Where are the AE911 models?

qed

Senior Member
I have encountered this question asked a few times by debunkers in threads, and it is an important question.

The primary objection to the NIST report is that the data for the computer simulation is not provided. If this information where provided, legitimate questions could be asked, such as, how sensitive is collapse vs non-collapse to changes to the input parameters.
  • So why have AE911, with all their Architects and Engineers, not built an open model based on the available plans?
They clearly have the resources.

Such a model would be of the utmost importance. I would love to experiment with the model, and we can use crowd-sourcing to run thousands of simulations.
  • Surely a "conspiracy theorist" would argue that not providing such a model is evidence of a conspiracy on the part of AE911?
 

jomper

Inactive Member
While this doesn't directly answer your question, it's worth noting that no scientific research is advanced by obliging other scientists to reverse engineer results in order to verify conclusions. This would only undermine the credibility of the original research. Conclusions are verified by other scientists when they can confirm or falsify results from the original research data, which in this case was paid for by the public.
 

gerrycan

Banned
Banned
column79fea.jpg
Column 79 connection, with all the correct elements and dimensions as per the structural drawings. (@8.75"expansion)
 

Ron J

Active Member
"So why have AE911, with all their Architects and Engineers, not built an open model based on the available plans?"

Their contention, i believe, is that controlled demolition caused the collapse. If the building was demoed, devices would have had to be placed in specific locations, of which AE911 has no proof of devices having been placed in those specific locations. How does one build an open model based on "it looks like a demo"?
 

qed

Senior Member
Perhaps you misunderstand.

AE911 do contend that fire induced collapse was impossible or very improbable.

The model we require is a dynamic simulation of the building from the plans. The software is out there it just requires a lot of work.

If AE911 are to be believed, there would be extremely few initial conditions (if any) that would lead to collapse.

I have even seen it threatened by skeptics that one day we will have these models and then everyone can see the truth.

So, AE911, make one for us. It would really help us all converge on the truth.
 

kawika

New Member
View attachment 4484
Column 79 connection, with all the correct elements and dimensions as per the structural drawings. (@8.75"expansion)
This shows a hypothetical 8.755" displacement towards the west. This proves only that the girder is strong enough to stay on the seat, if the stiffeners were faithfully modeled and there was no girder axial expansion.

What it doesn't show is the heating, which would drive the girder up against the face of C79, just like NIST said would happen in the Finite Element Analysis of the Northeast Floor Framing System--NCSTAR 1-9, page 352, PDF page 396.

The girder could never push more than about 3.5". For crying out loud, if the beams are expanding, so is the girder!

Is heating of the girder by fire involved in the NIST real-world or is this just an exercise?

On page 351, PDF page 395 it says, "For column 79, the flange on the north face and the extending portions of the side cover plates were modeled to allow for contact with the girder."

On page 354, PDF page 398, Figure 8-26 shows the girder up against the west side plate.

Any questions?
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
NIST are not working on this any more, as far as I know.

Can you explain why you won't release any of the models you have done?
 

gerrycan

Banned
Banned
NIST are not working on this any more, as far as I know.
For now, but if they were doing their job properly they would be revisiting it.

Can you explain why you won't release any of the models you have done?
Surely someone who trusts NIST words so much would realise that to release such information could potentially jeopardise public safety.;).
The fact of the matter is that these are done by a highly skilled engineer who designs daily. You should really be asking NIST why they are so afraid to release their input data and allow it to be checked.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Surely someone who trusts NIST words so much would realise that to release such information could potentially jeopardise public safety.;).
The fact of the matter is that these are done by a highly skilled engineer who designs daily. You should really be asking NIST why they are so afraid to release their input data and allow it to be checked.
I'm asking you. You know NIST's answer and you disagree with it, so what's your (serious) answer?
 

gerrycan

Banned
Banned
I do not have a clue what NISTs answer is and neither does anyone else outside of NIST. That's the problem. They have never considered the connection with the correct elements present. The FEA above does.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
I do not have a clue what NISTs answer is and neither does anyone else outside of NIST. That's the problem. They have never considered the connection with the correct elements present. The FEA above does.
You must have misunderstood what I was saying, because I was referring to your statement "You should really be asking NIST why they are so afraid to release their input data and allow it to be checked." You know full well the reason that was given for not releasing it, seeing as you just quoted it two sentences earlier.

I'm asking what your reason is.
 

Josh Heuer

Active Member
If the data that NIST is withholding is an issue of national security, and gerrycan (etc) releases what would essentially be that data, he can face imprisonment.
Besides, NIST made the initial claim. The burden is on them. But they can avoid ANY burden by claiming it's an issue of 'national security.' It's such a joke.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
If the data that NIST is withholding is an issue of national security, and gerrycan (etc) releases what would essentially be that data, he can face imprisonment.
Besides, NIST made the initial claim. The burden is on them. But they can avoid ANY burden by claiming it's an issue of 'national security.' It's such a joke.
Look above. gerry is making a claim, but he's keeping his model secret. Are you really going to say "NIST won't, so why should gerry?"
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Umm yeah. They made their claim first. Burden of proof? Buried in secrecy.

I think it's more of a, you show me yours I'll show you mine deal...
That makes no sense at all. If Gerry has evidence of a cover-up involving the murder of thousands of people, you think it's valid to play silly games?

What is the downside of releasing his model?
 

gerrycan

Banned
Banned
If Gerry has evidence of a cover-up involving the murder of thousands of people, you think it's valid to play silly games?
That is a massive accusation to level at someone in a public forum who is arguing about a building in whose collapse nobody allegedly died. I request you withdraw that right away. I have a serious objection to what you just said here Mick.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Surely though that's the implication of your research:
  • WTC7 could not have collapsed from fire alone
  • hence it was premeditated demolition
  • hence the people who did it were aware that the planes would hit the towers
  • hence they were involved with the destruction of WTC 1&2
  • And the NIST report seems to have serious, possibly deliberate omissions, so NIST were in on the conspiracy.
Should I just say "evidence that suggests ...."
 

gerrycan

Banned
Banned
You can make those leaps if you like. I prefer to take things one at a time. The ONLY thing I have ever spoken about on here are errors and omissions in NISTs report. I think it should be re-investigated, and I do not presume to know what a fair and honest investigation would conclude. I certainly would not go around accusing people of being accessories after the fact, I would rather wait to see what the outcome of a proper investigation would be, rather than making huge accusations against people out of frustration.
 

Josh Heuer

Active Member
Surely though that's the implication of your research:
  • WTC7 could not have collapsed from fire alone
  • hence it was premeditated demolition
  • hence the people who did it were aware that the planes would hit the towers
  • hence they were involved with the destruction of WTC 1&2
  • And the NIST report seems to have serious, possibly deliberate omissions, so NIST were in on the conspiracy.
Should I just say "evidence that suggests ...."
It still falls on NIST. Burden of proof my friend. Does that disappear when NIST is involved? You can say whatever pleases your heart to shift the burden of proof but at the end of the day, that falls on NIST.
And YOU'RE making the implications here. Not gerrycan.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
You can make those leaps if you like. I prefer to take things one at a time. The ONLY thing I have ever spoken about on here are errors and omissions in NISTs report. I think it should be re-investigated, and I do not presume to know what a fair and honest investigation would conclude. I certainly would not go around accusing people of being accessories after the fact, I would rather wait to see what the outcome of a proper investigation would be, rather than making huge accusations against people out of frustration.
I'm sorry, but I don't see what other conclusion can be reached from your claims about NIST's report. You've basically accused them of covering something up.

Or do you just think that WTC7 fell due to fire, but in a slightly different way than they suggested?

Or is there some middle way I'm missing here?
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
It still falls on NIST. Burden of proof my friend. Does that disappear when NIST is involved? You can say whatever pleases your heart to shift the burden of proof but at the end of the day, that falls on NIST.
That's entirely not the point. I want NIST to release their data. I want Gerry to release his data.

So why should Gerry not?
 

Jazzy

Closed Account
For crying out loud, if the beams are expanding, so is the girder!
And so were the beams and flooring on the other side of the column.

And the column was also expanding upwards from beneath.

And if the fire was progressing (as it obviously was) then there would also have been a moving lateral displacement of the column, caused by the wandering temperature gradients, threatening its compression stability by taking the column center of the vertical, and making nonsense of any single particular beam or girder expansion limit analysis.
 

gerrycan

Banned
Banned
I'm sorry, but I don't see what other conclusion can be reached from your claims about NIST's report. You've basically accused them of covering something up.

Or do you just think that WTC7 fell due to fire, but in a slightly different way than they suggested?

Or is there some middle way I'm missing here?
No, I have not accused NIST of covering anything up. Errors and omissions. The middle way that you are missing here is to investigate it thoroughly, without preconceived ideas of the outcome. I prefer to remain objective rather than to draw conclusions at the outset, as NIST did in the case of WTC7.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
No, I have not accused NIST of covering anything up. Errors and omissions. The middle way that you are missing here is to investigate it thoroughly, without preconceived ideas of the outcome. I prefer to remain objective rather than to draw conclusions at the outset, as NIST did in the case of WTC7.
So why don't you make a compelling case for that, by illustrating their errors by releasing your own, more accurate, model?
 

gerrycan

Banned
Banned
So why don't you make a compelling case for that, by illustrating their errors by releasing your own, more accurate, model?
You should refer your questions re ae911truth and their FEA model or lack thereof to them, not me. You are the guy with the modelling experience as you stated earlier. Why not do your own?
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
You should refer your questions re ae911truth and their FEA model or lack thereof to them, not me. You are the guy with the modelling experience as you stated earlier. Why not do your own?
View attachment 4484
Column 79 connection, with all the correct elements and dimensions as per the structural drawings. (@8.75"expansion)
Gerry, you just posted a rendering of model. Where did that model come from?
 

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
So why don't you make a compelling case for that, by illustrating their errors by releasing your own, more accurate, model?
Why should he put himself at risk of becoming another Snowden or Manning when NIST have given the reason of National Security. You should be careful about the things you ask people to do.
 

gerrycan

Banned
Banned
If Gerry has evidence of a cover-up involving the murder of thousands of people, you think it's valid to play silly games?
You should also be careful what you accuse people of in an open public forum. I note that you still haven't removed this baseless accusation despite my requests that you do so.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
You should also be careful what you accuse people of in an open public forum. I note that you still haven't removed this baseless accusation despite my requests that you do so.
I have explained it.

What about your models? Can you at least explain what the deal is there? You did them at work, and you are worried your name would be in the metadata? What?
 

gerrycan

Banned
Banned
I have explained it.

What about your models? Can you at least explain what the deal is there? You did them at work, and you are worried your name would be in the metadata? What?
Seriously Mick, are you trying to provoke me here? Let's have this debate in an open forum that is a level playing field, and that way we can both speak our minds openly. I told you that these models were done by a highly qualified engineer who designs stuff every day. If that's not good enough for you, go and make your own model. You are after all, as you said earlier, experienced in the field of computer design. In the meantime, you don't know who made this model, and i am certainly not going to tell you.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Seriously Mick, are you trying to provoke me here? Let's have this debate in an open forum that is a level playing field, and that way we can both speak our minds openly. I told you that these models were done by a highly qualified engineer who designs stuff every day. If that's not good enough for you, go and make your own model. You are after all, as you said earlier, experienced in the field of computer design. In the meantime, you don't know who made this model, and i am certainly not going to tell you.
The point is, based on your own arguments, the model is worthless without verification. It could have been done in photoshop.

What I'm asking is WHY can't you release the model? Surely that's a very simple question?
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
If that's not good enough for you, go and make your own model. You are after all, as you said earlier, experienced in the field of computer design.
I don't have experience with FEA. My experience with models comes from the video game industry. The scale is similar, but the requirements are different. When I was doing it we rarely had physically deformable meshes, and the physics simulation treated everything is rigid bodies, and mostly immovable. I have some experience with things like verlet integration and fluid dynamics. Here's a couple of articles I wrote:

http://cowboyprogramming.com/2007/01/05/blob-physics/
http://cowboyprogramming.com/2008/04/01/practical-fluid-mechanics/

I might have a go at doing some models, unfortunately, knowing me, it will probably take a year or so, and not be particularly helpful.

The sensible thing would seem to be the original suggestion - some kind of open source attempt, where hundreds of people can collaborate on building and verify a model.

Can you explain why the model you displayed above could not be part of that?
 
Thread starter Related Articles Forum Replies Date
Mick West Nanothermite on 9/11 - Where did the idea come from? 9/11 32
Rory Where online is debunking most effective? Practical Debunking 14
Mick West Where are you on the Generic Conspiracist Beliefs Scale? Practical Debunking 22
SFX Where to ask questions about posting? Site Feedback & News 5
Trailspotter Where did the third trail go? Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 5
Mick West Where and How could the Wallace Experiment Easily Be Repeated? Flat Earth 252
R Occasions where you don't engage a misconception CT? Practical Debunking 18
Hama Neggs Where does "Scientist" end and "debunker" begin? Practical Debunking 16
Mick West Converting mb (pressure) to altitude, and sites where this is useful Contrails and Chemtrails 10
Trailblazer SkyderALERT: where does the money go? Contrails and Chemtrails 7
Mick West The Johnson and Johnson Settlement, where does it fit in the conspiracy world Conspiracy Theories 13
Mick West Debunkers, Skeptics and Conspiracists: Where are you on the political compass? General Discussion 252
Tazmanian Where did the explosions come from? Boston Marathon Bombings 46
TWCobra Where is the Stratosphere today? Contrails and Chemtrails 96
econ41 AE911's Response to Mick West's Iron Microspheres Talk. 9/11 17
Mick West Sept 3, 2019 release of Hulsey's WTC7 draft report: Analysis 9/11 183
Mick West Debunked: NIST's Lack of Explanation for WTC7 Freefall [They Have One - Column Buckling] 9/11 38
Mick West WTC7: Is AE911's (and NIST's) Focus on A2001 Justified if it Was Not "Key" in NIST's Global Model? 9/11 181
Mick West Why Didn't the WTC Fires Ignite AE911's Supposed "Nanothermite"? 9/11 28
Mick West AE911 Truth Forced to Claim Plasco Collapse is an Inside Job 9/11 336
Mick West Debunked: 9/11 Truth New York Times Billboard Quote 9/11 53
Oystein AE911 Truth's WTC7 Evaluation Computer Modelling Project 9/11 1340
gerrycan AE911 Letter to Inspector General Claims NIST WTC7 Report is Provably False 9/11 161
Oxymoron Discussion: 9/11 WTC: AE911's "Pyroclastic Flow" collapse dust clouds 9/11 16
Mick West Paraody of AE911: Free-fall descent proves giant hole, not explosives used! 9/11 62
Mick West Debunked: 9/11 WTC: AE911's "Pyroclastic Flow" collapse dust clouds 9/11 9
Mick West How Big is a Tic-Tac? Scale Models of the Nimitz Incident UFO Videos and Reports from the US Navy 18
FlightMuj Explained: NASA documents stating a flat Earth??? Linear Aircraft Models Flat Earth 7
DarkStar Earth curvature: Differences with Sphere/Ellipsoid/Geoid models for Visibility etc Flat Earth 8
Mick West The Various Physical Models Used in Demonstrating Ideas regarding the WTC collapses 9/11 5
Cube Radio Use of Scale Model or Full Sized models for investigating 9/11 collapses 9/11 959
Related Articles































Related Articles

Top