• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

NIST raw data?

padragan said:
Well, I've allready tried that, but as soon as the raw data to one simulation of WTC7 was discussed as not accessible he turned that into NIST hiding their data. Reminding of the reports is like talking to a wall... quite amusing but silly.
Click to expand...
True.

See the last line of my signature.
 
padragan said:
Well, I've allready tried that, but as soon as the raw data to one simulation of WTC7 was discussed as not accessible he turned that into NIST hiding their data. Reminding of the reports is like talking to a wall... quite amusing but silly.
Click to expand...

Here's some info from a jref poster on the hardware used padragan.


Deep44 wrote
Here's what NIST used for the LS-DYNA simulation (from the NIST report on WTC7):
Due to the nonlinearities in the analysis, as well as sequential local failures, a 25 s analysis took up to 8 weeks to complete. The analyses were run on a Linux cluster with a head node with two 64 bit, 2.4 GHz processors and 4 GB of RAM and eight compute nodes with two 64 bit, 2.6 GHz processors. Six of the compute nodes had 8 GB of RAM and the remaining two nodes had 16 GB RAM.
This is for those who contend that over 100 GB of RAM would be necessary, the hardware would cost millions of dollars, etc. The cluster described above could most likely be replicated with commodity hardware for under $20,000 (give or take).

Does anyone know if the demo version of LS-DYNA allows parallel processing? If so, is there an upper limit on nodes or CPU-cores?

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=4919981&posted=1#post4919981 post 55
 
bill smith said:
Here's some info from a jref poster on the hardware used padragan.


Deep44 wrote
Here's what NIST used for the LS-DYNA simulation (from the NIST report on WTC7):
Due to the nonlinearities in the analysis, as well as sequential local failures, a 25 s analysis took up to 8 weeks to complete. The analyses were run on a Linux cluster with a head node with two 64 bit, 2.4 GHz processors and 4 GB of RAM and eight compute nodes with two 64 bit, 2.6 GHz processors. Six of the compute nodes had 8 GB of RAM and the remaining two nodes had 16 GB RAM.
This is for those who contend that over 100 GB of RAM would be necessary, the hardware would cost millions of dollars, etc. The cluster described above could most likely be replicated with commodity hardware for under $20,000 (give or take).

Does anyone know if the demo version of LS-DYNA allows parallel processing? If so, is there an upper limit on nodes or CPU-cores?

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=4919981&posted=1#post4919981 post 55
Click to expand...

Well, it would be neat if the simulation could be replicated, but I guess I have greater trust in NIST than you. By all means, if you want to prove them wrong you should try to find errors in their method, data or conclusions (and of course make sure you can back it up with solid evidence). Best of luck.

However, my question was about the input parameters they used, not the hardware itself.
 
padragan said:
Well, it would be neat if the simulation could be replicated, but I guess I have greater trust in NIST than you. By all means, if you want to prove them wrong you should try to find errors in their method, data or conclusions (and of course make sure you can back it up with solid evidence). Best of luck.

However, my question was about the input parameters they used, not the hardware itself.
Click to expand...

Well we would need the hard numeric data, the assumptions they made and input and any other tweaks they used. But as you may have noticed that data is a closely guarded secret.

No big deal. we all know the score so we will bring them down by a thousand cuts instead.
 
Last edited:
padragan said:
Well, it would be neat if the simulation could be replicated, but I guess I have greater trust in NIST than you. By all means, if you want to prove them wrong you should try to find errors in their method, data or conclusions (and of course make sure you can back it up with solid evidence). Best of luck.

However, my question was about the input parameters they used, not the hardware itself.
Click to expand...
It can be replicated. If your a collage or a university (I vaguely remember reading the data file is available for studies).
 
Last edited:
padragan, here's someone who got the SAP 2000 models of the towers from NIST:
http://razor.occams.info/nist-wtc/

He also gives a link to the page with guidelines on how to make the request.

Don't know if that will be of any help.
 
Last edited:
bill smith said:
Well we would need the hard numeric data, the assumptions they made and input and any other tweaks they used. But as you may have noticed that data is a closely guarded secret.

No big deal. we all know the score so we will bring them down by a thousand cuts instead.
Click to expand...
Hey, maybe you can get your 1000+ "engineers" together and pony up to do a study.
 
DGM said:
Hey, maybe you can get your 1000+ "engineers" together and pony up to do a study.
Click to expand...

Why would we do that ? We want the data that was paid for from taxpayer dollars.They don't own the data., they hold it in trust. (that's really funny when you think about it..lol)
 
Bill:
You never replied to my question as to how much you want to bet. Why? Wait, you did the same thing last time you asked me to bet you (I believe it was "eat my keyboard and never post here again"). What, no confidence in you convictions?
 
bill smith said:
Why would we do that ? We want the data that was paid for from taxpayer dollars.They don't own the data., they hold it in trust. (that's really funny when you think about it..lol)
Click to expand...
I see what you mean. It's better to bitch on the internet about what you can't (presumably) get then actually do something about it. :rolleyes:

You really don't see why your getting no where?
 
You did not specify in the OP that WTC7 data is what you were looking for.

I found the above with a simple google search. I am sure the data exists, and like the WTC1/2 Data, is probably available...for a fee.

TAM:)
 
padragan said:
Nice page. However, I couldn't find any data files for WTC7.
Click to expand...

Here's something I ran accross..

'' Dear NIST FOIA Office:

I am writing on behalf of our client, Mr. Geoffrey Walter Ritchey,
regarding the current status of the above referenced FOIA matter,
which was received by your office on February 4, 2009. My review of
the correspondence file in this matter indicates that our client sent
your office payment for processing the ANSYS computer data for this
request back in February ‘09, and that Mr. Ritchey has made numerous
email follow-up inquiries to your office regarding the status of your
processing and sending the responsive materials he has requested for
this FOIA request.

As you may know FOIA requires all federal agencies to make a final
determination on all FOIA requests within 20 working days, and the
2007 FOIA amendments expressly require a responding agency to provide
a requester with an estimated date for a final determination on a FOIA
request. See 5 USC 552(a)(7)(B)(ii). Therefore, I would appreciate.....

Read on.
http://www.911blogger.com/node/20860
 
padragan said:
Well, I do not doubt that NIST did a fine job. For me it's just making a point in proving wheter or not the raw data is accesible or not. Some of the twoofers have made claims that the data is indeed hidden by NIST, and if it's not it would amuse me greatly to point out that they are wrong.
Click to expand...

Take care that they don't con you into playing their game.

The claim that NIST hid data is already off the topic focus. The critical issue is "demolition or not". It is easy to demonstrate "no demolition" then it is up to "their" side to prove the "no demolition" explanation wrong OR to give a counter explanation as to how their demolition mechanism worked - the mechanism they postulate. They cannot and will not do it, even those who try with a bit of engineering (eg Szamboti or Chandler) always fudge the "how it happened" mechanisms.

That is the point at which "they" start the evasions with "nano thermate" or "hidden data" or anything else they can throw. All of them side tracks and going down those tracks puts you into the position of playing the game they want - you will never reach the end because they will always shift the goalposts with another diversion.

Recent months have seen a big shift in the focus of most of these threads. All the real discussion is well and truly over. The "discussion" continues in the side tracks which is all that the current "truthers" are interested in.
 
Last edited:
At the risk of generalizing...

ozeco41 said:
Recent months have seen a big shift in the focus of most of these threads. All the real discussion is well and truly over. The "discussion" continues in the side tracks which is all that the current "truthers" are interested in.
Click to expand...
I hadn't realized it prior to finding this forum, but this is the case with pretty much all CTers. Rather than use scientific method and falsify a hypothesis, which would require actually claiming something, they prefer to muddle through this or that detail and analyze it to death.

It's really no different from having a photo of bigfoot proven a hoax; the believers just go to the next photo and put the onus back on you. Or the holocaust deniers discussing this witness testimony or the plumbing at Dachau or whatever. Details that don't go anywhere to prove some cohesive point.

Which is a long way of saying "good point." :)
 
I love this thread. How guilty you all sound lol. I will archive this one for use elsewhere. Muchas Gracias..
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom