Hardfire: Physics of 9/11

[Heiwa]

Why not comment on the simulator instead of spewing more non-sense? You should check it out, you may owe them a million bucks

Well, Mackey's one-way crush down simulator - little weak part C supposed to crush big strong part A - doesn't work (so my $1M is safe ). I have told Mackey and Hardfire that several times.

It works on paper when you make part C very heavy and superstrong (M) and part A very weak (one small m) but everybody knows reality is not like that.

I have explained this in an article sent to ASCE Journal of Mechanical Engineering on 3rd February this year! ASCE is still peer reviewing, though! The editor Ross Corotis seems quite happy to publish it, he tells me.

All peer reviewed papers published so far in the Journal of Mechanical Engineering assume that part C is heavy and superstrong! When you leave out that assumption and simply suggest that part C is quite similar to the structure below, then you find that part C cannot do much harm. This is so obvious so you wonder why it has to be pointed out at all, except that at 911 we were told the opposite.

 

[bill smith]

This is the antenna video. It begins to fall into the building before there is any other visible motion at the top of the building. In other words before any visible rotation at the top. It also leans slightly to one side before returing to the vertical.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y9-owhllM9k antenna

This antenna was 300 feet tall. When it resumed the vertical there was obviously some tremendous counterweight hanging off it to stop the whole 300-foot structure falling off the building. The antenna was attached to the hat truss which I believe was in turn attached to the core columns. So if the tip of the antenna 'needle' moved to the right then the core column below had moved to the left, and hen the core columms counterweghtmust have swung back to return it to vertical . The antenna was still obviously attached to the core to provide sufficient counterweight to return it to the bvertical after it had begun to lean.
All this indicates that a long section of the core that was attached to the antenna had been completely severed and swung loose like a pendulum or counterweight before beginning it's downwards journey as seen by the antenna starting to sink into the building.

There was no rotation to see in the top of the building so whatever was happening to the core columns below that was causing the 'lean' was not the result of any rotation. So how could the core columns below deform and fail without any visible crushing having begun ? They obviously DID deform and move if the antenna moved .

 

[ozeco41]

OK - Assume - again - you have a steel structure of 111 horizontal elements (floors), each supported by 280+ columns 3.7 m high. This structure is 410.7 m high.

..If you don't mind I will assume a WTC Tower AND that things happened like they did on 9/11. So far no difference between your assumption and mine.

Assume you start a big fire at floor 97 and suddenly all 280+ columns above floor 97 disappear and - POUFF - and that upper 14 elements drop down on the 97 lower elements.

I will assume that sufficient columns in level 97 ONLY are removed weakened so that they in total cannot support floors 98 up to 111. So two differences to your assumption - less columns removed but that does not change the fact that the top block falls. I remove only the columns in level 97 leaving the 98<>111 columns holding the top block as one entity. I note that in the real WTC 9/11 event it was not simply one floor but hat will not change this explanation.

Then of course floor 98 contacts floor 97.

Yes

...Let's assume it is a BIG PUNCH. Floor 97 is backed up by 96 elements and floor 98 is backed up by only 13 elements.

yes but misleading. Floor 97 is held up by 280+ columns.

What happens then?

this is where your assumptions depart from WTC 9/11. What happened with both towers was that the top block wedged itself inside the outer tube of the lower tower and landed on "floor 97" in the outer space and "got mixed up with the core (explanation later) AND totally bypassed the majority of the outer tube columns.

...Well, it is in fact the columns between floors 98 and 99 that will break next because they are the weakest elements adjacent to the BIG PUNCH. ...

WRONG the weakest elements were the floor joist to columns connectors AND second weakest was the core because it had a lot of open space (same explanation later as above) ...and it was only a little or medium punch

...After that floor 99 drops down 3.7 m, another BIG PUNCH occurs and the columns between floors 99 and 100 fail.

Right it keeps falling, right a PUNCH occurs (size of punch aside, WRONG the columns did not fail. The floors sheared off and some core columns may have "failed" (same disclaimer on later explanation)

After total 14 BIG PUNCHES upper section above the fire is gone

...we are in cloud cuckoo land - leave this for now till you get your thinking around what actually happened.

- resting on top of the 97 intact elements below!

WRONG - see previous comment

Basic physics.

..YES it is basic but the application of those basics is wrong.

Beautifully explained at http://heiwaco.tripod.com/mac5.htm .

Beautiful in aesthetic appearance of the picture, ugly in that not correct explanation. which is why I used it with acknowledgment and corrected it to resemble what happened

Happens every time a small part C tries to knock out a big part A.

