I wouldn't worry too much of a two mile drop. Try first with a 2 m drop! It seems OCTists have problems with scale! At fullscale 1/1 they suggest WTC will collapse or rather be crushed down by a drop but not at scale 1/100. So will WTC collapse at scale 1/2 or 1/4? What is the limiting scale 1/x when WTC can be crushed down? Maybe Ryan Mackey will clarify in this weeks Hardfire show?
The answer is, evidently, that WTC cannot be crushed down at any scale! This is in accordance with Bjorkman's axiom.
I wouldn't worry too much of a two mile drop. Try first with a 2 m drop! It seems OCTists have problems with scale! At fullscale 1/1 they suggest WTC will collapse or rather be crushed down by a drop but not at scale 1/100. So will WTC collapse at scale 1/2 or 1/4? What is the limiting scale 1/x when WTC can be crushed down? Maybe Ryan Mackey will clarify in this weeks Hardfire show?
The answer is, evidently, that WTC cannot be crushed down at any scale! This is in accordance with Bjorkman's axiom.
You said 2 miles; you have to stick with you words and delusions, or dump them. You picked the 2-mile drop; you have to live with your insane claims and stupid conclusions. You can’t hand 19 terrorists doing 911 so you make up lies.
On topic the p4t failed pilots association continues to bad mouth Mackey's drag information and expose their ignorance. Balsamo lacks knowledge on basic flying knowledge and continue to fool his followers who believe his failed ideas and offer of no theories.
Stop arguing with Heiwa, dammit. You are all making me begin to question whether there's any point to my posting at all. If you just want to play with clowns, go elsewhere and do it.
Anyway, we don't have Part 3 out but it should be soon. Amusingly, however, there is already a "video response," focusing on comments regarding AA 175:
This is a production from Jeff Hill from da Soo, and I found it here. If you're unfamiliar with Mr. Hill, his attempted ticket to notoriety is to cold-call people with vaguely relevant questions, then record them and try to quote-mine them from a conspiracy mindset. Also, recently he confirmed his wackjob status by going nuts and throwing rocks at a masonic temple for no good reason he could recall...
So what do we make of this? On the one hand, we have Truthers and debunkers alike, excoriating me for giving any attention to the "no-planers" at all, since they're obviously quite mad. And on the other hand, those same "no-planers" are jumping up and down, fanning their arms, demanding as much attention as they can get.
This schism isn't my fault. I just try to educate.
Needless to say, both points I made on the show were correct. First, Egypt Air 990 does disprove the claim made by Mr. Lear, which is that a Boeing 767 cannot exceed 540 MPH at sea level because of parasitic drag. That's what I was asked. Mr. Hill is turning this from a qualitative argument into a quantitative (viz. gradualist) argument, saying that, OK, they can do it, just not at a given angle... but offers no proof. Just because EA 990's dive angle wasn't identical to AA 175's, it doesn't mean AA 175 could not reach those speeds.
Second, the other thing I was asked is whether it is reasonable for an aircraft to survive such an overspeed and remain operable. Again, China Air 006 proves that it is reasonable. And again, Mr. Hill says this is irrelevant because the dive angle wasn't the same. But I said nothing about dive angle, all I cared about was speed... His response is completely irrelevant, and completely idiotic. I hope that was clear before I explained it.
Third, I don't disagree with the comments of Paul Furnee at all. In fact, I explicitly state in my own show that the horizontal, steady speed limit is probably well below 542 MPH. We're in agreement. We disagree, however, with Russ Wittenburg, the last voice you hear on the video, but that should be no surprise given that he's sided with the "Pilots for Truth" and has been preaching Truth Movement claims for years. No calcuations to back up his claims, of course, despite over three years for him to provide them.
Oh, and for what it's worth, the NTSB report on Egypt Air 990 estimates an average descent rate of 20,000 feet per minute in the second and final dive, or only 227 MPH. So the aircraft was not heading straight down the whole time, or even close to it. If we use this figure and assume a final true airspeed of 650 MPH, this gives us an average dive angle of a mere 20 degrees.
Sorry, Jeff. This is what happens when you cannot do mathematics, and put all of your faith into animations that you cannot fully evaluate.
In other news, the only new e-mail I've received from the Truth Movement regarding this show was from Sentinel, also known as Paul Isaacs, Jr. He was banned here a long time ago after a rather eccentric posting performance. His e-mail is scattered all over the map, contains no questions, doesn't even address me. I don't think he even watched the show.
I'm still waiting for someone in the Truth Movement to respond with even a faint modicum of comprehension. I haven't seen it anywhere, not here, not in my e-mail, and not in any other forum where my shows are being discussed, in cowardly fashion, where I may only hear about it second-hand. If you're still in the Truth Movement, this is the company you keep. Think about it.
I'm still waiting for someone in the Truth Movement to respond with even a faint modicum of comprehension. I haven't seen it anywhere, not here, not in my e-mail, and not in any other forum where my shows are being discussed, in cowardly fashion, where I may only hear about it second-hand. If you're still in the Truth Movement, this is the company you keep. Think about it.
That leads to the question of what type of response are you hoping for? It is rare that CTists look to the underlying structure supporting their beliefs, which is what seems to be your topic, and prefer to indulge in either confirmation bias (seeing what they wish to see, ignoring the rest) or glomming on to the most trivial details as if they were earth-shattering news. Perhaps this was the point of these shows all along?
That leads to the question of what type of response are you hoping for? It is rare that CTists look to the underlying structure supporting their beliefs, which is what seems to be your topic, and prefer to indulge in either confirmation bias (seeing what they wish to see, ignoring the rest) or glomming on to the most trivial details as if they were earth-shattering news. Perhaps this was the point of these shows all along?
I thought I answered this in earlier posts, and in the show itself, but perhaps you're right and it bears restating.
I'm really not surprised that the Truth Movement responds to this with a mixture of ad hominem and vulgar displays of its own incompetence. But, as before, it really wasn't intended for them. If some of them see this and learn from it, good. However, I was trying to give non-Truthers, but non-scientists, an example of the Scientific Method at work, so they could use the same approach to evaluate claims in the future.
We all know that some Truthers will never, ever let it go, not even after a century goes by, bin Laden is finally found, computer simulation advances to the point that we can simulate a full collapse easily at home, or several more structures fail in a similar way. That's just human nature. You can find a percent or two of the population who believe any arbitrarily stupid or improbable fantasy. I can't stop that, and perhaps I shouldn't.
But these people and these beliefs are good practice for critical thinking, an often under-appreciated skill, and one we will certainly need throughout our lives. That's my goal.
I am only misquoted twice in Part III or the third show, i.e. every time I am mentioned! At abt 15.30 minutes into the program Ronald Wieck suggests that I maintain that you cannot destroy structure by dropping a part of it on it and that I have said that if you drop the upper part C structure (30 floors!) on the lower part A structure (80 floors) of the WTC 1 from two miles (!) part A is not damaged.
Evidently that is not the case. The question was raised when we discussed what force F part C applies on part A at contact and vice versa – regardless of drop height – and the answer is that the forces are always equal but opposite. One conclusion from that is, assuming that C doesn’t bounce on A, that part C will be damaged before part A, simply because part C is smaller than A and cannot absorb the energy applied to it by elastic strain energy (force F times displacement) without destroying itself. NIST and Bazant are of a different opinion; part C not only remains intact – it always crushes part A in steps assisted by gravity! Ryan Mackey is worse! He suggests that part C not only remains undamaged but fuses (??) with a top element of part A at first impact and that this part C + fused element of part A continue to impact/crush/fuse elements of A until A is completely crushed and that this took place on 9/11. In my humble opinion it is part A elements that would damage part C elements until all energy is consumed and local destruction is stopped.
At abt 24.35 minutes into the program it is suggested by Ronald Wieck that I suggest that you cannot destroy a structure!? Ronald is worried about the university I graduated from in 1969. Ronald should have continued my quote; you cannot destroy an isotropic or composite structure (A) by dropping a part (C) of it (A) on itself (A)!
Reason is that the part (C) of the structure is destroyed before the remainder of the structure (A) is completely damaged and that the debris or rubble of the parts (A and C) cannot crush the structure (A) completely. It is clearly explained in my articles using, e.g. ship collisions as an example, if you bother to read them. NIST and Bazant are of a different opinion. NIST suggest that, if part C applies sufficient energy at impact that exceeds what A can absorb, A is destroyed, simply forgetting C. C always gets destroyed first!
I understand that this might be too complex for Ronald Wieck, but I am always willing to explain it any time.
Re models – a model structure (A+C, C = 1/10A) that shall demonstrate that a part C of it, being dropped on A, can crush the part A, while part C remains intact, should be very easy to make. Scale doesn’t matter the least. The problem is to find any structure that would behave as proposed. It does not simply exist.
I am only misquoted twice in Part III or the third show, i.e. every time I am mentioned! At abt 15.30 minutes into the program Ronald Wieck suggests that I maintain that you cannot destroy structure by dropping a part of it on it and that I have said that if you drop the upper part C structure (30 floors!) on the lower part A structure (80 floors) of the WTC 1 from two miles (!) part A is not damaged.
Evidently that is not the case. The question was raised when we discussed what force F part C applies on part A at contact and vice versa – regardless of drop height – and the answer is that the forces are always equal but opposite. One conclusion from that is, assuming that C doesn’t bounce on A, that part C will be damaged before part A, simply because part C is smaller than A and cannot absorb the energy applied to it by elastic strain energy (force F times displacement) without destroying itself. NIST and Bazant are of a different opinion; part C not only remains intact – it always crushes part A in steps assisted by gravity! Ryan Mackey is worse! He suggests that part C not only remains undamaged but fuses (??) with a top element of part A at first impact and that this part C + fused element of part A continue to impact/crush/fuse elements of A until A is completely crushed and that this took place on 9/11. In my humble opinion it is part A elements that would damage part C elements until all energy is consumed and local destruction is stopped.
At abt 24.35 minutes into the program it is suggested by Ronald Wieck that I suggest that you cannot destroy a structure!? Ronald is worried about the university I graduated from in 1969. Ronald should have continued my quote; you cannot destroy an isotropic or composite structure (A) by dropping a part (C) of it (A) on itself (A)!
Reason is that the part (C) of the structure is destroyed before the remainder of the structure (A) is completely damaged and that the debris or rubble of the parts (A and C) cannot crush the structure (A) completely. It is clearly explained in my articles using, e.g. ship collisions as an example, if you bother to read them. NIST and Bazant are of a different opinion. NIST suggest that, if part C applies sufficient energy at impact that exceeds what A can absorb, A is destroyed, simply forgetting C. C always gets destroyed first!
I understand that this might be too complex for Ronald Wieck, but I am always willing to explain it any time.
Re models – a model structure (A+C, C = 1/10A) that shall demonstrate that a part C of it, being dropped on A, can crush the part A, while part C remains intact, should be very easy to make. Scale doesn’t matter the least. The problem is to find any structure that would behave as proposed. It does not simply exist.
Heiwa- I noticed at the end of the 3rd show that the interviewer said he could not get somebody to appear as a foil to RM. Were you asked to appear ? You would have seemed the obvious guy to ask as they spoke of you several times.
Ronald should have continued my quote; you cannot destroy an isotropic or composite structure (A) by dropping a part (C) of it (A) on itself (A)!
Reason is that the part (C) of the structure is destroyed before the remainder of the structure (A) is completely damaged and that the debris or rubble of the parts (A and C) cannot crush the structure (A) completely. It is clearly explained in my articles using, e.g. ship collisions as an example, if you bother to read them. NIST and Bazant are of a different opinion. NIST suggest that, if part C applies sufficient energy at impact that exceeds what A can absorb, A is destroyed, simply forgetting C. C always gets destroyed first!
And, once again, an enormous number of your blatantly false characterizations of what Bazant & NIST really say, and your erroneous conclusions are the direct result of your combining the damaged 6 floors into your Part C.
Fix this egregious error by introducing a new Part D that represents the damaged floors, and you will at least cease to misrepresent what Bazant & NIST state.
Now you will have a severely compromised Part D that is trapped between two uncompromised Parts A & C. Part D, due to structural damage, non-axial loading & temperature induced weakening WILL collapse first. Leaving Parts A & C relatively unscathed.
___
The loading events on the top floor (92nd) of Part A now look entirely different than you have portrayed them.
The initial failures happen completely within Part D, starting at approximately the 95th floor. The buckling of beams at this floor destroys the structural integrity of three full floors (94th - 96th). The upper block (Part C) plus floors 94 thru 98 descend onto floor 93.
Up to this point, Floor 92 has not yet been impacted with debris.
Also note well that the loads carried by the columns in Part A have suddenly decreased significantly. This happened as soon as the columns buckled & detached at the 95th floor. The static loads that they carry will be reduced by the weight of the tower above the 95th floor. The only loads that are imparted onto the lower columns are their remaining gravity (static) loads plus the dynamic impact loads when the top surfaces of approximately half of the columns strike the floor areas of the descending upper block. Since the surface area of the tops of the columns are quite small and the surfaces that they contact are weak brittle concrete, these impact loads are initially relatively small. Once the bottom surface of descending Part C/D has grown to a solid mass of impacted debris, the impact loads on the columns can increase dramatically.
However, the uppermost columns on Part A are facing forces much different than they were ever designed to face, extreme side loading from being enmeshed in the falling debris. Without lateral support, these side loads will cause the upper columns to fail laterally.
It is crucial to understand that, as Part D crushes down, it's mass gets impacted into the lower section of Part C. It does NOT crash down, one floor at a time, onto the 92nd floor of Part A. This is due to conservation of momentum. Part C will quickly overtake the crumbling floors of Part D and incorporate their mass into its own.
When the accumulated Parts C & B finally hit the upper floor (92nd) of Part A, they have fallen 4.8 stories and will be traveling at approximately 18 m/sec. Part C/B will have a near solid lower surface made up from the crushed debris of the six stories of Part B.
The energies involved with this collision are far, far greater than the energies associated with the collision of the upper 18 stories, having fallen 1 story, as you portrayed the situation.
Re models – a model structure (A+C, C = 1/10A) that shall demonstrate that a part C of it, being dropped on A, can crush the part A, while part C remains intact, should be very easy to make. Scale doesn’t matter the least. The problem is to find any structure that would behave as proposed. It does not simply exist.
Any mechanical engineer who suggests that "scale doesn't matter the least" in this matter should return his engineering degree. This statement flies in the face of 200 years of mechanical engineering and modeling. Specifically, if violates, a priori, the core theories of dimensional analysis.
And, once again, an enormous number of your blatantly false characterizations of what Bazant & NIST really say, and your erroneous conclusions are the direct result of your combining the damaged 6 floors into your Part C.
Fix this egregious error by introducing a new Part D that represents the damaged floors, and you will at least cease to misrepresent what Bazant & NIST state.
Now you will have a severely compromised Part D that is trapped between two uncompromised Parts A & C. Part D, due to structural damage, non-axial loading & temperature induced weakening WILL collapse first. Leaving Parts A & C relatively unscathed.
___
The loading events on the top floor (92nd) of Part A now look entirely different than you have portrayed them.
The initial failures happen completely within Part D, starting at approximately the 95th floor. The buckling of beams at this floor destroys the structural integrity of three full floors (94th - 96th). The upper block (Part C) plus floors 94 thru 98 descend onto floor 93.
Up to this point, Floor 92 has not yet been impacted with debris.
Also note well that the loads carried by the columns in Part A have suddenly decreased significantly. This happened as soon as the columns buckled & detached at the 95th floor. The static loads that they carry will be reduced by the weight of the tower above the 95th floor. The only loads that are imparted onto the lower columns are their remaining gravity (static) loads plus the dynamic impact loads when the top surfaces of approximately half of the columns strike the floor areas of the descending upper block. Since the surface area of the tops of the columns are quite small and the surfaces that they contact are weak brittle concrete, these impact loads are initially relatively small. Once the bottom surface of descending Part C/D has grown to a solid mass of impacted debris, the impact loads on the columns can increase dramatically.
However, the uppermost columns on Part A are facing forces much different than they were ever designed to face, extreme side loading from being enmeshed in the falling debris. Without lateral support, these side loads will cause the upper columns to fail laterally.
It is crucial to understand that, as Part D crushes down, it's mass gets impacted into the lower section of Part C. It does NOT crash down, one floor at a time, onto the 92nd floor of Part A. This is due to conservation of momentum. Part C will quickly overtake the crumbling floors of Part D and incorporate their mass into its own.
When the accumulated Parts C & B finally hit the upper floor (92nd) of Part A, they have fallen 4.8 stories and will be traveling at approximately 18 m/sec. Part C/B will have a near solid lower surface made up from the crushed debris of the six stories of Part B.
The energies involved with this collision are far, far greater than the energies associated with the collision of the upper 18 stories, having fallen 1 story, as you portrayed the situation.
If I were you, Anders, I'd worry more about your own ability to understand what is going on. You haven't gotten it yet.
Any mechanical engineer who suggests that "scale doesn't matter the least" in this matter should return his engineering degree. This statement flies in the face of 200 years of mechanical engineering and modeling. Specifically, if violates, a priori, the core theories of dimensional analysis.
According Ryan Mackey on Hardfire; Physics of 9/11 show 3 there is, in his model, only one upper part M = k m and a lower part with many m stacked on top of each other (on one slide). When M = k m drops on and impacts first m below, they fuse and M becomes M = (k+1) m, as shown on a second slide!
Don't ask me why! I call upper part M = k m part C in my article (using BLGB lingo) and lower stack of m part A. No part D. Both parts A and C have same structure and C = 1/10A.
If I drop something C on anything A, C never fuses with A. If I drop a rubber ball C on a floor A, rubber ball C bounces! If I drop crystal glass C on floor A, crystal glass C goes in 1000's of pieces. C never fuses with A. This Ryan Mackey physics is really strange. He claims to be an engineer.
When I drop any structure C on similar but bigger A, there is never any fusing C/A! There may be local deformation, local structural failures of both C and A ... but no fusing.
Now, re scale. The beauty with my structure is that it is the same if 4.4 m tall or 440 m tall. In first case A may be 4 m tall and C is 0.4 m tall, in second case A is 400 m tall and C is 40 m tall. In both cases C = 1/10 A.
And now drop height. Just drop C on A be it a 4.4 or 440 m original structure. The drop can be 0.4, 4, 40 or 400 m in either case, it doesn't matter. C can never crush A according my axiom. I can prove it for a number of structures so I regard my theorem as an axiom, but maybe there is a structure that doesn't follow the theorem. Then the axiom is not true. So just provide a structure that doesn't comply with my axiom/theorem!
Note that density is not coming into the picture or even mass, except that A always have same density as C and A always have 10 times bigger mass than C (but that should be understood from the axiom - apart from that A must be able to carry C statically under gravity influence before drop).
Please don't use pizza boxes, lemons, sponges, sawdust-n-glue cubes, &c, as structures. No such structures have so far crushed themselves.
Heiwa- I noticed at the end of the 3rd show that the interviewer said he could not get somebody to appear as a foil to RM. Were you asked to appear ? You would have seemed the obvious guy to ask as they spoke of you several times.
No! What do you expect? Lobster & champagne? Only thing Ronald offers is his mug that maybe represents hard study but also a simpleton. I go for the latter .
No! What do you expect? Lobster & champagne? Only thing Ronald offers is his mug that maybe represents hard study but also a simpleton. I go for the latter .
I just wondered because if he didn't ask you as the most obvious qualified candidate then I wonder who else he didn't ask. He indicated that he could not get anybody to come on the show from the Truth side but if he didn't ask how did he expect them to be there ? Maybe he just misspoke again.
According Ryan Mackey on Hardfire; Physics of 9/11 show 3 there is, in his model, only one upper part M = k m and a lower part with many m stacked on top of each other (on one slide). When M = k m drops on and impacts first m below, they fuse and M becomes M = (k+1) m, as shown on a second slide!
Don't ask me why! I call upper part M = k m part C in my article (using BLGB lingo) and lower stack of m part A. No part D. Both parts A and C have same structure and C = 1/10A.
If I drop something C on anything A, C never fuses with A. If I drop a rubber ball C on a floor A, rubber ball C bounces! If I drop crystal glass C on floor A, crystal glass C goes in 1000's of pieces. C never fuses with A. This Ryan Mackey physics is really strange. He claims to be an engineer.
When I drop any structure C on similar but bigger A, there is never any fusing C/A! There may be local deformation, local structural failures of both C and A ... but no fusing.
Now, re scale. The beauty with my structure is that it is the same if 4.4 m tall or 440 m tall. In first case A may be 4 m tall and C is 0.4 m tall, in second case A is 400 m tall and C is 40 m tall. In both cases C = 1/10 A.
And now drop height. Just drop C on A be it a 4.4 or 440 m original structure. The drop can be 0.4, 4, 40 or 400 m in either case, it doesn't matter. C can never crush A according my axiom. I can prove it for a number of structures so I regard my theorem as an axiom, but maybe there is a structure that doesn't follow the theorem. Then the axiom is not true. So just provide a structure that doesn't comply with my axiom/theorem!
Note that density is not coming into the picture or even mass, except that A always have same density as C and A always have 10 times bigger mass than C (but that should be understood from the axiom - apart from that A must be able to carry C statically under gravity influence before drop).
Please don't use pizza boxes, lemons, sponges, sawdust-n-glue cubes, &c, as structures. No such structures have so far crushed themselves.
I just wondered because if he didn't ask you as the most obvious qualified candidate then I wonder who else he didn't ask. He indicated that he could not get anybody to come on the show from the Truth side but if he didn't ask how did he expect them to be there ? Maybe he just misspoke again.
What would anyone from 911Truth do? They have only delusions. So tell us what you think about this presentation or take your junk ideas and move on to the correct thread.
What do you have to contribute to this thread?
Do you understand 911Truth is full of delusions and how this presentation can be used to understand 911Truth is junk science?
OK, you agree that part C, if dropped on part A, cannot crush down part A?
Good, so part A could not have been destroyed by part C, but part A was destroyed anyway. If you read my article at http://heiwaco.tripod.com/nist3.htm you'll find out.
OK, you agree that part C, if dropped on part A, cannot crush down part A?
Good, so part A could not have been destroyed by part C, but part A was destroyed anyway. If you read my article at http://heiwaco.tripod.com/nist3.htm you'll find out.
Stop spaming the thread with your trash junk science. Your ideas are proven wrong since 911. Take you junk science back to your own fail idea thread. Your post will be moved to AAH where our junk posts belong.
Your pathetic axiom is wrong.
I can take 11 floor 110 stories about the WTC and drop it on the other 99 floors, after the top section falls for 9.11 seconds on the lower floors; most of the WTC collapses in 5.85 seconds. The physics proves your lie wrong; your axiom is a lie made up by someone who can't use physics in a practical manner for 911 for some unknown political reasons. (on a no wind day)
OK, you agree that part C, if dropped on part A, cannot crush down part A?
Good, so part A could not have been destroyed by part C, but part A was destroyed anyway. If you read my article at http://heiwaco.tripod.com/nist3.htm you'll find out.
You know, as a laymen it's taken me a little while to grasp what is going on, but after reading the responses to you and showing your posts to people who know what they are talking about and whom I respect, the general consensus is that you don't know what you are talking about.
How do you explain the fact that you continue to be in a serious minority not just on this forum, but in the world-wide general scientific community as well?
If only you could only garner SOME kind of legitimate support. This would make it a lot easier for this layman to even care if you have theories or not. Seriously.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
.