allowed the building to collapse.
    • JoeRW, on 05/16/2008, -4/+1Something melted steel that day. Its right there in the FEMA report C. Also many eyewitnesses reported molten iron flowing like lava down in the basement levels of the pile. Thats why people keep talking about molten iron, not because they think jet fuel fire had to melt the supports on the burning floors before they collapsed. Thats a different matter entirely. Conflating the two is incorrect.
      • SpeedSteamBoat, on 05/16/2008, -1/+4So "many eyewitnesses" can tell the difference between molten steal and any other molten substance that might be present in the aftermath of a massive fire and collapse of a sky scraper? Impressive.
    • DestroyFascism, on 05/16/2008, -1/+2SO why is Manhattan still to this day exhibiting residues of high explosives? Its also highly toxic.
  • Apokalyps2547, on 05/16/2008, -16/+13Old video is old.
  • nuggetz, on 05/16/2008, -23/+14State of the art? That simulation sucks. All it proved is that a plane would not cause a steel structure like the WTC to collapse but we already knew that.
    • jbmcb, on 05/16/2008, -0/+13You seem to be confusing Pixar movies with incredibly complicated structural engineering simulation and finite element analysis software.

  • dralezero, on 05/16/2008, -6/+8The simulation of the animation rendered by the physics simulation graphic objects simulation .........
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 100 of 128 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Cre