Purdue simulates WTC imacts

[GAspnes]

( Via Collision Detection )

http://www.collisiondetection.net/mt/archives/2006/09/_youve_no_doubt.html#001565

...a team of computer scientists at Purdue going to settle the matter -- by running a virtual simulation of the planes hitting the WTC buildings. So far, they've spent 80 hours using a 16-processor computer to simulate the first half-second of impact. (That's a still from it above.) The early results are intriguing, and -- as you might expect -- debunk the conspiracy theories.

I wonder if the Purdue folks will put it up on Boinc.

[jeff30997]

1. Thanks for the link!

"Current findings from the simulation have identified the destruction of 11 columns on the 94th floor, 10 columns on the 95th floor and nine columns on the 96th floor," he said. "This is a major insight. When you lose close to 25 percent of your columns at a given level, the building is significantly weakened and vulnerable to collapse."

Plus the incredible heat of the burning fuel! :nuke:

[razors edge]

2. kerosene does not produce the necessary heat to melt steel

especially when black smoke is being emitted, indicating an oxygen starved fire.

and seeing as how the second building hit was not a direct blow, how would it have made a more devastating impact on the center columns, (not to mention the majority of it's fuel erupting in a spectacular fire ball outside the building) as it must have in this theory, since it fell first?

[AZCat]

8. Seeing that no-one is arguing that...

the steel was melted by the fuel from the aircraft, why don't we just wait to see the results of the study?

[razors edge]

9. I'm not going anywhere.

[AZCat]

12. ???

When did I suggest that you should? :shrug:

[Odin2005]

17. The steel was never melted, it was just weakened.

I am sick of the conspiracy nuts using the "it didn't get hot enough to melt steel" BS, the heat weakened the steel, it didn't memt it.

[razors edge]

22. Ever see the steel mantle

on a kerosene heater "weaken" to the point of failure? And 18 guys with box cutters isn't a conspiracy?

BTW tell me this isn't molten metal pouring from the WTC.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ExrVgioIXvk

[DemInDistress]

3. I see no mention of WT2 and WT7,,, especially WT7

its pure bullshit the OCT, so if WT7 was a CD then all 3 towers were wired. Sorry they wasted so much time and money.

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

4. Basic high school level physics and...

...a little common sense are all that's required to definitively conclude that the 9-11 Commission's explanation for the collapse of WTC1 and 2 is utter nonsense.

http://www.911blimp.net/prf_FreeFallPhysics.shtml

[GAspnes]

5. How about we hang on and see what the simulation shows?

After all, 'common sense' is frequently incorrect when it comes to scientific matters.

That's why I was hoping they will put up a Boinc-type utility. At this rate with their 16 processor setup it could be a very, very long time before we have enough data to be definitive.

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

11. Suit yourself. I don't think there's any question...

...that WTC1, 2 and 7 were demolished. The only reason the 9-11 Commission refused to acknowledge this is because it raises the terribly thorny question of "who?" It is not believable that al Qaeda could have had the kind of access required to place demolition charges on such high level security buildings. This suggests inside job which the Commission simply didn't want to address. So they conjured up the ridiculous pancaking collapse nonsense caused by heat from burning jet fuel. That there are still so many who take their explanation seriously after five years, with all the video, testimony, and seismic data just prior to collapse available is truly amazing.

No simulation exercise is going to change the fact that the buildings were demolished.

[AZCat]

13. Uhh, the 9/11 Commission wasn't in charge of the WTC collapse study.

The NIST was (and is). Perhaps that's what you meant?

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

15. The 9-11 Commisson bore primary...

...responsibility for investigating the events of that day, not the least of which was the collapse of the towers. They chose to ignore basic high school physics, throw common sense to the wind, and endorse the bogus findings of the NIST.

[katinmn]

6. Nice find!

will be interesting to see the final report.

[AZCat]

7. What is "Boinc"?

Is that the same kind of thing as the SETI-online project?

[GAspnes]

14. Boinc is

Berkeley Open Infrastructure for Network Computing, open-source software for volunteer computing and desktop grid computing.

http://boinc.berkeley.edu/

Check 'em out and sign up for something. There are a lot of processors out there going to waste.

[Klimmer]

10. No matter what a computer model and simulation show . . .

they can not get rid of the actual physical evidence, and all the eye-witnesses, the visual and auditory evidence, that points to Contolled Demolition (CD), and invalidates immediatley the impact, jet fuel, and pancake hypothesis WTC tower take-downs.

We can get computers to do and say anything. They are only as good as the program. Crap in and you get crap out. NIST already did a physical model and couldn't get it to collapse, yet in their "special" black-box computer model they got the results they wanted.

Kind of the same way, the GOPers get the votes they want to win elections. They cheat.

Try, try, try, but you can't distort the reality of what really happened on 911, but they/you certainly try.

But, people are waking up every day. Maybe some of you will also. Watch and learn:

3 parter - 911 Mysteries (Very good. One of the best on the demolition of the WTC towers)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x118868

Part 1: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7143212690219513043&hl=en-CA
Part 2: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-999558027849894376&hl=en-CA
Part 3: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1162851149755261569&hl=en-CA

Website for 911 Mysteries DVD:
http://www.911weknow.com/

[bemildred]

16. Might be interesting, won't settle anything.

With computer models, you get out what you put in, more or less, or "garbage in, garbage out" as the saying goes. That doesn't mean it's worthless, but it needs critical review and a grain of salt before you accept the results as probative about what happens in the real world.

[GAspnes]

18. true, true

In the late '70's NOAA was using Control Data computers to simulate weather. Despite being supercomputers (about equivalent to a Pentium 1), a 24 hour forecast took 3 days to run. I spoke to one of the researchers one night while his job was running and asked if it was frustrating that his results came in after the reality. His response was "No, that way I can check its correctness immediately."

It's taken a long time to get to the climate models we have now. Not too many folks doubt their accuracy. This is a much, much simpler problem and, short of flying another plane into another building, will be the only route open to us. If the simulation results do *not* match the film and other data, then we'll know something new. If they do match, we'll only know what we already know.

[bemildred]

19. Modern climate models are things to wonder at.

However, I doubt their accuracy after the 3rd day or so, depending. You are right in that this is a sort of static situation, where the initial conditions and so on are theoretically known. You are right that the results will be much more interesting if they disagree with the official version or with the usual physics, then we can work on figuring out why.

I have done some work with models myself, and I know how that fellow felt.

[Dead_Parrot]

20. Climate models have a little more scope for verification...

...for instance, the Hadley models (run over BOINC) have start-point at about 1910: if the model churns out good data for 2000, you can have some confidence in its predictions for 2100. If it's way off the mark, you can bin it without a qualm.

This is a slightly different kettle of fish, since they are attempting to simulate a one-off event - and while we know what the eventual result is, the mechanisms involved are... questioned, to put it mildly.

Whatever this model comes up with, there will a bunch of people yelling "I told you so!" and another bunch saying "That's an inaccurate model..."

[GAspnes]

21. me too

not very sophisticated simulations, but it's always shocking to get results that you don't expect.

[rman]

23. Moreover,

with computers it is in fact trivial to make it so that when you put truth in, you get lies out - kindof like how it goes with voting machines these days (which are in effect computers).

Any kind of model is not accurate just because it was created on computer. In order to know if it is accurate the model data should be made public so that it can be independently verified.

[bemildred]

24. Ordinarily, as with ANY program, one wants thorough testing

to ensure that it works as it is supposed to. Open sources and peer review are very helpful in that, as are suitable test harnesses, a thoughtful test plan, and clear specification of design limitations. Then, best of all, bring in some "naive" users and see what happens to them.