ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories » 9/11 Conspiracy Theories
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags LMP1 , nist

Reply
Old 16th July 2009, 09:48 AM   #1
alienentity
Illuminator
 
alienentity's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 4,325
Computer modeling and simulation

Morning all,

Many a truther has expressed contempt for NIST's WTC7 analysis because it relied on sophisticated computer models for fire simulation, possible explosive demolition, and failure analysis. They don't think this type of work represents 'real' things, since the results can be faked or fudged to produce any outcome.

A few days ago I watched a documentary on sports car racing on Speed Channel called 'Project LMP1, Acura's next challenge 1'. The program focuses on the efforts of Acura to enter into this hyper-competitive class of racing.

What is notable about the Acura effort is that the entire design phase of the car was done using advanced computer modeling, employing 500 computers in 4 giant clusters (Dell computers) running 24/7 and dedicated directly to churning out solutions.

Instead of going to a wind tunnel to test models, this task was also performed by computers!!

Then, once the 'car' was designed, it was tested using a virtual car running on a simulator, by a professional race driver.

Using the results of the simulator the car was then fabricated, and finally, and only then, was track tested - it proved to be a successful design!

This shows how devastatingly powerful such technology can be in modeling the real world. Simulations which simply could not be achieved just a few years ago are now possible.

One could argue that NIST's job at simulating the structure and conditions of WTC buildings was a more difficult task, and I couldn't argue one way or another. But to dismiss the modeling, as many truthers do, is to deny the undeniable fact that this technology is very accurate.

The company is Wirthresearch, in the UK.

I've posted the show on my channel in five parts. Here's part one:
(the playlist link is here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=smUik...9A6C9D&index=4)


YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE
__________________
Heiwa - 'Anyone suggesting that part C structure can one-way crush down part A structure is complicit to mass murder!'
000063 - 'Problem with the Truthers' theories is that anyone with enough power to pull it off doesn't need to in the first place.'
mrkinnies 'I'm not a no-planer' 'I don't believe Flight 77 hit the Pentagon'

Last edited by alienentity; 16th July 2009 at 10:24 AM.
alienentity is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th July 2009, 11:21 AM   #2
rwguinn
Penultimate Amazing
 
rwguinn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 16 miles from 7 lakes
Posts: 11,104
Every Vehicle you drive or ride in was Simulated through FEA before a single part was cut, a single weld made.
I know for a fact the MCII G4100 and G4500 (run by Greyhound and numerous charters) was done that way, because I did it.
Every Airplane, every Rocket, every satellite--every complex machine and many simple ones--were FEM'ed prior to production.
Amazingly enough, we actually know how materials act under load, what their properties are, and how the loads get applied.
Science. It works the same way EVERY TIME!
__________________
"Political correctness is a doctrine,...,which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end."
"
I pointed out that his argument was wrong in every particular, but he rightfully took me to task for attacking only the weak points." Myriad http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=6853275#post6853275
rwguinn is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th July 2009, 12:41 PM   #3
alienentity
Illuminator
 
alienentity's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 4,325
Originally Posted by rwguinn View Post
Every Vehicle you drive or ride in was Simulated through FEA before a single part was cut, a single weld made.
I know for a fact the MCII G4100 and G4500 (run by Greyhound and numerous charters) was done that way, because I did it.
Every Airplane, every Rocket, every satellite--every complex machine and many simple ones--were FEM'ed prior to production.
Amazingly enough, we actually know how materials act under load, what their properties are, and how the loads get applied.
Science. It works the same way EVERY TIME!
Excellent points! Usually they use wind tunnels to test scale models of race cars. Do they still do the same for aircraft or have they gone completely digital?
__________________
Heiwa - 'Anyone suggesting that part C structure can one-way crush down part A structure is complicit to mass murder!'
000063 - 'Problem with the Truthers' theories is that anyone with enough power to pull it off doesn't need to in the first place.'
mrkinnies 'I'm not a no-planer' 'I don't believe Flight 77 hit the Pentagon'
alienentity is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th July 2009, 01:20 PM   #4
rwguinn
Penultimate Amazing
 
rwguinn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 16 miles from 7 lakes
Posts: 11,104
Originally Posted by alienentity View Post
Excellent points! Usually they use wind tunnels to test scale models of race cars. Do they still do the same for aircraft or have they gone completely digital?
I don't do aerodynamics myself-I'm a structures guy--so I can't answer that.
But the F-35 was put in flight test well before any actual structural testing was done.
__________________
"Political correctness is a doctrine,...,which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end."
"
I pointed out that his argument was wrong in every particular, but he rightfully took me to task for attacking only the weak points." Myriad http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=6853275#post6853275
rwguinn is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th July 2009, 02:12 PM   #5
ElMondoHummus
0.25 short of being half-witted
 
ElMondoHummus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Somewhere north of the South Pole
Posts: 12,272
Originally Posted by alienentity View Post
Usually they use wind tunnels to test scale models of race cars.
This is still true in Formula One, although I don't think they scale the cars down much if at all; the few picures I see look to be a full or nearly full sized chassis. Anyway, some teams have two, not just one, wind tunnels for development; there's tons of money spent in F1, and the top teams go all out. However, in an attempt to cut costs and speed aerodynamic development, some teams are switching to CFD (rwguinn and all the engineers here will know what a "Computational Fluid Dynamics" system is) in place of wind tunnels; here's a story about the Renault team increasing their use of such "virtual" wind tunnels. And here's a different one from a few years back advertising an association with a now defunct team. Real tunnels are expensive, and do need down time for routine maintenance, although I don't read anything about any F1 team completely ditching the real world wind buildings. I don't think any of them are willing to go that far.

Oddly enough, back when Indycar's direct rival - Champ Car World Series - still existed, they actually had a rule against wind tunnel testing. What they did in place of that, I don't know. Indycar had no such restriction.

To bring this back on topic: Yes, it's true, virtual modeling for race cars at least is very advanced. If it gives a competetive advantage, you can bet F1 teams will somehow dig up cash for it, and in a racing series where fractions of a second per lap matter (yes, that's not an exaggeration; watch an F1 race or qualifying session some time), those teams will demand the utmost out of every step of their design process. CFD and FEA are important tools in the multi-hundred million dollar series (link is not to a definition, but an article about one team's integration of FEA into their design process; even though not about the Twin Towers, it's actually a good on-topic read).
__________________
"AND ZEPPELINS!!! We haven't even begun to talk about Zeppelins yet! Marauding inflatable Teutonic johnsons waggling their way across the sky! Indecent and flammable all at once."
ElMondoHummus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th July 2009, 06:35 PM   #6
Justin39640
Illuminator
 
Justin39640's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 4,199
the truthers seem to think that the physics was tweeked somehow
but that not the way those work

you build the structure from what you know (INCLUDING THE MASS OF THE PARTS PSIKY!)
then try to simulate damage that no one could see directly
and you keep tweeking until you see what happened in real life
and its not a snapshot its a movie in 3D so the right sequence matters too

its very tough work
my silly models i tweek the same way
but they are way too simple (amongst other issues) to accurately depict anything discussed in the subforum here except to point out simple concepts

other than that
like stated earlier most things you use these days was born in a virtual world
heres a video of a machine i service regularly (previously i worked at the dealer) that was computer designed and tested before the 1st part was cut

its a industry ad for it
a game you can play with this one (for you safety people):
"how many OSHA violations can you point out?"
YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE
__________________
"I joined this forum to learn about the people who think that 9/11 was an inside job. I've learned that they believe nutty things and are not very good at explaining them." - FineWine
"The agencies involved with studying the WTC collapse no more needed to consider explosives than the police need to consider brain cancer in a shooting death." - ElMondoHummus
Justin39640 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th July 2009, 07:10 PM   #7
tfk
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 3,454
Originally Posted by Justin39640 View Post
the truthers seem to think that the physics was tweeked somehow
but that not the way those work

you build the structure from what you know (INCLUDING THE MASS OF THE PARTS PSIKY!)
then try to simulate damage that no one could see directly
and you keep tweeking until you see what happened in real life
and its not a snapshot its a movie in 3D so the right sequence matters too

its very tough work
my silly models i tweek the same way
but they are way too simple (amongst other issues) to accurately depict anything discussed in the subforum here except to point out simple concepts

other than that
like stated earlier most things you use these days was born in a virtual world
heres a video of a machine i service regularly (previously i worked at the dealer) that was computer designed and tested before the 1st part was cut

its a industry ad for it
a game you can play with this one (for you safety people):
"how many OSHA violations can you point out?"
YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE
.
Criminey Justin,

You were checking out THAT video for OSHA violations??

You need a slap upside the head, boy, to get your attention refocused...!



Does OSHA even have regs on the height of stiletto heels? Lengths of slits up the sides of dresses??

Pretty cool vid, tho. A real shame that PC gets in the way of them getting produced over here...

Tom
tfk is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th July 2009, 08:13 PM   #8
Justin39640
Illuminator
 
Justin39640's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 4,199
Originally Posted by tfk View Post
.
Criminey Justin,

You were checking out THAT video for OSHA violations??

You need a slap upside the head, boy, to get your attention refocused...!



Does OSHA even have regs on the height of stiletto heels? Lengths of slits up the sides of dresses??

Pretty cool vid, tho. A real shame that PC gets in the way of them getting produced over here...

Tom
i meant after the 15th viewing lol
__________________
"I joined this forum to learn about the people who think that 9/11 was an inside job. I've learned that they believe nutty things and are not very good at explaining them." - FineWine
"The agencies involved with studying the WTC collapse no more needed to consider explosives than the police need to consider brain cancer in a shooting death." - ElMondoHummus
Justin39640 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th July 2009, 10:14 PM   #9
KJC
Scholar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 97
I do wonder how NIST modelled pretty much the full collapse of WTC7, without doing the same for WTC 1 + 2. I thought that they were simply unable to 1+2 becuase of computer limitation, so how come they were able to model the collapse of WTC7 and not 1+2?
KJC is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th July 2009, 02:51 AM   #10
e^n
Muse
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 810
Originally Posted by KJC View Post
I do wonder how NIST modelled pretty much the full collapse of WTC7, without doing the same for WTC 1 + 2. I thought that they were simply unable to 1+2 becuase of computer limitation, so how come they were able to model the collapse of WTC7 and not 1+2?
It's a simple matter of scale really, a single WTC7 model run took months, and the WTC towers were significantly more complex structures.
__________________
Conspiracy Theorist Correspondent, Panic Watch!
e^n is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th July 2009, 06:09 AM   #11
rwguinn
Penultimate Amazing
 
rwguinn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 16 miles from 7 lakes
Posts: 11,104
Originally Posted by KJC View Post
I do wonder how NIST modelled pretty much the full collapse of WTC7, without doing the same for WTC 1 + 2. I thought that they were simply unable to 1+2 becuase of computer limitation, so how come they were able to model the collapse of WTC7 and not 1+2?
What ********. They did model failure of 1 and 2. They did not model post-failure of any of them.

Originally Posted by e^n View Post
It's a simple matter of scale really, a single WTC7 model run took months, and the WTC towers were significantly more complex structures.
Collapse Initiation, not full collapse. Purdue U has done work post failure, but NIST did not, with ANY tower. Not 1, not 2, not 7.
"This is how it failed" is one hell of a lot different than "This is what happened after failure"
The twoofers think that the program and engineers should model every event/particle after failure. It is a useless, wasteful exercise.
You find out HOW it failed, which tells you WHY it failed. Events after that are useless
__________________
"Political correctness is a doctrine,...,which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end."
"
I pointed out that his argument was wrong in every particular, but he rightfully took me to task for attacking only the weak points." Myriad http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=6853275#post6853275
rwguinn is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th July 2009, 09:34 AM   #12
Newtons Bit
Penultimate Amazing
 
Newtons Bit's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 10,016
Originally Posted by rwguinn View Post
What ********. They did model failure of 1 and 2. They did not model post-failure of any of them.


Collapse Initiation, not full collapse. Purdue U has done work post failure, but NIST did not, with ANY tower. Not 1, not 2, not 7.
"This is how it failed" is one hell of a lot different than "This is what happened after failure"
The twoofers think that the program and engineers should model every event/particle after failure. It is a useless, wasteful exercise.
You find out HOW it failed, which tells you WHY it failed. Events after that are useless
NIST ran an analysis on WTC7 that was post initial failure. It shows the entire building collapsing (and falling down). I believe it was done with LS-DYNA but don't trust my memory.
__________________
"Structural Engineering is the art of molding materials we do not wholly understand into shapes we cannot precisely analyze so as to understand forces we cannot really assess in such a way that the community at large has no reason to suspect the extent of our own ignorance." James E Amrhein
Newtons Bit is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th July 2009, 10:26 AM   #13
rwguinn
Penultimate Amazing
 
rwguinn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 16 miles from 7 lakes
Posts: 11,104
Originally Posted by Newtons Bit View Post
NIST ran an analysis on WTC7 that was post initial failure. It shows the entire building collapsing (and falling down). I believe it was done with LS-DYNA but don't trust my memory.
I stand corrected.
That is a LOT of computing power...
__________________
"Political correctness is a doctrine,...,which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end."
"
I pointed out that his argument was wrong in every particular, but he rightfully took me to task for attacking only the weak points." Myriad http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=6853275#post6853275
rwguinn is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th July 2009, 11:07 AM   #14
Evilgiraffe
Scatterer of X-rays
 
Evilgiraffe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Oxfordshire
Posts: 760
Originally Posted by rwguinn View Post
I stand corrected.
That is a LOT of computing power...
This is the crucial point. Modelling the buildings up to and including collapse initiation is interesting and useful. Continuing beyond this consumes a lot of processor time and memory. Justifying this use, when it had already been shown that the collapse would progress to completion, is.... difficult.
Evilgiraffe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th July 2009, 01:18 PM   #15
bio
Muse
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 883
Some of this brain-death, evil truthers really want, that NIST opens all data of their computer-simulations.

Why not just believe the former bush-government run agency?

Be a "Jref´ler".
__________________
January 10, 2003, Senator Charles Grassley (R):
"not only has no one in government been fired or punished for 9/11, but several others have been promoted."
bio is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th July 2009, 02:30 PM   #16
Justin39640
Illuminator
 
Justin39640's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 4,199
Originally Posted by bio View Post
Some of this brain-death, evil truthers really want, that NIST opens all data of their computer-simulations.

Why not just believe the former bush-government run agency?