Or in other words, a steel structure cannot one-way crush down by itself from top down started by a little loose weight up top!

Well "WRONG" naturally and the same disclaimer as previous sections.

 

[Heiwa]

..If you don't mind I will assume a WTC Tower AND that things happened like they did on 9/11. So far no difference between your assumption and mine.I will assume that sufficient columns in level 97 ONLY are removed weakened so that they in total cannot support floors 98 up to 111. So two differences to your assumption - less columns removed but that does not change the fact that the top block falls. I remove only the columns in level 97 leaving the 98<>111 columns holding the top block as one entity. I note that in the real WTC 9/11 event it was not simply one floor but hat will not change this explanation. Yesyes but misleading. Floor 97 is held up by 280+ columns.this is where your assumptions depart from WTC 9/11. What happened with both towers was that the top block wedged itself inside the outer tube of the lower tower and landed on "floor 97" in the outer space and "got mixed up with the core (explanation later) AND totally bypassed the majority of the outer tube columns.WRONG the weakest elements were the floor joist to columns connectors AND second weakest was the core because it had a lot of open space (same explanation later as above) ...and it was only a little or medium punch Right it keeps falling, right a PUNCH occurs (size of punch aside, WRONG the columns did not fail. The floors sheared off and some core columns may have "failed" (same disclaimer on later explanation)...we are in cloud cuckoo land - leave this for now till you get your thinking around what actually happened. WRONG - see previous comment..YES it is basic but the application of those basics is wrong.Beautiful in aesthetic appearance of the picture, ugly in that not correct explanation. which is why I used it with acknowledgment and corrected it to resemble what happened Well "WRONG" naturally and the same disclaimer as previous sections.

I have started a new thread about this matter.

 

[ozeco41]

I have started a new thread about this matter.

You won't get away that easily.

 

[psikeyhackr]

Real engineers

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/BRIDGE/prefab/psbsreport07.cfm

Scroll down to the structure weight tables

.
Yeah, REAL ENGINEERS need to make things unnecessarily complicated and everyone is supposed to be impressed. Make a grade school physics problem difficult for the grade school kids.

In 4 years at IBM I never ran across the term von Neumann machine. But all of the computers I was trained on were von Neumann machines. von Neumann worked for IBM as a consultant in the early 50's. It is difficult to find a good explanation of von Neumann machines on the net today. Can't do it without talking about "address lines".

So education is often about obfuscating things so some people can pretend to be intelligent. My models are too grade school because grade school kids could comprehend the engineering. People have been building complex structures for 1000's of years. Dragging out this 9/11 business really makes engineers look silly. We can't give the LAYMEN a table with the tons of steel and concrete on every level. That would make things look too simple. ROFLMAO

psik

 

[DavidJames]

So education is often about obfuscating things so some people can pretend to be intelligent. My models are too grade school because grade school kids could comprehend the engineering. People have been building complex structures for 1000's of years. Dragging out this 9/11 business really makes engineers look silly. We can't give the LAYMEN a table with the tons of steel and concrete on every level. That would make things look too simple.

That paragraph is you simply justifying your decision to embrace ignorance while dismissing those genuinely much smarter then you.

ROFLMAO

That simply shows your mental and emotion maturity.

 

[Newtons Bit]

.
Yeah, REAL ENGINEERS need to make things unnecessarily complicated and everyone is supposed to be impressed. Make a grade school physics problem difficult for the grade school kids.

In 4 years at IBM I never ran across the term von Neumann machine. But all of the computers I was trained on were von Neumann machines. von Neumann worked for IBM as a consultant in the early 50's. It is difficult to find a good explanation of von Neumann machines on the net today. Can't do it without talking about "address lines".

So education is often about obfuscating things so some people can pretend to be intelligent. My models are too grade school because grade school kids could comprehend the engineering. People have been building complex structures for 1000's of years. Dragging out this 9/11 business really makes engineers look silly. We can't give the LAYMEN a table with the tons of steel and concrete on every level. That would make things look too simple. ROFLMAO

psik

I apologize if I use jargon specific to engineering unintentionally. It's the way I work and the way I think.

However, you still haven't answered why you need an exact mass takeoff*. Why can't it be 10% off?

*There I go again using jargon. A mass takeoff is a list of all the components of the building + their weight (in-service live load, it doesn't list things like books).

 

[Crungy]

.
Yeah, REAL ENGINEERS need to make things unnecessarily complicated and everyone is supposed to be impressed. Make a grade school physics problem difficult for the grade school kids.

