It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Thank you.

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

# Why is there no computer simulation of the WTC collapse?

page: 1
0
share:

posted on Jan, 2 2006 @ 05:11 AM
I keep hearing people say, well maybe it isn't appreciated quite how complex this is to achieve and how much computing power it actually takes.

To put things into persepective, I found this article on a computer simulation showing the impact of the airliner into the Pentagon:

news.bbc.co.uk...

Note this section:

Professor Sozen first created a mathematical model of the reinforced concrete columns which supported the Pentagon building.

This was turned into a simulation, representing the plane as thousands of small squares containing specific physical characteristics.

It was a laborious process. Creating just one-tenth of a second of the simulation took about 95 hours of computation time on a supercomputer.

And this was relatively simple, so perhaps that is the answer why we are still waiting for a computer simulation of the collapse, because it takes an incredible length of time to input the data and then for the computer to actually do the calculations. The WTC fires and collapse would be far, far more complicated than this simulation and this one takes 95 hours for 1/10th second.

Some people seem to think it could be done over a weekend or even a year. If we use these figures as a base, forgetting that the simulation of the WTC collapse would be FAR more complicated and would require even MORE computing time:

It was about 104 minutes between the North Tower impact and it's collapse, everything would have to be simulated to make it realistic. I'm sure if a simulation was made of just the collapse for instance, a lot of people would be crying that it was a farce as they didn't simulate the conditions properly

So 95 hours for 1/10th second, One second of the simulation would take 950 hours.

In 104 minutes there are 6240 seconds.

6240 seconds times 950 hours is 5,928,000 hours.

5,928,000 hours divided by 24 gives 247000 days.

247000 days divided by 365 gives 676.71 years.

Obviously in practice, I'm sure that certain aspects like the initial impact and the collapse would take much longer to compute than others, but this is probably the reason we are not seeing lots of lovely simulation video like we all hoped for.

Even if we just took into account the collapse itself over about 12 seconds, it would still be 475 days. And I'm sure the calculations required for the collapse would be far more complicated and take far longer than than the calculations required to simulate the aircraft impact into the pentagon.

This is also pure computing time, it doesn't take into account the many, many weeks required of data input to create the simulation in the first place.

I also doubt anyone would have exclusive access to a computer powerful enought to do the task for such extended periods of time.

Good luck to those of you hoping to re-create it on your home computer

[edit on 2-1-2006 by AgentSmith]

posted on Jan, 2 2006 @ 07:29 AM
You wouldn't have to reproduce the WTC collapses perfectly to prove or disprove demolition. You could merely test the principles involved.

Note this thread, or this challenge upon which the thread is based.

What is being asked for is a model or other reproduction - any reproduction - of a building 6.5 times taller than it is wide, collapsing in a manner that leaves approximately 80% of its mass outside of its footprint with a center of gravity still within its footprint.

It would be that simple to prove the principles that are alleged to have been behind the collapses. That wouldn't take some 600 or 700 years to do, now would it? Either it can be done - or it can't.

Btw, it also goes without saying that the experiment described above would have to be reproducible, as all science is based upon reproducibility. Also note that the blueprints are still under lock and key, making any simulations or lack thereof of the WTC buildings specifically unverifiable. But the whole purpose of the challenge above is to make specific simulations unnecessary. The whole principles of the collapses were flawed. Just try the above.

[edit on 2-1-2006 by bsbray11]

posted on Jan, 2 2006 @ 07:52 AM

Originally posted by AgentSmith
It was a laborious process. Creating just one-tenth of a second of the simulation took about 95 hours of computation time on a supercomputer.

And this was relatively simple, so perhaps that is the answer why we are still waiting for a computer simulation of the collapse, because it takes an incredible length of time to input the data and then for the computer to actually do the calculations. The WTC fires and collapse would be far, far more complicated than this simulation and this one takes 95 hours for 1/10th second.

Some people seem to think it could be done over a weekend or even a year. If we use these figures as a base, forgetting that the simulation of the WTC collapse would be FAR more complicated and would require even MORE computing time:

It was about 104 minutes between the North Tower impact and it's collapse, everything would have to be simulated to make it realistic. I'm sure if a simulation was made of just the collapse for instance, a lot of people would be crying that it was a farce as they didn't simulate the conditions properly

So 95 hours for 1/10th second, One second of the simulation would take 950 hours.

In 104 minutes there are 6240 seconds.

6240 seconds times 950 hours is 5,928,000 hours.

5,928,000 hours divided by 24 gives 247000 days.

247000 days divided by 365 gives 676.71 years.

Hello AgentSmith,

I was searching for non technical explanation how much computing power have current supercomputers, but I did not find a good article.

I doubt that you need such enourmous time to do the simulation, I can't dispute with exact numbers but please check this:

Current list of Top 500 supercomputers is here, for example the 7th "Earth Simulator" is capable of 35.86 trillion floating-point calculations per second.
Official homepage: The Earth Simulator

For now, the Earth Simulator is being used to track global sea temperatures, rainfall and crustal movement to predict natural disasters over the next few centuries.

With its massive horsepower, the computer can model weather at 100 times the resolution of previous simulations, said Tetsuya Sato, director-general of the Earth Simulator Center.

Built by the Tokyo-based NEC Corp., the computer can already predict the path of a typhoon or a volcanic eruption with remarkable precision. Earthquakes are still tough to pinpoint and forecast, but likely epicenters are being identified and their damage mapped out to determine which dams, buildings and highways need reinforcing.

Source: Wired News

The fastest supercomputer so far "BlueGene" is able to do above 280 trillion floating-point calculations per second.
Official homepage: BlueGene

That means the computer can handle 360 trillion calculations per second, which is equivalent to every man, woman and child on Earth performing 60,000 calculations per second. To put it another way, BlueGene can write the entire book collection in the Library of Congress in less than 10 minutes.

Source: sfgate.com

For the last few years, the most powerful superomputer ever created has been a result of IBM research and development efforts, and BlueGene has been used in the Energy Department facility in Rochester, USA. One of the last benchmarks performed in the BlueGene system revealed a new Linpack record of over 70,72 terraflops per second (which means around 70 trillion operations). The system included over 32,760 processors.

Source: sofpedia.com

BlueGene can do more than 280 trillion calculations a second. That's like every single person on Earth -- man, woman and child -- each doing 40,000 math problems in the blink of an eye.

Source:npr.org

posted on Jan, 2 2006 @ 08:32 AM
THe article agentsmith quoted is from 2002, since then computing power has indeed increased by a massive ammount. However these supercomputers all nooked up for a long time. Supercomputers are in much demand from all sorts of people. i doubt u could just book BlueGene for x months solid to crunch the numbers it would require to simulate the collapse.

posted on Jan, 2 2006 @ 08:46 AM

Originally posted by manta
THe article agentsmith quoted is from 2002, since then computing power has indeed increased by a massive ammount.

Not exactly, for example the Earth Simulator has the same computing power as in 2002.

Compare Top500 List for 11/2005 to TOP500 List for 06/2002

Supercomputers are in much demand from all sorts of people. i doubt u could just book BlueGene for x months solid to crunch the numbers it would require to simulate the collapse.

Yes, but please keep in mind that lot of supercomputers are used by US Gov (see the TOP500 List), it shouldn't be a problem for US Gov to run the simulation on some of them, if they want to.

posted on Jan, 2 2006 @ 09:48 AM
Well the thing is the computing power necessary is not available to just anyone, it also costs serious money and requires time to be taken away from other tasks. Regardless of the actual computing power of what's available, those are the figures they gave for the time it took to create the rather limited and simple Pentagon crash concept model.

If the agencies involved wanted to falsify information then I'm sure they could make a viable looking model that would collapse the way they want. Without the raw data for people that know what they're looking at to see there is no way Joe Bloggs would know if it's bs or not.
If the agencies are not involved in some conspiracy then one would deduce that they are satisfied (as they said) with the information they have and the conclusions they came to.

There are 2 options here basically:

1) The agencies are not 'in on it' and are genuinely satisified with their conclusions (and they are the experts), and don't wish to waste time and money in a vain attempt to satisfy the minds of a small group of people who will never be convinced anyway.

2) The agencies are 'in on it' and they could easily falsify some evidence to shut up the few people that keep whining - but for some strange reason don't bother.

With all due respect, they obviously don't think it's important to have to spend a lot of time and money building either a genuine or false simulation to satisfy the minds of a relatively small number of people.
The number of people that believe it was explosives is pretty small realistically, and the number of people out of them who 'matter' is even more insignificant.

But to take into account the materials, connection methods, contents, impact and fire damage, is pretty complicated. If you can grasp exactly what has to be done to put something like this together I'm sure you can understand. It's not a matter of sticking a load of matchsticks together on the screen and knocking them down.

It's all very well bsb saying that no-one can build a specified model that collapses in such a fashion, but i think the truth is closer to no one who has the capability both in knowledge and computing power has been able to build a model.
It's pretty arrogant to think that a huge amount of money should be spent on something just to prove the point to a few people who think they are more important and knowledgable than they really are. Especially when they know that they will still be accused of covering up or lying even if they did.
It's all very well saying 'the people have a right to know', but let's be frank - the majority of people say they care but will probably forget what they saw on the News 5 minutes earlier when Ricky Lake comes back on anyway once the excitement of finding out if 'Jeff' slept with his sister or not takes hold over trivial matters like terrorism.
Let's face it, the government doesn't need to dumb most people down..

[edit on 2-1-2006 by AgentSmith]

posted on Jan, 2 2006 @ 10:35 AM

What is being asked for is a model or other reproduction - any reproduction - of a building 6.5 times taller than it is wide, collapsing in a manner that leaves approximately 80% of its mass outside of its footprint with a center of gravity still within its footprint.

That's easy.. just make a tower like this:

koti.mbnet.fi...

I know... we dropped a piece on it to start the collapse. But the result would be same if one of the wall pieces fall into "floor"
Tower didn't have a core either.. but it performs all demands.

posted on Jan, 2 2006 @ 10:56 AM

Originally posted by msdos464
That's easy.. just make a tower like this:

koti.mbnet.fi...

I know... we dropped a piece on it to start the collapse. But the result would be same if one of the wall pieces fall into "floor"
Tower didn't have a core either.. but it performs all demands.

Nice work!! I've been thinking of doing something using some ceramic tiles and some small metal rods (basically) but havn't got round to it. One of those things that no-one can actually be bothered to do so the assumption is made by certain people it is impossible - though you did

Now observe the masters of deception at work as your demonstration is said to be inaccurate or invalid for some reason due to the lack of attention to detail, completely going against the argument made above in response to my likely and realistic explanation for the lack of computer models.

Besides it's completely clear when you watch your video in slow motion that the collapse was aided using lepricorn guided missiles and explosives. A comparsion against a cannonball clearly shows that the trajectories are that of debris being ejected with great force by silent dynamite.

[edit on 2-1-2006 by AgentSmith]

posted on Jan, 2 2006 @ 11:31 AM

Originally posted by msdos464

What is being asked for is a model or other reproduction - any reproduction - of a building 6.5 times taller than it is wide, collapsing in a manner that leaves approximately 80% of its mass outside of its footprint with a center of gravity still within its footprint.

That's easy.. just make a tower like this:

koti.mbnet.fi...

I know... we dropped a piece on it to start the collapse. But the result would be same if one of the wall pieces fall into "floor"
Tower didn't have a core either.. but it performs all demands.

I think you should collect your money. Unless, like Smith says, they'll say something wasn't right....but try anyway.

posted on Jan, 2 2006 @ 11:35 AM

911research.wtc7.net progressive collapse challenge

CHALLENGE #4:

Build a structure as required by CHALLENGE #2 which is also capable of withstanding a 100 MPH wind without collapsing. The structure has to be closed in the sense that it cannot allow air to pass through it.

So much for "performing all demands". I'll concede that 100mph should be scaled down accordingly, but it's no closed structure anyway. However, props for your construction, in a way.

posted on Jan, 2 2006 @ 12:01 PM

Originally posted by AgentSmith
There are 2 options here basically:

1) The agencies are not 'in on it' and are genuinely satisified with their conclusions (and they are the experts), and don't wish to waste time and money in a vain attempt to satisfy the minds of a small group of people who will never be convinced anyway.

2) The agencies are 'in on it' and they could easily falsify some evidence to shut up the few people that keep whining - but for some strange reason don't bother.

With all due respect, they obviously don't think it's important to have to spend a lot of time and money building either a genuine or false simulation to satisfy the minds of a relatively small number of people.
The number of people that believe it was explosives is pretty small realistically, and the number of people out of them who 'matter' is even more insignificant.

Let's face it, the government doesn't need to dumb most people down..

[edit on 2-1-2006 by AgentSmith]

Agreed, I think those reasons are more likely why they haven't yet created any simulation - not the technical problems/limitations.

posted on Jan, 2 2006 @ 12:17 PM
I’m no expert on computer simulation, but I assume you would need access to the WTC’s blueprint. Unfortunately those are not available to the public. (maybe, see below)

The blueprints to the Twin Towers and Building 7 remain off-limits to the public three years after the attack, despite the fact that the buildings were built with public money and that the engineering drawings of public buildings are supposed to be public information.

source: 911research.wtc7.net...

However the sites own sources for this information does not support this. (I had to use the cached version)
911research.wtc7.net...

althought it does say:

Also missing are the original contract specifications for the buildings from the early 1970s.

But to my knowledge that’s quite different from blueprints. Anyone?

If this can be confirmed, it could explain the lack of computer simulation.

posted on Jan, 2 2006 @ 01:03 PM

The blueprints to the Twin Towers and Building 7 remain off-limits to the public three years after the attack, despite the fact that the buildings were built with public money and that the engineering drawings of public buildings are supposed to be public information.

Just because the blueprints are off limits to the public doesn't mean that the government can't access them. Afterall as Agentsmith pointed out it could only the government who has the funds/access to the horsepower to actualy make a simulation.

Also missing are the original contract specifications for the buildings from the early 1970s.

I would say these would be helpful in producing any simulatio, yet not critical. The blueprints are the plans for the towers and could be used to build the towers from scratch again. If i am not mistaken.

posted on Jan, 2 2006 @ 01:13 PM

Originally posted by manta
Afterall as Agentsmith pointed out it could only the government who has the funds/access to the horsepower to actualy make a simulation.

I think that the government investigation stops at the 911 Commission Report.
Just like they stopped with the Warren Commission Report previously.

If this would be done it would be privately, maybe by the insurance companies involved. They have as much money has the government.

posted on Jan, 2 2006 @ 01:18 PM
Nice job man on actually putting something together (I'm assuming that's you, right?). Yeah, no core, but that wasn't a requirement. I failed to mention one part of the challenge here that Lumos threw in, so there's that. It's nice to see that someone's actually trying the challenge now though. Hat's off.

Originally posted by AgentSmith
It's pretty arrogant to think that a huge amount of money should be spent on something just to prove the point to a few people who think they are more important and knowledgable than they really are.

Not much on democracy, are you? Nor reserving judgments, apparently, either.

Originally posted by AgentSmith
Now observe the masters of deception at work

Really, I would expect my council representative to have a little more respect. It's as if you're turning into more of a polarizing cheerleader than putting up any good arguments anymore. All you do anymore is mock and ridicule rather than post anything of substance.

Originally posted by Lumos
So much for "performing all demands". I'll concede that 100mph should be scaled down accordingly, but it's no closed structure anyway. However, props for your construction, in a way.

I'm not sure that the WTC's ability to withstand 100 mph winds was in its size rather than its materials. That is to say, I'm not sure size matters here. A 5-foot model WTC Tower made of the same materials and similarly anchored into the ground should still be be able to withstand 100 mph winds, you know? And yet boost it up to 200 mph and you would could have a problem.

ConspiracyNut23
But to my knowledge that’s quite different from blueprints. Anyone?

If this can be confirmed, it could explain the lack of computer simulation.

Yeah, the blueprints definitely aren't in public domain but I think NIST is supposed to have access to them. Of course there's no way to verify what of it they make public, but nonetheless, it's not like someone's going to use the blueprints to blow them up again.

Btw, does anyone know how one could reasonably expose a model to 100 mph winds?

posted on Jan, 2 2006 @ 01:28 PM

Originally posted by bsbray11
Btw, does anyone know how one could reasonably expose a model to 100 mph winds?

I don’t know if this would apply, but I recently saw an episode of Myth Busters (or something like that, either way it's 2 pretty smart biker looking guys) and they were testing to see if a lawyer could smash a window in a high rise and plummet to is death.

Anyways the point is they used a leaf blower in order to create the same air pressure against the building that the lawyer jumped from. (I doubt it was anywhere near 100mph, what is that 160km?)

I guess something similar would have to be used.

posted on Jan, 2 2006 @ 01:33 PM

Originally posted by ConspiracyNut23

I think that the government investigation stops at the 911 Commission Report.
Just like they stopped with the Warren Commission Report previously.

If this would be done it would be privately, maybe by the insurance companies involved. They have as much money has the government.

Well, looks like it's never going to happen. The government holds the blueprints and the supercomputers, we dont stand a chance.

posted on Jan, 2 2006 @ 02:06 PM

Originally posted by ConspiracyNut23
Anyways the point is they used a leaf blower in order to create the same air pressure against the building that the lawyer jumped from. (I doubt it was anywhere near 100mph, what is that 160km?)

99.42 mph, dude. Damned close. Great idea, too.

Do you remember if it was an especially strong leaf blower? I have no idea how fast those things typically pump out air, but I know there can be a lot of variation.

posted on Jan, 2 2006 @ 02:13 PM

Originally posted by bsbray11
Not much on democracy, are you? Nor reserving judgments, apparently, either.

The way some people behave and think, it is easy to come to the conclusion that to let some of them have any sort of 'say' would be dangerous.
I'm waiting to be proved wrong on that, and I didn't come to that conclusion lightly, unfortunately every time I go out in the street it seems to be proven sadly correct.

Originally posted by AgentSmith
Now observe the masters of deception at work

Really, I would expect my council representative to have a little more respect. It's as if you're turning into more of a polarizing cheerleader than putting up any good arguments anymore. All you do anymore is mock and ridicule rather than post anything of substance.

1) My being in the council does not affect my opinion

2) I didn't know you would respond did I? But seeing as you did, I'll remind you of what you said before:

You wouldn't have to reproduce the WTC collapses perfectly to prove or disprove demolition. You could merely test the principles involved.

Note this thread, or this challenge upon which the thread is based.

What is being asked for is a model or other reproduction - any reproduction - of a building 6.5 times taller than it is wide, collapsing in a manner that leaves approximately 80% of its mass outside of its footprint with a center of gravity still within its footprint.

Well that's what he did isn't it? Or are you just unhappy because the result was not in your favour. Don't forget "You wouldn't have to reproduce the WTC collapses perfectly to prove or disprove demolition. You could merely test the principles involved. ". That was in response to my (this) thread giving a possible and likely explanation for the lack of computer simulations. Funny how you're standards change as much you accuse other people's of doing, and we're supposed to believe that you have a better world to offer?

[edit on 2-1-2006 by AgentSmith]

posted on Jan, 2 2006 @ 03:19 PM

Well that's what he did isn't it? Or are you just unhappy because the result was not in your favour. Don't forget "You wouldn't have to reproduce the WTC collapses perfectly to prove or disprove demolition. You could merely test the principles involved. ". That was in response to my (this) thread giving a possible and likely explanation for the lack of computer simulations. Funny how you're standards change as much you accuse other people's of doing, and we're supposed to believe that you have a better world to offer?

If you had taken the time to visit either of those links, you would see that I left out the fourth part of Hoffman's challenge when I posted above. The part I left out was also not met in that video, unfortunately. Lumos posted on this a while ago. Not see it? Maybe just couldn't see it, 'cause I know how much personal satisfaction you would get from rubbing that all in my face, as your ego inflates and maybe even climaxing a couple times in a way I won't describe in detail, but no cigar, anyway, man.

1) My being in the council does not affect my opinion

It's not your opinion that I take issue with. It's your insinuation that 'we' are "masters of deception." I don't much like your insinuations that we are ignorant and have no idea what we're talking about, either, nor the general air of your posts as of late in general. It's like you've been on one bad trip ever since that charcoal fire crap didn't add up.

But like I said, I don't have any problem with a difference of opinion; I have a problem with the focus on individuals rather than objective issues.

new topics

top topics

0