Hardfire: Physics of 9/11

bill smith said:
I'm sure that nobody notices him not answering this one Heiwa. After all they didn't notice all the other times either.
Click to expand...

I already responded to the post. Stop beating dead horses. The PE/KE model of column strikes has been done to death. The tower collapses per this model. You have to cheat to show otherwise.
 
Newtons Bit said:
I already responded to the post. Stop beating dead horses. The PE/KE model of column strikes has been done to death. The tower collapses per this model. You have to cheat to show otherwise.
Click to expand...

Has it? Nevertheless, one alternative is then the Mackey 'M fuses m' theory, where M drops on m and they fuse. This goes on n times. It is a desparate attempt to support the 'one-way crushing down' theory, where instead of fusing, M crushes n numbers of m with negligible damage to itself! Very con-fusing! It is a con game.

Evidently the 'M fuses m' and the 'one-way crushing down' theories cannot be con-firmed in a laboratory and were strangely unheard of before 9/11, when they suddenly popped up. Scale effects, we are told. Doesn't con-vert me though. So I con-tradict!

We are now looking forward to the Mackey 'M is crushed up' theory. As M cannot go on and fuse m for ever, there must be an end, and this end is when M is crushed up.

Maybe something for a Hardfire, Physics of 9/11 - Part 4. Where does M end up! In the round filing cabinet right below you on the floor? :)
 
Last edited:
Heiwa said:
Has it? Nevertheless, one alternative is then the Mackey 'M fuses m' theory, where M drops on m and they fuse. This goes on n times. It is a desparate attempt to support the 'one-way crushing down' theory, where instead of fusing, M crushes n numbers of m with negligible damage to itself! Very con-fusing! It is a con game.

Evidently the 'M fuses m' and the 'one-way crushing down' theories cannot be con-firmed in a laboratory and were strangely unheard of before 9/11, when they suddenly popped up. Scale effects, we are told. Doesn't con-vert me though. So I con-tradict!

We are now looking forward to the Mackey 'M is crushed up' theory. As M cannot go on and fuse m for ever, there must be an end, and this end is when M is crushed up.

Maybe something for a Hardfire, Physics of 9/11 - Part 4. Where does M end up! In the round filing cabinet right below you on the floor? :)
Click to expand...


Yes. It has. As far as your "laboratory" experiments go, I would suggest rewatching Mackey's segment on SCALE. And then watch it again. And then when you get the urge to link to your "paper", WATCH IT AGAIN.

If you have specific questions on what and why scale matter, please ask them.
 
Newtons Bit said:
Yes. It has. As far as your "laboratory" experiments go, I would suggest rewatching Mackey's segment on SCALE. And then watch it again. And then when you get the urge to link to your "paper", WATCH IT AGAIN.

If you have specific questions on what and why scale matter, please ask them.
Click to expand...

I know scale matters. Ship resistance differs in model and full scale and we know how to handle that. That's why all my 9/11 related tests are full scale (pizza boxes, sponges, lemons, etc! How do you scale a lemon?). But a phenomenon, e.g. one-way crush down of a structure or M fusing m, is not a matter of scale. If any structure one-way crush down or M fuses m at a certain size, you should be able to reproduce this strange phenomenon in any size!

I understand that Mackey cannot design a table top model, where M fuses m, because it does not happen anywhere. Mackey's explanations are pathetic, i.e. the error of imaginatively endowing intimate objects with life!

I like that explanation! Japanese, of course!
 
Newtons Bit said:
I already responded to the post. Stop beating dead horses. The PE/KE model of column strikes has been done to death. The tower collapses per this model. You have to cheat to show otherwise.
Click to expand...

Tell me this....do you think the spaghetti model would collapse level with the ground ?
 
Last edited:
Heiwa said:
I know scale matters. Ship resistance differs in model and full scale and we know how to handle that. That's why all my 9/11 related tests are full scale (pizza boxes, sponges, lemons, etc! How do you scale a lemon?). But a phenomenon, e.g. one-way crush down of a structure or M fusing m, is not a matter of scale. If any structure one-way crush down or M fuses m at a certain size, you should be able to reproduce this strange phenomenon in any size!

I understand that Mackey cannot design a table top model, where M fuses m, because it does not happen anywhere. Mackey's explanations are pathetic, i.e. the error of imaginatively endowing intimate objects with life!

I like that explanation! Japanese, of course!
Click to expand...

No Heiwa, different failure modes exist at different scales. You cannot see all failure modes at tiny scales. Conversely, there are also known failure modes of structural members that exist for sizes that are much greater than what was in the WTC.
 
bill smith said:
Tell me this....do you think the spaghetti model would collapse level with the ground ?
Click to expand...

Level with the ground?

If you build a structure with a few rules: strong column, weak floor; close to capacity floor structures (dcr = 0.25); connections that are slightly less strong than members, then I think it would easily collapse from a failure near the top.

None of the models created by the "truth movement" obey those simple rules. Which is why they haven't created one that will actually collapse.

An ant can support, what, 50 times it's own weight? Why can't a human? Our muscles have near the same level of strength.
 
Newtons Bit said:
No Heiwa, different failure modes exist at different scales. You cannot see all failure modes at tiny scales. Conversely, there are also known failure modes of structural members that exist for sizes that are much greater than what was in the WTC.
Click to expand...

Yes, yes! What failure modes of structural members exist at various sizes? Is failure subject to scale? And what modes?

Maybe Mackey can clarify in Part 5?

PS - failure in a structure occurs when molecules of the material of the elements of the structure are detached from adjacent molecules - it requires plenty energy and produces heat. Has nothing to do with scale

Maybe Mackey can scale molecules in Part 6?

Pls report to your boss, if he doesn"t read this.
 
Newtons Bit said:
Level with the ground?

If you build a structure with a few rules: strong column, weak floor; close to capacity floor structures (dcr = 0.25); connections that are slightly less strong than members, then I think it would easily collapse from a failure near the top.

None of the models created by the "truth movement" obey those simple rules. Which is why they haven't created one that will actually collapse.

An ant can support, what, 50 times it's own weight? Why can't a human? Our muscles have near the same level of strength.
Click to expand...

On that note- if scaling is so important what kind of visual differences would you expect to see in the 6' tall spaghetti model to scale it it more representatively. Stress on the 'visual'. A rough idea would be fine.
 
bill smith said:
On that note- if scaling is so important what kind of visual differences would you expect to see in the 6' tall spaghetti model to scale it it more representatively. Stress on the 'visual'. A rough idea would be fine.
Click to expand...

Please see my rules from above. Visuals don't matter.
 
Heiwa said:
Yes, yes! What failure modes of structural members exist at various sizes? Is failure subject to scale? And what modes?

Maybe Mackey can clarify in Part 5?

PS - failure in a structure occurs when molecules of the material of the elements of the structure are detached from adjacent molecules - it requires plenty energy and produces heat. Has nothing to do with scale

Maybe Mackey can scale molecules in Part 6?

Pls report to your boss, if he doesn"t read this.
Click to expand...

Detached from adjacent molecules? Heiwa, you need to go back to school and learn basic engineering. Structural components can "fail" without fracturing or splitting.

MODES of failure are dependant upon geometric properties. Which in itself includes scale.

Now then, what SPECIFIC questions do you have on how scale affects a model?
 
bill smith said:
On that note- if scaling is so important what kind of visual differences would you expect to see in the 6' tall spaghetti model to scale it it more representatively. Stress on the 'visual'. A rough idea would be fine.
Click to expand...
Time does not scale. Visual will NOT occur short of full scale with any physical model.
 
Newtons Bit said:
Please see my rules from above. Visuals don't matter.
Click to expand...

I beg to differ. Scaling would mean making components longer or shorter, thicker or thinner and so on. Eminently visible in other words. Can't you at least give us an idea of how you think a roperly scaled version of the spaghetti model might look ?
 
Last edited:
bill smith said:
I beg to differ. Scaling would mean making components longer or shorter, thicker or thinner and so on. Eminently visible in other words. Can't you at least give us an idea of how you think a roperly scaled version of the spaghetti model might look ?
Click to expand...

I'm not even 100% postive that it COULD be properly scaled. It might be. But that's a serious excercise.

I do know one thing for certain: cardboard boxes and lemons do not make a scale WTC.
 
Newtons Bit said:
I'm not even 100% postive that it COULD be properly scaled. It might be. But that's a serious excercise.

I do know one thing for certain: cardboard boxes and lemons do not make a scale WTC.
Click to expand...

Are you saying that the standard spaghetti model as suggested does not work beause it is improperly scaled ?
 
Last edited:
Newtons Bit said:
Detached from adjacent molecules? Heiwa, you need to go back to school and learn basic engineering. Structural components can "fail" without fracturing or splitting.

MODES of failure are dependant upon geometric properties. Which in itself includes scale.

Now then, what SPECIFIC questions do you have on how scale affects a model?
Click to expand...

I thought you said:

No Heiwa, different failure modes exist at different scales. You cannot see all failure modes at tiny scales.

So, what failure modes exist at tiny scales that you cannot see?

Re geometric (geometrical ?) properties: Is a 30° angle same in scale 1/1 and 1/1000 or 1/000.1? Does a 30° angle in scale 1/1 become 30000° in scale 1/0.001?

You are con-fusing!
 
Heiwa said:
I thought you said:

No Heiwa, different failure modes exist at different scales. You cannot see all failure modes at tiny scales.

So, what failure modes exist at tiny scales that you cannot see?

Re geometric (geometrical ?) properties: Is a 30° angle same in scale 1/1 and 1/1000 or 1/000.1? Does a 30° angle in scale 1/1 become 30000° in scale 1/0.001?

You are con-fusing!
Click to expand...

By "see", I mean observe naturally.

The first one that comes to mind has to do with deep beams. Beams 4'-0" or more in depth do not behave as a uniform section like smaller shapes do (such as what is commonly used in steel construction). You have to analyze it with a method such as "strut-and-tie" to address local tension and compression failures at nodes within the beam.

By normal design, the shape might have enough shear and moment capacity, but still fail.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom