Use of Scale Model or Full Sized models for investigating 9/11 collapses

jaydeehess

Senior Member.
However, yes, some factions of society still want a completely open data, computed model of the towers. . One such group touts a cadre of 2000 engineers and architects. Presumably this would supply enough experts to do what NIST did and generate the data inputs necessary to run a computer model of the towers. THAT is precisely what psikeyhacker is asking for.

Should it be encumbant upon non-experts and those who do in fact accept the NIST conclusion that progression to global collapse was inevitable, to come up eith data inputs that satisfy those who do not accept it?
. I question why it hasn't been done by those most involved in demanding it , and pointed out that those who already accept the so called ROOSD driven collapses have the least impetus to redo the modeling.
Who are "they" and where have they been demanding something like this? Please post a link or two to show us exactly who "they" are that you would question.

You are, at this late date, unaware that AE911T has repeatedly called for the input data for NIST's modeling, for "verification" purposes. For instance:
http://www.ae911truth.org/en/letters-to-the-editor/465-public-safety-paradox.html
I assume that part of the verification process includes running the model with NIST's original data points and verifying that the result is the same as they published.
Another tact would be to "verify" the applicability of specific data points, such mass per floor. However if one , for instance, disputes the 750 tons per floor and instead calculates 700 tons, a 7% reduction , the only way to verify if this makes a difference in final outcome is to.... run the model through again.

However, I do note that AE911T itself has been utterly silent on what "verification" actually entails. In fact although I have asked members of AE911T, such as Chris Sarns and Tony Szamboti, to explain specifically what they would do with NIST's data, I have never received a response.
 
Last edited:

Oystein

Senior Member
...In fact although I have asked members of AE911T, such as Chris Sarns and Tony Szamboti, to explain specifically what they would do with NIST's data, I have never received a response.
In what sense are Sarns and Szamboti "members" of AE911T? Other than having signed the petition (which I have, too, just to get their newsletter :D). Do they act or speak on behalf of the AE911T board or what?
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
In what sense are Sarns and Szamboti "members" of AE911T? Other than having signed the petition (which I have, too, just to get their newsletter :D). Do they act or speak on behalf of the AE911T board or what?
They have a very broad membership drive now:
http://www.ae911truth.org/membership-2014/

I don't know if @Tony Szamboti is actually a member, but he's described as an "AE911 Truth Expert", which actually sounds a little higher up.


But there's a quite long thread on AE911's lack of such research here:
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/wh...-engineers-for-9-11-truth-fund-research.2832/
 

Oystein

Senior Member
They have a very broad membership drive now:
http://www.ae911truth.org/membership-2014/

I don't know if @Tony Szamboti is actually a member, but he's described as an "AE911 Truth Expert", which actually sounds a little higher up. ...
This is not on topic here, so ... ok, one reply only:

"Membership" and "a little higher up" sound as if there was an organisation with a hierarchy.
But there isn't. It's just Gage, and there are supporters. Several way in which you can support Gage:
1. Give him money
1.1 Informally
1.2 Formally with a payment plan - that's what "membership" means here. Doesn't mean you get into the organisation. The most you get is a hand-signed "thank you"
2. Give him your good name and add it to his dead petition
3. Give him your time working as a volunteer on his staff or on projects
4. Give him advice and content (that's what they call a "AE911 Truth Expert")
You don't however get to decide anything of importance, you don't get a vote, and if you disagree with Gage, you'll probably find yourself un´membered.

Sarns and Szamboti are volunteer supporters, that's all.
Gage is the only "member".
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Gage is the only "member".
Semantics.

But back to models, I noticed AE911 are promoting this article:
http://www.ae911truth.org/en/news-s...stralian-author-links-newtons-law-to-911.html

So observe: This is one of the pictures that show how Newton’s law was broken on the 11th of September 2001. It is easy to OBSERVE tons of steel and material shooting OUTWARDS and UPWARDS. Conclusion: This building has been BLOWN UP – with sophisticated explosives.



Fascinating how Newton’s law is applied every single day – except on that one day (9/11/01). Newton would be stunned.
Content from External Source
I wonder if there's a way to clarify misconceptions like this with the use of computer models? Or would they just be ignored?

Even a Jenga style collapse has lots of OUTWARDS. Now there is no real "upwards" in the tower collapse, that's just smoke and dust clouds. But maybe that too could be simulated.

 

jaydeehess

Senior Member.
However, I do note that AE911T itself has been utterly silent on what "verification" actually entails. In fact although I have asked signatories/supporters of AE911T, such as Chris Sarns and Tony Szamboti, to explain specifically what they would do with NIST's data, I have never received a response.
Adjusted!

These two have both created content for AE911T that has been lauded on the website.
As pointed out Szamboti is touted as an AE911T engineering expert. In any professional organization he is exactly the type one would expect to have some insight into the matter at hand.
 
Last edited:

Cube Radio

Member
You are, at this late date, unaware that AE911T has repeatedly called for the input data for NIST's modeling, for "verification" purposes.
No, I have referred to this fact -- which is specific to the WTC7 report -- repeatedly throughout this thread, most recently only in the preceding page with reference to femr2's modelling approach and also at its outset; I am surprised that you have not chosen to read and understand this and other points made here (or are unable to do so).

In asking for independent verification of NIST's WTC7 animation AE911 is merely asking for an acceptable standard of scientific transparency: I have frequently seen people such as Mick leave this animation to one side in discussions on MB about WTC7 when this point is brought up, and that is the only appropriate response to unverifiable pseudoscience.

The need for NIST's WTC7 animation to be verified is amplified by the fact it takes what might be called an "acceptably approximate representation" of the video evidence to the absolute limit of credibility, its timeline stops long before it could possibly represent the period of free fall acceleration that is the focus of much controversy in that event, and the reasons NIST has given for withholding information are entirely indefensible on any rational grounds.

The correct response to those who observe that the NIST WTC7 animation does not meet acceptable standards of scientific transparency is not to demand that those who are observers of that fact verify the animation for themselves through some process of reverse engineering and then denigrate them for failing to do so, but join them in demanding that a project that cost millions of public dollars is fully verifiable by suitably qualified members of the public.

With respect to the question at hand, if you had followed the debate you would have known that the discussion has focused on a model of the complete collapse progression of the Towers, which does not exist in any credible form. Certainly if Mick was to take the trouble to build such a model and its simplifications and assumptions were verified and accepted by individuals such as psikey and Tony Szamboti, I think this would be a huge step forward in this focused context.

However, it seems you have not been following the debate so I do not expect you to appreciate this -- or to be able to refer accurately to "those people" who you so vaguely accuse of being remiss in not having built such a model already.
 
Last edited:

Cube Radio

Member
On a side note I am pleased to learn that this Australian author has produced a kids' book about the three tower collapses and I will investigate it to see if it is suitable for my own children. Certainly all the young people I meet in my professional and personal life who are informed enough on the events of 9/11 to know about WTC7 are skeptical of the claim that it fell due to office fires and are suspicious of or cynical about the authorities that would insist this is so.

I have sometimes reflected that it will take a generation or so before questions like this are properly resolved, and I am confident the new generation will keep asking them. Modelling the complete collapse sequence of the Towers is a concrete objective, so to speak, not an open-ended conspiracy theory that will be debated endlessly as long as there is evidence missing.

Assuming all the necessary information about the Towers is in the public domain (not something that has been conclusively shown to be the case in this thread as far as I can see) then I imagine that unlike Mick, the next generation of computer games programmers will be able to create and run such simulations in a day, rather than a month.
 

Oystein

Senior Member
On a side note I am pleased to learn that this Australian author has produced a kids' book about the three tower collapses and I will investigate it to see if it is suitable for my own children. ...
You'd do this for the same reason why the religious indoctrinate their young: To get them while they are gullible and believe in magic.

This Australian author believes that the South Tower collapse showed significant heavy material (i.e. not smoke and fine dust that billow and float in air) hurled upwards. She presents a still photo as evidence for this. But the belief is false. Why would you entrust a person who so obviously kids herself with the science education of your own children??
 

Jeffrey Orling

Senior Member
On a side note I am pleased to learn that this Australian author has produced a kids' book about the three tower collapses and I will investigate it to see if it is suitable for my own children. Certainly all the young people I meet in my professional and personal life who are informed enough on the events of 9/11 to know about WTC7 are skeptical of the claim that it fell due to office fires and are suspicious of or cynical about the authorities that would insist this is so.

I have sometimes reflected that it will take a generation or so before questions like this are properly resolved, and I am confident the new generation will keep asking them. Modelling the complete collapse sequence of the Towers is a concrete objective, so to speak, not an open-ended conspiracy theory that will be debated endlessly as long as there is evidence missing.

Assuming all the necessary information about the Towers is in the public domain (not something that has been conclusively shown to be the case in this thread as far as I can see) then I imagine that unlike Mick, the next generation of computer games programmers will be able to create and run such simulations in a day, rather than a month.

My own view is that the NIST explanations are incorrect in the details... and with respect to 7WTC the location of the assault of the heat on the structure. I find they have tried to demonstrate that a single column (79) could fail beginning with a girder walk off on floor 13 leading to multiple local floor collapses, leaving the column with weakened by being stripped of bracing which then buckled being massive dynamic loads on the load transfer system (presumably) which led to the entire structure in the core being undermined and so on. The heat was supposedly generated by un controlled office contents fueled fires. I find this not credible. The more palatable explanation is that the load transfer system failed first and left the 40 stories above without support. This would match the observations of movement and can be explained by diesel fueled fires which ironically was what the building's engineer suspected to be the cause.
This sensible explanation was hardly investigated and largely dismissed because there was apparently no visual record of the fires within the mech floors where the transfer system was. I understand why the CD guys would dismiss it because they are hell bent on seeing the collapse as a CD... I am not sure why those who accept a fire cause are hell bent on dismissing this.

My only explanation for the latter is that the proximate cause was related to decisions taken by developers and then engineers and approved by authorities... to erect a tower which had to span over a massive power sub station, and to site diesel fired emergency power generation system along with up to 50,000 gallons of diesel fuel down there (pump to the mech floors by emergency generators.

We learned that there were power downs (shorts and transformer explosions) beginning with the first plane strike, that 7 WTC had lost main power shortly after tower 1 was struck... and that some of the back up power kicked on. We know that the mains failed when tower 1 came down and the fire suppression systems were not working all day and no fire fighting was done. We also had reports of the building leaning or being unstable, but the location of the warping I believe was not in those reports. Even the Jennings / Hess accounts support something serious happening in the load transfer region early in the morning. If this explanation fits the evidence better than the one they went with.. and the one they went with had ASSUMED heat inputs... why was this not looked into further? To me it smacks of a sort of cover up... but not of CD but of those involved in the boneheaded decisions to build over the sub station, and to site the emergency power system and flammables within the vulnerable to catastrophic failure load transfer system.

Maybe.
 

Cube Radio

Member
You'd do this for the same reason why the religious indoctrinate their young: To get them while they are gullible and believe in magic.

This Australian author believes that the South Tower collapse showed significant heavy material (i.e. not smoke and fine dust that billow and float in air) hurled upwards. She presents a still photo as evidence for this. But the belief is false. Why would you entrust a person who so obviously kids herself with the science education of your own children??
No, I'd do it because I think there are good reasons to doubt aspects of the official 9/11 conspiracy narrative, with the WTC7 collapse and accompanying report/animation just one example. To my mind only a fake skeptic exercising the kind of religious faith you refer to could accept such an explanation, of which Jeffrey's words above seem a merely speculative variation.

But let's please not get off topic. This thread is about models, and making them.
 
Last edited:

Jeffrey Orling

Senior Member
OT... my "models" are thought experiments of sorts.. drawn from observations and from the structure itself. What we conceptualize in our mind is a model a mental representation of the real world.

The fact remains that the NIST models and every other one has to use all sorts of assumptions for energy inputs. Even the fuel load for office stuff is not based on actual inventory of combustibles.

The knowable stuff is the actual structural. The superimposed loads are assumptions too. The conditions of the building and the structural connections etc. is another variable that is unknowable. These buildings were 40 years old and in pretty corrosive environments as well.

It's hard to make a reliable model. And the utility of a physical model as opposed to computer or mental models is questionable as a proof of anything with such complexity and unknowable variables.

Sure you can isolate a node and play with inputs and see how it performs. But I seriously doubt an model or simulation will ever produce a faithful representation of the real event.

ROOSD is a sensible and understand process and the threshold to kick it off was easily attained. Modeling and conceptualizing the disintegration of the top sections is much more difficult, interesting and ultimately unknowable in a reliable way. We simply can't see into those buildings to know what was going on other than raging fires... and even that we don't know much about.

Speculation = thought experiment = mental models

This works for me and enabled me to satisfy my need to understand how and what MIGHT have happened or what likely happened. I have nothing to prove and no interest in convincing anyone... writing a paper or making a vid.
 

Cube Radio

Member
It's hard to make a reliable model. And the utility of a physical model as opposed to al models is questionable as a proof of anything with such complexity and unknowable variables.
It happened twice in remarkably similar ways despite quite different impacts, which implies there must be something reproducible in terms of modelling the principle that is said to explain such completely destructive events; one person on this thread has even been so obtuse as to repeatedly suggest that the second collapse's "reproduction" of the first removes the explanatory need for a model to demonstrate that this catastrophic principle is indeed fully understood.

As far as your speculations go, they're just speculations at this stage I'm afraid, nothing more.
 

Jeffrey Orling

Senior Member
They are not speculations... ROOSD is not a speculation and is a model which explains both collapses... much of the common part. TTF and SHTP are also models which may or may not apply. You want to call these speculative... be my guest. All of these are based on observations of the building movements.

What we are dealing with is diagnosing a patient by looking at him from the outside... no xrays, cat scans, MRIs, blood work etc.
 

