Scientists simulate a jet slamming into the world trade center

Ummmm

What's with the description on this vid? The simulation wasn't even trying to disprove the conspiracy "theories" around 9/11. I'd like to see what happens when they enter certain data into the simulation. Like how hot jet fuel burns compared to what it wouldn't taken to melt the collumns, and how that same fuel didn't manage to melt the passports of the supposed terrorists, miraculously found in the rubble after the attack. Or how much of a load the undamaged collumns beneath the area of impact were designed to bear. Too bad they can't explain in the simulation how it was that two pilots, who were described by people at their own flight school as "rubbish pilots... they couldn't fly a plane" managed to fly huge airliners with pinpoint accuracy into buildings, something pilots with thousands of flight hours would have a very difficult time doing. Or how about, how at least 5 of the hijackers named by the FBI; Waleed M. Alshehri, Abdulaziz Alomari, Mohand Alshehri, Salem Alhazmi and Saeed Alghamdi, ARE STILL ALIVE! Could go on and on and provide infinately more evidence for a conspiracy FACT, than FEMA actually pulled out of their ass for the official report. You smell it, I smell it, we all smell bullshit. Some of us delude ourselves, some of us woke up a long time ago and smelt this filthy and obviously mass of bullshit that was really just a prelude to companies like Haliburton and other defence contractors making trillions off a war.

No kidding. The biggest thing that really stinks for me is this link: http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/topten/fugitives/laden.htm It's been almost 6 years, and still there no mention on 9/11 on Osama Bin Laden's FBI Most Wanted Page? What, they're too busy to update it? The most "wanted" man in the World and no one can be bothered to list the crimes his accused of? No, instead his wanted for his connection with embassy bombings in 1998. The last revision on his page is from November of 2001...two months after the attacks. And lets no go into why no one seems to be able to find him...

Why...

Why why why do people not understand that the steel didn't melt? It doesn't have to! Do they melt steel to forge it? NO! They get it warm enough to work with. Besides, jet fuel doesn't burn as hot as office furniture. I have actually seen demonstrations of what happens in a modern office building when it ignites. If you burn it without furniture, nothing happens except fire damage. However, stock the rooms with modern furniture, plastic computers/chairs/tables/etc. paper from filing cabinets and anything else you find in your office and the i-beams actually become hot and SAG under their own weight. Now put a few hundred tonnes on top of that i-beam, guess what happens? Yep, catastrophic failure. And these tests were done over 10 years before 9/11 so it isn't some theory cooked up to support this vid.

Unbelieveable

Being a structural engineer, I can't see where the first person that commented was going with this. First of all, steel doesn't have to melt in order to yeild. Steel approximately yields with stress levels over 60,000-75,000 psi. Under thermal effects due to a fire, the heat rapidly expands the composition of the steel. When that composition changes, the yeild strength of that steel drastically reduces nearly 1/3 of it's actual capacity. Granted being, back when this building was designed, there were probably using some form of a UBC codebook. Since then, UBC codebooks have become more conservative to say the least. So basically, to go back to the point, steel doens't have to melt in order for it to deform and yeild before it's nominal capacity. All it takes is an unconservative design, thermal effects due to heat, and an excess of 50+kips load to devastate a whole building. Second, the frame to beam connection didn't involve high stregnth bolts and the plates connecting the column to beam to vertical bracings were more than likely not designed as a "pin - fix" connection which should be done. If a "fix - fix" connection is applied, there is no room for deformation due to thermal effects making the bolts deform and shear off. So yes, conspiracy theorists, you have no idea what you are talking about if you think that a plane can't topple a building designed that unconservatively or if fire can't deform and collapse structural steel.

Building 7 ????

Most people are quick to call conspiracy theorist crazy and stupid. They are usually the same people who don’t even know what Building 7 is!! If this is you I suggest you wake up from the matrix and take the red pill. Still lost???Building 7 was the third government building that collapsed in the same area as WTC, on video demolition style.(no planes)It’s importants on 911 is up to you to learn and why no one in the “matrix” well tell you? To make things more interesting, it was reported to have collapsed “on live TV 30 minutes before it fell.” I can go on forever about info… there it proof to the hole story you are not allowed to know, just connect to dots...it’s ok to ask hard questions…www.freepressinternational.com www.infowars.com

You want a proper explanation?

by the way heres the link :D http://video.google.com.au/videoplay?docid=-8172271955308136871&q=mysteries+of+9%2F11&total=490&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0