Be a "Jref´ler".
why would they?
it would take a PC years to render all that data
its useless to you
then youll scream "it didnt work, INSIDE JOB"

lol @ former
i thought we were all supposed to be enslaved by now hehe

heres what the NIST
Originally Posted by NIST
Improvements to Structural Models
The ANSYS and LS-DYNA structural models are highly rigorous to capture complex failure mechanisms. NIST’suse of these FEA models is advancing the state-of-the-art of computational analysis, in terms of software and hardware. Significant improvements made to the structural models include:
-Identified and incorporated possible failure mechanisms:
-Bolt shear, weld fracture, tearoutand block shear failures in connection plates or angles, beam/girder walk-off of a bearing seat, and shear stud failure
-Lateral torsionalbuckling of beams and buckling of columns
-Developed (1) 18 types of user-defined break elements for the ANSYS model on floors 8 to 14, and (2) 31 types of connection sub-models for the LSDYNA model.
-Each break element contained multiple failure mechanisms, which were modeled using beam elements, contact elements, nonlinear springs, and rigid links, for:
-3 types of shear connections for beam-to-beam framing
-7 types of bearing connections for girders framing into columns
-1 type of shear stud connection between the steel beams and concrete slab
-To include connections (1) a total of 12,866 elements were addedto the ANSYS model, and (2) 13,920 connection sub-models were added to both ends of all floor beams and girders inthe LSDYNA model from floor 4 to the roof.
-The addition of connections and identified failure beam/column failure mechanisms greatly increased computational demand, slowing down the analysis when a large number of break elements failed.
-The level of detail in the models was optimized to maintain sufficient modeling fidelity, adequately capture failure mechanisms, and minimize computational times.
from: http://wtc.nist.gov/media/WTC7_Appro...ec07-Final.pdf
__________________
"I joined this forum to learn about the people who think that 9/11 was an inside job. I've learned that they believe nutty things and are not very good at explaining them." - FineWine
"The agencies involved with studying the WTC collapse no more needed to consider explosives than the police need to consider brain cancer in a shooting death." - ElMondoHummus
Justin39640 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th July 2009, 04:07 PM   #17
deep
Graduate Poster
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 1,367
Originally Posted by Justin39640 View Post
why would they?
it would take a PC years to render all that data
its useless to you
then youll scream "it didnt work, INSIDE JOB"

If that is indeed true, then why not just release it?

Either way - based on my understanding (please correct me if I'm wrong), we don't actually know how long it would take to run the simulation on (fill in the blank) hardware, because NIST didn't supply any specific information about the number of calculations involved.

They said they used several powerful workstations, and clusters of some sort - and it took eight months to complete. That tells us absolutely nothing.
deep is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th July 2009, 04:21 PM   #18
Justin39640
Illuminator
 
Justin39640's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 4,199
Originally Posted by deep44 View Post
If that is indeed true, then why not just release it?

Either way - based on my understanding (please correct me if I'm wrong), we don't actually know how long it would take to run the simulation on (fill in the blank) hardware, because NIST didn't supply any specific information about the number of calculations involved.

They said they used several powerful workstations, and clusters of some sort - and it took eight months to complete. That tells us absolutely nothing.
the numbers would crash your PC
"BSOD = inside job!"
__________________
"I joined this forum to learn about the people who think that 9/11 was an inside job. I've learned that they believe nutty things and are not very good at explaining them." - FineWine
"The agencies involved with studying the WTC collapse no more needed to consider explosives than the police need to consider brain cancer in a shooting death." - ElMondoHummus
Justin39640 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th July 2009, 04:30 PM   #19
deep
Graduate Poster
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 1,367
Originally Posted by Justin39640 View Post
the numbers would crash your PC
"BSOD = inside job!"

lol.. poor Windows users - so (justifiably) paranoid about their computer crashing.
deep is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th July 2009, 04:34 PM   #20
Justin39640
Illuminator
 
Justin39640's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 4,199
Originally Posted by deep44 View Post
lol.. poor Windows users - so (justifiably) paranoid about their computer crashing.
im sure you have the 100s of gigabytes of ram required to run it too lol
__________________
"I joined this forum to learn about the people who think that 9/11 was an inside job. I've learned that they believe nutty things and are not very good at explaining them." - FineWine
"The agencies involved with studying the WTC collapse no more needed to consider explosives than the police need to consider brain cancer in a shooting death." - ElMondoHummus
Justin39640 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th July 2009, 04:53 PM   #21
triforcharity
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 13,961
Originally Posted by deep44 View Post
If that is indeed true, then why not just release it?

Either way - based on my understanding (please correct me if I'm wrong), we don't actually know how long it would take to run the simulation on (fill in the blank) hardware, because NIST didn't supply any specific information about the number of calculations involved.

They said they used several powerful workstations, and clusters of some sort - and it took eight months to complete. That tells us absolutely nothing.

Um, maybe because YOU would be completely lost as to how to use it. Your modeling software experience includes Sim City 2000, and The Sims vacation.


Anyway, I think you would need a super-computer to run it. Its so complex. IIRC, they imput something like 28,000,000 connections JUST for WTC 7. That is ALOT of computing. Once you begin to run that software, it accounts for every action based on another action. That is ALOT of actions to compute. I bet all of our computers combined couldn't run it.
triforcharity is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th July 2009, 05:01 PM   #22
Justin39640
Illuminator
 
Justin39640's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 4,199
Originally Posted by triforcharity View Post
Um, maybe because YOU would be completely lost as to how to use it. Your modeling software experience includes Sim City 2000, and The Sims vacation.


Anyway, I think you would need a super-computer to run it. Its so complex. IIRC, they imput something like 28,000,000 connections JUST for WTC 7. That is ALOT of computing. Once you begin to run that software, it accounts for every action based on another action. That is ALOT of actions to compute. I bet all of our computers combined couldn't run it.
they might but it would take years to render
their computer churned down when they added to the model

my biggest model had no shear or rigid connections
basically a big stack of dominoes
it was 2305 pieces and it took 5-6 hours just to render 1200 frames
__________________
"I joined this forum to learn about the people who think that 9/11 was an inside job. I've learned that they believe nutty things and are not very good at explaining them." - FineWine
"The agencies involved with studying the WTC collapse no more needed to consider explosives than the police need to consider brain cancer in a shooting death." - ElMondoHummus
Justin39640 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th July 2009, 05:04 PM   #23
Justin39640
Illuminator
 
Justin39640's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 4,199
o and i just thought of this
though its just a thought not a fact

perhaps some of the software is proprietary, loaned, or leased from a 3rd party where they cant release it
__________________
"I joined this forum to learn about the people who think that 9/11 was an inside job. I've learned that they believe nutty things and are not very good at explaining them." - FineWine
"The agencies involved with studying the WTC collapse no more needed to consider explosives than the police need to consider brain cancer in a shooting death." - ElMondoHummus
Justin39640 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th July 2009, 05:05 PM   #24
triforcharity
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 13,961
Good point. This very well could be why they won't release it.
triforcharity is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th July 2009, 05:31 PM   #25
ktesibios
Worthless Aging Hippie
 
ktesibios's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 1,493
Simply put, troofers haven't a whelk's chance in a supernova of dong anything constructive with the models NIST used for WTC1, 2 or 7:

They haven't got the hardware (these simulations run on massively parallel processor clusters, which are not to be found at a computer store). A few years ago, before 9-11 CTs were banished from the BAUT forum, JayUtah, who is a senior software engineer for a company that builds computers for just this kind of service, said something to the effect of "I can start building a computer that could model the Twin Tower collapses- just as soon as your check for 15 million dollars clears"

They haven't got the software. You're not going to find cracks of LS-DYNA on alt.binaries.warez. There appears to be a 30-day demo version available, but the demo period would run out well before the sim finished running.

They haven't got the knowledge to use the software. Companies who use this software spend thousands of dollars on classes to teach their engineers how to use it effectively.

That's for people who already have strong qualifications in engineering. Bringing the massive intellectual firepower we've learned to expect from the twoof movement to bear would be more likely to keep failblog.org supplied with material for the foreseeable future than to yield any insights into what happened at the WTC.

The only purpose those computer models serve for the twoof movement is to provide them with something to whine about how NIST not handing out free copies of thousands of man-hours worth of work, with the attendant IP issues, is some sort of "cover-up"
__________________
Ship me somewheres east of Suez, where the best is like the worst, where there ain't no ten commandments and a man can raise a small, bristly mustache.
ktesibios is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th July 2009, 05:44 PM   #26
deep
Graduate Poster
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 1,367
Originally Posted by ktesibios View Post
Simply put, troofers haven't a whelk's chance in a supernova of dong anything constructive with the models NIST used for WTC1, 2 or 7:

They haven't got the hardware (these simulations run on massively parallel processor clusters, which are not to be found at a computer store). A few years ago, before 9-11 CTs were banished from the BAUT forum, JayUtah, who is a senior software engineer for a company that builds computers for just this kind of service, said something to the effect of "I can start building a computer that could model the Twin Tower collapses- just as soon as your check for 15 million dollars clears"

They haven't got the software. You're not going to find cracks of LS-DYNA on alt.binaries.warez. There appears to be a 30-day demo version available, but the demo period would run out well before the sim finished running.

They haven't got the knowledge to use the software. Companies who use this software spend thousands of dollars on classes to teach their engineers how to use it effectively.

That's for people who already have strong qualifications in engineering. Bringing the massive intellectual firepower we've learned to expect from the twoof movement to bear would be more likely to keep failblog.org supplied with material for the foreseeable future than to yield any insights into what happened at the WTC.

The only purpose those computer models serve for the twoof movement is to provide them with something to whine about how NIST not handing out free copies of thousands of man-hours worth of work, with the attendant IP issues, is some sort of "cover-up"

Thanks for sharing your uninformed opinion with all of us. Unfortunately, you've offered no legitimate reason for them to withhold the computer model.
deep is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th July 2009, 06:40 PM   #27
rwguinn
Penultimate Amazing
 
rwguinn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 16 miles from 7 lakes
Posts: 11,104
Originally Posted by Justin39640 View Post
they might but it would take years to render
their computer churned down when they added to the model

my biggest model had no shear or rigid connections
basically a big stack of dominoes
it was 2305 pieces and it took 5-6 hours just to render 1200 frames
First you have to calculate positions.
Biggest model I ever ran was around 1.0e6 dof. That's something just over 160,000 nodes. Linear modal analysis was about 45 minutes. Linear stress was about 20 minutes (IDEAS MS on a PC, dual core, 2gb memory)
Nonlinear stress on a 1000 node (6000dof) chunk of it was about 18 hours, assuming the solution time step allowed it to converge.

Then it took forever to load the animation, and a ****-pot full of disk space
Did not have enough memory and scratch space to do anything larger.
__________________
"Political correctness is a doctrine,...,which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end."
"
I pointed out that his argument was wrong in every particular, but he rightfully took me to task for attacking only the weak points." Myriad http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=6853275#post6853275
rwguinn is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th July 2009, 07:00 PM   #28
triforcharity
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 13,961
Deep,

We use some software in the fire department to simulate fires, and we have to go through and find the caause, the seat of the fire, and determine if it was arson or not.

When they set this thing up for our use (NFPA) it comes along with a 14' trailer stuffed with servers and some other technical stuff. Not exactly sure what it is, but its pretty impressive. I would be willing to be that this thing is like an Origional Nintendo game in comparison to building collapse software. Would you be able to interprit that data?? Not likely. I would be willing to be you wouldn't know how to turn the thing on.

Anyway, my point is this. This software I am sure is INCREDIBLY conplex, and the likes of non-trained, uneducated like Heiwa, Bill, Bio, and yourself, wouldn't know the first thing about it. These guys aren't just some shlub off the street. Its not Sim City. Its a complex machine. I would be VERY willing to say that it would be like trying to explain a cardiac surgery to an EMT. It would be lightyears beyond his training.

Plus, alot of software is proprietary. This might be the case in this.

But, why don't you file a FOIA request to get it. That would be a good way to start.
triforcharity is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th July 2009, 07:24 PM   #29
deep
Graduate Poster
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 1,367
Originally Posted by triforcharity View Post
Anyway, my point is this. This software I am sure is INCREDIBLY conplex, and the likes of non-trained, uneducated like Heiwa, Bill, Bio, and yourself, wouldn't know the first thing about it. These guys aren't just some shlub off the street. Its not Sim City. Its a complex machine. I would be VERY willing to say that it would be like trying to explain a cardiac surgery to an EMT. It would be lightyears beyond his training.

Believe me, I understand what you're saying. The point is, they're not giving anyone the opportunity to look at it. They have essentially made it impossible for any independent entity to verify their work (as it relates to the model).

Don't you see the value in that kind of disclosure? Regardless of whether we're talking about a potential CT, or just keeping everybody honest in the traditional sense (e.g., against laziness).
deep is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th July 2009, 09:35 PM   #30
Justin39640
Illuminator
 
Justin39640's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 4,199
Originally Posted by deep44 View Post
Believe me, I understand what you're saying. The point is, they're not giving anyone the opportunity to look at it. They have essentially made it impossible for any independent entity to verify their work (as it relates to the model).

Don't you see the value in that kind of disclosure? Regardless of whether we're talking about a potential CT, or just keeping everybody honest in the traditional sense (e.g., against laziness).
didnt you see the video of the model?
what else do you want to see?
they told you how they did it

why dont you call them and ask... nicely
__________________
"I joined this forum to learn about the people who think that 9/11 was an inside job. I've learned that they believe nutty things and are not very good at explaining them." - FineWine
"The agencies involved with studying the WTC collapse no more needed to consider explosives than the police need to consider brain cancer in a shooting death." - ElMondoHummus
Justin39640 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th July 2009, 10:09 PM   #31
alienentity
Illuminator
 
alienentity's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 4,325
Originally Posted by deep44 View Post
Believe me, I understand what you're saying. The point is, they're not giving anyone the opportunity to look at it. They have essentially made it impossible for any independent entity to verify their work (as it relates to the model).

Don't you see the value in that kind of disclosure? Regardless of whether we're talking about a potential CT, or just keeping everybody honest in the traditional sense (e.g., against laziness).
Honesty is good. I don't know whether our assumptions are correct. It would be interesting to know what the engineering community at large has had access to. But it would also be valuable to know who was managing the modeling at NIST and what their standards and criteria were.

I don't know enough to do more than guess. But I wouldn't assume that the effort was incompetent; I don't think that's very likely, given the resources and expertise at their disposal.
__________________
Heiwa - 'Anyone suggesting that part C structure can one-way crush down part A structure is complicit to mass murder!'
000063 - 'Problem with the Truthers' theories is that anyone with enough power to pull it off doesn't need to in the first place.'
mrkinnies 'I'm not a no-planer' 'I don't believe Flight 77 hit the Pentagon'
alienentity is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th July 2009, 10:47 PM   #32
bio
Muse
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 883
Originally Posted by deep44 View Post
Believe me, I understand what you're saying. The point is, they're not giving anyone the opportunity to look at it. They have essentially made it impossible for any independent entity to verify their work (as it relates to the model).

Don't you see the value in that kind of disclosure? Regardless of whether we're talking about a potential CT, or just keeping everybody honest in the traditional sense (e.g., against laziness).
you are right deep44, but all this "secrecy" is just one point of the overall cover-up. Why NIST does not release the thousands of photos and hours-long videos for example? Why NIST does not examine the steel-samples from the impact-area of the planes to their temperature with a microscope (as the steel from WTC 7 was examined? Why does NIST not open all the results from their floor-fire testing?
__________________
January 10, 2003, Senator Charles Grassley (R):
"not only has no one in government been fired or punished for 9/11, but several others have been promoted."
bio is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th July 2009, 10:55 PM   #33
alienentity
Illuminator
 
alienentity's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 4,325
Originally Posted by bio View Post
you are right deep44, but all this "secrecy" is just one point of the overall cover-up. Why NIST does not release the thousands of photos and hours-long videos for example? Why NIST does not examine the steel-samples from the impact-area of the planes to their temperature with a microscope (as the steel from WTC 7 was examined? Why does NIST not open all the results from their floor-fire testing?

This is getting kind of OT, but I believe NIST has released photos and videos, on DVD. But they charge a substantial fee for it.

I haven't looked into the details. Maybe someone else has that info. But I think your assertion is incorrect.

Calling it a 'coverup' is a bit strong, I think. We can always use more transparency in business and government, IMHO. Not just with NIST, but with any department. Would you not agree?
__________________
Heiwa - 'Anyone suggesting that part C structure can one-way crush down part A structure is complicit to mass murder!'
000063 - 'Problem with the Truthers' theories is that anyone with enough power to pull it off doesn't need to in the first place.'
mrkinnies 'I'm not a no-planer' 'I don't believe Flight 77 hit the Pentagon'
alienentity is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th July 2009, 11:50 PM   #34
bio
Muse
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 883
Originally Posted by alienentity View Post
This is getting kind of OT, but I believe NIST has released photos and videos, on DVD. But they charge a substantial fee for it.

I haven't looked into the details. Maybe someone else has that info. But I think your assertion is incorrect.

Calling it a 'coverup' is a bit strong, I think. We can always use more transparency in business and government, IMHO. Not just with NIST, but with any department. Would you not agree?
Sometimes I have the impression, that for you guys here the "not-release" is proof for the official conspiracy theory (OVT).
__________________
January 10, 2003, Senator Charles Grassley (R):
"not only has no one in government been fired or punished for 9/11, but several others have been promoted."
bio is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th July 2009, 01:12 AM   #35
Klimax
NWO Cyborg 5960x (subversion VPUNPCKHQDQ)
 
Klimax's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Starship Wanderer - DS9
Posts: 13,021
Originally Posted by bio View Post
Sometimes I have the impression, that for you guys here the "not-release" is proof for the official conspiracy theory (OVT).
How did you got this???
First,they can be barred by other companies from releasing it.
Second no FOIA,no apparent interest in model.
__________________
ModBorg

Engine: Ibalgin 400
Klimax is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th July 2009, 11:51 AM   #36
Justin39640
Illuminator
 
Justin39640's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 4,199
Originally Posted by Klimax View Post
How did you got this???
First,they can be barred by other companies from releasing it.
Second no FOIA,no apparent interest in model.
i really dont think he understands that when he watches the videos of the model hes watching the rendered output of the simulation
this is more than you can ever hope to obtain from the model files

the model doesnt just stand there and you can mess with it like its a video game
once you hit "play" or "animate" the computer and the physics take over and the finished product is frames that take a long time to render
they get saved as picture files that are compiled into a video (at least thats how mine works lol although i can animate straight to a video but that just compiles the picture files on the fly and that takes longer)
__________________
"I joined this forum to learn about the people who think that 9/11 was an inside job. I've learned that they believe nutty things and are not very good at explaining them." - FineWine
"The agencies involved with studying the WTC collapse no more needed to consider explosives than the police need to consider brain cancer in a shooting death." - ElMondoHummus
Justin39640 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th July 2009, 06:14 PM   #37
tfk
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 3,454
Originally Posted by deep44 View Post
Thanks for sharing your uninformed opinion with all of us. Unfortunately, you've offered no legitimate reason for them to withhold the computer model.
Sorry Deep.

You are just not picking up on the IMPORTANT reasons to NOT share that info.

In ascending order of importance.

1. Much of it was proprietary. IIRC, NIST focused on a couple of lower floors (the "interesting" floors), and outsourced the uninteresting ones (above the 19th IIRC) to a private company.

Usually, if NIST paid for the work, they'd own the model IP when they got done. But this is ENTIRELY dependent on how the contract was written.

2. A little knowledge IS a very dangerous thing.

If the foolishness of Steven Jones & David Chandler hasn't proven that beyond a shadow of a doubt by now, then nothing will.

Amateurs, who don't have a clue what they are doing, will have the WTC7 building taking off for the moon. Or, more likely, having the fires burning at MINUS 50°C, because they blew the conversion to °Kelvin.

And people would be expecting NIST to send their programmers over to correct the bozos' trivial errors. A total waste of time.

Medical examiners do NOT invite the public in to redo their autopsies. NASA did NOT invite the public in to reanalyze the Challenger disaster. The public pays the experts to do the job, do it competently, pays other experts to review & audit the first group of experts. And then SHOULD accept the results if the experts agree.

If the experts do not agree, it is NOT time to call in a bunch of amateurs. It is time to get better experts.

In the case of NIST & the WTC 1, 2 & 7, the experts all agree.

Only a small group of amateurs think that they have something interesting to offer. They would be wrong

Tom

Last edited by tfk; 18th July 2009 at 06:16 PM.
tfk is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th July 2009, 06:44 PM   #38
newton3376
The Truth Movement.....still not at 1%
 
newton3376's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,320
Originally Posted by tfk View Post
Amateurs, who don't have a clue what they are doing, will have the WTC7 building taking off for the moon. Or, more likely, having the fires burning at MINUS 50°C, because they blew the conversion to °Kelvin.

And people would be expecting NIST to send their programmers over to correct the bozos' trivial errors. A total waste of time.


OMFG that moon comment had me freaking dying....for the love of god stop making comments like this...it prevents me from drinking anything while reading

Originally Posted by tfk View Post
Medical examiners do NOT invite the public in to redo their autopsies. NASA did NOT invite the public in to reanalyze the Challenger disaster. The public pays the experts to do the job, do it competently, pays other experts to review & audit the first group of experts. And then SHOULD accept the results if the experts agree.

If the experts do not agree, it is NOT time to call in a bunch of amateurs. It is time to get better experts.

In the case of NIST & the WTC 1, 2 & 7, the experts all agree.

Only a small group of amateurs think that they have something interesting to offer. They would be wrong
This is actually a point I wanted to make as well....there have been a few times when I have been labeled a "resident expert" on certain topics....

So if I wrote a report and someone had a problem with it....that person had better have some knowledge and expertise in a similar area otherwise I wouldn't care one iota what they thought.


This is the problem with most truthers.....zero expertise and yet they ask "Why haven't they released the data for me to review?"

Why, you ask? Because no one freaking CARES what YOU think.
You lack the education and experience to critique or even fully understand the work of the experts....

Professional football players and coaches don't give a damn what armchair quarterbacks think....
Professional engineers and scientists don't give a damn what armchair engineers and scientists think....

Even if NIST DID release their data to you.....no one would care what you thought anyway because YOU AREN'T QUALIFIED.

For the love of Zeus....

YOU AREN'T QUALIFIED!!!
__________________
AE911 Truth....still failing to get 1%
newton3376 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th July 2009, 01:44 AM   #39
bio
Muse
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 883
Originally Posted by newton3376 View Post


OMFG that moon comment had me freaking dying....for the love of god stop making comments like this...it prevents me from drinking anything while reading
(...)
This is the problem with most truthers.....zero expertise and yet they ask "Why haven't they released the data for me to review?"

Why, you ask? Because no one freaking CARES what YOU think.
You lack the education and experience to critique or even fully understand the work of the experts....

Professional football players and coaches don't give a damn what armchair quarterbacks think....
Professional engineers and scientists don't give a damn what armchair engineers and scientists think....

Even if NIST DID release their data to you.....no one would care what you thought anyway because YOU AREN'T QUALIFIED.

For the love of Zeus....

YOU AREN'T QUALIFIED!!!
Prof. Steven Jones during a lecture at UC Davis, May 2009:

"A theory, which cannot be tested by other scientists, independently, is not true science."


try to listen at 15:20
__________________
January 10, 2003, Senator Charles Grassley (R):
"not only has no one in government been fired or punished for 9/11, but several others have been promoted."

Last edited by bio; 19th July 2009 at 01:47 AM. Reason: perfection
bio is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th July 2009, 01:51 AM   #40
Justin39640
Illuminator
 
Justin39640's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 4,199
Originally Posted by bio View Post
Prof. Steven Jones during a lecture at UC Davis, May 2009:

"A theory, which cannot be tested by other scientists, independently, is not true science."


try to listen at 15:20
no one said you couldnt make your own model
got 15 million?
__________________
"I joined this forum to learn about the people who think that 9/11 was an inside job. I've learned that they believe nutty things and are not very good at explaining them." - FineWine
"The agencies involved with studying the WTC collapse no more needed to consider explosives than the police need to consider brain cancer in a shooting death." - ElMondoHummus
Justin39640 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories » 9/11 Conspiracy Theories

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:54 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.