Hardfire: Physics of 9/11

[Newtons Bit]

The ANSYS LS-DYNA software is a commercial product, sure, but we should expect access to the data itself. No different from them releasing an excel file. It all get's bundled into one file, exactly the same as them releasing the SAP data.

I have access to LS-DYNA and that model data really should be available. No excuses.

I find it odd that suggesting access to the 'official' model data results in a 'stay on topic' suggestion, but berating of 'truthers' does not.

I'd be classified as a 'truther' but this thread is not the place for demolition discussion, is it.

My own model highlights the significant effect that pile-driving mass loss has upon the collapse time, and also serious issues with the initial velocity.

However, I'm only really interested in refining the model, as unless it got to the same kind of detail as the NIST model, fed through FEA, discussion of using it as 'proof' is a bit redundant. Having the NIST model data and running it through LS-DYNA past 'collapse initiation' would be another matter entirely. I think it would be very interesting to see what would happen if the simulation was allowed to progress beyond the point at which NIST decided to 'stop' it.

Has anyone tried FOIA'ing it?

BTW, I may have some more interesting analysis of how the perimeter column sizes vary with the height of the building. There'll be some fairly concrete mathematical backup as well.

 

[AZCat]

The ANSYS LS-DYNA software is a commercial product, sure, but we should expect access to the data itself. No different from them releasing an excel file. It all get's bundled into one file, exactly the same as them releasing the SAP data.

I have access to LS-DYNA and that model data really should be available. No excuses.

I find it odd that suggesting access to the 'official' model data results in a 'stay on topic' suggestion, but berating of 'truthers' does not.

I'd be classified as a 'truther' but this thread is not the place for demolition discussion, is it.

My own model highlights the significant effect that pile-driving mass loss has upon the collapse time, and also serious issues with the initial velocity.

However, I'm only really interested in refining the model, as unless it got to the same kind of detail as the NIST model, fed through FEA, discussion of using it as 'proof' is a bit redundant. Having the NIST model data and running it through LS-DYNA past 'collapse initiation' would be another matter entirely. I think it would be very interesting to see what would happen if the simulation was allowed to progress beyond the point at which NIST decided to 'stop' it.

NIST didn't decide to stop the simulation - it failed to converge to a solution. Should you obtain the model and try to run a simulation past collapse initiation, it is likely you will have the same result.

 

[Heiwa]

The ANSYS LS-DYNA software is a commercial product, sure, but we should expect access to the data itself. No different from them releasing an excel file. It all get's bundled into one file, exactly the same as them releasing the SAP data.

I have access to LS-DYNA and that model data really should be available. No excuses.

I find it odd that suggesting access to the 'official' model data results in a 'stay on topic' suggestion, but berating of 'truthers' does not.

I'd be classified as a 'truther' but this thread is not the place for demolition discussion, is it.

My own model highlights the significant effect that pile-driving mass loss has upon the collapse time, and also serious issues with the initial velocity.

However, I'm only really interested in refining the model, as unless it got to the same kind of detail as the NIST model, fed through FEA, discussion of using it as 'proof' is a bit redundant. Having the NIST model data and running it through LS-DYNA past 'collapse initiation' would be another matter entirely. I think it would be very interesting to see what would happen if the simulation was allowed to progress beyond the point at which NIST decided to 'stop' it.

NIST talks about a horizontal progression of column failures after one column has failed at floor 13 of WTC 7. You wonder how all those failures were modelled using ANSYS LS-DYNA? And after that there was a 2.25 second >30 meters free fall of a complete upper structure assembly. That is easy to model! No support on that structure = no internal forces = no deformations! But it seems the upper structure falls apart even under free fall. You wonder why? And then we have all these bits and pieces disconnected at both ends flying around in NIST's simulations. How can you model THAT?
Anyway - the final result of the structural analysis should be a heap of rubble with every piece of structure accounted for. Any evidence of that?

 

[femr2]

NIST didn't decide to stop the simulation - it failed to converge to a solution. Should you obtain the model and try to run a simulation past collapse initiation, it is likely you will have the same result.

I'm not sure what you mean by 'converge to a solution'. LS-DYNA was apparently able to simulate a period of time leading up to, and including 'collapse initiation', which would result in individual 'frames' being solved throughout that period of time.

Are you saying that past a certain point in time, the frame solution solver crashed/produced garbage/... ?

 

[femr2]

Has anyone tried FOIA'ing it?

BTW, I may have some more interesting analysis of how the perimeter column sizes vary with the height of the building. There'll be some fairly concrete mathematical backup as well.

I'm in the UK. I don't think non-national requests are considered.

Always interested in theory, though actual data would be better of course. Shall look forward to it.

 

[MikeW]

I'm in the UK. I don't think non-national requests are considered.

FOIA requests are accepted from anyone, anywhere (I've made plenty from the UK with occasional success).

 

[Newtons Bit]

I'm not sure what you mean by 'converge to a solution'. LS-DYNA was apparently able to simulate a period of time leading up to, and including 'collapse initiation', which would result in individual 'frames' being solved throughout that period of time.

Are you saying that past a certain point in time, the frame solution solver crashed/produced garbage/... ?

No, the iterative solver fails to find a solution. I've had ANSYS do this to me on a very simple inelastic analysis.

 

[femr2]

No, the iterative solver fails to find a solution. I've had ANSYS do this to me on a very simple inelastic analysis.

At what point did the solver fail to find a solution ?

If 'no' solution was found, on exactly what simulation is the NIST conclusions based upon ?

 

[rwguinn]

At what point did the solver fail to find a solution ?

At the point that "n equations with n unknowns" becomes "N equations with n+z unknowns", which, if you were actually a practicing dynamicist, you would realize occurs at the point actual failure takes place and the simulation becomes highly non-linear.

If 'no' solution was found, on exactly what simulation is the NIST conclusions based upon ?

The simulation predicts failure due to overloading of heat-affected structure. At that point, min applied load >> capability, which means failure to completion ensues.
Again, NIST was tasked and required to determine CAUSE OF FAILURE, not what happened AFTER failure.
This has been disucssed yea, verily, unto death (many many many many)^many times in these very fora...

 

[twinstead]

Again, NIST was tasked and required to determine CAUSE OF FAILURE, not what happened AFTER failure.

That's okay. I calculate it will take 456,324,456 times reminding them before they'll actually get it. We're only up to 123,345,391.

 

[aggle-rithm]

Again, NIST was tasked and required to determine CAUSE OF FAILURE, not what happened AFTER failure.
This has been disucssed yea, verily, unto death (many many many many)^many times in these very fora...

There's only one reason to investigate what happened after failure.

It's the same reason the presence of "molten" metal needs to be investigated, or paint chips need to be analyzed, or innocent witnesses need to be badgered by over-zealous truthers.

It's a way to keep that tiny, tiny window of opportunity just SLIGHTLY open, so there's still a chance that maybe, just MAYBE, the conclusions that they reached before looking at the evidence might POSSIBLY be viewed as at least partially correct, in some form or fashion.

Frankly, it's a little sad.

 

[femr2]

At the point that "n equations with n unknowns" becomes "N equations with n+z unknowns", which, if you were actually a practicing dynamicist, you would realize occurs at the point actual failure takes place and the simulation becomes highly non-linear.

The simulation predicts failure due to overloading of heat-affected structure. At that point, min applied load >> capability, which means failure to completion ensues.
Again, NIST was tasked and required to determine CAUSE OF FAILURE, not what happened AFTER failure.
This has been disucssed yea, verily, unto death (many many many many)^many times in these very fora...

My question was simply at what point the LS-DYNA software failed to solve. Very simple question, very simple answer...It failed at the point at which elements of the structure failed. That's all I need to know. (Add: It makes you wonder why the software didn't fail when they ran it with the WTC 7 data. Hmm)

Personally I think the statement "which means failure to completion ensues" is hilarious, but I have no need to discuss. Also, the prior "which, if you were actually a practicing dynamicist, you would realize occurs at the point actual failure takes place and the simulation becomes highly non-linear" is equally hilarious, and I suggest ANSYS get around to writing some better software that can 'cope' with the rapid increase in chaotic behaviour.

You guys keep highlighting your 'expert' credentials, but you really do have to stop wandering off on tangents and answering non-existent questions.

 

[beachnut]

... You guys keep highlighting your 'expert' credentials, but you really do have to stop wandering off on tangents and answering non-existent questions.

It is sad to see you and Heiwa and other 911Truth delusion believers try to back in the science to solve your preordained cult conclusions. The WTC buildings failed due to fire and gravity your efforts to prove your 911Truth conclusion that more was needed than fire and gravity are quixotic at best.

Heiwa and you are not "experts", the one super expert on the WTC that counts understands his towers fell as expected when wounded by impacts 7 to 11 times greater than his design destroying the fire systems and knocking off the wall board with fires started with more heat energy than all the delusional explosives you and Heiwa try to pack the WTC with. (1,320,000,000,000 joules of heat energy just from jet fuel, that beats your delusional explosives) (the gravity collapse had 628,000,000,000 joules of energy, more than 130 tons of TNT in each tower) After initiation of collapse you can try to study the collapse but the 130 tons of TNT energy released during each collapse account for the damage done at the WTC and not a single energy source more than impact, fire and collapse can be found at the WTC and the evidence proves it.

You and Heiwa pervert and twist science to solve the problem and back in your delusional conclusion. If you get a model that is correct it will solve your delusion and you will join reality. But as an engineer I know you can't and will never model the WTC towers correctly to follow the collapse with any fidelity close to reality due to the chaotic collapsed after initiation.

Your post shows you lack experience and engineering skills to understand the WTC collapse at this time. Go ahead model the collapse after initiation, you better have some core standing in one model or you failed.

So does your preordained conclusion have RDX and thermite, or what?

Next post add some more engineering stuff so it sounds better.

 

[femr2]

It is sad to see you and Heiwa and other 911Truth delusion believers try to back in the science to solve your preordained cult conclusions. The WTC buildings failed due to fire and gravity your efforts to prove your 911Truth conclusion that more was needed than fire and gravity are quixotic at best.

Heiwa and you are not "experts", the one super expert on the WTC that counts understands his towers fell as expected when wounded by impacts 7 to 11 times greater than his design destroying the fire systems and knocking off the wall board with fires started with more heat energy than all the delusional explosives you and Heiwa try to pack the WTC with. (1,320,000,000,000 joules of heat energy just from jet fuel, that beats your delusional explosives) (the gravity collapse had 628,000,000,000 joules of energy, more than 130 tons of TNT in each tower) After initiation of collapse you can try to study the collapse but the 130 tons of TNT energy released during each collapse account for the damage done at the WTC and not a single energy source more than impact, fire and collapse can be found at the WTC and the evidence proves it.

You and Heiwa pervert and twist science to solve the problem and back in your delusional conclusion. If you get a model that is correct it will solve your delusion and you will join reality. But as an engineer I know you can't and will never model the WTC towers correctly to follow the collapse with any fidelity close to reality due to the chaotic collapsed after initiation.

Your post shows you lack experience and engineering skills to understand the WTC collapse at this time. Go ahead model the collapse after initiation, you better have some core standing in one model or you failed.

So does your preordained conclusion have RDX and thermite, or what?

Next post add some more engineering stuff so it sounds better.

Hilarious. I suggest you re-read my posts and find any which contain suggestion of ANY of the items you are accusing me of. I have been explicitly focused on discussion of the models, and have specifically stated on several occasions that my model cannot be used to state any 'proof' of one side of the 'argument' or another. I have also specifically stated that I'm not here to discuss demolition in any way, but instead to refine the model to enable others to experiment and see the effect of various elements upon collapse time.

You have illustrated my point perfectly.

 

[DavidJames]

You guys keep highlighting your 'expert' credentials,

I do not have the education or practical experience to understand much of the discussion but I do appreciate your involvement in this discussion, I think it's constructive. As I appreciate those responding to you.

But since you brought it up, in a sarcastic way no less, how about you provide your credentials.

Thanks.

 

[psikeyhackr]

Again, NIST was tasked and required to determine CAUSE OF FAILURE, not what happened AFTER failure.
This has been disucssed yea, verily, unto death (many many many many)^many times in these very fora...

.
Oh, I get it. If the NIST defines itself to be stupid then it is perfectly alright them to be really STUPID!

If you download the 10,000 page NCSTAR1 report and search it for "conservation of momentum" you will only find two occurrences.

In one case it refers to the analysis of air flow in a fire. In the other case it is about the effect of the airliner impact on the trusses supporting the floor slabs.

But about the ALL IMPORTANT effect of conservation of momentum on the overall collapse of the entire building they say nothing. How do you explain people claiming to be world renowned experts ignoring the obvious?

So if you choose a sufficiently narrow definition of your job you can be as incompetent as you want and still be successful. As long as you can find people DUMB ENOUGH to tolerate that crap.

psik

 

[BigAl]

.
Oh, I get it. If the NIST defines itself to be stupid then it is perfectly alright them to be really STUPID!

If you download the 10,000 page NCSTAR1 report and search it for "conservation of momentum" you will only find two occurrences.

It's in the math.

 

[GlennB]

Personally I think the statement "which means failure to completion ensues" is hilarious, but I have no need to discuss. Also, the prior "which, if you were actually a practicing dynamicist, you would realize occurs at the point actual failure takes place and the simulation becomes highly non-linear" is equally hilarious, and I suggest ANSYS get around to writing some better software that can 'cope' with the rapid increase in chaotic behaviour.

I suspect this is akin to telling IBM (or anyone else) that computerised analysis of a chess position to 20 moves ahead is just not good enough. They need to analyse 40 moves ahead.
After all <cough> that's just double the processing effort, right <cough> ?

 

[femr2]

I suspect this is akin to telling IBM (or anyone else) that computerised analysis of a chess position to 20 moves ahead is just not good enough. They need to analyse 40 moves ahead.
After all <cough> that's just double the processing effort, right <cough> ?

I'm sure we are both more than aware that 'double' if far from the right word to use. What is curious however, is that the LS-DYNA software seemingly had no such issues with the simulation of WTC 7. Every 'post-failure' iteration would have added another 'chess move', so to speak, and the software didn't fail to find a solution. Curious.

 

[DavidJames]

I'm sure we are both more than aware that 'double' if far from the right word to use. What is curious however, is that the LS-DYNA software seemingly had no such issues with the simulation of WTC 7. Every 'post-failure' iteration would have added another 'chess move', so to speak, and the software didn't fail to find a solution. Curious.

When you fail at using math and engineering to back your belief, you fall back on Argument from Incredulity.

I suggest returning to math and engineering, otherwise, you look no better then the other 9/11 CTists.