Of significant interest, since none of the thermate bomb* conspiracy theorists have anticipated it, is the damage caused by the kinetic energy of 10,000 gallons of jet-fuel. From the Purdue article:
..."We calibrated our calculations using data from experiments we had conducted to evaluate the energy imparted from fluid moving at high speed to solid targets," he says. "We concluded that the damage map we calculated for our numerical model of the building would correspond closely to the actual extent of the damage."*TOC has written about the thermatidiots on a number of occasions:
The simulation represented the plane and its mass as a mesh of hundreds of thousands of "finite elements," or small squares containing specific physical characteristics. In the visualization, these scientific data points are used to show how airplane components swept through the building and out through the other side as the fuel ignited.
"The aircraft moved through the building as if it were a hot and fast lava flow," Sozen says. "Consequently, much of the fireproofing insulation was ripped off the structure. Even if all of the columns and girders had survived the impact - an unlikely event - the structure would fail as the result of a buckling of the columns. The heat from an ordinary office fire would suffice to soften and weaken the unprotected steel. Evaluation of the effects of the fire on the core column structure, with the insulation removed by the impact, showed that collapse would follow whatever the number of columns cut at the time of the impact."
Monday, July 24, 2006
An exchange of views
Wednesday, July 26, 2006
More on the "Thermate" theory
Friday, August 04, 2006
So, you think you are becoming surrounded by idiots?
Tuesday, August 22, 2006
In Which I Am Taken to Task...
Monday, September 04, 2006
9/11 conspiracy debunking
Wednesday, September 06, 2006
Thursday, September 07, 2006
The explanation for this will be a doozy
Wednesday, September 13, 2006
The masons of dementia
Thursday, September 14, 2006
I will be interested in any criticisms of computer simulation which may be forthcoming from the far side of the moonbats, but I think it only fair to warn them that this simulation has far fewer variables to contend with than do "climate change" models. If they think computer simulations can predict "climate change" accurately (and I bet most do), then they must either accept Purdue's simulation as plausible, or claim these scientists are part of the thermate conspiracy.