Hardfire: Physics of 9/11

<snip>
And "missed" should be self evident. The chance of any column which has been cut falling on its matching half and carrying full load is near zero. Most descending bits of Top Block columns will simply miss the lower portion.

Others will glance off and bend/buckle themselves out of line as they continue to fall. etc etc
<snip>

I totally agree, including the stuff in your post I've snipped for brevity. The idea of pure axial impact between upper and lower columns is - in fact - ludicrous.

However we should bear in mind that any calculations performed by Bazant and others need to to have a structure. That is, they need to be systematic, and Bazant (and Ross and others) have assumed pure axial impact as the only way to approach the subject mathematically. Bazant finds the Towers still fall. Real life, of course, was much more severe - and more damaging - for reasons you have gone into. With the result that exterior column sections peeled off as the floors pancaked, while large sections of both cores were left standing for a while until lack of lateral support caused their ultimate failure.

Bottom line - please pity the poor engineers. They cannot model totally chaotic collapses. They have to "take a view". ;)
 
And a better way to understand what really happened is to earn a degree in structural engineering.

That, ma'am, should be a simple truism. :)

Unfortunately possession of said degree PLUS 40 years experience PLUS 15 years military reserve experience PLUS demolitions qualifications makes the realities of WTC 9/11 very easy to discern but that leads to frustration as you are accused of "bold assertions" when you make simple comments on basics. (An yes, I mean "I" am accused and "I" make simple comments on basice :) :o :blush:

Simply put being qualified and experienced doesn't help you persuade "them" because "them" won't be persuaded. :mad:

Just read this thread - all this nonsense about small (solid) block "X" landing on large (solid) block "Y" and... well hold it there 'coz that ain't what happened so wrong track to wrong conclusions...

AND the related one of if "X" falls on "Y" each one loses one floor at each floor it falls. Also wrong and a wrong conclusion following directly from the first wrong premise....

For the outer office space, as the Top Block fell, the bottom floor of that top block PLUS a collection of rubble and remains of the destroyed floor of the impact zone landed on the first floor at the top of the remaining stub tower. Floor "X" lets call it. It sheared floor "X" off the columns (By the way that statement is neutral to whether it was just gravity OR gravity with a bit of demolition assistance) It may have also sheared off floor "Z" at the bottom level of the falling Top Block.

So:
  • When that lot hit Floor ("X" - 1) it was floor "Z" again which struck, plus the original "rubble and remains" AND floor "X". The same falling mass which separated floor "X" hits floor ("X" -1) WITH THE ADDITION of floor "X"
  • AND when that lot hits Floor ("X"-2) you have floor "Z" plus the "rubble and remains" PLUS floor "X" PLUS Floor ("X"-1)
  • AND when that lot hits Floor ("X"-3) you have floor "Z" plus the "rubble and remains" PLUS floor "X" PLUS Floor ("X"-1) PLUS Floor ("X"-2)
  • AND when that lot hits Floor ("X"-4) you have floor "Z" plus the "rubble and remains" PLUS floor "X" PLUS Floor ("X"-1) PLUS Floor ("X"-2) PLUS Floor ("X"-3)......
  • etc ad nauseum or till you run out of floors.

Now somewhere all the battering of the underside of the top block AND all the horizontal crushing from being squeexed inside the lower portion of the outer tube AND the effects of whatever carryover there is from the core demolition occuring at the same time....well the Top Block falls apart BUT the mass continues to fall. So those are secondary details I need not address here.

But all those explanations based on energy related to presumed contact between two "solid" and "integral single objects" are not worth the bandwidth of posting them.

IT DIDN'T HAPPEN THAT WAY.

And the many videos clearly show that it didn't.

And, back to the originating quotation about engineering degrees ----

--- well some of the worst offenders in this regard have BE after their name (or more) and they should shred those degrees and wear sackcloth and ashes in shame for leading astray other, less "qualified" people.
 
I totally agree, including the stuff in your post I've snipped for brevity. The idea of pure axial impact between upper and lower columns is - in fact - ludicrous.

However we should bear in mind that any calculations performed by Bazant and others need to to have a structure. That is, they need to be systematic, and Bazant (and Ross and others) have assumed pure axial impact as the only way to approach the subject mathematically. Bazant finds the Towers still fall. Real life, of course, was much more severe - and more damaging - for reasons you have gone into. With the result that exterior column sections peeled off as the floors pancaked, while large sections of both cores were left standing for a while until lack of lateral support caused their ultimate failure.

Bottom line - please pity the poor engineers. They cannot model totally chaotic collapses. They have to "take a view". ;)
Well said sir.

I challenge mildly only one point. :blush: :D

You say 'please pity the poor engineers.....They have to "take a view" '
My "version" is they have to make assumptions. Implicit in that is that they have to make assumptions which approximate reality otherwise the assumptions are wrong and potentially dangerous.

The personal example was circa 1967 - I was "on the carpet" for daring to disagree with the whole design section on an assumption which was wrong. Won't bore you with details. The assumption related to some reinforced concrete and I was asked to assume that "the concrete takes all the XYZ loads - not the steel". I said "How do I get that to happen in real life? Write notes to that effect and drop them in the concrete mix?"

Went on my honeymoon and returned to find I had been transferred to another - undesirable - job. gave me a great step forward but that is for another forum/thread :D :o

PS My own "alphabet soup" includes BE(Civil)
 
This completely and utterly misses the point Mackey explicitly stated. He's not trying to do anything other than model a single issue regarding the collapse. Overall, he's trying to demonstrate to others how to think about the collapse. His model is not consistent because it's simplified in order to teach people how to consider the individual element being discussed.

I can't believe that Ryan came out and very clearly and explicitly stated this, and people still complain about the model anyway. I just can't believe it. People: Understand his point! It was to teach an approach, not fully describe the event!
.
Yeah, but so how is it supposed to be SCALED without accurate information on the towers.

We don't know the numbers and weights of the 12 different types of perimeter wall panes. When has Mackey complained about that?

psik
 
.
Yeah, but so how is it supposed to be SCALED without accurate information on the towers.

We don't know the numbers and weights of the 12 different types of perimeter wall panes. When has Mackey complained about that?

psik
Oy!
That not-so-gentle whoosing sound was ANOTHER concept going right over your head...
 
.
Yeah, but so how is it supposed to be SCALED without accurate information on the towers.

We don't know the numbers and weights of the 12 different types of perimeter wall panes. When has Mackey complained about that?

psik


Why?
 
I challenge mildly only one point. :blush: :D

You say 'please pity the poor engineers.....They have to "take a view" '
My "version" is they have to make assumptions. Implicit in that is that they have to make assumptions which approximate reality otherwise the assumptions are wrong and potentially dangerous.

And I'll (mildly) disagree too, in that scientists can - reasonably - analyse what I believe is called the 'limiting case'. That is, an extreme case (possibly very unrealistic in wordly terms) that might prove/disprove the theory. WIth WTC this would be the pure axial impact of clean column ends, the scenario most favourable to collapse arrest. If the buildings still fall then the analysis is essentially complete. Collapse will happen. I believe this is what Bazant and others have shown.
 
.
ROFLMAO

Ask Ryan Mackey!

He was the one talking about SCALED models in Hardly Any Fire, episode 3: Revenge of the Physics. :D :D

Didn't you watch that exciting episode and figure out its significance?

psik

No. I'm asking you why knowing the EXACT weight of everything is required. Why does an approximate method that gets within a couple percent not good enough?

If you think that it has to be exact, please do a statistical study showing why. How would things be vastly different with a one or two percent mass or cross-sectional area difference?
 
Last edited:
And I'll (mildly) disagree too, in that scientists can - reasonably - analyse what I believe is called the 'limiting case'. That is, an extreme case (possibly very unrealistic in wordly terms) that might prove/disprove the theory. WIth WTC this would be the pure axial impact of clean column ends, the scenario most favourable to collapse arrest. If the buildings still fall then the analysis is essentially complete. Collapse will happen. I believe this is what Bazant and others have shown.

It's called "enveloping the solution". It's frequently impossible to analyze something exactly as it behaves. The engineering response to this is to make good and accurate assumptions for as many variables as possible to isolate them. The variables that are unable to be isolated then range from their extremes. Solve for each case.

The 1-D Bazant crush down model is one of these cases.
 
Mackey's model is not constistent with the photographic and video evidence. If Mackey is right, the photographs and videos must be wrong.
You have no idea what a model is. Relax and just believe 911Truth delusions, you will not have to think and work at learning, or understanding.

And if you believe any of the 911Truth claptrap you can stop posting at a skeptic forum. Solves all your problems.
 
I have just made a Mackey type model at http://heiwaco.tripod.com/mac5.htm . It is full scale! Comments are always welcome in a friendly and lively way.
You statement was proven wrong on 911. Not too good making stupid statements proven wrong in reality and easily proven wrong with simple models. Good for 911Truth you lack the funds to publish this claptrap in a vanity journal. I have to send this to my engineering school so the prof can play a joke on the students one day.
In the real world the weaker supports above in a structure cannot crush the stronger supports below. The worst case is that all supports in upper section C are broken and then any crush-down is arrested.
Failed ideas on display if you need an engineer you can skip Heiwa Inc.

Your web page proves you are not an engineer who understands physics. Get use to failure on 911 as you have been awarded the prize of failed ideas by being praised by Gage. That is ironic or something; I need help to express that Gage endorsement of Heiwa.

The fine twist of fate is your ideas can be seen to be twaddle by laypeople.








""""
The Lemon Kids on Bed Pizza Box Axiom !!!!
""""
This is all in accordance with the Björkman Axiom regarding structures:

You cannot crush an isotropic or composite 3-D structure A by a part C of itself (C = 1/10 A) by dropping part C on A using gravity. Part C either bounces on A or gets damaged in contact with A and is stopped by A that is also damaged a little. It is quite basic and all due to gravity. Materials, size and particulars of the elements of the structure A doesn't matter the least. Part C of A cannot destroy A.

"""""
The real challenge is for someone in school to take this axiom supreme delusion and present it to class. Too easy to prove wrong, who will have a problem imagining a structure that will fail. Remember Heiwa stands on a 2-mile drop! TWO MILES! Aim carefully.

This is why bullets do not kill. Yeppers - the lemon axiom.
 
Last edited:
.....
Originally Posted by ozeco41
I used bending to refer to the bending of horizontal beams and "C" shows a descending beam which will fall across another beam and the result both beams will be bent - one down, one up. As shown in "D"....
Would the joints between the vertical columns and horizontal beams be stronger than the horizontal beams themselves?

Sorry for the delay ... I missed the reference when checking the thread. :o :blush:

There is no simple or single answer - it depends what aspect you have in mind.

In general there are three types of forces which apply to structural members:
  • "Axial" which means pull or push (tension or compression) along the length or axis of the member;
  • "Shear" which is across the member's cross section and tends to "Shear" it (I trust the circular definition is clear ;) ); AND
  • "Bending" which should not need explaining. So a horizontal beam supporting a floor will tend to bend downwards with loads increasing on the floor.

Example 1
__________8
__________V__________
A___________________A
4___________________4

A "Beam" with a single point load of 8 pounds/kilos/tonnes/whatevers at the midpoint "V" will be supported at the end points "A" and each will carry half the load.

Example 2
Move "V" to the 1/4<>3/4 point:

_____8
_____V_______________
A___________________A
6___________________2
...the loads split 3/4<>1/4

Now the beam in both examples will tend to bend downwards due to the load of "V".

In Example 1

Now for Example 2 and working from the left end the "Bending moment" will be 6 x 1/4 = 1.5. Working from the right 2 x 3/4 = 1.5 (Again working from right end gives same result as from left)

However the "bending moment is less in example two. Stateed in reverse a beam loaded at the quarter point as per Example 2 could support 1/3 more load than one loaded at the midpoint.

So that is the first form of "strength".

"Shear" is the force across the member so in Example 1 the shear force would be the same from the left support to the centre - and it would be 4.

Ditto right to centre this time also 4 but opposite sign which we needn't worry about.

However in Example 2 the shear force in the left quarter of the beam would be 6. So tha shear in Ex 2 is 50% greater than in Ex 1.

Bending moment reduces but shear increases when we move that load.

So, when designing, you have to choose members on both shear and bending and, depending on layout, either shear or bending could be the decider.

Say you have a piece of steel which can take 3 in bending and 5 in shear. It could support Ex 1 but would not do for Ex 2.

And the third "Axial" force is not normally relevant to beams.

So, given that mini lecture in Structures 101, you should see why I cannot answer your question at this stage.

How the connections join beam to column changes the simple example for bending. And both bending and shear strength would depend on how the joins were made.

For my example earlier - ie the bending beam pulling a bend into the columns the column would be relatively weak in bending would be pulled sideways by a force much smaller than the column could take as its axial load.

To apply that pull on the columns the joint of beam to column would almost certainly be similar to the axial strength of the beam. Explanation if needed.

I pause there - you should have enough to see what details I would need before I can better answer your original inquiry.
 
No. I'm asking you why knowing the EXACT weight of everything is required.
.
What is exact? How would we know what was within 2%?

The only weight I have heard of any perimeter wall panels is 22 tons and that did not come from the NIST. The NIST said there were 12 types though the original building design called for 14. They tell that us the manufacturer asked for two to be upgraded and was granted permission. The NIST tells us that one plane had 5 tons of cargo and the other had 9.

Now if they can tell us such details what is so difficult about the numbers and weights of ALL 12 OF THE PERIMETER WALL PANELS? And what is your problem with wanting the information? They only had THREE YEARS and $20,000,000. Wouldn't that information fit anywhere in the 10,000 pages they gave us that don't specify the total amount of concrete? They could do it for the steel. :D

psik
 
Well, the model is easy in 2D - imagine it in 3D:

[qimg]http://heiwaco.tripod.com/WTC1slicea.GIF[/qimg]

And you see - the floor truss joints at the columns are not damaged and brace the columns, while the floors get entangled.

Where did you learn your foul language - at home?

Why would they get entangled? There are no columns under the flors to keep them up, and there is a limit to how much weight the brackets can hold at the ends of the trusses.

Additionally, you have the weight of all thast rubble pushing out on the perimeter columns to further stress the connections .
 

Back
Top Bottom