Purdue Simulation released

[Lurker]

The Purdue simulation has been released. Just saw the story on yahoo but here is the link to the Purdue video.

http://www.cs.purdue.edu/news/6-15-07WTC.htm

Lurker

ETA: link and excerpt of yahoo

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070620/ap_on_re_us/attacks_simulation

A computer simulation of the 2001 World Trade Center attacks supports a federal agency's findings that the initial impact from the hijacked airplanes stripped away crucial fireproofing material and that the weakened towers collapsed under their own weight.

The two-year Purdue University study, funded in part by the National Science Foundation, was the first to use 3-D animation to provide visual context to the attacks, said Christoph Hoffmann, a professor of computer science and one of the lead researchers on the project.

[cloudshipsrule]

Rubbish. All of their analyses assume planes ACTUALLY hit the buildings!

[gumboot]

Thanks for that. Very interesting. Part way through I imagined being on those floors, or in that plane. :(

Available on YouTube:

cddIgb1nGJ8

-Gumboot

[MG1962]

Man - seeing that spray of fuel from the wing tanks - those poor people in those two floors didn't have a hope :(

[cloudshipsrule]

Another good thing about the animations is that the data used to render the simulations can be reviewed by other organizations/individuals. Here's hoping this finally puts to rest the myth that the planes and fire couldn't have initiated collapse. It's all there in the modeling.

[Par]

The animation (122 MB) can be seen online at http://www.cs.purdue.edu/cgvlab/papers/popescu/popescuWTCVIS07.mov


The above link seems to be redirecting me to a YouTube version. Has anyone managed to get hold of the .mov ?

[Mancman]

The above link seems to be redirecting me to a YouTube version. Has anyone managed to get hold of the .mov ?

http://www.cs.purdue.edu/cgvlab/projects/pentagon.htm

[Lurker]

And the required dismissal of the simulation at Loose Change

http://z10.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=11098

no faith in the computer simulation whatsoever.

Seems like a pathetic attempt...

As both skeptics and truthers agree, computer models don't really prove ****.

Lurker

[lozenge124]

Another good thing about the animations is that the data used to render the simulations can be reviewed by other organizations/individuals. Here's hoping this finally puts to rest the myth that the planes and fire couldn't have initiated collapse. It's all there in the modeling.
It might help if the simulation actually simulated the collapse (or even collapse initiation); as it stands it only models the plane crash.

[uk_dave]

It might help if the simulation actually simulated the collapse (or even collapse initiation); as it stands it just models the plane crash.

ummmmm.... yeah :boggled:

[Pardalis]

They forgot to put in the fire resistant explosives charges in the animation. :rolleyes:

[Arus808]

And the required dismissal of the simulation at Loose Change

http://z10.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=11098






Lurker

well tell that to every single accident investigator that used Computer animation and modeling to determine how the accident happened and why it happened.

http://www.expertlaw.com/library/animation/forensic_multimedia.html
http://www.pimall.com/nais/n.acc.html

So much that they offer courses in school to cover forensic animation as part of the criminal justice programs

[Eckolaker]

I'm quite surprised you guys support this simulation. Considering its mostly speculation and assumption.

The whole "Fire removed the fire-proofing" thing is pretty funny.

[Anti-sophist]

The whole "Fire removed the fire-proofing" thing is pretty funny.

Ah yes, proof by definition. Fire-proofing, by definition, can't be removed by fire!

Titanic was unsinkable, therefore, it didn't sink!

The universe usually doesn't consult Merriam nor Webster before determining the outcome of a particular event... sadly.

[cloudshipsrule]

I'm quite surprised you guys support this simulation. Considering its mostly speculation and assumption.

How do you figure it's mostly speculation and assumption?

[Pardalis]

The whole "Fire removed the fire-proofing" thing is pretty funny.

The impact of the planes dislodged the fireproofing. Sometimes it's better to read the links.

[uk_dave]

I'm quite surprised you guys support this simulation. Considering its mostly speculation and assumption.

The whole "Fire removed the fire-proofing" thing is pretty funny.

What have you got?

[Mince]

Man - seeing that spray of fuel from the wing tanks - those poor people in those two floors didn't have a hope :(

Right. But unless they have the internet in Heaven, and they watched it on YouTube, they likely, and thankfully, had no idea what happened.

[Mince]

http://prisonplanet.com/articles/june2007/200607animation.htm

Much like the NIST report however, it is fatally flawed.

These clowns. They are getting exactly what they've been asking for: a second (and independent) investigation. Scientists are giving up their valuable knowledge and time only to have their theories dismissed on their face by uneducated miscreants such as Jones, the Watson brothers and, well, anybody at LCF. The simulation was just released and Steve Watson, utterly bereft of scientific training and education, from his flat in London, is able to write a story condemning it without sourcing a single scientist? This illustrates beautifully that they are not actually asking for a second, independent investigation; they are asking for a second, independent investigation that condemns the government. I hope there really is a God, so that death will not save these neanderthals and they shall be judged by the "Higher Court". Hopefully I'll be on the jury.

[lozenge124]

http://prisonplanet.com/articles/june2007/200607animation.htm



These clowns. They are getting exactly what they've been asking for: a second (and independent) investigation. Scientists are giving up their valuable knowledge and time only to have their theories dismissed on their face by uneducated miscreants such as Jones, the Watson brothers and, well, anybody at LCF. The simulation was just released and Steve Watson, utterly bereft of scientific training and education, from his flat in London, is able to write a story condemning it without sourcing a single scientist? This illustrates beautifully that they are not actually asking for a second, independent investigation; they are asking for a second, independent investigation that condemns the government.

The gist of the prison planet article is that the simulation only covers the plane impact, yet statements are being made about the inevitability of the collapse - a collapse that the Purdue study does not cover. He is absolutely correct to point this out.

NIST modeled the plane collapse and collapse initiation, but not the collapse. Purdue goes one step less far and only models the plane collapse. We still do not have a model of the collapse, nor any visualizations of collapse "initiation". Yet the casual reader of the AP article will draw the conclusion that both NIST & Purdue have independently proven the inevitability of the collapse and corroborated each other. This is misleading to say the least, and Watson is right to draw attention to this.

[Dr. Lao]

No proof will ever be enough for the truthers, as they have their minds made up. Its like teaching algebra to a horse, why bother, and you waste the horse's time.

[beachnut]

I'm quite surprised you guys support this simulation. Considering its mostly speculation and assumption.

The whole "Fire removed the fire-proofing" thing is pretty funny.
I am not surprised you did not back up your statement with facts, and messed up the whole story in your post. Learn to read and understand.

What are you trying to say? What school does your speculation come from? What degrees do you have to cast doubt on a simulation? Tell me how the WTC fell and what caused them to do so? Any facts to back up your cheap shots? Any evidence to support your statement.

What is wrong with the simulation and why? In terms of energy, how far off were their calculations from observed data? When you look at the two impacts, 1300 to 2200 pound of TNT in energy, what would you expect the damage to be and how different would your model be? What errors do you see in their simulation? How could it be improved? When will you get around to presenting some facts with your empty rhetoric.

[Arus808]

The gist of the prison planet article is that the simulation only covers the plane impact, yet statements are being made about the inevitability of the collapse - a collapse that the Purdue study does not cover. He is absolutely correct to point this out.

That wasn't Purdues premise from the beginning. Their purpose was to study how the planes affected the buildings when they CRASHED Into them. Or did you not bother to watch and actually LISTEN to the video?

They weren't tasked with understanding the collapse; they were tasked with understanding how the planes impact contributed as ONE factor to the global collapse of each tower.

Why do you truthers continue try and argue things that wasn't in the scope of the study?



NIST modeled the plane collapse and collapse initiation, but not the collapse.Again, that wasn't the SCOPE of NIST"s investigation. Once collapse initiated THERE IS NOTHING ON THIS $DEITY's green earth that would have enough force to stop. So why would they bother to study the collapse? What was important was what caused the collapse, and ot use their FINDINGS to make FUTURE building projects BETTER!


Why do you truthers continue try and argue things that wasn't in the scope of the study?


Purdue goes one step less far and only models the plane collapse. We still do not have a model of the collapse, nor any visualizations of collapse "initiation".We dont need visualizations of the "collapse" WE know how they collapsed. We have tons of vidoe showing how they collapse.

Collapse initiation is addressed in the NIST report. When do you plan reading it?

Yet the casual reader of the AP article will draw the conclusion that both NIST & Purdue have independently proven the inevitability of the collapse and corroborated each other. This is misleading to say the least, and Watson is right to draw attention to this.What? The casual reader doesn't care, at all why the collapse happened. The report is for those who'd find it interesting and to offer another statement proving that the official reports are based on FACT And EVIDENCE and supports the claims within. The Purdue animation does this.

AGain, WATSON is playing the red herring game. He is shifting the focus on what he thinks should have been discussed, which was OUTSIDE of the scope of the study done by Purdue.

Purdue DID THIS on their own, based on their RESEARCH and findings. NIST is a total seperate entity, and the fact that WATSON tries to use both against each others show his dishonesty in the presentation of their findings. By doing so, he's making the "casual reader" assume that both studies are invalid.

[cloudshipsrule]

I hope there really is a God, so that death will not save these neanderthals and they shall be judged by the "Higher Court". Hopefully I'll be on the jury.

Agreed.

[twinstead]

T Yet the casual reader of the AP article will draw the conclusion that both NIST & Purdue have independently proven the inevitability of the collapse and corroborated each other. This is misleading to say the least, and Watson is right to draw attention to this.

NIST and Purdue are 2 separate pieces of the puzzle. Purdue is like a prequel to NIST, and the two together go a long way towards understanding the event.

What is misleading is that Watson seems to like to suggest that because every detail of the collapse (more complicated probably than the impact and initiation put together, but totally inevitable as understood by anybody who actually understands the science involved) wasn't addressed by two entities NOT TASKED TO ADDRESS it makes both NIST and Purdue somehow worthless or invalid.

I think this is just as misleading.

[Jonnyclueless]

Rubbish. All of their analyses assume planes ACTUALLY hit the buildings!


Isn't this a case of the pot calling the kettle black since you assumed there were planes. And you assume there were buildings, so uh...double whammy.

[cloudshipsrule]

Jonny,

I'm hoping you realize that post was sarcasm.

[Mince]

The gist of the prison planet article is that the simulation only covers the plane impact, yet statements are being made about the inevitability of the collapse - a collapse that the Purdue study does not cover. He is absolutely correct to point this out.

NIST modeled the plane collapse and collapse initiation, but not the collapse. Purdue goes one step less far and only models the plane collapse. We still do not have a model of the collapse, nor any visualizations of collapse "initiation". Yet the casual reader of the AP article will draw the conclusion that both NIST & Purdue have independently proven the inevitability of the collapse and corroborated each other. This is misleading to say the least, and Watson is right to draw attention to this.


Of course they didn't investigate the whole God damn scope of 9/11, but what they did examine Steve Watson has no authority to question. It's like hearing a DA announce they've determined the cause of murder, then condemning the DA because he hasn't determine who did it. Yes, there are unanswered questions. There always will be. Do you know why? It's because most of 9/11 is (gasp) unanswerable. Why the [rule 8] do you think we're arguing about it 5.5 years later?

[Mince]

Jonny,

I'm hoping you realize that post was sarcasm.


Well, his screen name does include "clueless".



Just kidding.


Just kidding!

[T.A.M.]

See I keep telling people we need a sarcasm smilie....lol

TAM:)

[WildCat]

My favorite part is that they had a Canadian guy do the narration. I keep expecting him to say "eh" after every other sentence.

[T.A.M.]

My favorite part is that they had a Canadian guy do the narration. I keep expecting him to say "eh" after every other sentence.

JHC...don't make me come after you with the big rubber hammer!!!

TAM;)

[Jonnyclueless]

What does sarcasm mean? And how does that prove there were actually buildings there?

[lozenge124]

That wasn't Purdues premise from the beginning. Their purpose was to study how the planes affected the buildings when they CRASHED Into them. Or did you not bother to watch and actually LISTEN to the video?

They weren't tasked with understanding the collapse; they were tasked with understanding how the planes impact contributed as ONE factor to the global collapse of each tower.

Why do you truthers continue try and argue things that wasn't in the scope of the study?

(etc)
Yes indeed, I watched the video and read the associated pdf in which it is clearly stated that "The fire that followed the impact was not simulated."

So I am a little concerned when I see statements like these:

A computer simulation of the 2001 World Trade Center attacks supports a federal agency's findings that the initial impact from the hijacked airplanes stripped away crucial fireproofing material and that the weakened towers collapsed under their own weight.
(Purdue did not model this, why is this stated as if their study independently corroborates NIST)

Ayhan Irfanoglu, a Purdue professor of civil engineering, said half of the building's weight-bearing columns were concentrated at the cores of the towers.

"When that part is wiped out, the structure comes down," Irfanoglu said.
How do you know, since you didn't model it?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070620/ap_on_re_us/attacks_simulation


"The aircraft moved through the building as if it were a hot and fast lava flow," Sozen says. "Consequently, much of the fireproofing insulation was ripped off the structure. Even if all of the columns and girders had survived the impact - an unlikely event - the structure would fail as the result of a buckling of the columns. The heat from an ordinary office fire would suffice to soften and weaken the unprotected steel. Evaluation of the effects of the fire on the core column structure, with the insulation removed by the impact, showed that collapse would follow whatever the number of columns cut at the time of the impact."
So the study doesn't simulate the fire, yet there is an "evaluation of the effects of the fire". What is this evaluation, who did it? Could he be talking about the NIST report?

http://news.uns.purdue.edu/x/2007a/070612HoffmannWTC.html


You should probably tell the Purdue scientists not to "argue things that wasn't [sic] in the scope of the study?"

[Sword_Of_Truth]

A computer simulation of the 2001 World Trade Center attacks supports a federal agency's findings...

Sounds to me like someone conducted an independant investigation.

[cloudshipsrule]

What does sarcasm mean? And how does that prove there were actually buildings there?

Due to the oath I've taken for my local chapter of the NWO (NWO Post 415) ,I cannot tell you what our meaning of the word 'sarcasm' is, but I will say that it doesn't prove the buildings were actually there. I believe the buildings might have been there just before the planes struck, and they were probably teleported to an unknown location just as the first plane approached. (Hail lord Judy.)

[firecoins]

This simulation assumes there were buildings. As many of you know, I come from the "no building" theory of 9/11 CTs.

[H'ethetheth]

...The whole "Fire removed the fire-proofing" thing is pretty funny.I guess I missed the part where they mentioned the impact and explosion proofing that wasn't dislodged...

[VespaGuy]

The Purdue simulation has been released. Just saw the story on yahoo but here is the link to the Purdue video.

Wow. A two year study. They could have save lots of time, money, and resources by simply consulting a teenager with a youtube video. Those kids are way smarter than real professionals. [insert sarcasm smiley here]

[JimBenArm]

This simulation assumes there were buildings. As many of you know, I come from the "no building" theory of 9/11 CTs.
No buildings? NWO shill! Prove there's this place called "New York". I've never seen it, except on TV, and we know it's all faked in studios in Hollywood!

[pomeroo]

I'm quite surprised you guys support this simulation. Considering its mostly speculation and assumption.

The whole "Fire removed the fire-proofing" thing is pretty funny.



Is it as funny as the "impact removed the fire-proofing" thing? Maybe that could be the reason they didn't go with the "fire removed the fire-proofing" thing.

[Garb]

The guys at Loose Change are relying on a bunch of readers of a "truth" website to back up their opinions.

http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Purdue_researchers_create_911_computer_simulation_ 0620.html

Hrere's a gem.

What a funny cartoon. Someone should tell these people that jet fuel does not melt steel.

I suppose the 20% or so of sheeple in the US buy on to this BS. Most of the world now knows 911 was an inside job, 100% proven!

May not be Stundie worthy but I might as well put out the genius of the truth movement.

[twinstead]

Why, after almost 6 years, do these truthers still say idiotic things like 'someone should tell these people that jet fuel does not melt steel'?

What is the matter with these people?

[Garb]

Why, after almost 6 years, do these truthers still say idiotic things like 'someone should tell these people that jet fuel does not melt steel'?

What is the matter with these people?

Thats almost as bad as someone saying it is impossible for jet fuel to reach its maximum temperature.

[babazaroni]

The simulation has made the front page of cnn.com.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/americas/06/21/newyork.simulation/index.html

[DGM]

I like the fact that the truthers are jumping on this like we NEED this piece of information.

[uk_dave]

It's very funny.

LCF has no less than five separate threads in the 'lounge' area dealing with this simulation which, as they are at pains to point out, doesn't show the collapse of the building and was paid for by the National Science Foundation.

Methinks they doth protest too much.

Or are they all really just closet no-planers and feel really threatened by a simulation showing the impact of a plane?

[Eckolaker]

Ayhan Irfanoglu, a Purdue professor of civil engineering, said half of the building's weight-bearing columns were concentrated at the cores of the towers.

"When that part is wiped out, the structure comes down," Irfanoglu said.

The Cores were not "wiped-out" Per NIST. We all know this.

[Mancman]

It might help if the simulation actually simulated the collapse (or even collapse initiation); as it stands it only models the plane crash.

Modelling the plane impact is one thing, modelling the collapse is an entirely different ballgame.

Have a look at the figures involved with these simulations:
http://www.cs.purdue.edu/homes/cmh/simulation/phase3/index.html

'100 hours, 8 processors, 0.5 sec'
'30 hours, 16 processors, 0.37 sec'

30 hours on 16 processors to render 0.37 seconds of real time? This model containing only the top 19 floors of the building, likely with only the 6 impact floors in any detail.

And you want to see the full 15-20 seconds of collapse modelled with 110 floors. I wonder how many hours and processors that would take.

[MG1962]

No buildings? NWO shill! Prove there's this place called "New York". I've never seen it, except on TV, and we know it's all faked in studios in Hollywood!

Well wasn't there that rather revealing docu-drama made by Snake Plisken that showed New York was actually a giant detention centre, and that the towers were still there

Or did I just dream it??????

[chipmunk stew]

Modelling the plane impact is one thing, modelling the collapse is an entirely different ballgame.

Have a look at the figures involved with these simulations:
http://www.cs.purdue.edu/homes/cmh/simulation/phase3/index.html

'100 hours, 8 processors, 0.5 sec'
'30 hours, 16 processors, 0.37 sec'

30 hours on 16 processors to render 0.37 seconds of real time? This model containing only the top 19 floors of the building, likely with only the 6 impact floors in any detail.

And you want to see the full 15-20 seconds of collapse modeled with 110 floors. I wonder how many hours and processors that would take.QFE

Truthers seem to be under the impression that since we have all the construction and event data, it should be trivial to plug all the numbers into a computer and press go. It will be incredibly exciting once we have the practical computing power to do something like accurately model the collapse of a skyscraper. But we're far from being able to do it today (well, perhaps technically it can be done, but if it can it would require astronomical resources.)

Perhaps they're confused by seeing beautifully rendered CGI, which takes enormous computing power as it is, even though it's the result of an artist's rendering of skin meshes, perhaps with the assistance of some crude physics algorithms, not the result of the dynamic interaction of 3D meshes with true material characteristics.

[Lurker]

They overlaid the artistic CGI stuff on top of the FEA model.

That is a friggin HUGE model if it used 8 processesors 100 hours to compute. We use 2 processessors here and the longest model we had took a week, or about 140 hours. Actually, I would have guessed that the WTC models would take even longer but I suppose the material models are rather simple compared to what we use so that makes solution convergence more likely.

Lurker

[Kryptos]

9/11 Simulation Taxes Purdue Servers (http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/06/22/911-simulation-taxes-purdue-servers/)

New York Times story about the simulation

[Matthew Best]

The comments at the end of that story are a bit disappointing.

[Kryptos]

The comments at the end of that story are a bit disappointing.

I have responded to the question re: Empire State Building. My comment is sitting in moderation, with who knows what other comments from truthers.

[Brainster]

John Gibson and Michelle Malkin discuss the simulation and the "Truthers" here:

<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/QUY8lOKVabg"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/QUY8lOKVabg" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>

You might also enjoy this rather absurd letter (http://www.911blogger.com/node/9499) sent by one of the Deniers to the Purdue University team. My favorite part:

(3) The final question area involves the attached NOAA satellite photograph of September 23, 2001. What portion of your computer simulation was able to account for the startling fact that ONLY the buildings owned/leased by Mr. Larry Silverstein and as-such only those buildings covered by a "terrorist acts" insurance clause collapsed? I ask this in the context of your allegation that lack of fireproofing was the key input to your simulation.

Because, you know, when the "Truth" movement finally gets hold of a structural engineer, the relevant questions are about Larry Silverstein's insurance policies.

[chipmunk stew]

John Gibson and Michelle Malkin discuss the simulation and the "Truthers" here:

QUY8lOKVabg

You might also enjoy this rather absurd letter (http://www.911blogger.com/node/9499) sent by one of the Deniers to the Purdue University team. My favorite part:



Because, you know, when the "Truth" movement finally gets hold of a structural engineer, the relevant questions are about Larry Silverstein's insurance policies.
Fixed Youtube link

[cloudshipsrule]

I'm not typically a violent person, but reading the comments from those freaking morons at 911slober really makes me want to strike each and every one of them in the mouth with my bare fist. I'm sure I would injure my hand to some extent, but man would it be worth it.

[MarkyX]

The comments is just a little reminder on just how poor the education system is around here.

First comment.


Yes, I watched it several times. It shows the pieces of the aluminum plane skin slicing through the steel columns. That is impossible.


According to this genius' logic, a firearm is physically impossible.

[cloudshipsrule]

Yes, I watched it several times. It shows the pieces of the aluminum plane skin slicing through the steel columns. That is impossible.

Obviously this guy's brain is much more powerful than 8 modern processors. He computed in minutes what took 8 processors 100 hours to do. He should apply for the $1 million challenge!