Can a high fidelity simulation reproduce 911 ?

Originally posted by Danbones
bla bla bla
jones nano thermite peer review
bla bla bla bla
good to see that arguement is a two way street....

I think you misunderstood something about the topic here. Cassius is trying to understand why he should believe that the simulations made regarding 9/11 were true, and I am trying to prove that they were done correctly with the available information. He seems to think that all of the data must be public, though where public is, I have no idea. Maybe he wants a PDF of everything or a downloadable file on a website, but he would have to talk to the people who made the simulation or the department that controls it to get that changed. Honestly, I don't think it's required in the simulation laws that data be posted on the internet.

reply to post by Varemia


if you release a simulation you release the data to be entered in an appropriate program so that the animation unfolds on your screen that we see on the news. Thats what a simulation is.

Originally posted by Cassius666
reply to post by Varemia

 

if you release a simulation you release the data to be entered in an appropriate program so that the animation unfolds on your screen that we see on the news. Thats what a simulation is.

But where do you release it? I don't need the simulation. I've got final exams to worry about. Since you're the one apparently asking for it, you should try maybe sending an email to Purdue and seeing what they have to say about it.

Originally posted by Varemia
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.

I emailed 3 people at Purdue, Prof. Sozen, Chris Hoffman and one other man whose name I don't remember. I asked about the distribution of steel in the towers. The NIST admits and has empirical data to show that the south tower deflected 12 inches at the 70th floor due to the impact even though that was 130 feet below the planes impact point. Therefore the core columns had to have moved when the plane hit the north tower. Due to the conservation of momentum the mass and its distribution would affect how the building responded to the impact.

The core columns do not move in the Purdue simulation. In the real world that is IMPOSSIBLE!!!

The Purdue simulation is WRONG!

That is the trouble with computer simulations. Mathematics ain't physics and all it takes is some bad code or a misplaced decimal point and the simulation will not correspond to reality. But I am sure that architectural firms have been using good programs since long before 9/11. And computer hardware has gotten better since 9/11. So that is part of what is so weird about this post-9/11 FARCE.

The two men from Purdue that responded told me to contact Prof. Sozen but no response came from him. What happened to WTC 1 & 2 cannot be accurately analyzed, neither the impacts nor the collapses without accurate info on the distribution of steel. But how the steel was distributed depended on the nature of gravity which has not changed since the Empire State Building was completed. So AE911Truth should be able to come up with very good estimates without the blue prints because gravity is gravity is gravity. But go to their website. Where do they talk about it.

Grade school kids all over the world should be laughing at the United States for expecting them to believe those buildings could collapse without being told the TONS of STEEL and TONS of CONCRETE on every level.

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

psik

reply to post by Varemia


What do you mean? I do not see the problems you see. You seem to see some kind of insurmountable problem.

en.wiktionary.org...

Originally posted by Cassius666
reply to post by Varemia

 

What do you mean? I do not see the problems you see. You seem to see some kind of insurmountable problem.

en.wiktionary.org...

edit on 16-12-2010 by Cassius666 because: (no reason given)

You haven't answered my question. I'm asking you what form you feel the information is required in order to be "publicly released." My problem with your reply is that you seem to think that because the information isn't on youtube or purdue's website that it somehow invalidates the simulation altogether. To my knowledge, public doesn't mean 'on the internet.'

reply to post by Varemia


Released for peer review for one. I see no problem with rendering it public over the internet. Nasa was able to release tons of data about the moonlanding without the internet.

Originally posted by Varemia
Honestly, I don't think it's required in the simulation laws that data be posted on the internet.

But, according to the International Building Code (the same one that NIST's "simulation" has changed), the information should be made public.

APPENDIX E

USE OF COMPUTER MODELS

This appendix gives guidance regarding qualifications and information that should be provided when undertaking computer modeling. More specifically, the appendix requests that computer program data be submitted as part of the documentation.

Straight from the IBC.

reply to post by Nutter


good catch there Nutter
My compliments for that.
Just like the videos that NIST tried to supress because they completely contradict NIST's findings regarding certain elements of the reports.
There is no excuse for the lack of proper jurisprudence in the presentation of the OS.

Originally posted by Nutter

Originally posted by Varemia
Honestly, I don't think it's required in the simulation laws that data be posted on the internet.

But, according to the International Building Code (the same one that NIST's "simulation" has changed), the information should be made public.

APPENDIX E

USE OF COMPUTER MODELS

This appendix gives guidance regarding qualifications and information that should be provided when undertaking computer modeling. More specifically, the appendix requests that computer program data be submitted as part of the documentation.

Straight from the IBC.

That still doesn't mean that it needs to be posted on the internet. It just means that they release the data from the simulation. I fail to see what's wrong here. Public does not equal internet, though the internet is mostly public.

Originally posted by Cassius666
reply to post by Varemia

 

Released for peer review for one. I see no problem with rendering it public over the internet. Nasa was able to release tons of data about the moonlanding without the internet.

I see no problem with that either, though I'd say peer review is the wrong word choice. It does need to be scrutinized by scientists and engineers, and I'm sure it was or easily could be. Just because one group posts their data on the internet doesn't mean the other group has to. It could be freely accessible through Purdue. And if it isn't, then I apologize, but I am willing to bet that it is available, and simply not posted on the internet.

Originally posted by Varemia
That still doesn't mean that it needs to be posted on the internet. It just means that they release the data from the simulation. I fail to see what's wrong here. Public does not equal internet, though the internet is mostly public.

I am taking it you haven't heard of the FOIA request from 2008 that NIST refused to submit? AE911truth is even suing NIST over it.

FINDING REGARDING PUBLIC SAFETY INFORMATION
Pursuant to Section 7(d) of the National Construction Safety Team Act, I hereby find that the disclosure of the information described below, received by the National Institute of Standards and Technology ("NIST"), in connection with its investigation of the technical causes of the collapse of the World Trade Center Towers and World Trade Center Building 7 on September 11,2001, might jeopardize public safety. Therefore, NIST shall not release the following information:
1.
All input and results files of the ANSYS 16-story collapse initiation model with detailed connection models that were used to analyze the structural response to thermal loads, break element source code, ANSYS script files for the break elements, custom executable ANSYS file, and all Excel spreadsheets and other supporting calculations used to develop floor connection failure modes and capacities.
2.
All input files with connection material properties and all results files of the LS-DYNA 47-story global collapse model that were used to simulate sequential structural failures leading to collapse, and all Excel spreadsheets and other supporting calculations used to develop floor connection failure modes and capacities.

cryptome.org...

But go ahead and keep deluding yourself into thinking that NIST will be forthcoming if asked nicely.

Do you want information or do you want to talk?

Google the following.

+urich +sap2000 +nist +simulation

This subject was discussed on this site in 2008. Explorer put up a good post about it. There is data available in SAP2000 format bt the program is $2000. I downloaded the info years ago. Gregory Urich supposedly put it into a spreadsheet but the data on the perimeter columns is wrong.


psik

reply to post by psikeyhackr


You can download the student version of SAP2000 for free.

Gregory Urich, a Swedish software engineer, says that he extracted the data from SAP2000 and put it into a spreadshhet.

Frank Greening said Urich's data was the best available years ago.

Lon Waters put up a website with core column data but he has no info on the HORIZONTAL BEAMS in the core.

Urich admits that he interpolated the weights of the 2500 perimeter wall panels. I have told Urich that the information must be wrong if it is interpolated. He wants to claim it makes no difference to a collapse analysis but the amount of energ require to destroy each level must be affected by the amount of steel. But we have people claiming the columns in the core are irrelevant to the collapse and the beams have beed disappeared.

So why aren't STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS in the United States obtaining and publishing SAP2000 data? It looks like most of the pros are avoiding this issue even though it involves nothing but grade school physics. Considering that the NIST report does not even specify the total amount of concrete in the towers I think the SAP2000 database is just another phase of the snow job.

psik