Paul Sheridan's Letter to Purdue
Below is a letter Paul Sheridan sent to the head of the Purdue simulation team, Ayhan Irfanoglu. The letter was emailed to me today.
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.
(1) In the following link: http://www.wkrn.com/nashville/news/ap-simulation-finds-911-fireproofing-key/102602.htm 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.
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.
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.
(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]
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?
(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.
Please respond with a "reply all." I intend to follow-up with you by telephone very shortly. Thank you in-advance for your response.
Paul Sheridan
- GeorgeWashington's blog
- Login to post comments
"Alternatively, your
"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."
these are the kind of connections we need to stress all the time to discredit these bastards. great letter.
"The Central Intelligence Agency owns everyone of any significance in the major media." ~ William Colby, Former Director, CIA
Okay
but I'm not sure about the repeated use of the word "interjected"?
And if you are going to write a letter like this, why not go balls out and provide a few pages of evidence that contradict the simulation? I won't repeat the points here; I'm sure everyone is familiar with them.
Also, instead of the Edna Cinton proof, you might consider citing the NIST report itself on the lack of intense fires: "None of the recovered steel samples showed evidence of exposure to temperatures above 600 degrees C for as long as 15 minutes." – NIST, p. 180
Good job identifying the university as a DHS Center. I didn't know that.
And of course you are to be congratulated for taking matters into your own hands.
Dear Paul
.........I would love to have him answer just two questions. How did they get the computer to pulverize all that concrete....and how did they get it to collapse in ten seconds?
I would guess that all that steel falling so damn fast must have produced enough friction to create molten pools of steel for weeks under all three towers?
Exactly, the question is not
Exactly, the question is not did the planes hit the buildings, it is what brought the towers down.
Great letter, but I have to respond to this non sequiter
The modeling of the plane impact is most certainly the question, as the Purdue theory relies on the planes penetrating, knocking off insulation, dumping fuel inside, and damaging the core columns. Critique of the airplane impact models should not be avoided merely because it might also contribute to the dreaded "no plane" theory (which whether true or not must be avoided for the good of 9/11 Truth").
The cartoon of the fuselage penetrating steel columns intact is a joke, and either the fuselage is too small in diameter or it is shown hitting the columns at a point squarely backed by columns. In either case, the cartoon is unrealistic. Even if the engines and massive area between the wings could penetrate, the fuselage could not.
When are the engineers in this movement going to take a critical look at the impact analyses?
My point is, the impact is
My point is, the impact is just the initial condition - the collapse is where the Official Story "falls" completely apart. FEMA tried floating that ridiculous pancake theory crap, NIST then comes up with the pile driver collapse, neither computer model was released for independent study.
There are three states as I see it, Impact of the planes / jet fuel fires -> office content fires / Collapse. The first state is being analyzed here, to legitimize the conclusions of NIST.
Again they can't explain the collapse. Shift the question to WTC7 and the relevance of the plane impacts become obvious.
OK
I agree that like NIST they have left out this portion of the story and that even if what they say is true the rapid pulverization of the towers does not follow.
However, your reference to WTC7 -- about which it is often said "not even hit by planes" -- only reinforces the mistaken idea that the plane impacts should be taken at face value.
Every aspect of the official story that is questionable should be questioned, and no unphysical event should be assumed true because the implications are uncomfortable or it supports a theory thought to be wrong.
I've been saying the same thing to Steven Jones about the plane debris that implausibly passed through the towers and exited at over 100 mph. He has still not explained this event, after initially agreeing that a wheel passing through core of the North Tower would be implausible. Once I showed him that NIST was in fact claiming this, but could not explain it, he could only offer a ricochet theory (twice) and a out-through-a-window theory, neither of which make sense.
I attribute this to discomfort at the implications. That is not scientific, nor is it forensic.