Computer modeling and simulation

[triforcharity]

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.

 

[Justin39640]

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

 

[Justin39640]

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

 

[triforcharity]

Good point. This very well could be why they won't release it.

 

[ktesibios]

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"

 

[deep]

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.

 

[rwguinn]

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.

 

[triforcharity]

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.

 

[deep]

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).

 

[Justin39640]

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

 

[alienentity]

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.

 

[bio]

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?

 

[alienentity]

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?

 

[bio]

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).

 

[Klimax]

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.

 

[Justin39640]

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)

 

[tfk]

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

 

[newton3376]

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

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!!!

 

[bio]

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

 

[Justin39640]

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?