Waterboy Wonder Strikes Again!

Kevin Ryan writes an open letter to the incoming president of Purdue University to complain about the computer simulation of the North Tower crash. As we have seen in the past, these "open letters" are generally not intended for the nominal recipient, but to rally the 9-11 Deniers, and this is no exception:

Through your appointment you have been given this opportunity to speak out and denounce what can be called, at best, criminally negligent science on the part of a small segment of the Purdue faculty.

Last month, a few Purdue professors, along with some students, presented a short animation ostensibly related to the 9/11 tragedy at the World Trade Center (WTC). Surprisingly the University then announced this animation in a news release, as if it represented a scientifically accurate simulation of the impact of a Boeing 767 into the WTC's north tower.[1] Unfortunately, this short video clip is far from a scientifically-based production, as it actually contradicts several of the government's own, much more intensive studies, and shamefully fails to capture some of the most basic aspects of the related events. To make things worse, Purdue University paradoxically implies that this brief animation provides support for the overworked fire-induced collapse hypothesis. By simultaneously contradicting and voicing support for the official story, Purdue has helped to promote the Bush Administration's fraudulent 9/11 Wars, and instantly earned a notorious place in modern history.

Ryan does bring up a few apparently legitimate points about minor mistakes that the Purdue team made (for example, referring to AA11 as AA77), and this one might be more severe:

NIST reported that the damage done to the south face of WTC 1 was limited to one dislodged panel, encompassing three exterior columns (329,330 and 331), caused by whatever small amount of debris passed through and exited the far side of the building. Purdue's team now wants us to believe that 12 exterior columns were severed on the south face of WTC 1.[5]

But he undercuts himself with the typical paranoid nutbar stuff like this:

You might start with Purdue's Mete Sozen, a long time leader of official investigations for terrorist acts, and a mainstay of "expert" testimony for those supporting Bush's war of terror. Professor Sozen also happens to be the chairman of a US Department of Defense program, which puts him among the least likely people to objectively judge the scientific basis for the origins of this war. But my guess is that Mete Sozen is more than just a simple war profiteer, and may have more sinister personal reasons for promoting the Bush Administration's genocide for oil program.

And hilariously he recommends Richard Gage and his fruitloops crew over at Architects and Engineers for 9-11 Denial.

Purdue Simulation Contradicts FEMA?

This seems to be the latest talking point that the Deniers have picked up in an attempt to debunk the devastating simulation done by Purdue University. And, as usual, they're all wet.

Here's Truth or Lies:

The following statement was used in the Purdue simulation: "The weight of the aircraft's fuel, when ignited, acted like a flash flood of flaming liquid". This is a direct contradiction of the FEMA report (which can be viewed HERE)which stated: "despite the huge fireballs caused by the two planes crashing into the WTC towers each with 10,000 gallons of jet fuel, the fireballs did not explode or create a shock wave that would have resulted in structural damage.”

Now, a careful reader will immediately observe that Purdue did not state that the fireballs exploded or create a shock wave that would have resulted in structural damage. They are saying that the weight (perhaps more appropriately the mass) of the jet fuel acted like a flash flood of flaming liquid, smacking into the fireproofing on the steel and stripping it away. Incidentally, Truth or Lies does a little editin g of FEMA's quote. They got the meaning right, but it is traditional to give an indication by using ellipses when you drop a few words from a quotation.

Truth or Lies sets up a straw man here:

According to the simulation video, "The weight of the aircraft's fuel, when ignited, acted like a flash flood of flaming liquid…and stripped away fireproofing which caused the steel to weaken”

However, a problem lies within this explanation….

According to the NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology) Report, (which can be viewed HERE)and an article from Fox News, which can read HERE, “fire-proof asbestos was only used up to the thirty-eighth floor of the north tower and not at all in the south tower”.

These accounts state that because non-asbestos fire proofing was used in simulations by NIST, the non-asbestos fireproofing was far inferior to asbestos in terms of melting points and the ability to keep fire from spreading. It should be noted that these claims of “fire-proofing” as being responsible for the melting of the steel that led to the collapse of the twin towers has been debunked numerous times by world-renowned physicists such as Steven Jones of BYU (view his website here).

Of course, nobody claims that the steel melted, and the idea that the fireproofing was responsible for the collapse is absurd. The loss of the fireproofing was a major contributing factor to the collapse.

Hat Tip to our longtime buddy and radio host Rob Breakenridge for pointing out this "argument".

Michelle Malkin and John Gibson on the Purdue Simulation

Pleased to see this getting a good deal of play. John Gibson is moving up rapidly on my list of favorite TV personalities because he doesn't mince words; I've long been a fan of Mrs M.