An acquaintance of mine who is a structural engineering graduate student wrote an email to Mete Sozen about a year ago and questioned him about Purdue's original analysis and Pentagon impact simulation. Here are the two emails. Enjoy a good laugh!

--------------------------------------------------
Hi Prof. Sozen,

I have some questions regarding the research conducted at Purdue University in regards to the crash at the Pentagon on September 11th.

My main questions evolve around the aircraft simulation that was shown during the report's presentation and broadcast on national media.

1) In the simulation the outer limestone wall of the Pentagon is not shown (just the building columns). I assume the wall was made out of some limestone (dense) material (maybe 18 inches thick?) and would offer additional structural resistance.

2) The aircraft in the simulation has no engines. The engines on a 757 are quite large (about 9 ft in diameter) and extend below the fuselage of the aircraft (correct?). The plane was presumed to crash into the lower floor of the building yet left no impact markings on the outer lawn (according to photographs and video taken at the scene).

3) Finally, right before the simulation ends, it shows the vertical stabilizer of the aircraft (tail section) entering into the building. I've looked at a couple photographs and videos of the wall of the Pentagon before it collapsed and there is clearly no indication of a tail section entering in or even impacting the 2nd and 3rd stories of the building. There is also no tail section debris found outside the building.

I have no idea how specific the simulation video was made. Perhaps I am taking it too literal. In your research of the situation I am sure you accounted for the above mentioned phenomena. If you did, I am curious as to how you did it. Were you able to see video of the impact?

I believe the ASCE report also states that the plane took out 50 support columns. How was this value determined? Was it concluded before the outer ring collapsed or after?

I do not mean to criticize the ASCE report, but after recently watching the simulation video and then looking at pictures of the impact damage, I saw what appeared to be inconsistencies.

Prof. Sozen, thank you for your help and understanding -- it is much appreciated!

Sincerely,

(name withheld)

(University of Cincinnati College of Engineering Graduate School)

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear Mr (name ,withheld):

Thank you for your interest in our study of the Pentagon event.

Our focus was on the response of the spirally reinforced concrete columns to impact delivered by, essentially, a fluid traveling at high speed.

We were informed by eyewitnesses that the engines had dropped before impacting the building.

There are so many questions about the transfer of energy from the aircraft to the Pentagon structure that the presence/absence of the Indiana limestone facade walls makes relatively little difference.

I thought there was evidence of the tail striking the building.

In any case, our "simulation" refers to approx 1/4 sec. after the impact. In that short duration it is defensible. Unfortunately, the animation is much more impressive than the simulation and suggests a perfect simulation. It is not so.

Since 2001, we have been focusing on the problem of a fuel-loaded wing impacting a solid. We have a lot to learn.

You may also have noticed that the simulation did not go into the conflagration.

The ASCE team did study the damage. They were in the building. I believe the column count is correct.

But I do not want you to discourage from questioning what we have been told about the tragic event. I would not use our simulation as evidence confirming the existence of an impacting aircraft. Strictly, it is Mickey Mouse. But there is hard evidence confirming the impact by an aircraft.

Sincerely,

--Mete Sozen
---------------------------------------------------------------------

So, Mr. Sozen was informed that the engines fell off before impact? Don't you think a photo journalist would have taken a photo of such an amazing site? I do. What a crock!

"A nation of sheep will beget a government of wolves" – Edward R. Murrow

heres the original stories that uncovered this evidence FIRST.

http://truthorlies.org/911trutharticle015.html

http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Purdue_researchers_create_911_computer_sim...

Hello.
I just wanted to add that Arden L. Bement Jr., NFS director, "joined NSF from the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), where he had been Director since December 7, 2001." Meaning Bush obviously appointed him to this job as well, shortly after 9/11.

Also:

""When the developers of the World Trade Center first designed the complex, they did take into account of an accidental plane crash," said Christoph Hoffman, one of the study's lead researchers. "The only thing they didn't anticipate is the fire.[...]""

Thats a lie. If one visit a Seattle Times article from February 27, 1993 one might find:

"Skilling, based in Seattle, is among the world's top structural engineers. He is responsible for much of Seattle's downtown skyline and for several of the world's tallest structures, including the Trade Center.

Concerned because of a case where an airplane hit the Empire State Building, Skilling's people did an analysis that showed the towers would withstand the impact of a Boeing 707.

"Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel (from the airplane) would dump into the building. There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed," he said. "The building structure would still be there.""

This link was on Rosie's blog.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2zSfZ9juF3M

It is going hot and she loves it.

I did not know where to put it so I choose this blog.

It is growing and Rosie said she is trying to contact the videographer.

Last night it was a bit over 3000 views this morning it is over 10,900 views.