Oystein

Senior Member
It happened twice in remarkably similar ways despite quite different impacts, which implies there must be something reproducible in terms of modelling the principle that is said to explain such completely destructive events; one person on this thread has even been so obtuse as to repeatedly suggest that the second collapse's "reproduction" of the first removes the explanatory need for a model to demonstrate that this catastrophic principle is indeed fully understood.

As far as your speculations go, they're just speculations at this stage I'm afraid, nothing more.

There are three aspects that were remarkably similar in both collapses:
1. They both followed soon after planes had crashed into them and fires broke out
2. They initiated very close to the level were the planes crashed and fires were most severe
3. They progressed all the way down in similar fashion without ever slowing down above ground.

It is not obvious that the initiation events were the same or similar in both cases, and it may well be they weren't - depending on the level of detail you are interested in.

As for 1. and 2.: It seems trivial to assume that IF plane crashes and/or fires were the ultimate cause of collapse, THEN initiation would be expected where planes or fires were. We would not need any physical models to explain that.

As for 3., most of us understand that the global progressive vertical collapse was inevitable once the initiation sequence had produced downward momentum beyond some threshold - no matter what ultimately the main mechanism of the progression phase. I see no need to spend much time and money to model that.

Which leaves us with models to simulate initiation scenarios.
 

Keith Beachy

Senior Member
They are not speculations... ROOSD is not a speculation and is a model which explains both collapses... much of the common part. TTF and SHTP are also models which may or may not apply. You want to call these speculative... be my guest. All of these are based on observations of the building movements.

What we are dealing with is diagnosing a patient by looking at him from the outside... no xrays, cat scans, MRIs, blood work etc.
ROOSD is not a model, it is observations of the video record based on personal opinions; aka speculation.

Where is the ROOSD model published, and can you explain it? no

Using the video record with knowledge of the structure, and evidence there was no added energy to collapse the WTC, makes the need for a scale model to demonstrate gravity collapse happened the way seen; pretty useless.
 

Jeffrey Orling

Senior Member
Beachy... give it a rest... a model can be:

"A conceptual model is a model made of the composition of concepts, which are used to help people know, understand, or simulate a subject the model represents. Some models are physical objects; for example, a toy model which may be assembled, and may be made to work like the object it represents.

The term conceptual model may be used to refer to models which are formed after a conceptualization process in the mind. Conceptual models represent human intentions or semantics[citation needed]. Conceptualization from observation of physical existence and conceptual modeling are the necessary means human employ to think and solve problems[citation needed]. Concepts are used to convey semantics during various natural languages based communication[citation needed]. Since a concept might map to multiple semantics by itself, an explicit formalization is usually required for identifying and locating the intended semantic from several candidates to avoid misunderstandings and confusions in conceptual models.[1]"
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
But here we are talking about computer models or scale physical models, not approximate hypotheses.
 

Jeffrey Orling

Senior Member
I stand corrected.. it does say "scale models"... but again you can't scale the forces, the time and the strength of materials...
 

econ41

Senior Member
Let's see if we agree the status of discussion. My main concern is that we have identified two main issues of classification. And we seem to keep getting confused because some of us are not being explicit or are actually conflating the critical issues leading to foggy thinking.

These I suggest are the key aspects of discussion:

A) The Topic is "Use of Scale Model or Full Sized models for investigating 9/11 collapses"
- that implies physical models BUT discussion of computer models is probably a necessary and reasonable extension within legitimate scope of topic
- The "collapses" referred to would be those of WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7

B) For all those building collapses we have identified that there are two main targets for models viz:
(i) Professionals whose purpose with of modelling is to extend professional understanding of relevant applied physics - preferably quantified where that is needed.
(ii) Lay persons where the need is for a visual presentation to make it easer for those lay persons to understand the broad features of the mechanisms of collapse - AKA "How it happened". Quantified measurements not needed.

(Such models could usefully support explanation of the issues to a professional audience.)

So two distinct types of models. Those that look like what happened for a lay audience and those that replicate quantifiable aspects for a professional audience.

C) Much of the focus has been on the "Twin Towers" - WTC1 and WTC2 - and for simplicity of this post I will set aside WTC7 at this stage.

D) Collapse of both WTC1 and WTC2 involved two distinct stages viz "initiation" and "progression". Those stages involved distinctly different mechanisms to the extent that the needs and practicality of using models is different.

E) There is also remnant ambiguity over the distinction "Model the whole mechanism" v "Model specific component parts". The discussion as implicitly been about "model the whole". I will defer "model the parts" till later.


So for the Twin Towers we have four situations - a 2x2 matrix of "stage of collapse" v "target audience".

And the Status of MY Claims for those four is as follows:

1) Initiation stage for professional audience.
Modelling of whole mechanism so impractical as to serve no useful purpose. I doubt that there is a legitimate professional need which outweighs the impracticalities.

2) Initiation stage for lay audience.
Modelling of whole mechanism impractical. I have outlined my preferred way of explaining cascade initiation to lay audiences. (And it has worked for me many times in actual face to face experiences. ;) )

3) Progression stage for professional audience.
Modelling of the whole serves no professional purpose. Comprehension of the mechanism is straight forward. Where there is need for quantification it should be served by modelling the parts. So no need for a model of the whole for this audience.

4) Progression stage for lay audience.
Modelling is possible and relatively simple. It would be of value for this audience. A model similar to Mick's blocks model - modified and improved to visually resemble the real event. I have previously suggested two stages of enhancement. All three - separate models - progressively adding more detail - may not be overkill - depending on the value of the audience and the justifiable resource allocation - HR and $$.

Conclusion.
That how I see the state of play at the leading edge of these discussions. In a follow up post or two I may I will test some other members against where I am coming from. See who I need to catch up with. Or vice versa. :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:

Jeffrey Orling

Senior Member
.....

D) Collapse of both WTC1 and WTC2 involved two distinct stages viz "initiation" and "progression". Those stages involved distinctly different mechanisms to the extent that the needs and practicality of using models is different.


Ozzie,

The distinction into two phases is misleading. The ROOSD stage... is not as complex and easily seen... the building is coming apart! Now the initiation stage... is hardly visible though we do see some manifestation of the building degrading... smoke, fire, parts of a destroyed facade, some collapsed floor sections, some material ejected, and in the case of 2wtc something pouring out the corner. The period from plane strike to the actual collapse is an easy divide.... but the period before collapse may be much more complex and there may be no sharp boundary between what was happening (largely unseen) before collapse and what happened during collapse.

I thought about a stupid analogy... getting my little inflatable up on a plane. When I open the trottle at first I do not plane... the boat begins to move, the speed increases and if conditions are right and there is enough power the boat essentially rises mostly out of the water... levels out and planes moving fast and smoothly. You can tell when you are on a plane... but I can't tell what is going on from start until plane is achieved... It's unseen and complex. and the actual transition moment is almost impossible to nail.
 

econ41

Senior Member
Comment on Oystein's post in context of the points of my previous post.
There are three aspects that were remarkably similar in both collapses:
1. They both followed soon after planes had crashed into them and fires broke out
2. They initiated very close to the level were the planes crashed and fires were most severe
3. They progressed all the way down in similar fashion without ever slowing down above ground.
I suggest agreed common ground. Certainly between you and me.

It is not obvious that the initiation events were the same or similar in both cases, and it may well be they weren't - depending on the level of detail you are interested in.
They were similar at macro level viz. started by aircraft impact > unfought fires > accumulating damage leading to a cascade. The distribution of heating effects and the sequencing of cascading failures without doubt different. As you say the key is in the "detail you are interested in." which depends on who and what you are. AKA the two audiences - involved professional or lay person. And there is a middle ground third option - the professional with incidental curiosity interest.
As for 1. and 2.: It seems trivial to assume that IF plane crashes and/or fires were the ultimate cause of collapse, THEN initiation would be expected where planes or fires were. We would not need any physical models to explain that.
Agree with the thrust of your comment. Not sure if your logic is bulletproof. And the needs of the two audiences are different. BUT IMO the serious professionals would understand the near impossibility and decide that they don't need one. And we cannot make one for the lay audience as explained previously.
As for 3., most of us understand that the global progressive vertical collapse was inevitable once the initiation sequence had produced downward momentum beyond some threshold - no matter what ultimately the main mechanism of the progression phase. I see no need to spend much time and money to model that.
We differ here. I suggest - as does Mick - that there is a need for models of progression to explain it to lay persons. Whether there is sufficient "demand" to warrant the resourcing is the issue I identified in my post.
Which leaves us with models to simulate initiation scenarios.
Our conclusions at this stage differ.

I say "Cannot model whole of initiation - may be valuable for professional purposes to model parts of it". But I don’t see what parts need modelling. The key point being that once you get down to component level detail you are dealing with general principles - the WTC specific aspects at detail level are of little value for some different future building. Remember that most of the alleged need for perfection in use of sceintific method is truther motivated hyperbole intended to put holes in the "accepted narrative". The objective of forensic engineering analysis is to find the causes for one event. NOT to establish a new scientific theory. Significantly different goals.

And, finally, I see a place - if justified - for laypersons models of how the progression mechanism operated.
 

econ41

Senior Member
Ozzie,

The distinction into two phases is misleading......

No need to shout. :) And I know where you are coming from friend.

It is not misleading within the frame of reference I am using. And have been using for several years.
(Not to say that everyone necessarily understands me. :oops: Yet. )

Two stage frame of reference:

Stage 1 "What happened up to the point where the top block fell"
(Dirty big line in sand)
Stage 2 "what happened afterwards"

Sure there is a lot of detail around that dirty big line.

But all it does is fill the gap between "not falling yet" and "has established ROOSD"

So for those who need to process the details I will insert a Stage 1.5 "transition process" - then work through discussion with them to show why it isn't needed.

Remember that "initiation" leads directly into "progression". And failure to understand that has been a big source of confusion for years. It is where Bazant got his later papers wrong and T Szamboti fell for the trap with "Missing Jolt"
[/Adrenaline Rush :rolleyes:

I can play it either way - two stages or three.

If anyone wants to explore the details which are off topic here - pick the thread and send me an invitation to the party.

BUT NONE of the argument I'm currently presenting need those transitional details fleshed out.

And I was trying to refocus back onto the topic - modelling.
 
Last edited:

Jeffrey Orling

Senior Member
I was unaware that I was shouting... whatever the cause... it was not me.

but yea it's that transition which kind of cool. It's also sort of like.... conceptually the ROOSD phase is like a newborn and the pre ROOSD is like a growing fetus. Release is the moment of birth.. Everyone can see the child is alive and so on... in the womb... she's there... but... well you get the point.
 

econ41

Senior Member
I was unaware that I was shouting... whatever the cause... it was not me.

but yea it's that transition which kind of cool. It's also sort of like.... conceptually the ROOSD phase is like a newborn and the pre ROOSD is like a growing fetus. Release is the moment of birth.. Everyone can see the child is alive and so on... in the womb... she's there... but... well you get the point.
Good oh!

now - back to modelling. :oops:
 
And--as much as I hate to sound curmudgeonly--is there anyone in this room that isn't certain that if $10,000,000 were spent creating a model, exactly as AE911 & others requested, they wouldn't immediately make new charges of deception the minute that the new model collapsed differently than they predicted?

This is one of the common excuses for not doing anything. Why does anyone think a good computer model would cost $10,000,000? The real WTC was designed with the help of IBM 1620 computers. Today a $200 tablet is more than 1,000 times as powerful as that old junk even though they cost $80,000 in 1960.

http://www.is.uwa.edu.au/__data/ass...s/pdf_file/0006/2357538/IBM-1620-Facts-v2.pdf

The problem will be if no one can get a model to come down in less then 5 minutes. Personally I don't believe anyone will get the bottom 40 levels of the north tower to collapse at all. I also don't think they will get the top of the south tower to tilt.

It is the simplicity of this problem that makes it ridiculous to the point of hilarity. Look at the technology of the SR-71 Blackbird that stated flying in 1964. But 50 years later most Americans can't comprehend a skyscraper even though the Empire State Building was 30 years old in 1964.

ROFL

So all of this talk about expense is just an excuse to get nothing done.

psik
 

NoParty

Senior Member.
This is one of the common excuses for not doing anything. Why does anyone think a good computer model would cost $10,000,000? The real WTC was designed with the help of IBM 1620 computers. Today a $200 tablet is more than 1,000 times as powerful as that old junk even though they cost $80,000 in 1960.

http://www.is.uwa.edu.au/__data/ass...s/pdf_file/0006/2357538/IBM-1620-Facts-v2.pdf

The problem will be if no one can get a model to come down in less then 5 minutes. Personally I don't believe anyone will get the bottom 40 levels of the north tower to collapse at all. I also don't think they will get the top of the south tower to tilt.

It is the simplicity of this problem that makes it ridiculous to the point of hilarity. Look at the technology of the SR-71 Blackbird that stated flying in 1964. But 50 years later most Americans can't comprehend a skyscraper even though the Empire State Building was 30 years old in 1964.

ROFL

So all of this talk about expense is just an excuse to get nothing done.

psik
No, it's not mostly about the money:

It's that we have clear video of the towers collapsing, vs. irrational arguments
that what everybody witnessed is somehow mysteriously not what everyone witnessed. :eek:

The people I'm talking about are deeply invested...(and they've taken and spent a lot of people's money)...
no model is going to make them recant. Anyone who pays attention knows that the goalposts will just get moved again.
So it's a no-win for Team Rational. Further, doing so 13 years later could easily be misunderstood as gov
spending tax dollars on something because wacky CT theories were credible enough to justify it.
If it's so damned cheap and easy (and supposedly important) I'm still not clear why you or AE911 haven't done it
 

