Hardfire: Physics of 9/11
- Thread starter R.Mackey
- Start date
I repeat, there is no requirement for myself and any opponent to appear at the same time. Science endures. I can debate the merits of Pythagoras, Zeno, Archimedes, or Eratosthenes if I wish, without the least bit of imbalance.
You're merely looking for an excuse to disregard the shows, and that's frankly pretty sad. Heiwa not only has an opportunity to go on Hardfire himself, but in fact to get the last word, as though it mattered. Yet he's so far turning down the invitation. Why?
Regarding scale, you and Heiwa are wrong. The third show contains a simple model specifically to demonstrate that scale does matter. It does. The only way scale would not matter is if the equations of collapse are scale invariant. Since my equations are greatly simplified compared to the real thing, and they are not scale invariant -- indeed, they scale in several different ways to the point that a nondimensionalization is not even possible -- this proves, scientifically, that Heiwa is wrong, and you who follow him are wrong as well.
That's the real reason he won't submit anything valid. He can't.
Thanks for your interest.
Last edited:
Why? I quote from correspondence with Ronald Wieck at Hardfire:
Richard Gage is a liar and a fool. He was exposed and demolished by Mark Roberts. The frauds on his list are insignificant ciphers.
MacQueen and Szamboti have been exposed as liars and fools.
You don’t understand anything about scale. Find another engineer who agrees with the nonsense you promote.
Liars and fools ignore very specific corrections to their work provided by competent, highly qualified people.
You have stated that dropping the top third of a 110-story building onto the bottom two-thirds from a height of two merely establishes “a new equilibrium.” You are absurdly wrong. Find another engineer who agrees with such nonsense. Your mindless admirer Bill Smith thinks we are afraid to invite you. In reality, you are afraid to participate. &c, &c!
In my opinion Ronald Wieck seems affected by paranoia!
Anyway, I just replied:
Pls, quote me right! Assume you drop C on A. Before C contacts A, C is evidently in free fall and does not affect A. When C contacts A, evidently a new equilibrium is established (before there was none at all) and the force F C applies on A equals the force -F A applies on C that is acting in the opposite direction. Don't blame me for it! It is Newton that established it.
Equilibrium is a state of balance - the scales are at equal height, F-F=0, etc. I know THAT is difficult to understand for some people.
But F is there, and so it also -F! And they produce deformations of A and C. These deformations may produce a bounce of C or local failures of both C and A. The latter is part of structural damage analysis. All explained in my papers.
NIST suggests that F destroys A immediately as A cannot absorb F as elastic deformations (A fails in 1000000's of pieces due lack of strain energy) but forgets that -F would destroy C prior to that, as C can absorb even less elastic deformation (A and C have same structure) and would be destroyed earlier. And when C is destroyed, it cannot apply a force F on A any longer. The rubble of C can produce many small forces on A, but they will not crush down A.
That's why Mackey cannot produce any structure or model, where C crushes A! A will always stop C! I look forward to Mackey admitting defeat.
Bazant & Co suggest in their 1-D model that F first crushes/shortens top part (read line) of A and that -F does not affect C as C is rigid (only subject to 'negligible damages'). Then there are subsequent drops/impacts and F is getting bigger and bigger, -F is forgotten, and line A is completely crushed/shortened into rubble (part B)! Then, suddenly, -F pops up in the rubble and crushes C. Sorry, my audience doesn't buy that.
Anyway, you misquoted me twice on Hardfire and you call my friends or admirers liars and fools and mindless. And I was not invited to participate. FYI, I am not afraid of a friendly discussion about basic physics, at,eg JREF as Heiwa or anywhere. Why would I? I am such a nice and helpful guy. Heiwa means Peace in Japanese.
So Heiwa with you!
To which I got the following reply right NOW:
What you wrote is utter nonsense. Of course A is completely destroyed. Your intellectual peers, the children you write for, have no problem understanding that C, while it is being crushed, does indeed crush A.
I know you “explain” things in your papers, but no competent engineers agree with your explanations.
Are you willing to phone-in to ‘Hardfire’? I promise to be very nice to you.
I haven't answered to this latest 'invitation'.
Can anyone explain 'that C, while it is being crushed, does indeed crush A' ?
What is indeed crushing C? C? Gravity? Or big A?
Anyway - there is progress. Finally Ronald Wieck realizes that C is being crushed! So Mackey must change his slides and model. Maykey's upper part M = k m (part C) must be crushed and cannot become M = (k+1)m. It cannot remain intact and fuse m's to it as suggested in Hardfire; Physics of 9/11! Maybe M = (k-1)m ??
Last edited:
Heiwa's delusional axiom.
"Take 11 floors 2 miles above the WTC and drop those floor on the 99 lower floors and the collapse will be arrested. "
So I took 11 floors and decided two miles was too high, I set them only at 110 stories above the 99 lower floors and drop them.
9.11 Seconds later they impact the lower 99 floors and in 5.85 seconds the entire 99 floors collapse to ground level.
Heiwa never did the math or does he understand physics and real world. He says scaling does not matter but he can’t prove his failed idea.
On 911 we had only the upper section fall on the lower section and we had global collapse on both towers. Proving Heiwa wrong in real life and with his own model. Heiwa does not understand physics, he says he is using physics to fool other people who lack knowledge on 911 and physics like Bill Smith who agrees with most failed ideas on 911.
Heiwa will not appear on Hardfire; he said so.
Last edited:
Mr. Skinny
Alien Cryogenic Engineer
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2001
- Messages
- 7,843
balsamo in post #255 said:
I'm also unfamiliar with OSHA Class A Skyscrapers. Anyone here know what Balsamo is talking about? Googling turns up nada.
Maybe he got it the same place he found his 11.2G failed physics. He has no practical knowledge on any topic related to 911 as illustrated by his failed knowledge of parasite drag.
bill smith
Philosopher
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2009
- Messages
- 8,408
np. There may have been no general requirement for you to have an opponent from the Truth side on the Hardfire show but as the host made clear to everybody that was the intention for this particular show. He indicated in quite strong terms that the only reason this had not come to pass was the unwillingness of significant Truthers to participate.
Of course we are now aware that the most obvious opponent for you- Heiwa was never invited to appear and was unfairly pilloried in his absense. It seems likely that no other important Truther was asked either. The host can prove me wrong here by publishing a copy of the invitation and a list of adressees. Or he can decide not to- in which case people can draw their own conclusions.
You must see that in all fairness this fatally undermines the credibiliy of this particular show.
I take it that you are unwilling at ths time to answer Heiwa's request for any example in the history of the world of the following:-
'' Just show me a structure A (isotropic or composite), where a piece C of it (C = 1/10A), when dropped on A, crushes A.''
Cheers bill.
Heiwa was invited; you have not researched or read this thread the same flippant treatment you have taken with 911 information. Do you only post lies?
You posted the most idiotic axiom from Heiwa, it makes you appear to be ignorant on physics, why is that?
On 911 two 110 story building collapsed and the behavior was verified by the structural engineer who built the WTC; that makes Heiwa axiom failed. Ask a structural engineer, any engineer, or a physicist, and you will find out Heiwa is a fraud like Gage, but you failed to ask anyone and don't listen to engineers here who have already told you this fact. Are you incapable of finding an engineer to ask? You clearly lack skills in physics and engineering when you hitch your wagon to the delusions of Heiwa and 911Truth.
When will you ask an engineer not in 911Truth Kool-aid club?
Bottom line, Heiwa is officially asked to be on Hardfire, he repeats his failed ideas on 911 and declines. Heiwa declined.
Last edited:
I am not too sure about the drag either.
One of them is air resistance from the plane in general and the other is the effect of the lift of the wings?
Why bother.
If an airplane dives it can go alot faster than the manufacturer intended.
When leveling out it will be slowed by the difference between engine output and air resistance, but it will take some time.
Newtons Bit
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Apr 12, 2007
- Messages
- 10,049
There's a distinction between OFFICE buildings that follow that same format. For example: a "Class A" commercial building is defined as a new or prestigious building that is in immaculate condition in a prestigious part of a city where the building owner can charge a premium on rent. A "Class B" is a somewhat less prestigious building but in good condition. A "Class C" commercial building is run down or in bad neighborhoods, etc. It has nothing to do with safety.
Furthermore, OSHA doesn't regulate buildings, but building construction practices (such as putting temporary caps on rebar dowels that are exposed so someone doesn't fall on them and impale themselves). They may also regulate work practices while the building is operational but, again, not the structural design. Structural design codes are researched and SELF-GOVERNED by the engineering bodies such as ASCE or AISC. Hell, even the general building codes (which reference ASCE and AISC) are created by independant, non-government groups. The government just adopts them into law because they trust the level of self-policing within the engineering and architectural communities.
Balsamo truly has no clue what he's talking about. Hell, he didn't even look up that the WTC were already designed and under construction when Nixon created OSHA in 1970.
Mr. Skinny
Alien Cryogenic Engineer
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2001
- Messages
- 7,843
I was aware that OSHA wasn't an approval agency and that they don't write standards for construction, other than construction worker safety, as you mentioned.
I was also aware that they incorporate by reference several national consensus standards into their regs (National Electric Code, Life Safety Code, etc.).
Couldn't figure out the Class A business though, unless he was talking about Class A (ordinary combustibles) fires??? or something.
So, basically it doesn't appear that there is such an animal as an "OSHA Class A Skyscraper".
Good catch noting that the WTC towers were designed before OSHA came into existence.
Macgyver1968
Philosopher
Mr. Skinny
Alien Cryogenic Engineer
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2001
- Messages
- 7,843
Another question for those of you that can watch Mackey's presentation (I can't)...Does Mackey use the words "highly flammable substances", or is this just another "office fires can't burn hot enough to weaken steel" argument?
stateofgrace
Unregistered
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2006
- Messages
- 3,843
I take you are unwilling,at this time, to realise that this did not happen on Sept 11th and is completely irrelevant. In the same token, to keep repeating this irrelevance is completely irrelevant to this thread or the events of Sept 11th.
If you wish to discuss Hiewa’s irrelevant request please start a new thread, rather than spamming this thread with it.
Cheers stateofgrace.
Last edited:
On a neutron star, you don't even need a piece C. 'A' will collapse under it's own weight. Don't even get me started about black holes.
OK, that's an extreme example. More relevantly, scale does matter, right here on earth.
See page 2 of Strain-rate and Inertia Effects in the Collapse of Two Types of Energy-absorbing Structure by Calladine and English, for a good, brief discussion of the differing effects of scale when considering Kinetic Energy vs. Velocity of an impactor.
He certainly has issues, as is readily evident here, and I, for one, don't blame you for avoiding him, completely.
psikeyhackr
Banned
- Joined
- Apr 30, 2008
- Messages
- 470
Episode III, Revenge of the Wieck
Ron Wieck has come over to SciForums.
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2207735&postcount=305
I watched episode 3.
From 4:27 to 5:56 MacKey has his 2-6 and 2-7 models up with flat masses that he calls 'm' separated by columns 'h'. Now we are talking about two 110 story buildings with WTC 1 and 2 so are we supposed to pretend that all of those m's are the same value? Didn't the towers have to get stronger toward the bottom? Doesn't greater strength mean more steel which inevitably means more weight? Why don't we have a table specifying the tons of steel and tons of concrete on every level to make an accurate model of those m's. Doesn't MacKey want accurate scale models? And isn't the amount of steel necessary to affect the strength of 'h'. When has Mackey demanded that info from the NIST so his accurate scale model could possibly be made by ANYONE?
At 16:21 he says "as you break the structure piece by piece you liberate more and more energy"
"your upper block is falling another amount and we've scaled this problem up such that each fall is about 10 or 12 feet so the amount of energy that is being injected into the system continuously is huge"
Well I made a model somewhat similar to that presented by Mackey but uses horizontal toothpicks stuck into a vertical dowel instead of columns so I could break them repeatedly and change the masses to run different versions easily. The stationary masses slow down the falling mass and bring it to a stop much more quickly than toothpicks alone. So the broken pieces don't seem to be injecting energy as MacKey claims. But without the mass and strength data from the real WTC towers there is no way any accurate scaling can be done so why hasn't Mackey been demanding human readable data about the real structures from the NIST?
Of course someone at JREF said this demo was STUPID.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LXAerZUw4Wc
Does that mean Mackey's models 2-6 and 2-7 were stupid too?
psik
Ron Wieck has come over to SciForums.
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2207735&postcount=305
I watched episode 3.
From 4:27 to 5:56 MacKey has his 2-6 and 2-7 models up with flat masses that he calls 'm' separated by columns 'h'. Now we are talking about two 110 story buildings with WTC 1 and 2 so are we supposed to pretend that all of those m's are the same value? Didn't the towers have to get stronger toward the bottom? Doesn't greater strength mean more steel which inevitably means more weight? Why don't we have a table specifying the tons of steel and tons of concrete on every level to make an accurate model of those m's. Doesn't MacKey want accurate scale models? And isn't the amount of steel necessary to affect the strength of 'h'. When has Mackey demanded that info from the NIST so his accurate scale model could possibly be made by ANYONE?
At 16:21 he says "as you break the structure piece by piece you liberate more and more energy"
"your upper block is falling another amount and we've scaled this problem up such that each fall is about 10 or 12 feet so the amount of energy that is being injected into the system continuously is huge"
Well I made a model somewhat similar to that presented by Mackey but uses horizontal toothpicks stuck into a vertical dowel instead of columns so I could break them repeatedly and change the masses to run different versions easily. The stationary masses slow down the falling mass and bring it to a stop much more quickly than toothpicks alone. So the broken pieces don't seem to be injecting energy as MacKey claims. But without the mass and strength data from the real WTC towers there is no way any accurate scaling can be done so why hasn't Mackey been demanding human readable data about the real structures from the NIST?
Of course someone at JREF said this demo was STUPID.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LXAerZUw4Wc
Does that mean Mackey's models 2-6 and 2-7 were stupid too?
psik
On a neutron star, you don't even need a piece C. 'A' will collapse under it's own weight. Don't even get me started about black holes.
OK, that's an extreme example. More relevantly, scale does matter, right here on earth.
See page 2 of Strain-rate and Inertia Effects in the Collapse of Two Types of Energy-absorbing Structure by Calladine and English, for a good, brief discussion of the differing effects of scale when considering Kinetic Energy vs. Velocity of an impactor.
Case 1. Imagine an isotropic steel structure A 1 m high with cross area 1 m² (it is thus a steel cube that weighs abt 7800 kgs) and an upper part C 0.1 m high with same cross area (that weighs 780 kgs). Drop C on A and C bounces.
Case 2. Imagine an isotropic steel structure A 10 m high with cross area 100 m² (it is a 10 times bigger steel cube but weighs 1000 more) and an upper part C 1 m high with same cross area. Drop C on A and there is still a bounce.
Question - does size matter and will result change, when you drop a part C on a steel cube A? At what size will, e.g. C crush A?
Evidently scale or size matters in many cases but in my axiom size and scale don't as long as proportions between A and C remains constant.
Note that before contact stress in upper part of A and inside complete C is zero regardless of size. After contact and when deformation of A and C starts, stresses and deformations will be different as contact pressure differs, eg case 1 and 2 above, but the result, eg bounce, will always be the same, i.e. it is independent of scale or size. One reason for this is that contact pressure is always equal on A and C (but of different magnitude in cases 1 and 2). But we are not scaling impact pressures! We are only interested in the result, i.e. C cannot crush A while C remains intact, and that is independent of size and scale.
Last edited:
Yeah, no idea here. OSHA regulates safety on Construction sites and 'Class A' is basically a real-estate term to describe the amout you can expect to pay when leasing, based on the quality of design, construction, location, amenities, etc.