Hardfire: Physics of 9/11

Heiwa said:
Maybe I should use PE≤SE to make it an equation? And that PE = the sum of the potential energy of all parts making up the upper part and that SE = the sum of the energy to fail all elements of the structure?
Click to expand...
Quad erat demonstrandum.
 
bill smith said:
Quad erat demonstrandum.
Click to expand...

What a coincidence. I used to live right next to him. I still remember summer nights, Mr Demonstrandum would cook one of his ethnic meals on the grill, pick up a guitar and he and Mrs Demonstrandum would play some songs from the old country.

Good times.
 
bill smith said:
Quad erat demonstrandum.
Click to expand...

It's "Quod erat demonstrandum", meaning "The thing which was to be proven". In its conventional sense, one formulates a line of reasoning to a conclusion, then states that this conclusion was "quod erat demonstrandum". Bill smith is employing a rather unconventional usage here; Heiwa is making an assertion which he declines to justify, and bill smith is pointing out that his bare assertion is that which he was asked to prove. In other words, the only rational construction I can place on bill smith's response is that he is pointing out that Heiwa's post commits the bare assertion fallacy.

Dave
 
Dave Rogers said:
It's "Quod erat demonstrandum", meaning "The thing which was to be proven". In its conventional sense, one formulates a line of reasoning to a conclusion, then states that this conclusion was "quod erat demonstrandum". Bill smith is employing a rather unconventional usage here; Heiwa is making an assertion which he declines to justify, and bill smith is pointing out that his bare assertion is that which he was asked to prove. In other words, the only rational construction I can place on bill smith's response is that he is pointing out that Heiwa's post commits the bare assertion fallacy.

Dave
Click to expand...



That, or he was discussing what the Four Rats have Demonstrated.
 
Dave Rogers said:
It's "Quod erat demonstrandum", meaning "The thing which was to be proven". In its conventional sense, one formulates a line of reasoning to a conclusion, then states that this conclusion was "quod erat demonstrandum". Bill smith is employing a rather unconventional usage here; Heiwa is making an assertion which he declines to justify, and bill smith is pointing out that his bare assertion is that which he was asked to prove. In other words, the only rational construction I can place on bill smith's response is that he is pointing out that Heiwa's post commits the bare assertion fallacy.

Dave
Click to expand...
My latin is not up to scratch any more. Sorry Let's see if I can get this one right.
Porcus ex grege diaboli.
 
Heiwa said:
& what does it mean? :)
Click to expand...

I just hope I didn't make a mistake and insult somebody by mistake. I am known for making errors in latin.

I think it means 'an angel from the heavenly host'
 
Last edited:
R.Mackey said:
Therefore, let me propose a new focus for this thread, in case anyone is actually interested in being on-topic: If I were to do more shows, what would you be interested in seeing? What technical aspects are difficult to understand, interesting, or have broader educational appeal? I throw this open to the Truth Movement as well as everyone else who seems to get it. Thanks.
Click to expand...


I haven't had a chance to watch Part 3 yet (on the road for a while) so I apologize if this topic is already covered. Did you do a section on test construction? There were a huge number of tests conducted by NIST, Arup, and others and it may be helpful to explain to people how a test is designed, carried out, and how the results are analyzed. This also touches on the topics of model building and scaling (since a few tests cannot be carried out either full-scale or in a situation that completely matches the original tragedy), but puts those topics into practice.
 
Dave Rogers said:
It's "Quod erat demonstrandum", meaning "The thing which was to be proven". In its conventional sense, one formulates a line of reasoning to a conclusion, then states that this conclusion was "quod erat demonstrandum". Bill smith is employing a rather unconventional usage here; Heiwa is making an assertion which he declines to justify, and bill smith is pointing out that his bare assertion is that which he was asked to prove. In other words, the only rational construction I can place on bill smith's response is that he is pointing out that Heiwa's post commits the bare assertion fallacy.

Dave
Click to expand...

No, No, Bill is demonstrating his college education. He means it was demonstrated on the Quad. Probably right in front of the Admin bldg.
 
I have a question about scale.

Let's say the model I built of a tube-in-tube structure was 1/100th the size of the building. That would mean for a building 900m high and 100m wide on all sides, my model would be 9m high and 1m wide to be scaled correctly.

Now if the strength of the connections of the floor trusses to the perimeter and/or the core was X, then the connections of my model, I'm thinking, would have to be .01x strong to be in scale. Is that correct? Is the strength of a joint scalable like that or is it different?

And is this covered in part two and three and I just haven't seen those yet? :D
 
tsig said:
Since you don't know what the original design was how can you say you have "modeled" it?
Click to expand...
.
You can pick whatever definition of model you want and say my construction fits or doesn't however you want.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model

The laws of physics don't give a damn about words and worked the same way before any language was invented. Ask any physicist.

I modeled a falling mass hitting stationary masses and having to break the supports for those masses. You can claim that did not happen in the WTC towers if you want. At least that is what is supposed to have happened in the Official Story. Or so I have heard.

psik
 
Start your own tread: "psikeyhackr´s washer model"

I asked some questions regarding your conclutions (which you awoided) and Newtons Bit could go into more detail.
 
Toke said:
Start your own tread: "psikeyhackr´s washer model"

I asked some questions regarding your conclutions (which you awoided) and Newtons Bit could go into more detail.
Click to expand...

The last thing I noticed from you was this:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4565194&postcount=422

Which looked like you were accusing me of a quote I don't recall ever making which I responded to here:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4565312&postcount=424

So you will have to excuse me if I don't get all bent out of shape over your getting all huffy about being ignored, about something I don't recall seeing, if you accuse me of things I didn't say. You may notice a bunch of people like jumping on me simultaneously. They do things like talk about the south tower when I'm talking about the north but use that to imply I'm talking nonsense.

Like the sway of the tower being visible with the naked eye which you think you can wiggle out of because you mentioned two people but gave me the most emphasis.

psik
 
Homeland Insurgency said:
I really for the life of me don't understand what the point of this whole Ryan/Ron production is for. I can understand why Ron would commit to it being that he really has nothing better to do. But Macky who is supposedly a (what is is it a Rocket Scientist with NASA or something?) scientist seems to have all kinds of time to post, write white papers, and make presentations, on 9/11.

At the same time they both will proclaim 9/11 truth is dead now for 3 years.

Why beat a dead horse if it's really dead?

After almost eight years do they still have doubts?

"The lady doth protest too much, methinks."
Click to expand...
You don't understand because is you don’t need science to spread delusions like you do on 911. 911Truth was still born on 911.
The best you can do is bringing Shakespeare when you need Einstein.

You could help the washer model failed ideas and fix the massive science gap in 911Truth.
 
Last edited:
psikeyhackr said:
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2209954&postcount=386

ROFL

No comment on my model from Mackey yet. :D

I have adjustable "m's".

If I used wire instead of toothpicks I could vary the strength with the wire guage. I didn't think of that until after I had shot the footage with the toothpicks.

psik
Click to expand...

It is absolutely clear that you are being deliberately ignorant. No surprise there. Did you follow any of Ryans links to his other posts answering your question?

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4103932&postcount=1133

which leads to this

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=3665998#post3665998
 
Hokulele said:
I haven't had a chance to watch Part 3 yet (on the road for a while) so I apologize if this topic is already covered. Did you do a section on test construction? There were a huge number of tests conducted by NIST, Arup, and others and it may be helpful to explain to people how a test is designed, carried out, and how the results are analyzed. This also touches on the topics of model building and scaling (since a few tests cannot be carried out either full-scale or in a situation that completely matches the original tragedy), but puts those topics into practice.
Click to expand...

I didn't have time in Part 3 to go into the existing (good) models, though it would have been interesting. As I've remarked lots of times, one of the most instructive is the one from Dr. Quintiere. It only models the initiating collapse, not the progressive part, but they managed to scale several things at once -- structure, ventilation, heat content, and fireproofing -- all in a single model.

I could spend hours going through the process of supporting evidence built up by researchers through experiment and modeling. That would be a good topic.

psikeyhackr said:
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2209954&postcount=386

ROFL

No comment on my model from Mackey yet. :D

I have adjustable "m's".

If I used wire instead of toothpicks I could vary the strength with the wire guage. I didn't think of that until after I had shot the footage with the toothpicks.
Click to expand...

You aren't ready for my review yet. I remind you, I've already set out the minimum criteria for a good model, and you haven't provided most of that information. Go through the exercise, and afterwards I'll be more than happy to tell you what I think.

These guidelines are for both of our benefits. You'll find this process helps you understand just what it is your model is actually telling you. And if you answer those questions faithfully, I'll have a much better chance of figuring out just what the hell you're trying to say.

boloboffin said:
I have a question about scale.

Let's say the model I built of a tube-in-tube structure was 1/100th the size of the building. That would mean for a building 900m high and 100m wide on all sides, my model would be 9m high and 1m wide to be scaled correctly.

Now if the strength of the connections of the floor trusses to the perimeter and/or the core was X, then the connections of my model, I'm thinking, would have to be .01x strong to be in scale. Is that correct? Is the strength of a joint scalable like that or is it different?

And is this covered in part two and three and I just haven't seen those yet? :D
Click to expand...

It's covered in part three, and you haven't seen those yet. The upshot is you'd be automatically scaling down the strength by 10,000 times (100 squared), but you'd still be overpredicting the energy absorption by another factor of 10,000 relative to the other quantities in the problem. I don't treat it as joint failure, but the scaling effect would be similar.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom