Hardfire: Physics of 9/11

R.Mackey said:
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.
Click to expand...


I wasn't thinking so much about the models, but the actual tests and why they are valid. To use a blast from the past (pun intended), one of the tests performed by NIST that was misunderstood and ridiculed by the CTists was the shotgunning of the spray-on fireproofing to test its adhesiveness. The testing of the flammability of the typical office cubical would be another example.

I think it would be helpful to many to see how such a test is designed, executed, and how the results are analyzed. It is slightly different from modeling or simulating an event, and it seems that many CTists confuse and conflate modeling with testing (Spook and his rabbit cages, anyone?).
 
R.Mackey!

It is very simple to model a One-way Crush down process. Take an object A and put in on the ground and then another object C. You drop C on A and A is crushed.

If C can apply suffient energy PE at impact C with A and following downward displacement of C and if total strain energy SE that can be absorbed by A+C is less than PE and if C can absorb more strain energy than A and only deform elastically in the process, then A is crushed and C is not.

It is not really 'one-way' as C is always affected - elastic deformation - but it is pretty near.

I would conclude that 'one-way' crush down is only possible, if C can absorb more strain energy only as elastic deformation than A can absorb totally (elastic & plastic deformation, failures, &c).

If C is then only 1/10th of A volume/mass wise and can only absorb 1/10th of A strain energy (A and C have same internal structure), then I would conclude C can never crush A in any model, size or scale.

It is just a question of strain energies. Not scale, material, structure, &c.

Does this fulfill your Challenge?
 
RMacKey says:
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.
Click to expand...
.
I can already figure that out. That is why I built a model that could be broken and retried under varying conditions.

Trying to pretend that something is complex and difficult when it isn't is hysterical.

A minimum of 15 toothpicks were broken with no washers. A maximum of 9 were broken with washers. The STATIONARY MASS slows the FALLING MASS. So expecting to analyze WTC 1 & 2 without knowing the distribution of MASS is absurd.

But YOU SAID in Hardfire #3 in your 2-6 and 2-7 models that the m's need to be scaled to the towers. Therefore you are admitting that the information about the towers is necessary. So why have you been bugging me about brining up the TONS of STEEL and TONS of CONCRETE on every level?

I guess you need time to figure out how to talk your way out of this one. ROFL

psik

PS - School is a pain for making you formalize trivia that is too obvious to talk about.
 
psikeyhackr said:
.
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
Click to expand...

I was talking about the design of the building you are trying to model. How can you build a model without knowing what you are modeling?

How do you know that your falling masses have anything to do with the real weight or that your stationary masses have the correct yield strength?
 
tsig said:
I was talking about the design of the building you are trying to model. How can you build a model without knowing what you are modeling?

How do you know that your falling masses have anything to do with the real weight or that your stationary masses have the correct yield strength?
Click to expand...
.
But I have been telling you people that we need to know the TONS of STEEL and TONS of CONCRETE on every level of the towers for months. But now that I have a physical collapse model you want to complain about scaling. But MacKey wants to complain about my TONE. :D :D

But Mackey talked about scaling for his model. So why hasn't he been demanding to know the distribution of mass for the WTC? MacKey has stuffed his foot in his mouth.

But my "MODEL of Physics Phenomenon" rather than any particular building does variable cases. It could apply to any skyscraper. I can vary the mass from toothpicks only to 8 washers per level. I can replace the toothpicks with variable guage wire. I demonstrated that mass slows things down and reduces damage. The scaling is irrelevant.

But of course you people aren't going to want to admit that you have been WRONG for SEVEN YEARS. You have to come up with excuses to reject the facts. So where is the distribution of mass data on the WTC? The quantities and weights of the perimeter wall panels. How can anyone do scaling without that? ROFLMAO

Great job MacKey! On television no less.

The Ron and Ryan Comedy Hour.

psik
 
psikeyhackr said:
.
But I have been telling you people that we need to know the TONS of STEEL and TONS of CONCRETE on every level of the towers for months.
Click to expand...
FOr construction you would use 150 lbs/cubic foot. Figure out the floor thickness and the total floor area and you got the gross weight of the concrete on each floor... Not as familiar with the steel... but I'm sure your investigoogling could turn up calculations so you can get that on your own...

Have fun... Indulge with your obsession now...
 
psikeyhackr said:
.
But I have been telling you people that we need to know the TONS of STEEL and TONS of CONCRETE on every level of the towers for months. But now that I have a physical collapse model you want to complain about scaling. But MacKey wants to complain about my TONE. :D :D

But Mackey talked about scaling for his model. So why hasn't he been demanding to know the distribution of mass for the WTC? MacKey has stuffed his foot in his mouth.

But my "MODEL of Physics Phenomenon" rather than any particular building does variable cases. It could apply to any skyscraper. I can vary the mass from toothpicks only to 8 washers per level. I can replace the toothpicks with variable guage wire. I demonstrated that mass slows things down and reduces damage. The scaling is irrelevant.

But of course you people aren't going to want to admit that you have been WRONG for SEVEN YEARS. You have to come up with excuses to reject the facts. So where is the distribution of mass data on the WTC? The quantities and weights of the perimeter wall panels. How can anyone do scaling without that? ROFLMAO

Great job MacKey! On television no less.

The Ron and Ryan Comedy Hour.

psik
Click to expand...


Gregory Ulrich has already calculated the distribution of mass (steel, concrete, in-service live load and superimposed dead load). The information was available online and from the various NIST and FEMA reports. Most people on this forum accept this as accurate.

Your model suffers from an inherent difference from the WTC that makes an extrapolation based on scale moot: you're using weak columns and strong floors. You should be using strong columns and weak floors. Your model needs to be able reflect the fact that the WTC columns could (and did) punch right through the floors. Your model is an entirely useless enterprise unless it addresses this.
 
psikeyhackr said:
RMacKey says:

.
I can already figure that out. That is why I built a model that could be broken and retried under varying conditions.

Trying to pretend that something is complex and difficult when it isn't is hysterical.

A minimum of 15 toothpicks were broken with no washers. A maximum of 9 were broken with washers. The STATIONARY MASS slows the FALLING MASS. So expecting to analyze WTC 1 & 2 without knowing the distribution of MASS is absurd.

But YOU SAID in Hardfire #3 in your 2-6 and 2-7 models that the m's need to be scaled to the towers. Therefore you are admitting that the information about the towers is necessary. So why have you been bugging me about brining up the TONS of STEEL and TONS of CONCRETE on every level?

I guess you need time to figure out how to talk your way out of this one. ROFL

psik

PS - School is a pain for making you formalize trivia that is too obvious to talk about.
Click to expand...
You just posted the reasons (albeit veiled in your fancy rhetoric) errors in your model and your anti-intellectual hate of education is blinding you. You will be stuck in 911Truth delusion land for some time with the aversion to gaining knowledge.
 
psikeyhackr said:
.
But I have been telling you people that we need to know the TONS of STEEL and TONS of CONCRETE on every level of the towers for months. But now that I have a physical collapse model you want to complain about scaling. But MacKey wants to complain about my TONE. :D :D

But Mackey talked about scaling for his model. So why hasn't he been demanding to know the distribution of mass for the WTC? MacKey has stuffed his foot in his mouth.

But my "MODEL of Physics Phenomenon" rather than any particular building does variable cases. It could apply to any skyscraper. I can vary the mass from toothpicks only to 8 washers per level. I can replace the toothpicks with variable guage wire. I demonstrated that mass slows things down and reduces damage. The scaling is irrelevant.

But of course you people aren't going to want to admit that you have been WRONG for SEVEN YEARS. You have to come up with excuses to reject the facts. So where is the distribution of mass data on the WTC? The quantities and weights of the perimeter wall panels. How can anyone do scaling without that? ROFLMAO

Great job MacKey! On television no less.

The Ron and Ryan Comedy Hour.

psik
Click to expand...


"But my "MODEL of Physics Phenomenon" rather than any particular building does variable cases. It could apply to any skyscraper."

How do you know what variables to plug into your "universal model"?
 
beachnut said:
You just posted the reasons (albeit veiled in your fancy rhetoric) errors in your model and your anti-intellectual hate of education is blinding you. You will be stuck in 911Truth delusion land for some time with the aversion to gaining knowledge.
Click to expand...

"PS - School is a pain for making you formalize trivia that is too obvious to talk about. "

I'm guessing that physics was just full of trivial formulas.:D
 
Concrete out of the Closet! ROFL

tsig said:
"But my "MODEL of Physics Phenomenon" rather than any particular building does variable cases. It could apply to any skyscraper."

How do you know what variables to plug into your "universal model"?
Click to expand...
.
That is what I have been trying to get from Mackey on the WTC. And convince you people was necessary for months. Don't you think I have mentioned steel and concrete often enough?

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4030578&postcount=987

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4033599&postcount=999

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4034668&postcount=1004

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4035618&postcount=1009

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4208080&postcount=32

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4273861&postcount=6

But now MacKey comes out talking about scaling a model and suddenly it is important information to you people. How can that be done without knowing the TONS of STEEL and TONS of CONCRETE on every level? So why hasn't he been agreeing with me for months?

Now you need to come up with excuses for saying my model is wrong because you have already decided against my position. So get MacKey to come up with the data he now admits is necessary. I suppose he will now have to attack the NIST for not supplying it. :D :D

psik
 
tsig said:
"PS - School is a pain for making you formalize trivia that is too obvious to talk about. "

I'm guessing that physics was just full of trivial formulas.:D
Click to expand...
.
Actually it's the economics that is really dumb, ignoring the depreciation of durable consumer goods, but a lot of that depreciation is caused by physics. :D

http://discussions.pbs.org/viewtopic.pbs?t=28529&sid=06a00fa16f1e2a26d893592d1acd9019

They don't tell you Kirchoff's Current Law until 4th semester of electrical engineering then when they explain what it is you realize that you knew it in grade school It's kind of annoying. It is so simple it is hardly worthy of a name but since Kirchoff figured it out in 1847 and electrons weren't discovered for another 50 years I guess it was a big deal to him. :D

But grade school kids should all have known the basic structure of the atom since the 1950s. So Kirchoff's law is obvious. It is on page 75 of this book:

http://www.amazon.com/Teach-Yourself-Electricity-Electronics-Gibilisco/dp/0071377301

IIT was $1100 per semester back then. So that book should be worth a couple of thousand. LOL

psik
 
beachnut said:
You just posted the reasons (albeit veiled in your fancy rhetoric) errors in your model and your anti-intellectual hate of education is blinding you. You will be stuck in 911Truth delusion land for some time with the aversion to gaining knowledge.
Click to expand...
.
A JREFer complaining about rhetoric when that is all you guys can do.

ROFL

Frank Greening didn't have a problem with the videos. I ran into him on Gregory Urich's site. He says he has been banned from here since July. You people do have a problem trying to defend IMPOSSIBLE physics.

But after SEVEN YEARS all of the engineering schools have a problem to. How do they explain not pointing out the obvious? You can't build skyscrapers without figuring out how much steel and concrete to put where.

How can MacKey talk about scaling a model without that info on the WTC. OOPS!

psik
 
psikeyhackr said:
.
A JREFer complaining about rhetoric when that is all you guys can do.

ROFL

Frank Greening didn't have a problem with the videos. I ran into him on Gregory Urich's site. He says he has been banned from here since July. You people do have a problem trying to defend IMPOSSIBLE physics.

But after SEVEN YEARS all of the engineering schools have a problem to. How do they explain not pointing out the obvious? You can't build skyscrapers without figuring out how much steel and concrete to put where.

How can MacKey talk about scaling a model without that info on the WTC. OOPS!

psik
Click to expand...

I already linked to the posts where Ryan answered your concerns re: wtc mass.

As far as greening getting banned, That was the result of Greening trying to silence his critics by attempting to get another JREF member fired from their job by contacting and harassing their employer. Greening should concentrate more on getting his drinking problem under control. Especially on Friday nights.
 
A W Smith said:
I already linked to the posts where Ryan answered your concerns re: wtc mass.

As far as greening getting banned, That was the result of Greening trying to silence his critics by attempting to get another JREF member fired from their job by contacting and harassing their employer. Greening should concentrate more on getting his drinking problem under control. Especially on Friday nights.
Click to expand...
.
Ryan answered nothing. He responded with BS.

Duh, there are these tall buildings called skyscrapers. What holds them up? Uh, who cares how much steel has to be on each level. Just throw in some steel and don't worry about it. What about wind loading? Duh, what wind?

But now he talks about scaling a model. So he needs to come up with data to keep from looking silly. But then he already looks silly. How many times has he said the distribution of steel and concrete was not important? Oh, it's only important for scaling models. It is irrelevant in the actual building. ROFLMAO

So I am supposed to be impressed by unsubstantiated assertions that amount to nothing more than character assassination. :D :D

LOL

The fact that you make statements like that, even if they are true, says a lot about you. You expect people to believe something you say just because you say it. Don't hold your breath dude.

psik
 
psikeyhackr said:
.
Ryan answered nothing. He responded with BS.

Duh, there are these tall buildings called skyscrapers. What holds them up? Uh, who cares how much steel has to be on each level. Just throw in some steel and don't worry about it. What about wind loading? Duh, what wind?

But now he talks about scaling a model. So he needs to come up with data to keep from looking silly. But then he already looks silly. How many times has he said the distribution of steel and concrete was not important? Oh, it's only important for scaling models. It is irrelevant in the actual building. ROFLMAO

So I am supposed to be impressed by unsubstantiated assertions that amount to nothing more than character assassination. :D :D

LOL

The fact that you make statements like that, even if they are true, says a lot about you. You expect people to believe something you say just because you say it. Don't hold your breath dude.

psik
Click to expand...

AGAIN, Greg Ulrich has already done a mass and steel study.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=92058

Learn to use the search function.

Hell, he even had his paper published in the journal of 9/11 stundies.
 
psikeyhackr said:
.
That is what I have been trying to get from Mackey on the WTC. And convince you people was necessary for months. Don't you think I have mentioned steel and concrete often enough?

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4030578&postcount=987

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4033599&postcount=999

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4034668&postcount=1004

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4035618&postcount=1009

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4208080&postcount=32

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4273861&postcount=6

But now MacKey comes out talking about scaling a model and suddenly it is important information to you people. How can that be done without knowing the TONS of STEEL and TONS of CONCRETE on every level? So why hasn't he been agreeing with me for months?

Now you need to come up with excuses for saying my model is wrong because you have already decided against my position. So get MacKey to come up with the data he now admits is necessary. I suppose he will now have to attack the NIST for not supplying it. :D :D

psik
Click to expand...


First you say you don't know how the buildings were built then you build a model of the buildings.

Why is it Mackey's or anybody else's responsibility to gather data for you?
 
psikeyhackr said:
.
Actually it's the economics that is really dumb, ignoring the depreciation of durable consumer goods, but a lot of that depreciation is caused by physics. :D

http://discussions.pbs.org/viewtopic.pbs?t=28529&sid=06a00fa16f1e2a26d893592d1acd9019

They don't tell you Kirchoff's Current Law until 4th semester of electrical engineering then when they explain what it is you realize that you knew it in grade school It's kind of annoying. It is so simple it is hardly worthy of a name but since Kirchoff figured it out in 1847 and electrons weren't discovered for another 50 years I guess it was a big deal to him. :D

But grade school kids should all have known the basic structure of the atom since the 1950s. So Kirchoff's law is obvious. It is on page 75 of this book:

http://www.amazon.com/Teach-Yourself-Electricity-Electronics-Gibilisco/dp/0071377301

IIT was $1100 per semester back then. So that book should be worth a couple of thousand. LOL

psik
Click to expand...

You knew this http://cnx.org/content/m0032/latest/ in grade school?
 
psikeyhackr said:
.
A JREFer complaining about rhetoric when that is all you guys can do.

ROFL

... psik
Click to expand...
I was not complaining, I was explaining the reason your model sucks was in your fancy rhetoric (fancy does no mean complaining, could mean other things). Your post explained the reason your model has errors.

To contribute to 911, you need some math or a better model. You could do on paper or in your head the momentum to solve the timing of the collapse of the WTC.

If you are looking for a visible slow down in speed in your experiments, you will need to have a video with resolution in the 0.01-second frame rate or better. If you are looking for things in physics, you must define the event duration, and the fact is the new velocity after impact is slower but it instantly begins acceleration. You will fail to observe the event if the events is in one frame at 30 frames or 15 frames per second. You need 300 to 3000 frames a second. Good luck.

You could use the Physics of 911 to guide your model, there is a lot more to think about. If you washer model was an attempt to prove the WTC collapse should slow down you missed the boat, but the WTC fall does slow down.

One tower fell close to 12.08 seconds for most of the building with parts falling up to 20 seconds after initiation or more.

If you model the momentum, the speed of the collapse slowed by 7.69 percent on the first impact, the next floor would be 7.14 percent, etc for till the bottom and the last slow down before total collapse would be 0.91 percent. The largest value of lost velocity is in the first 6 and 7 impact at 1 meter per second slow down, then the slow down less going towards a 0.47 ms slow down. It is neat how a simple model, a model in your head with just physics can match the speed of collapse. Why does this work, because it models what happen, not what I wanted to happen? Your model is what you want to happen, not what happen.

Explosives would be seen on 911, they were not. All the energy of the collapse did the damage, and it was in excess of 130 TONS of TNT per tower. 130 2000 pound bombs worth of damage in each tower due to gravity. That solves the mystery of 911 for 911Truth but they don’t use those pesky formulas and math, or physics.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom