Hardfire: Physics of 9/11

bill smith said:
Here's another perhaps less accurate model. It has it's points though.lol
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KDHN1gBkx0M
Click to expand...

If you click on my picture it gets bigger. Thus an m (with (k-1)m above it) contacts another m in the tower, and BIG dynamic forces are applied on the adjacent columns ABOVE and below. As columns ABOVE are weaker (they carried less load before) they break first (if they break). So now (k-1)m drop and another m make contact and same thing happens again. The adjacent columns ABOVE break, &c, and this happens k times.

Result is k m stacked on top of each other. The columns below this stack are loaded exactly as before (evidently). Only result is that (k-1) assemblies of weak columns ABOVE are broken. NIST suggests that the columns below the m that was impacted first can only carry n floors, where n<k, but as the columns actually carried k m before, NIST is wrong.

This is not rocket science. This is called structural damage analysis as the gentleman in your linked video explains clearly in a popular way.

There are two tricks in the Mackey Hardfire presentation. One is that M = km contacts m while it is only another m, the other is that the columns below m are damaged, when it should be the weaker columns ABOVE.

Scale has nothing to do with it. :)

I wonder when Hardfire will send a real Physics of 9/11 show?
 
bill smith said:
Heiwa, this could be interesting.
http://www.911blogger.com/node/19761

The paper ends with this sentence:''Based on these observations, we conclude that the red layer of the red/gray chips we have discovered in the WTC dust is active, unreacted thermitic material, incorporating nanotechnology, and is a highly energetic pyrotechnic or explosive material.''
Click to expand...

I have a feeling that the red layer was much thicker, a real charge, before and reacted as planned. The gray layer was just a thin seal of incombustible material around the red thermitic material charge (to protect it from humidity) and this gray layer was just fragmented, when the red material burnt. The gray layer may have cooled the red material, so that remants of red material was found on it.
Interesting developments!
 
Heiwa said:
I have a feeling that the red layer was much thicker, a real charge, before and reacted as planned. The gray layer was just a thin seal of incombustible material around the red thermitic material charge (to protect it from humidity) and this gray layer was just fragmented, when the red material burnt. The gray layer may have cooled the red material, so that remants of red material was found on it.
Interesting developments!
Click to expand...

I'd like to see a much more detailed report on the properties of the grey material. Obviously there was a reason for it's presence- (perhaps what you speculate) and those properties might point the way to the light..
 
Heiwa said:
I have a feeling that the red layer was much thicker, a real charge, before and reacted as planned. The gray layer was just a thin seal of incombustible material around the red thermitic material charge (to protect it from humidity) and this gray layer was just fragmented, when the red material burnt. The gray layer may have cooled the red material, so that remants of red material was found on it.
Interesting developments!
Click to expand...
This gets more anti-intellectual as you pick up the dirt dumb ideas of other frauds on 911.

You can’t get your dirt dumb posts in the correct thread! Do they have training meetings to teach you guys to post real dumb statements in the wrong threads?

You and Bill Smith can’t keep on topic or figure out 911. Is that due to complete ignorance on 911 issues? Why are you and the dumb idea believers off topic again? Go to the other thread
 
Last edited:
bill smith said:
Heiwa, this could be interesting.
http://www.911blogger.com/node/19761

The paper ends with this sentence:''Based on these observations, we conclude that the red layer of the red/gray chips we have discovered in the WTC dust is active, unreacted thermitic material, incorporating nanotechnology, and is a highly energetic pyrotechnic or explosive material.''
Click to expand...
And that paper has huge gaping flaws in it - if you wish to discuss them start reading from here. http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=139293 They certainly didn't find thermite and their methods cannot possibly prove what they conclude.
 
beachnut said:
This gets more anti-intellectual as you pick up the dirt dumb ideas of other frauds on 911.

You can’t get your dirt dumb posts in the correct thread! Do they have training meetings to teach you guys to post real dumb statements in the wrong threads?

You and Bill Smith can’t keep on topic or figure out 911. Is that due to complete ignorance on 911 issues? Why are you and the dumb idea believers off topic again? Go to the other thread
Click to expand...

You are right. Topic is Mackey's model presentation and problems with scale, &c, but maybe it can be overcome using nano-thermite? Just blow up the model or full scale structure? I understand Mackey is quite active on the nano-thermite thread. He seems to be an expert on many things. I look forward to Mackey coming back here and look at my revised model of his presentation. How can this M thing crush anything ... except itself?
 
Heiwa said:
And all this abuse! What's wrong with a friendly and lively discussion?
Click to expand...

Accusing innocent people of mass murder on the slimmest and most ludicrous evidence is not often conducive to a friendly and lively discussion.
 
twinstead said:
Accusing innocent people of mass murder on the slimmest and most ludicrous evidence is not often conducive to a friendly and lively discussion.
Click to expand...

I agree. Hell, I think that twoofers deserve to be treated much more harshly than forum rules allow.
 
twinstead said:
Accusing innocent people of mass murder on the slimmest and most ludicrous evidence is not often conducive to a friendly and lively discussion.
Click to expand...

??? Topic is NASA engineer Mackey's presentation and this big M causing one-way crush down of many small m! As far as I am aware big M consists also of small m! Who commits mass murder? Big M or little m?

Pls clarify.

Heiwa - one of many m
 
Heiwa said:
??? Topic is NASA engineer Mackey's presentation and this big M causing one-way crush down of many small m! As far as I am aware big M consists also of small m! Who commits mass murder? Big M or little m?

Pls clarify.
Click to expand...

Yes, it is indeed off topic--my bad, but you were one who complained about the responses you received. I was just explaining them. The implications of your theory and how they relate to the responses it gets is food for another thread.

I am totally convinced that you don't know what you are talking about, and it appears I'm not the only one. I'm no expert though, and you seem SO sure of yourself, so I'll just wait until your paper is published in a respected scientific journal and leave you to your thread.
 
Model results

So I made a model and dropped upper part C (M = k m) on lower structure A:

Remember upper part C with mass M was previously resting on A.

Mac4.jpg


First drop was perfect - upper part C columns collapsed as expected. Lower structure A survived impact, as expected. A carries same mass M as before

Second drop was less perfect - upper part C columns just collapsed locally on one side and part C was tilting up top.

I wonder why A didn't collapse one-way? Maybe it was too strong? Stronger than C anyway.

Something for Hardfire to report?
 
How to debunk oneself? By posting images that even young kids see the errors!

So you think that both columns of the section wouldn't fail and would support a huge amount of mass. That's just boolsheet, and shows you're not living in the real world and you're amongst the worst engineers. I'm quite astonished that you don't figure it out by yourself.

As for the fourth picture... Why do you choose *one* particular column, decreting it is the most resistant column? You don't have any clue of Physics.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom