Weidlinger Simulation of the Tower 2 Collapse has been “cracked”

In March 2007, blueprints of the WTC Towers finally became available due to release of materials by a whistleblower who asked to remain anonymous. On the same disks of data were found “coded” or essentially unreadable simulations relating to the Tower 2 collapse. In a paper published today in the Journal of 9/11 Studies, Michael H. presents results of his “cracking” of the Weidlinger files and code.

The author writes: “"POVfiles" is in reference to the fact that the output of this simulation software is in POV-Ray format, and that "1780msTO1880ms" is in reference to the output models being 1780 milliseconds to 1880 milliseconds after the initiation of collapse. Problems quickly arose because POV-Ray would not open them, and they were too large to be opened in most text editors, but I was eventually able to get them to work. On this page, you will find my report on the model renders, followed by a render walkthrough, should you desire to render these 3-d models yourself…. The model contained in the files sent to Dr. Jones is quite detailed; the geometry is the output of Weidlinger Associates' Flex simulation of the World Trade Center Two collapse.”

More: http://journalof911studies.com/letters/h/Report_on_Weidlinger.pdf

More Extensive HTML Version With Animated GIFs

As referred to in the beginning of the above-linked PDF: http://www.geocities.com/throwawayaddy2/report.html

Sorry, this GeoCities site is currently unavailable.

The GeoCities web site you were trying to view has temporarily exceeded its data transfer limit. Please try again later.

Attacking the faulty science

(and computer modelling) of the defenders of the official story is very helpful.

This is fantastic.

That's great Steve

Good to know this is moving forward.

hyperlinks don't work

Some of the links in the report don't work at all...that is, blue underlined text. no hyperlink attached to them.
the only ones that do are ones that state the address in the text itself.

"The most perfidious way of harming a cause consists of defending it deliberately with faulty arguments."
Friedrich Nietzsche, The Gay Science, section 191
German philosopher (1844 - 1900)


A remarkable work! However, it is not 100% clear to me what the author concludes.

Perhaps, given these statements:

"The conclusion of the NIST report (which was released after the Weidlinger Associates simulation was
completed and also heavily relied upon an unreleased simulation) was that the trusses were heated, sagged
excessively, and subsequently pulled the external columns inward, causing them to buckle, despite providing
only questionable evidence to support their theory. The Weidlinger Associates simulation, however, came to the
conclusion that not only did the trusses did not fail, but they did not contribute at all to the initiation of collapse
[5, 6, 7]."

... we can assume that the conclusion of this report is that the FINAL (?) NIST report conclusion about truss failure is not supported by the engineering study underpinning their own report?

This is the model developed

This is the model developed for the Silverstein Properties v. Swiss Re Insurance trial which was concluded in 2004. It is independent from the NIST report.

What someone really needs to do is obtain the NIST ANSYS model used "to conduct the structural analysis up to the point of global instability." and take a look at that. http://www.kolumbus.fi/totuus/doc/foia-nist.html

We know it is possible to get these models as someone has already obtained the SAP2000 tower models and put them online ( http://razor.occams.info/nist-wtc/ ). He was only charged $58.

Will pass comments on to the author

and in particular, see if he can get those links in the paper working.

Thanks for the input -- very helpful. I agree that we need that NIST model...

Wish We had More!!

For the longest time I have been reluctant to look at any video of the WTC collapse. There were many reasons, one of them is that it is too painful. Afterwards, many experts have looked at it and there were many theories.

I preferred to investigate in depth something that very few have investigated "The Bin Laden Confession Tape" and write about that, many articles found on www.mydemocracy.net

Recently, I watched a video for the first time and have to support the controlled demolition theory.
The video was an NBC video taken from the 60 degrees perspective of the rendering in the report.

1. The failure in the building in the video started at floors much lower than those where the impact took place and the fires on those floor were insignificant compared to those on the upper levels.

2. The collapse started on one side of the building and if we look at the corner of the building prior to the other side starting to collapse, we notice that the building corner was between 15 and 20 degrees off vertical prior to the other side collapsing.

Note: Both 1, and 2 contradict the engineering report published in Counterpunch. This is a criticism of the engineer, not counterpunch.

3. Based on 1, 2,and column theory, either the top of the building would have sheered off the building and the rest stayed intact or the building would have been pulled down to one side and not in its footprint.

4. There is bias to one side but essentially, the building collapsed in its footprint.

One observation, if the demolition is a controlled demolition, those who demolished the buildings could not risk placing their charges where the airplanes hit since the charges could have been damaged. The charges needed to be placed at lower levels.

In order for the charges to caused a controlled demolition, they need to explode in some sequence. Again, hard wiring for sequential detonation is risky and it is very likely that they were sequencially tetonated through remote detonation.

It is very important to compare the slow motion footage of the collapse of the two buildings. If they both came down through controlled demolition, the fingerprint has to be indentical. Whoever designed the first demolition procedure also designed the second and used the same engineering theory.

Best to all,
Maher Osseiran