It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

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

 

Can a high fidelity simulation reproduce 911 ?

page: 1
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 13 2010 @ 07:40 AM
link   
There is a lot of software avaiable that professionals use to carry out simulations on structures. If the data according to the official story is fed into such a software, does the software recreate the events of 911, or not? Did NIST release a simulation, or just an animation?




posted on Dec, 13 2010 @ 11:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by Cassius666
There is a lot of software avaiable that professionals use to carry out simulations on structures. If the data according to the official story is fed into such a software, does the software recreate the events of 911, or not? Did NIST release a simulation, or just an animation?


There is a simulation for building 7 because in the videos of that collapse you can physically see which column failed first. For the twin towers, there are simply too many factors to simulate the collapse accurately. There is, however, a detailed simulation of the second plane hitting the tower, and the damage that it caused upon impact.



posted on Dec, 13 2010 @ 12:02 PM
link   
reply to post by Varemia
 


A Simulation or an Animation? The 2 are different.



posted on Dec, 13 2010 @ 12:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Cassius666
reply to post by Varemia
 


A Simulation or an Animation? The 2 are different.


Simulation. It was done by the Purdue University of Engineering if I remember correctly.

Here, I found it:



News story on it:
news.uns.purdue.edu...


Also, it does appear after watching it that I was wrong about which plane it was. The simulated plane crash was the North Tower's (1st plane), not the South's (2nd plane).
edit on 13-12-2010 by Varemia because: added a line.



posted on Dec, 13 2010 @ 12:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Cassius666
There is a lot of software avaiable that professionals use to carry out simulations on structures. If the data according to the official story is fed into such a software, does the software recreate the events of 911, or not? Did NIST release a simulation, or just an animation?


Even if there was, I doubt it would be able to simulate it with any acceptable degree of accuracy simply becuase when the towers fell, too many things were going on all at once. Specifically, noone knows what happened in the buildings becuase there was no way to record the physical procession of the collapse. This is why all the reports say their conclusions are estimates, rather than any "official statement" as the conspiracy mongers are fond of spreading as propaganda. To run any simulation, this means that the analysts will need to make educated guesses to give to the simulators, in which case it's no longer a simulation on how it collapsed, but a similation on how the analysts believed the towers collapsed.

It is noted that even among the researchers themselves, there is dissent. One NIST researcher by the name of Dr. Quintiere did his own examination and his findings say there wasn't sufficient fire protection for the steel in WTC 7. Rather than having a concentration on how the fires overcame the fire protection as the other NIST analysis did, he's saying the fire codes were insufficient to protect the building to begin with. I doubt we'll never know the actual step by step physical degradation of the structures.



posted on Dec, 13 2010 @ 12:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Cassius666
There is a lot of software avaiable that professionals use to carry out simulations on structures. If the data according to the official story is fed into such a software, does the software recreate the events of 911, or not? Did NIST release a simulation, or just an animation?


They CLAIM it is a simulation but a simulation requires correct data. That is the absurd thing about this 9/11 business dragging on for this long. With the level of expertise and the sophistication of computers in the US this should have been resolved by 2003. That alone is proof that there is lying and obfuscation.

But correct data means that the weights and quantities of each type of perimeter wall panel must be known. There were 2500 of them on each tower. The data on the horizontal beams connecting the columns in the core must be known. I have never even seen how the beams were laid out between the columns. Were they the same on every level? Since many elevator shafts didn't run the full length of the building they didn't have to be the same.

I would bet that an accurate simulation would PROVE that straight down collapse was IMPOSSIBLE.

www.youtube.com...

But if it was impossible then for all practical purposes all of our engineering schools are accomplices after the fact in 9/11. They have been covering up evidence that is inherent to the laws of physics. Skyscrapers must hold themselves up therefore the designers must figure out the distribution of steel.

psik



posted on Dec, 13 2010 @ 01:07 PM
link   
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 


I just wanted to make it clear that your post was entirely an opinion, and not based on factual evidence one way or the other. It would be thread-veering to have 9/11 conspiracy theorists jumping in here because you posted what sounds like evidence to the bias-minded.

The video had very little to do with proving or disproving the validity of the simulations produced by NIST and Purdue.



posted on Dec, 13 2010 @ 04:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Varemia
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 


I just wanted to make it clear that your post was entirely an opinion, and not based on factual evidence one way or the other. It would be thread-veering to have 9/11 conspiracy theorists jumping in here because you posted what sounds like evidence to the bias-minded.

The video had very little to do with proving or disproving the validity of the simulations produced by NIST and Purdue.


ROFLMAO

People that believe nonsense must accuse real physics of being a CONSPIRACY THEORY.

I downloaded the NCSTAR1 report 3 years ago and burned it to DVD. Get it and search it for:

center of mass

center of gravity

You will find no mention of the center of mass of that top tilted portion of the south tower. You will find the center of mass of the aircraft mentioned. But you will also find discussion of the centers of gravity of components like the perimeter wall panels. I think they did do some degree of simulations. But I think they have a problem because an accurate simulation won't do what they want it to. The very nature of skyscrapers makes it impossible. They MUST get stronger toward the bottom so the MUST be bottom heavy.

My physical model is bottom heavy and it does get stronger toward the bottom.

And it is so CHEAP that anyone that wants to can duplicate it for themselves.

The nation that put men on the Moon can't tell the entire world the tons of steel and tons of concrete that were on every level of skyscrapers designed before 1969.

ROFLMAO

9/11 is the Piltdown Man incident of the 21st century.

psik



posted on Dec, 14 2010 @ 08:50 AM
link   
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 



The very nature of skyscrapers makes it impossible.

You realize, of course, that "skyscraper" is not a specific type of building, right? Its just a general term to describe, with some hyperbole, tall buildings found in urban centers. In the beginning of the 20th century 30 story buildings were considered "skyscrapers". Consequently there are no rules, beyond relative height, that qualify one building as a "skyscraper" and another building not.


They MUST get stronger toward the bottom so the MUST be bottom heavy.

I think you may be confusing pyramids and complex structures. In modern building systems, elements of the building act to transfer loads to stronger elements, in most cases foundations supported in the earth. As long as the building material is sufficient to transfer the load to its ultimate resting place, the ground, then its weight is not material to the issue.

My physical model is bottom heavy and it does get stronger toward the bottom.

Which is entirely irrelevant to the issue unless we are trying to figure out how the Great Pyramid at Giza works

And it is so CHEAP that anyone that wants to can duplicate it for themselves.

Or not.

The nation that put men on the Moon can't tell the entire world the tons of steel and tons of concrete that were on every level of skyscrapers designed before 1969.

They can, just that isn't a reason to do something like that. They can also count the hairs on your head, or the grains of sand in your hand, but these things too, are irrelevant.

ROFLMAO

Maybe you should try and spend a little less time doing that.

9/11 is the Piltdown Man incident of the 21st century.

If you say so.



posted on Dec, 14 2010 @ 08:59 AM
link   
reply to post by Varemia
 


Thats an animation, has the data for the simulation been released, for the input and the framework? Also that the plane impacts are too complex to simulate is a lame excuse. Things a lot more complicated with more variables are being simulated on a daily basis for research for example.



posted on Dec, 14 2010 @ 09:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by Cassius666
reply to post by Varemia
 


Thats an animation, has the data for the simulation been released, for the input and the framework? Also that the plane impacts are too complex to simulate is a lame excuse. Things a lot more complicated with more variables are being simulated on a daily basis for research for example.


It depends on what you mean by released. I suppose you could request the data from Purdue. As for NIST, they may be the same way.

I didn't say impacts were impossible to simulate, but the collapses are, because we simply don't know what was happening inside the building. We'd have to account for water, every bit of weight from damage, fire, people, office material locations (all of which HAD to have changed after impact).

I mean, really, I'm not trying to attack your way of life here. I'm just trying to be as helpful as possible with the information that I know about.



posted on Dec, 14 2010 @ 09:12 AM
link   
reply to post by Varemia
 


Well I would be curious to see what data has to be entered in a simulation to achieve that collapse, if a simulation has ever been done. That one would have to request the data is very curious. If they did not release any data, they did not release a simulation, just a cheap animation. I know people who study in related fields and have access to related software, they had to rig the towers with explosives to achieve the desired effect.

We know what happened on 911. There have been more than enough eyewhitness accounts of Explosions inside the building and on the video you see the towers explode floor by floor and on closeup footage you hear the sequence of explosions as well.

I have an open mind and all, but I just dont think the law of physics took a break in 2001. The conspiracy theory that is the OS is full of holes.
edit on 14-12-2010 by Cassius666 because: (no reason given)

edit on 14-12-2010 by Cassius666 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 14 2010 @ 09:57 AM
link   
reply to post by Cassius666
 


And I equally don't see a problem in the physics of 9/11. You have to request data because it's not just sitting on an interweb site for anyone to grab and alter as they see fit. They probably have it on a disk or something in an archive, so that when you request it, they can make a digital copy and send it to you. I can't imagine how else you'd want it released. (this is, of course, speaking from an experiential background in dealing with a major project involving a lot of people).



posted on Dec, 14 2010 @ 10:01 AM
link   
reply to post by Cassius666
 



I have an open mind and all, but I just dont think the law of physics took a break in 2001.


I often hear this refrain, the problem is most people never experience physics on the scale that we saw on 9/11. Our physical world is often limited and we rarely experience the kind of counter-intuitive events that would better inform us relative to things like building collapses.



posted on Dec, 14 2010 @ 11:11 AM
link   
reply to post by Varemia
 


If you release an simulation you release it along with the data else it is not a simulation. Why should they fear that anybody alters the data they download anymore that Nasa fears anybody alters the pictures they download. If somebody alters the data he can quickly be debunked by comparing it to the data provided by the source.



posted on Dec, 14 2010 @ 11:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by Cassius666
reply to post by Varemia
 


If you release an simulation you release it along with the data else it is not a simulation. Why should they fear that anybody alters the data they download anymore that Nasa fears anybody alters the pictures they download. If somebody alters the data he can quickly be debunked by comparing it to the data provided by the source.


Would you stop focusing on my tidbits and think about the information? WHERE would you propose this SOURCE be? It's most likely in a physical archive. Like I said, request it. It's not some conspiracy to hide information if you can get it by ASKING FOR IT. I understand you're in Germany. That doesn't mean you can just forget your common sense.



posted on Dec, 14 2010 @ 11:31 AM
link   
reply to post by Varemia
 


Usually the data is made public for people to review unless there is something to hide, else it is not a simulation. The internet age would make it fairly easy to render the data public to be peer reviewed. I would say that is using common sense. You seem to be refusing to use yours.



posted on Dec, 14 2010 @ 01:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Cassius666
 


Again, what is your definition of public in this instance? It sounds like an "I want to complain about something" response than an actual one. (hoping this is still within the ToS)



posted on Dec, 14 2010 @ 02:00 PM
link   
reply to post by Cassius666
 



The internet age would make it fairly easy to render the data public to be peer reviewed.


For future reference please note that those two words "public" and "peer" are not interchangeable. Your peers review your work, that is to say people with relevant education, experience, and interest. Not just anyone with an internet connection. Not everyone with a engineering degree or engineering license is a "peer". Not everyone with a PhD is a peer to everyone else with a PhD.



posted on Dec, 14 2010 @ 02:11 PM
link   
bla bla bla
jones nano thermite peer review
bla bla bla bla
good to see that arguement is a two way street....



new topics

top topics



 
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join