Hardfire: Physics of 9/11

[beachnut]

"science demands repeatability". Quote from the Hardfire presentation.

Ryan, you told me earlier(#132) that it´s possible to make a physical model
where the vertical structure is progressively failing from top to bottom.

Now, assuming that the outcome of this experiment is positive, would this be the first
experiment in history to demonstrate this phenomena, to your knowledge?

Two examples were seen full scale on 911 and 911Truth is unable to understand physics, gravity, fire science, structural engineering, and more.

Why is so hard for those with delusions in 911Truth and those in 911Truth who make up and spread lies to understand engineering.

 

[Heiwa]

Two examples were seen full scale on 911 and 911Truth is unable to understand physics, gravity, fire science, structural engineering, and more.

Why is so hard for those with delusions in 911Truth and those in 911Truth who make up and spread lies to understand engineering.

Good summary of the OCT. Ryan will explain in next/final Hardfire show, how a small part C of a structure, composed of strong and weak elements of various kinds, will crush down a similar structure of strong and weak elements, part A, assisted by gravity only.
NIST suggests that it is due to the potential energy, PE, released by C exceeding the strain energy, SE, of the structure, i.e. PE>SE=global collapse ensues but fails to calculate PE and SE. NIST actually suggests that you only need 0.05 kWh to produce one ton of rubble of WTC 1. Anyone who is in the rubble producing business knows that this is very little.

Bazant & Co suggest that the global collapse is not really a collapse but a crush-down of part A by part C (part C is only subject to 'negligible damages') and it seems Ryan is going to explain how that is possible. I really look forward to this show!

Imaging if we could scrap ships (parts A) by dropping one on another and the result is bits and pieces ready for re-cycling!! As you know it is quite easy to lift a ship (part C) out of water*, so let's do that, and then fix it on some supports. Then we position the ship to be scrapped (part A) underneath and drop the ship above (part C) on part A. According to Ryan part A - ship below - will be crushed into nice pieces.

(*using a floating dock)

 

[Bananaman]

I can't help wondering how much more effective Heiwa's arguments would be if his expertise were more concerned with buildings rather than ships. (God, I always get tangled up when using subjunctives, if that's what I'm doing.)

That's just me though. I'm a bit of a snob when it come to expert advice. Call me Mr Pernickerty, but I wouldn't call in a dentist to fix my leaking basement pipe. It's a foible of mine. Hey-ho.

Well, the sun's out. It looks like a beautiful day. Wahey.

Bananaman (who may have ice cream after lunch).

 

[Heiwa]

I can't help wondering how much more effective Heiwa's arguments would be if his expertise were more concerned with buildings rather than ships. (God, I always get tangled up when using subjunctives, if that's what I'm doing.)

That's just me though. I'm a bit of a snob when it come to expert advice. Call me Mr Pernickerty, but I wouldn't call in a dentist to fix my leaking basement pipe. It's a foible of mine. Hey-ho.

Well, the sun's out. It looks like a beautiful day. Wahey.

Bananaman (who may have ice cream after lunch).

Enjoy the ice cream, I scream . Re ships collisions it is just an example what happens when two structures collide. A recent example is http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-bahrain-navy21-2009mar21,0,4188709.story
Both objects get damaged! And oil is spilt in this case!! 95 tons of gas oil. They were lucky no fire erupted.

 

[Minadin]

I might be mistaken, but did not somebody on this forum suggest that the upper block is taking a ride down to the ground on a "pillow" of debree?

According to that theory,the upper block is not crushing the structure below,
instead we got rubble creating rubble...?

That's correct. According to some models, you have the upper block, that remains mostly intact, the lower portion of the building, and in-between you have a growing zone of debris falling about, colliding with other debris and the lower portion of the building, mostly, and also doing some damage to the upper block. It doesn't do as much damage to the upper block because the debris is traveling in generally the same direction.

"science demands repeatability". Quote from the Hardfire presentation.

Ryan, you told me earlier(#132) that it´s possible to make a physical model
where the vertical structure is progressively failing from top to bottom.

Now, assuming that the outcome of this experiment is positive, would this be the first
experiment in history to demonstrate this phenomena, to your knowledge?

What difference would it make to you if it were the first? Does nothing new exist under the sun?

Building a scaled down physical model which would correctly mimic all of the loading conditions in the WTC might be possible, in theory, but it's so extremely time-intensive to figure out all the various scaling issues involved (and there are a lot more than you would think) and expensive to build. These types of tests are necessarily destructive, so in order to repeat the experiment, you would have to build another for each.

It's no wonder that scientists who have been looking in to this have been showing favor to mathematic and computer models. These only need to be set up once in order to run multiple simulations, which is a much lower cost in both time, effort, and money, in order to confirm engineering principles which are, for the most part, already very well understood.

The only benefit of a physical model would be to attempt to satisfy the curiosity of several idiots on the internet. Since they don't seem to be coming forward with the funding, or putting in the effort to do the science themselves (discarding plastic trays, soda cans, pizza boxes, etc. as not meeting the criteria above) and since they haven't shown much willingness to be convinced by science and engineering in the past, what's the point?

 

[Heiwa]

That's correct. According to some models, you have the upper block, that remains mostly intact, the lower portion of the building, and in-between you have a growing zone of debris falling about, colliding with other debris and the lower portion of the building, mostly, and also doing some damage to the upper block. It doesn't do as much damage to the upper block because the debris is traveling in generally the same direction.



What difference would it make to you if it were the first? Does nothing new exist under the sun?

Building a scaled down physical model which would correctly mimic all of the loading conditions in the WTC might be possible, in theory, but it's so extremely time-intensive to figure out all the various scaling issues involved (and there are a lot more than you would think) and expensive to build. These types of tests are necessarily destructive, so in order to repeat the experiment, you would have to build another for each.

It's no wonder that scientists who have been looking in to this have been showing favor to mathematic and computer models. These only need to be set up once in order to run multiple simulations, which is a much lower cost in both time, effort, and money, in order to confirm engineering principles which are, for the most part, already very well understood.

The only benefit of a physical model would be to attempt to satisfy the curiosity of several idiots on the internet. Since they don't seem to be coming forward with the funding, or putting in the effort to do the science themselves (discarding plastic trays, soda cans, pizza boxes, etc. as not meeting the criteria above) and since they haven't shown much willingness to be convinced by science and engineering in the past, what's the point?

I thought models were a simple way to test and verify hypothesis of various kinds! Example, when you design a ship, you are curious to know how much power P is required to propulse it at speed v. As this is quite difficult to calculate longhand, you do a model test.

 

[Bananaman]

Edited by Darat: 

Breach of Membership Agreement removed.

 

[R.Mackey]

Would it matter whether the columns further down are stronger or not,
when nothing or little of the stress waves is transmitted to the structure below?

At the early stages of collapse, the columns above and below are about the same strength, and failure favors the columns below for reasons I already indicated.

After a few floors worth of collapse, the columns above are hitting the debris in between, opposing only the momentum of the upper block, whereas the columns below oppose the momentum of the upper block and the accumulated debris. So shortly into the collapse, the lower structure suffers much larger hits. This is enough to overcome the relative strength difference between upper and lower columns.

Also, because the columns below are not homogeneous, stress waves don't transmit into them very well. Much of the wave is reflected at the splices. This is yet another factor that keeps the failures near the point of impact instead of loading the entire column, the full height of the building, at once. This is true even for planar waves, and even more true for torsional waves.

Now, assuming that the outcome of this experiment is positive, would this be the first
experiment in history to demonstrate this phenomena, to your knowledge?

No. The model would repeat a phenomenon seen twice in nature -- in WTC 1 and 2 themselves.

There are also several mathematical experiments that have already confirmed these results, and none that question them (except unreviewed ones with obvious mathematical errors), plus a couple of simulated experiments that also confirm the result. But I do not know of a physical model anyone has assembled that replicates this situation accurately.

I suspect this is due to three factors: First, it's a difficult thing to model. Lots of complexity.

Second, I don't believe there is anyone who understands the science, yet doubts the result. There's little motivation for a real researcher to do it.

Third, those who are motivated, viz. the Truth Movement, do not appear interested in doing it properly.

But if anyone wants to do it, I encourage you, and the third show attempts to show you how. I'll be glad to critique your efforts.

 

[Toke]

Where do I find the second show?

 

[R.Mackey]

Where do I find the second show?

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=4531559#post4531559

To everyone else, stop engaging Heiwa. I don't understand what your problem is. If he says something insightful and you want to discuss it with me, fine. But don't bash the guy here. You have plenty of other threads to do that in.

 

[Heiwa]

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=4531559#post4531559

To everyone else, stop engaging Heiwa. I don't understand what your problem is. If he says something insightful and you want to discuss it with me, fine. But don't bash the guy here. You have plenty of other threads to do that in.

Thanks, I look forward to show #3 where you intend to bash me!

Re "At the early stages of collapse, the columns above and below are about the same strength, and failure favors the columns below for reasons I already indicated." you have to clarify that WTC 1 is not a collapse but a crush down of a small part C of a bigger part A of similar structures with elements like floors and columns. You also have to point out that the columns are the strongest elements in part C and A and that there are many weaker ones, eg. the floors.

The columns of parts C and A are virtually identical at the collision interface at the start - no problem. The problem is that they are so small and will hardly contact each other after having been first cut/fractured. They slip off and what do these columns contact then. A weak floor? Air?

Please do not say that the columns are like lead bullets being fired ... gravity does not work like that!
Lower, part A columns, are more like spears that will nail anyone trying to oppose them, e.g. a part C floor. Also part C columns are like that! Part A floors have no chance.

Ryan, your model has to be realistic, if you are to convince the Hardfire chap behind his funny mug! I always wonder, if the mug is a symbol? A mug's game! No fame! No reward! A mug is a simpleton, you know. Are you one?

 

[Bananaman]

Mac:

I don't understand what your problem is. If he says something insightful and you want to discuss it with me, fine. But don't bash the guy here. You have plenty of other threads to do that in.

Um, it's fun.

Will that do?

Bananaman (who has a sneaking suspicion it won't).

 

[Toke]

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=4531559#post4531559

Thanks.
Nice presentations, you seem much more confident in the second one.

It is entertaining the way the both you and the host point how the truthers fail to back up their statements and generaly make misrepresentations.

It is also telling how a truther could refuse a chance to present his ideas on national tv.
Even if the host were not as friendly as to you he should still be able to get any obvius message through. (if he had one)

 

[Niclas]

What difference would it make to you if it were the first? Does nothing new exist under the sun? /QUOTE]

immaculate conceptions...oceans parting....water to wine....stuff like
that have not scored very well so far when it comes to repeatability, so
either it´s new stuff or......

 

[beachnut]

Second show is up! http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8184528465256118271

Happy viewing.

Good presentation. I saw the fringe delusion believers trash you personally online and fail to understand aerodynamic drag.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4537122&postcount=159

 

[beachnut]

immaculate conceptions...oceans parting....water to wine....stuff like
that have not scored very well so far when it comes to repeatability, so
either it´s new stuff or......

It is called gravity. Newton figured it out and helped others understand. If you don't understand the collapse of the WTC towers on 911 a good place to start is physics, your high school physics teacher could help; there is 1 chance in a million you could find a delusion believer physicist, they try again.

If you are tempted to use your common sense please heed Einstein, "Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen.”

911Truth has delusions and can’t grasp simple physics so they make up lies based on hearsay and junk science. Thank goodness you have not fallen for the tripe of 911Truth.

 

[RKOwens4]

Ryan, you know I'm a huge fan of your work and you've helped me out a ton in the past, but to be honest I can't believe you wasted two half hours talking about the absolute stupidest claims in the 9/11 truth movement... that the planes couldn't have penetrated the buildings and that Flight 175 couldn't have flown as fast as it did. Two awesome shows nonetheless, but I think it would have been even cooler if you put your knowledge to work disproving the more common theories, like the microspheres or WTC7's collapse, or even free-fall speed.

I haven't seen the third show yet. In it, do you move away from the no-planers to tackle the more mainstream claims?

 

[A W Smith]

this is the last truther to present "the first time in history" logical fallacy.

What difference would it make to you if it were the first? Does nothing new exist under the sun?

immaculate conceptions...oceans parting....water to wine....stuff like
that have not scored very well so far when it comes to repeatability, so
either it´s new stuff or......

911 appears in the king james version? or what Niclas?
your point?

The Hindenburg explosion
Titanic the unsinkable sinks
The space shuttle Columbia destroyed because of a piece of Styrofoam basically

Do you deny that my examples above really occurred in history because they lack repeatability?

 

[Baylor]

Ryan, you know I'm a huge fan of your work and you've helped me out a ton in the past, but to be honest I can't believe you wasted two half hours talking about the absolute stupidest claims in the 9/11 truth movement... that the planes couldn't have penetrated the buildings and that Flight 175 couldn't have flown as fast as it did. Two awesome shows nonetheless, but I think it would have been even cooler if you put your knowledge to work disproving the more common theories, like the microspheres or WTC7's collapse, or even free-fall speed.

I haven't seen the third show yet. In it, do you move away from the no-planers to tackle the more mainstream claims?

I think you're missing the point. The point is not to "win" any "argument" the truthers put forth. The point is to learn something. All truther claims are equally stupid, but some give a better opportunity to put some explanatory threads together than others.

 

[Gravy]

"science demands repeatability". Quote from the Hardfire presentation.

Ryan, you told me earlier(#132) that it´s possible to make a physical model
where the vertical structure is progressively failing from top to bottom.

Now, assuming that the outcome of this experiment is positive, would this be the first
experiment in history to demonstrate this phenomena, to your knowledge?

I don't know why you think Ryan Mackey would have in-depth knowledge of what physical models that show progressive collapse may have been developed. You might want to run that by a structural engineer, particularly one who specializes in earthquake research and was working 30 years ago or more.

Progressive collapse of structures is a well-known phenomenon in the full-scale world, of course, and it has been, and continues to be, extensively modeled with computers. Simple models are do-able (yet none of those architects and engineers for "truth" seem to have created one), but creating a physical model of a building where the strength and behavior of thousands of elements and connections is properly scaled would be a fiendishly complex and expensive task. As you say, repeatability is important, and it would not be convenient or cost-effective to build new expensive models to test variables each time one is destroyed in an experiment. Remember: a truly accurate scale model of a Twin Tower would be a twisted, torn mess of wreckage after collapse, not an erector set pile. Also remember that computer models are created in context, using the material properties derived from testing actual samples, as NIST did.

Although not all of its pages can be browsed, this article, "Use of Structural Models as an Alternative to Full-Scale Testing," in a 1980 ASTM book, is an interesting read. The article references a 1977 publication, "Nature and Mechanism of Progressive Collapse in Industrialized Buildings."

This article by the same author as the 1980 article is available:

"Models of Precast Concrete Large Panel Buildings" Journal of the Structural Division, Vol. 106, No. 2, February 1980, pp. 545-565

Abstract
Small-scale direct-modeling techniques are applied to study the behavior of a six-story, three-bay 3/32-scale model of a precast concrete large panel building under simulated progressive collapse conditions. Preselected bearing walls at various locations were removed from the model in separate tests. Test results indicated the proper functioning of the PCA-recommended tie system in enabling the model to bridge over local damage. The application of modeling techniques to faithfully reproduce prototype construction details are discussed. Typical test results are presented and compared to demonstrate the valuable information that can be obtained through the testing of small-scale models in aiding the understanding of complex structural behavior.

Here are two examples of top-down progressive collapses, the first caused by fire damage to structural steel:
http://video.aol.com/video-detail/d...-in-holland-on-fire-and-collapsing/3741771392

You'll find much more information in the progressive collapse section of this page of mine, including names of experts to contact should you wish to learn more.