Oystein

Senior Member
Comment on Oystein's post in context of the points of my previous post.
I suggest agreed common ground. Certainly between you and me.
As a general rule, when I reply to a post and leave out parts of the quote, this mostly means "no need to reply" because either "I agree with you" or "this is not relevant to me".
Not sure if your logic [collapse initiates where plane&fire damage is] is bulletproof. And the needs of the two audiences are different. BUT IMO the serious professionals would understand the near impossibility and decide that they don't need one. And we cannot make one for the lay audience as explained previously.
I am sure it is NOT bulletproof - just very plausible, and intuitively so.
Which is why I don't think laypeople would need a model to help them understand that "if collapse initiates, then probably where the damage is".
We differ here. I suggest - as does Mick - that there is a need for models of progression to explain it to lay persons
...
And, finally, I see a place - if justified - for laypersons models of how the progression mechanism operated.
I agree with your views on the need of the professionals.
I agree that we disagree on the need to model collapse progression for laypeople.
Or perhaps I don't reject there is a need, but think this need could not be met without raising objections from the other side that render the results frustrated.
And that's because any such model could, since it's purpose is to show total collapse, and would be construed by truthers as being designed to collapse completely - and since such a model will (should be) simplified, there may even be merit to such an objection.

Or, more generally, any deviation from the actual towers, i.e. anything that is not an exact copy, could be claimed to have been deliberately altered from the originally as to design it for collapse. Think of how truthers reject James Millette's testing of red-gray chips because he didn't do the exact tests that Harrit e.al. did (anstead did competent tests in place of incompetent ones).

Or, even more generally, any model not designed for and assessed by a professional (i.e. competent) audience will meet with spurious objections from the truther side.
(And perhaps, if they do the model, from the debunker side)
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
This is one of the common excuses for not doing anything. Why does anyone think a good computer model would cost $10,000,000? The real WTC was designed with the help of IBM 1620 computers.

$10 Million might be a bit much, but it's not entirely unreasonable - depending on what you want. Sure, computers are more powerful now, but modeling the chaotic dynamic collapse is very different from performing some calculation on a static structure.

It also depends on what resolution you need. Time/cost can increase exponentially as you get more accurate and detailed.

For a direct comparison, look at the modeling of the WTC7 collapse. This has been criticized as not being high resolution enough, and yet is still very complex. A lot of the expense comes from creating and verifying the model, which is separate from the computer time for running the simulation.


To model the damage and sequence of failures in WTC 7 following the initial failure event, failure models were used within the framework of the LS-DYNA finite element analyses. For the global collapse analyses of WTC 7, shell element sizes were 6 in. to 12 in. to maintain a model size of approximately 3 million elements (see Table 12–1). With this resolution, the gradients around a fracture could not be accurately resolved, and the damage criteria required adjustment to obtain the appropriate strength and ductility of the structures (see NIST NCSTAR 1-2B). Simulating the global response of WTC 7 required the same level of refinement throughout the model.

All simulations were run on a high speed Linux Beowulf compute cluster. The head node had two 64 bit AMD Opteron 250 2.4 GHz processors, 4 GB of RAM, and 1.5 terabytes of RAID 5 disk storage. Each compute node had two 64 bit AMD Opteron Dual-core 285 2.6 GHz processors. Six of the compute nodes had 8 GB of RAM and the remaining two nodes had 16 GB RAM.

The global simulation was first initialized under gravity loading over 4.5 s of simulation time. Then damage and temperature initialization states were applied over 4 additional seconds. Collapse propagation in the global model required approximately 16 additional seconds after initialization, for a total of about 25 s of simulated time, which generally took up to 8 weeks using 12 cores across three nodes. The analysis was performed using the double precision version of LS-DYNA for better computational accuracy.

Content from External Source




So what level of accuracy would satisfy you? How much do you think should be spent, and what would you expect to get for it?
 

econ41

Senior Member
I agree that we disagree on the need to model collapse progression for laypeople.
Or perhaps I don't reject there is a need, but think this need could not be met without raising objections from the other side that render the results frustrated.
And that's because any such model could, since it's purpose is to show total collapse, and would be construed by truthers as being designed to collapse completely - and since such a model will (should be) simplified, there may even be merit to such an objection...
Not all lay persons re truthers. I agree your comments re most currently active truthers. Nothing will satisfy them - that is why most of them are still active. The remainder - non truther lay demography AND any remnant "genuine truthers" still could benefit from the proposed model.

And I am deliberately:
  • avoiding speculation about truther deniers. They are probably a lost cause; AND
  • avoiding any attempt at defining the difference between 'genuine truthers" and "not genuine truthers".
 

Jeffrey Orling

Senior Member
My sense is that most of the engineering community is not concerned with the details...because it will have no impact on what they do. A model is supposed to prove what they believe was possible and what they saw... that a large falling mass will destroy the slabs and the unbraced columns will then topple. Nothing too prove.

The talk about how the impacts led to the fall mass is an intellectual curiosity... The fact that heat weakens and warps and expands steel and will wreak havoc on a frame to the point of failure is hardly in dispute.... It's why they have fire protection and fire suppression in steel frame buildings.
 

Cube Radio

Member
we have clear video of the towers collapsing, vs. irrational arguments
that what everybody witnessed is somehow mysteriously not what everyone witnessed.
That is not the argument on this thread and only wilful misrepresentation could make it so. What we are talking about is demonstrating that the phenomenon everyone witnessed is understood, at least in principle, by building a model to reproduce it, obviously in simplified terms.
The people I'm talking about are deeply invested...(and they've taken and spent a lot of people's money)...
no model is going to make them recant. Anyone who pays attention knows that the goalposts will just get moved again.
That is why the model we have been discussing should be open source, such as femr2's model that I have now referred to many times. This would make it verifiable by everyone. It is evidently you who has not been paying attention.
So it's a no-win for Team Rational.
Team Rational should welcome any attempt to demonstrate and investigate what they take to be so self-evident (but have failed to demonstrate themselves). That is merely the correct attitude of a rational scientist.
Further, doing so 13 years later could easily be misunderstood as gov spending tax dollars on something because wacky CT theories were credible enough to justify it.
No-one is talking about CT theories here, merely demonstrating the reality of what Team Rational takes to be self-evident by building models that show in general terms how the collapses worked. No-one is suggesting the government should do it. Again, I think you should welcome the idea in principle, as the conclusions should be useful in debunking those who see explosions, squibs or a violation of Newton's Laws in the Towers' fall, right?
If it's damned cheap and easy (and supposedly important) I'm still not clear why you or AE911 haven't done it
Perhaps we should start by attempting to establish whether or not all the necessary information to build an acceptable open source model of the Towers collapsing is wholly in the public domain.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Perhaps we should start by attempting to establish whether or not all the necessary information to build an acceptable open source model of the Towers collapsing is wholly in the public domain.

There are fairly detailed blueprints of the towers, and quite a lot of construction photos for ground truth. So I think there's more than enough to demonstrate the principal of the collapse - at the very least that a full rapid progressive collapse is possible with this type of building.

The plans are here:
http://911datasets.org/index.php/Main_Page

Specifically 113 to 119
 

Jeffrey Orling

Senior Member
What's the simplest thing you would not be able to do with the existing available drawings?
I don't understand... I have seen any info about the core bracing. Since it was steel and subject to heat knowing how much, why sections and so forth would be essential to modeling a frame warp from heat... We didn't see melted columns so the heat did something else to destroy the core... and it was likely the braces which were involved in that. Just sayin'
 

jaydeehess

Senior Member.
This is one of the common excuses for not doing anything. Why does anyone think a good computer model would cost $10,000,000? The real WTC was designed with the help of IBM 1620 computers. Today a $200 tablet is more than 1,000 times as powerful as that old junk even though they cost $80,000 in 1960.
False equivocation.
There is a vast difference between the ordered and deliberate design and construction of, well anything, and an unpredictable consequence of imprecisely known damages to a structure.

Construction involves connecting the various members of the structure in an ordered and specific way. Violent deconstruction is characterized by the exact opposite, the progressive weakening and failure of this connections and structural members. Things that have little to no bearing on construction, such as air flow, fire fuel load and mass above , in the cases of the towers, the initial damaged structure are in play in violent deconstruction initiation and progression.
 

jaydeehess

Senior Member.
I don't understand... I have seen any info about the core bracing. Since it was steel and subject to heat knowing how much, why sections and so forth would be essential to modeling a frame warp from heat... We didn't see melted columns so the heat did something else to destroy the core... and it was likely the braces which were involved in that. Just sayin'

I believe Mick is asking what CAN be done with the information that is available.

If assumptions need to be made on specifics then simply outlining them in any model done would suffice.
 

Jeffrey Orling

Senior Member
Violent destruction is not dis-assembly. The event was chaotic. How many models of chaotic events are modeled with any reliability?
 
Violent destruction is not dis-assembly. The event was chaotic. How many models of chaotic events are modeled with any reliability?

What is reliability? Knowing the movement of each of 10,000 pieces or knowing whether or not the bottom 40 stories collapse at all? What would happen if no model can be made to bring down the entire structure?

If two nearly identical buildings completely collapse then shouldn't even only moderately accurate models consistently do the same thing even if there are variations in details?

You are suggesting that we should not bother with climate modelling.

psik
 
Last edited:
Top