Mr.Herbert
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2007
- Messages
- 1,449
Are those your birthday candles? What did you wish for?
Hardfire: Physics of 9/11
- Thread starter R.Mackey
- Start date
Are those your birthday candles? What did you wish for?
According Bazant & Co upper part lowest (green) floor and everything above is intact during a 10 seconds one-way crush down of lower part (every storey being compressed 1/4) into RUBBLE. No floors fell on floors = pancake = even NIST agrees with that. It seems your model is not as per Bazant and NIST.
ozeco41
Philosopher
..so what - Bazant is wrong or you are misinterpreting him. I merely model what occurred in the "collapse that actually happened". My objective is to simply explain what happened - not to prove or disprove Bazant. Nor NIST. We all have eyes and brains and some of us understand engineering structures and forensics. Bazant does a better than average job of complicating the simple. Jones, Gage, Szamboti, Chandler et al wouldn't fool an alert first year university undergrad with their flawed logic and analyses.
There is simply no way that "every storey was crushed into rubble". Whoever makes these "crushed" statements does not talk about what actually happened. The outer wall "tube" of columns was peeled off the outside and fell independently. Do these look "crushed"???
All the talk about "crush" or "crushing" or derivative words is usually in the form of "lies by innuendo" - look at Szamboti's stuff and Chandler's. cheap propaganda. Whether they are liars who know that they are wrong OR deluded persons thinking they understand they both presume what you are trying to force into the debate. ie that the top block and the lower stub of tower interacted as if each was an integral whole acting as a solid block single entity. WRONG!
So from that bloody ridiculous premise it follows that every statement based on that false foundation is itself false.
Not true as you must know with the number of posts you make. And you must also be aware of the "quote mine" in the reference to NIST. NIST said clearly "no pancaking" in the initial collapse AND from that point "global collapse was inevitable". End of the NIST brief. The Global collapse which followed with the inevitability that NIST correctly identified was pure and simple floor by floor pancaking.
Not as per Bazant because mine is accurate and he does not explain it.
You are wrong on NIST - NIST did not explain the "Global Collapse" - outside their brief. So my model cannot disagree with NIST - it falls in an area where NIST is silent.
And I don't particularly care who I disagree with when my explanations are better than theirs AND open to rebuttal
bill smith
Philosopher
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2009
- Messages
- 8,408
..so what - Bazant is wrong or you are misinterpreting him. I merely model what occurred in the "collapse that actually happened". My objective is to simply explain what happened - not to prove or disprove Bazant. Nor NIST. We all have eyes and brains and some of us understand engineering structures and forensics. Bazant does a better than average job of complicating the simple. Jones, Gage, Szamboti, Chandler et al wouldn't fool an alert first year university undergrad with their flawed logic and analyses.
There is simply no way that "every storey was crushed into rubble". Whoever makes these "crushed" statements does not talk about what actually happened. The outer wall "tube" of columns was peeled off the outside and fell independently. Do these look "crushed"???
[qimg]http://conleys.com.au/webstuff/002.jpg[/qimg]
All the talk about "crush" or "crushing" or derivative words is usually in the form of "lies by innuendo" - look at Szamboti's stuff and Chandler's. cheap propaganda. Whether they are liars who know that they are wrong OR deluded persons thinking they understand they both presume what you are trying to force into the debate. ie that the top block and the lower stub of tower interacted as if each was an integral whole acting as a solid block single entity. WRONG!
So from that bloody ridiculous premise it follows that every statement based on that false foundation is itself false.
Not true as you must know with the number of posts you make. And you must also be aware of the "quote mine" in the reference to NIST. NIST said clearly "no pancaking" in the initial collapse AND from that point "global collapse was inevitable". End of the NIST brief. The Global collapse which followed with the inevitability that NIST correctly identified was pure and simple floor by floor pancaking.
Not as per Bazant because mine is accurate and he does not explain it.
You are wrong on NIST - NIST did not explain the "Global Collapse" - outside their brief. So my model cannot disagree with NIST - it falls in an area where NIST is silent.
And I don't particularly care who I disagree with when my explanations are better than theirs AND open to rebuttal
Here's a much better photo of ground zero and surroundings.
http://www.engr.psu.edu/ae/WTC/wtc-photo.jpg Huge photo (slow loading,zoomable)
From NIST report - NIST NCSTAR 1-6D chapter 5.2:
"The aircraft impacted the north wall of WTC 1 at 8:46 a.m. … between Floor 93 and Floor 98. … The subsequent fires weakened structural subsystems, including the core columns, floors and exterior walls. The core displaced downward … At 100 min (at 10:28:18), the north, east, and west walls at Floor 98 carried 7 percent, 35 percent and 30 percent more gravity load loads … and the south wall and the core carried about 7 percent and 20 percent less loads, respectively., … At 10.28 a.m., 102 min after the aircraft impact, WTC1 began to collapse. … The release of potential energy (PE) due to downward movement of the building mass above the buckled columns exceeded the strain energy (SE) that could be absorbed by the structure. Global collapse ensued."
So according NIST - due to downward movement of the building mass above the buckled columns - the WTC 1 was subject to global collapse.
OK, we haven't seen any buckled columns on any photos, and have we seen any downward movement of the building mass above? On all videos I see the mass above being blown apart above the buckled columns, so that the roof drops making the impression that the building mass moves down.
Another NIST error is that the energy applied exceeded the strain energy that could be absorbed. There are no calculations proving this. According my calculations - treating the problem as solid mass contacting spring - the solid mass would only bounce.
But the building mass above was 95% air! Looking more detailed at the strong elements in the structure (columns) - as I do - you should conclude they would only damage weaker elements (floors) and arrest would soon follow.
You see, a weak structure above cannot crush a strong structure below even after a drop. No global collapse CAN ensue.
Small but significant error by NIST.
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through
Two questions:
(a) If you can't see the buckled columns, how do you know which is the part of the building mass above the buckled columns? This is a new variant on the classic Heiwa fallacy of claiming that the collapse didn't initiate in the collapse initiation zone.
(b) If the building mass didn't move downwards, it's still there. You might want to go to New York and take a quick look. If you can see the Twin Towers, then the above paragraph makes sense. If you can't...
Dave
A W Smith
Philosopher
except for the fact that by the time that photo was taken, west street and surrounding areas had been cleared. So no. it is not a better photo" of conditions at ground zero immediately after the collapse.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6b/September_17_2001_Ground_Zero_02.jpg
ok I watched the boring ramblings in the above Hardfire presentation and I have to say it's kind of amusing ..... especially how with less than ten minutes left, not a single issue has been addressed.
anyway, why... why would someone bother going to all the trouble, if they werent being paid to?
... beats me..
anyway, why... why would someone bother going to all the trouble, if they werent being paid to?
... beats me..
A W Smith
Philosopher
So the truthers issue regarding the aircrafts penetration of the the perimeter columns wasn't addressed in the mackey/hardfire video then? I have not seen the videos in about two weeks. So you are telling us they removed the videos?
And making you look like an ass is payment enough.
Last edited:
Just to let you all know... I wont be addressing asinine comments and questions like the one above...... you see it's pushing ma post count way to high. Soon I'll be over 100, and to be honest once that happens I'm gonna start feeling like I've got no life.... infact I'll start feeling like I'm one of you lot.
A W Smith
Philosopher
Hows the weather in Manchester?
No really Paul, Show us how Mackey failed to address the aircraft impact? we are all waiting. Or did you not even bother to watch the video?? You know how this makes you look? Paul?
No really Paul, Show us how Mackey failed to address the aircraft impact? we are all waiting. Or did you not even bother to watch the video?? You know how this makes you look? Paul?
No really, I'm not Paul....... but you can call me Jim
I dont care how it makes me look.... and without a webcam you'll never really know
now see what you're doin to ma post count?
A W Smith
Philosopher
You couldn't resist posting, could you "jim". And you also couldn't answer this.
Last edited:
I thought the big issue was to model the global, one-way crush down collapse of WTC 1 structure, i.e. upper part/section M (= 14 m) one-way crushing down the lower part/section N (= 97 m), i.e. abt. 7 times bigger (and stronger), 97 times.
I know Mackey suggests that M knocks off one m of N (M = m(14+1)) at first impact but I cannot understand why! In my text book of structures it should be N knocking off one m of M (M = m(14-1)) !!! To start with.
And it has nothing to do with size or scale.
It seems Mackey has disappeared from this thread after this simple request for clarification.
Last edited:
A W Smith
Philosopher
start at the beginning.
"Jim" claimed that Mackey didn't address any points whatsoever, So I started with the very first point addressed in the videos.
"Jim" claimed that Mackey didn't address any points whatsoever, So I started with the very first point addressed in the videos.
Good. Now you can address the 3rd point. A progressive, one-way crush down is NOT possible (and not likely). Upper part M is too weak and small. I wonder why Mackey (and NIST and Bazant) suggest something else?
Last edited:
A W Smith
Philosopher
I show him 45 orders of magnitude, Heiwa shows me 45 orders of ignorance.
your little point
I even showed you a transcript of the video showing the scaling argument.
again. you ignored it. If you want to remain an ignoramus in your waning years, theres not much else we can do. Good luck with your problems.
caught you edit
yes, yes it does. it has everything to do with size and scale. good luck with your ignorance.
your little point
cannot help you with that. We have all shown you your errors. You ignore them. Yours is an argument from ignorance. you wear it well. Ive asked you to point out what Professor Walter Lewin gets wrong with the scaling argument.
| Google Video This video is not hosted by the ISF, the ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website. |
| I AGREE |
I even showed you a transcript of the video showing the scaling argument.
again. you ignored it. If you want to remain an ignoramus in your waning years, theres not much else we can do. Good luck with your problems.
caught you edit
yes, yes it does. it has everything to do with size and scale. good luck with your ignorance.
Last edited:
ozeco41
Philosopher
Thanks Bill - I have many which show clearly the technical details BUT I used the one which illustrates my point with sufficient clarity AND was small enough to post "in-line" AND was already loaded on my webserver at a practical size for downloading as an in-line graphic. Just courtesy to my readers and their bandwidth. (Plus my server is relatively small
)The point naturally is that all the "truther" claims for "crushing" seem to deliberately imply that the columns (the strongest members in the vertical direction) were "crushed". THEREFORE high energy required THEREFORE not enough energy from gravity THEREFORE explosive demolition.
For the likes of charlatans such as Jones and Chandler and possible charlatans but maybe deluded believers like Szamboti that false sequence is needed to support their equally false conclusions.
Simple fact is the "Global Collapse" bypassed the outer columns which were sheered off with masses of visible evidence. The core, though mostly not visible, must have missed some columns, bent others out of the way and probably buckled some others. BUT NONE were "crushed" and the balance or proportions missed<>pushed aside<>buckled is not critical.
So the only significant resistance to the global collapse was the floor joist to column connectors designed with safety margin to support one floor - no way would that resist the dynamic impact of multiple floors. Even lay persons see that easily when simply explained. Hence one possible reason for the obfuscations and "complicating" that the pro demolition crowd employ. "Baffle them with pseudo science" raised to an art form maybe?
As for those engineers who quote energy figures as inadequate based on the presumption that the TOTAL top block impacted the TOTAL lower section - well they show off their ability with scientific calculation and their total DISABILITY to see how the collapse really happened.
Sad but real - many engineers get so close to the subject that they "cannot see the forest for all the trees". eg Seffen, Szamboti and some of Bazant's work.
Is Prof. Walter Lewin suggesting that Newton's third law does not apply any longer and is subject to scale?????? Where?
ozeco41
Philosopher
...well if we don't all agree on that bit there is no point discussing - some of us are in cloud cuckoo land. YES the top bit fell and YES there was a global collapse.
...and if that is your hypothesis it conflicts with the drawings series. I'll stick with "it fell" rather than "it was blown apart and didn't fall on the lower bit - which BTW is the implicit position you take most of the time. Nothing like being consistent is there?
... you are respoinding to my post and I am neither for or against NIST and I care not whether NIST is right or wrong.
HOWEVER:
....as I have said the "collapse which actually happened" was not A "solid mass" which was "contacting [A single] spring". I explain what "actually happened" I am not interested in rebutting your derail into a fantasy event unrelated to the WTC Collapse.
if you take wrong steps to arrive at false conclusions why should I follow. "Arrest would soon follow" BUT it didn't - the global collapse continued inevitably.
...actually I can see that is true BUT the contact was not between "weak above" striking "strong below". It was "heavy and moving above" striking the weakest links below - the floor joist connections to the columns. Once again you switch horses in mid stream. You switch from discussing the point I make which you purport to address and focus on your own fantasy which is not analogous to the WTC 9/11 collapse.
AND for double measure note it was "heavy and moving" from above WHETHER OR NOT it was still one piece strong OR already broken into components - which incidentally is why MOST of the "crush up crush down" stuff is nonsense resembling the faeces of the male bovine.
... and, once again, my objective is to explain the collapse not to support OR rebut NIST. And that applies whether NIST is right or wrong.