Hardfire: Physics of 9/11

Heiwa said:
Big problem? First of all there were another 96 floors below that floor of instantaneous failure according you.
The big problem is those 96 floors below. One-way crush down? Has never happened before/after 9/11.
Is the one-way crush down theory correct? Is 11 floors (part C) crushing 97 floors (part A) with negligible damages to part C possible?
It seem Mackey has great problems to produce a structure in any scale, size and material to prove the one-way crush down theory.
I have tested numerous structures of all kind - never anything close to one-way crush down.
The one-way crush down theory is just a fairy tale. But if you can come up with a structure that one-way crushes down, you'll win two prizes. One from Mackey and one from me.
Click to expand...
Two WTC towers fell on 911 due to gravity after fires. I present them again and demand the money now or you are a fraud and have no understanding of physics or engineering applicable to the gravity collapse of the WTC towers.

Explain fully why the WTC full-scale gravity collapse does not qualify for your prize (a prize you do not have as you lie about that too)?

You make up failed ridiculous models and lie about money as a prize. You are a liar and will not pay money and you are still off topic.
 
beachnut said:
Explain fully why the WTC full-scale gravity collapse does not qualify for your prize?
Click to expand...

See http://heiwaco.tripod.com/nist3.htm .

In order to fulfill the requirements of my Challenge (and Mackey's ?) and win the prizes you must produce a structure, where a part C one-way crushes down a similar structure part A (C=1/10 A) after dropping C on A. It can be in any scale, size, &c.

A WTC full scale re-production (e.g. in a safe place) will of course qualify but I suggest a more modest size. Good luck! :)
 
Heiwa said:
See http://heiwaco.tripod.com/nist3.htm .

In order to fulfill the requirements of my Challenge (and Mackey's ?) and win the prizes you must produce a structure, where a part C one-way crushes down a similar structure part A (C=1/10 A) after dropping C on A. It can be in any scale, size, &c.

A WTC full scale re-production (e.g. in a safe place) will of course qualify but I suggest a more modest size. Good luck! :)
Click to expand...

Speaking of challenge, Myriad has accepted your challenge. So long as you prove that you have the money. You do have the money, right? I mean it would be totally unthinkable that you're a lying fraud. :rolleyes:
 
Heiwa said:
Not really. According my calculations the WTC 1 upper block has mass 33 000 tons and with a drop of only 0.5 m the available energy is only 165 MJ. I know Bazant assumes 54 000 tons and a drop of 3.7 m and energy input 2000 MJ or 12 times more.
With my smaller energy input the upper part just bounces on the lower structure. Elastic strain energy there exceeds the energy input. This I would expect to happen.
But I am prepared to increase the energy input and see what happens then - plastic deformation - OK, it takes place. I describe it in my article. And then something breaks in both upper and lower parts. And it requires much more energy than just elastic and plastic deformation. And then damaged parts start to shift position and rub against each other and even more energy is consumed due friction (which Bazant ignores). When this takes place you should be able to see a deceleration/slow down of the upper part. So I would say WTC 1 upper part could only damage one or two stories below, while damaging same stories above ... and then arrest. It would take say 3 seconds. No loose debris would be formed.
However, just look at any video - the upper part is blown into pieces long before that.
Interesting subject actually. But I agree, Mackey is not interested in any energy calculations with his models. If you do simple energy calculations, you will find that a part C of a structure cannot crush down one-way a similar structure A, where C = 1/10A, by dropping C on A. C will always be destroyed long before A. In any size, scale, structure, material. Prove me wrong and you win a prize.
Click to expand...


A drop of 0.5m? HUH?!?!?! :boggled::boggled::boggled:

Has anyone told you what the floor to floor heights of the tower is? Do you think that people worked on floors that were only 0.5m tall?
 
Newtons Bit said:
Has anyone told you what the floor to floor heights of the tower is? Do you think that people worked on floors that were only 0.5m tall?
Click to expand...

Obviously, he was thinking of a building like the one in Being John Malkovich. 'Cept smaller. :D

picture.php
 
Heiwa said:
See http://heiwaco.tripod.com/nist3.htm .

In order to fulfill the requirements of my Challenge (and Mackey's ?) and win the prizes you must produce a structure, where a part C one-way crushes down a similar structure part A (C=1/10 A) after dropping C on A. It can be in any scale, size, &c.

A WTC full scale re-production (e.g. in a safe place) will of course qualify but I suggest a more modest size. Good luck! :)
Click to expand...
You can't answer simple questions?

beachnut said:
- Explain fully why the WTC full-scale gravity collapse does not qualify for your prize (a prize you do not have as you lie about that too)?
Click to expand...
Don't post your junk science web site. Answer the question. I won by offering the full-scale collapse of the WTC. You lost again.

Please take this and answer in your other failed threads instead of going tangential with stupid off topic posts.
 
Newtons Bit said:
So your entire objection is that NIST didn't release the full set of structural drawings? I'm sorry buddy, but the government does not have the right to release those drawings. Those are the intellectual property of the company that designed them.

They will never be released to the public. Nor should they.
Click to expand...

There are times when the public welfare trumps private concerns. The drawings of the Tacoma Narrows bridge were released publicly after the disaster, to enlist the help of the international community to find the problem and resolve it. It would seem that the events of Sept. 11, 2001, which was not only an unprecedented engineering disaster but caused the death of nearly 3,000 people, would certainly be considered one of those times where the public welfare trumps private concerns.

It would seem that most people would want a public airing of how the twin towers came down with full scrutiny. We haven't gotten that yet.

It would also be a good idea to replicate the failure in a repeatable way with a legitimate physical model. Had the NIST done that there might be less debate about it today.
 
Last edited:
realcddeal said:
There are times when the public welfare trumps private concerns. The drawings of the Tacoma Narrows bridge were released publicly after the disaster, to enlist the help of the international community to find the problem and resolve it. It would seem that the events of Sept. 11, 2001, which was not only an unprecedented engineering disaster but caused the death of nearly 3,000 people, would certainly be considered one of those times where the public welfare trumps private concerns.

It would seem that most people would want a public airing of how the twin towers came down with full scrutiny. We haven't gotten that yet.

It would also be a good idea to replicate the failure in a repeatable way with a legitimate physical model. Had the NIST done that there might be less debate about it today.
Click to expand...

Im sorry tony. I seemed to have missed the portion of this video where the planes impact the bridge, Can you point out the terrorist attack for us? I mean after all, never in the history of mankind has a steel suspension bridge collapsed due to wind. So there must be a government conspiracy. right? Oh ask yer genius buddy psikeyhackr what the distribution of steel and concrete was for the Tacoma narrows bridge.

 
realcddeal said:
There are times when the public welfare trumps private concerns. The drawings of the Tacoma Narrows bridge were released publicly after the disaster, to enlist the help of the international community to find the problem and resolve it. It would seem that the events of Sept. 11, 2001, which was not only an unprecedented engineering disaster but caused the death of nearly 3,000 people, would certainly be considered one of those times where the public welfare trumps private concerns.

It would seem that most people would want a public airing of how the twin towers came down with full scrutiny. We haven't gotten that yet.

It would also be a good idea to replicate the failure in a repeatable way with a legitimate physical model. Had the NIST done that there might be less debate about it today.
Click to expand...

Construction documents for structures that are stamped and signed ARE OWNED BY THOSE WHO CREATED THEM. The government does not have the authority to release these drawings publicly. The building owners do not have the authority to release these drawings publicly. They will be sued and will LOSE if they do. These drawings have a large amount of value. With them, anyone with the money and desire, could build the WTC.

The government, specifically the Washington State Highway Department, created and produced the construction documents for the Tacoma Narrows Bridge. They could do whatever they wanted with those drawings.

Furthermore, it is easy to get access to the WTC construction documents. All you need to do is put in a request and pay a reproduction fee.

Even furthermore, NIST, ASCE, SEA, AISC, and probably a lot of other organizations, all investigated the collapse. But even then, to most engineers, it was a no-brainer. To most of the public, it was also a no-brainer. You cannot ram two massive airliners into a building at extremely high velocities and expect it to stand.
 
Newtons Bit said:
Furthermore, it is easy to get access to the WTC construction documents. All you need to do is put in a request and pay a reproduction fee.
Click to expand...

Just who would one see to pay the reproduction fee and get access to the WTC construction drawings? How do you know this is true?

Even furthermore, NIST, ASCE, SEA, AISC, and probably a lot of other organizations, all investigated the collapse. But even then, to most engineers, it was a no-brainer.
Click to expand...

How would you compare the investigation into the collapse of WTC 7?

To most of the public, it was also a no-brainer.
Click to expand...

Maybe at the time, but certain revelations have caused many to look at the situation more deeply and reconsider their initial conclusions. The key for most engineers was that it was assumed that there had to be a dynamic load amplification caused by impact of the upper stories on the lower, which I bought into at the time also. That doesn't appear to be true now that it has been looked at more deeply.

You cannot ram two massive airliners into a building at extremely high velocities and expect it to stand.
Click to expand...

You should realize that this statement is a Non Sequitur.
 
Last edited:
realcddeal said:
Just who would one see to pay the reproduction fee and get access to the WTC construction drawings? How do you know this is true?
Click to expand...

Here's an idea, pick up a phone. Call the Port Authority. Tell them you're a researcher. If they don't give it out then they'll probably tell you who will. Be prepared to spend about a thousand dollars on the reproduction (maybe more, these things are huge).


How would you compare the investigation into the collapse of WTC 7?
Click to expand...



Maybe at the time, but certain revelations have caused many to look at the situation more deeply and reconsider their initial conclusions. The key for most engineers was that it was assumed that there had to be a dynamic load amplification caused by impact of the upper stories on the lower, which I bought into at the time also. That doesn't appear to be true now that it has been looked at more deeply.
Click to expand...

Many? You mean a few whack jobs? Like one who uses cardboard boxes as models? Seriously?

Dynamic Load Amplification? Now you're just talking out of your rear. The KE/PE studies have been done to death. Even assuming the most (rational, ignore Heiwa's 0.5m drop) favorable conditions for collapse-arrest, it still continues. Get over it.

You should realize that this statement is a Non Sequitur.
Click to expand...

Looks like a no-brainer to me. Do you think buildings should survive two massive airplanes traveling at large velocities? Most people don't.
 
Newtons Bit said:
Dynamic Load Amplification? Now you're just talking out of your rear. The KE/PE studies have been done to death. Even assuming the most (rational, ignore Heiwa's 0.5m drop) favorable conditions for collapse-arrest, it still continues. Get over it.
Click to expand...

Have you read Dr. Bazant's papers, the premise of which, yes dynamic load amplification, the NIST WTC investigation depends on?

KE/PE means nothing if there is no transfer of the kinetic energy by an impact on an object and that requires deceleration of the impacting object. It has been found to be lacking in the fall of the upper block of the North Tower. Does that mean anything to you?

I would think Heiwa probably meant a 0.5 floor height drop, which is what Bazant suggests is all that would be necessary to generate a progressive collapse of the towers.
 
Last edited:
realcddeal said:
Have you read Dr. Bazant's papers, the premise of which, yes dynamic load amplification, the NIST WTC investigation depends on?
Click to expand...

A falling object results in a higher force than a static one. Do you think this DOESN'T happen?

KE/PE means nothing if there is no transfer of the kinetic energy by an impact on an object and that requires deceleration of the impacting object. It has been found to be lacking in the fall of the upper block of the North Tower. Does that mean anything to you?
Click to expand...

I've seen the pictures, it sure looks like the upper block gets clobbered before the lower block collapses.

I would think Heiwa probably meant a 0.5 floor height drop, which is what Bazant suggests is all that would be necessary to generate a progressive collapse of the towers.
Click to expand...

No, he means 0.5m. He's pretty nutty. Try scrolling down.
 
Newtons Bit said:
A falling object results in a higher force than a static one. Do you think this DOESN'T happen?
Click to expand...

Of course it happens. However the falling object has to decelerate at a rate greater than 1g to apply a load greater than 1g. The load amplification is equal to the deceleration rate divided by g. For instance, to get a 3g amplification the falling object has to at least momentarily decelerate at 3 times the rate of gravity. For greater amplifications the deceleration must be greater. However, we don't see any deceleration when we measure the fall of the upper block of the North Tower. It just keeps accelerating, meaning no amplified load of the upper block was applied on anything.

I've seen the pictures, it sure looks like the upper block gets clobbered before the lower block collapses.
Click to expand...

Yes, the upper block does get clobbered before the lower block does, so upon more sober reflection it should cause one to wonder just what it was that caused the lower block to collapse, especially now that we know the upper block shows no sign of deceleration for the nine stories that it's fall is measurable.
 
Last edited:
R.Mackey said:
If anyone ever posts on topic, please wake me. This is absurd.
Click to expand...

Sorry boss. I'll refrain from posting stuff off-topic on this thread.

To everyone else: please start new threads for these topics, or find one that it's already been discussed in.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom