Rallying the Troops

With a pathetic letter to the leader of the Purdue University simulation team. That this letter is not intended for him is quite obvious; it's intended for the 9-11 Denial Movement.

Mr. Ayhan Irfanoglu:

Thank you so much for your recent interjections into the "research" about September 11, 2001 as such relates to the events in my hometown of New York City. I can assure you with certainty that your work will prove VERY useful to the ongoing research efforts by those of us not paid to do so; doing so ONLY for the purposes of exposing the truth. Alternatively, your interjections are completely expected in the context of Purdue's inclusion in the Michael Chertoff Department of Homeland Security "Center of Excellence," and the multi-million-dollar taxpayer-funded programs associated with that inclusion.

First, note the words spelled with "all capitals"; "VERY" and "ONLY". These are the written equivalents of shouting, and as we all know, folks with good arguments don't have to shout. Then we get into the "we know you're only doing it for the Homeland Security bucks," a raging clue that this letter is aimed at the Deniers and not Mr Irfanoglu.

1) In the following link: http://www.wkrn.com/nashville/news/ap-simulation-finds-911-fireproofing-... you are quoted:

"We design structures with some extra capacity to cover some uncertainties, but we never anticipate such heavy demand coming from an aircraft impact. If the columns were distributed, maybe, the fire could not take them out so easily."

Given the fact that you did not design ANY aspect of the WTC building complex, I am confused by your choice of words.

Did he say that he designed those buildings? And another all-caps; certainly a sign that this is a weak writer making a poor argument.

But just so we are clear, you are stating, as a member of the civil engineering professorial staff at a DHS "Center of Excellence" university, that skyscrapers designed in the 1970's for locations such as New York City where not-one not-two but-THREE major airports are within SIGHT of the building location; these skyscraper structural designs did NOT consider "an aircraft impact." Is that your true and accurate assessment of civil engineering design status for the World Trade Center sir? In case I am not being clear, let me qualify this present inquiry by saying that this is a yes-or-no question, and I would appreciate just a simple 'yes' or a simple 'no' response.

Note again the mention of Homeland Security (DHS); he's mugging for the camera. Note that Sheridan is wrong about when the buildings were designed; it was in 1964. Three more "shouts", and the hostile yes-or-no is right out of the Luke Rudkowski reportage playbook.

Of course the building was designed to withstand the impact of a plane. Flying low, lost in the fog, and traveling at a much slower rate of speed than the planes on 9-11.

To assist in your response to my first question please note the quotes below:

"The building was designed to have a fully-loaded 707 crash into it; that was the largest plane at that time. I believe that that building could sustain multiple impacts."
Mr. Frank A. DeMartina, WTC Construction Project Manager

"The airplane we were envisioning was the largest airplane of its time. We designed the buildings to take the impact of the Boeing 707 hitting the building at any location.
Mr. Les Robertson, Head of WTC Structural Engineering Group.

It's DeMartini. First, the NIST report was unable to locate any calculations proving that the building could take that kind of impact in the first place. Second, the Purdue simulation added two specific elements to our understanding of the WTC collapses: the impact of the added weight to the building from the plane and its associated contents especially the fuel, and the effect of the fuel itself, traveling at five hundred miles an hour impacting the fireproofing on the trusses. If you've ever used a pressure washer, you'll know that a jet of water moving at a high rate of speed will strip the dirt right off a building.

(2) Pasted below are video stills of a woman standing in, as alleged in reports such as yours, a hole made by American Airlines Flight 11 which allegedly used a standard Boeing 767 passenger jet. [GW's comment: the photos referred to can be viewed here]

Note the sudden use of the words "alleged" and "allegedly". These idiots actually think they have to say "alleged" when it comes to the planes and the flights. It's easy to forget because the focus here is on "controlled demolition" that the kooks think American Airlines Flight 11 didn't hit the North Tower.

This woman has been identified as Ms. Edna Cintron. In the context of the "raging inferno" that you have alleged, and you have alleged to have melted thousands-of-tons of structural steel at the WTC, what portion of the computer simulation, that you and your colleagues recently interjected into the public domain, considers and explains in-detail the fact that not even Ms. Cintron's long beautiful hair was cinged? I ask this question of you in the very specific context of your statements regarding "fire proofing" since it is clear that Ms. Cintron's hair was not "fireproofed." Hair will begin to cinge at roughly 600 degrees; well within the range of jet fuel. Alternatively, if your inputs to the computer simulation did not consider the survival of Ms. Cintron please review/revise that portion of the algorithym that would address this well-known EVIDENCE of very LOW temperatures present at WTC-1 post impact, etc. This is important since WTC-1 collapsed symmetrically (and at free-fall speed) approximately 15 minutes after this Cintron video was recorded. Regarding that latter point, does the time-temperature curves of your simulation accurately portray this VERY brief heat transfer time?

Wow, lots of meat on that bone! First, note the obvious straw man of "melted thousands of tons of steel". Second, the jet fuel was going south at a tremendous rate of speed; Edna Cintron appeared at the north side of the tower, where the initial impact had occurred, and where there was little fire. It's "singe", and Sheridan has no way of knowing whether Edna's hair was singed; he just assumes it.

As for the "very LOW" temperatures, here's a pretty good picture of the fires:



Note as well that this is the third time that Sheridan has bitched about Purdue "interjecting" themselves into the discussion. Considering that these guys spend most of their time agitating for a new investigation, it seems a bit much when they gripe about somebody actually doing one. Could it be any more obvious that they are only looking for an investigation that comes to a particular outcome?

And the third question is just complete nutbar time:

(3) The final question area involves the attached NOAA satellite photograph of September 23, 2001. What portion of your computer simulation was able to account for the startling fact that ONLY the buildings owned/leased by Mr. Larry Silverstein and as-such only those buildings covered by a "terrorist acts" insurance clause collapsed? I ask this in the context of your allegation that lack of fireproofing was the key input to your simulation.

Because of course a structural engineer is the best person to ask why Silverstein's properties were covered by terrorism insurance. Note, as usual, that St. Nick's Cathedral, which presumably was not covered by terrorism insurance, gets forgotten as usual, as do two buildings which will eventually be torn down--Fiterman Hall and Deutsche Bank.