Stundied!

.
People have been building complex structures for 1000's of years. Dragging out this 9/11 business really makes engineers look silly. We can't give the LAYMEN a table with the tons of steel and concrete on every level. That would make things look too simple. ROFLMAO
psik

Modern skyscraper design didn't start until the 1880s with The Home Insurance Building in Chicago. It was the first multi-story building with an all-metal structural frame. The exterior wall served no load bearing function, thus making it a true curtain wall.

The late great Fazlur Khan took skyscraper structural engineering to exciting and innovating levels in the later half of the 20th century with his X-bracing for the John Hancock center and tubular structural systems for the Sears Tower.

1000s of years!
ROFLMAO

Engineers are stoopid!
ROFLMAO

A 47 year old man with social skills of a 9 year old in need of a time out.
ROFLMAO!

 

[twinstead]

Hey. It's not psikeyhackr's fault that these engineers talk all sciency and stuff and make it hard for him to understand. Engineers don't REALLY know how buildings are built and how they could collapse, they're just spewing psychobabble to fool people like him. I'd be frustrated too.

 

[TexasJack]

So education is often about obfuscating things so some people can pretend to be intelligent.

Is this because MIT rejected you? You sure hold a lot of animosity towards those that are better educated than you.

Now, are you ever going to get around to answering Newton's Bit question, or are you going to obfuscate? I look forward to your next ROFLMAO response.

 

[Furcifer]

A truther walks into a bar...

psik-"What's a kip?"
bartender-"A thousand pounds"
psik-"Friggin rocket scientists and their lingo making it hard for us to know what's going on, why I outta... that's the problem with schools these days.."
bartender-"Yep, so what are you having?"
psik-"Give me a pint"

 

[psikeyhackr]

psik-"What's a kip?"
bartender-"A thousand pounds"

.
A thousand pounds of FORCE.

FORCE is not necessarily weight.

You sure are proud of your display of brilliance.

I was talking about the WEIGHT of the perimeter wall panels.

psik

 

[rwguinn]

.
A thousand pounds of FORCE.

FORCE is not necessarily weight.

You sure are proud of your display of brilliance.

I was talking about the WEIGHT of the perimeter wall panels.

psik

F=M*A
if
A=g
then
F=W
On Earth. What it is on your planet, I have not a clue.

Weight is THE FORCE due to a Mass being at rest in the Earth's 1g field.
M'kay?

 

[Wolrab]

F=M*A
if
A=g
then
F=W
On Earth. What it is on your planet, I have not a clue.

Weight is THE FORCE due to a Mass being at rest in the Earth's 1g field.
M'kay?

Now you aren't even using words, just letters and symbols. Didn't they teach you to spell at those fancy dancy skools?

 

[R.Mackey]

Also, to get my poor, wounded, staggering thread back on topic, I have finally received a useful reply to my Hardfire Modeling Challenge! The submitter has put together a simulation rather than a physical model, which is perfectly fine, and one that I believe is close enough to do some useful experiments. I've replied to its creator with a list of questions, most having to do with the assumptions used, but nonetheless this is good enough for some valid experimentation. The model is found here: http://femr2.ucoz.com/

Just to follow up my own post, the gentleman behind this model has now broken off his e-mail discussion with me, on the grounds that I would rather e-mail him than post on his forum. Somehow he believes this proves that I'm some kind of fraud, but I don't follow it at all.

So the record still stands at zero -- absolutely no one has accepted my Challenge. What is odd, however, is that there are members of the Truth Movement with the ability, the time, and the inclination to do proper investigation. As this fellow exemplifies, it's not that they can't, but that they won't engage in a productive discussion.

This is in keeping with this earlier post of mine -- we have a case of someone who has talent, puts a lot of effort into his presentation, and claims to want a discussion, but ultimately does not. I don't understand this behavior. I certainly do not encourage it.

If that isn't you, if you really want to try to learn something, the Challenge remains open, as does my e-mail. I don't bite. I won't even make fun of you. Anyone trying to learn and open to criticism is a friend of science.

 

[Furcifer]

.
A thousand pounds of FORCE.

FORCE is not necessarily weight.

You sure are proud of your display of brilliance.

I was talking about the WEIGHT of the perimeter wall panels.

psik

Oh yes, of force.

We wouldn't want to confuse things for people building things on the moon.

 

[Furcifer]

Just to follow up my own post, the gentleman behind this model has now broken off his e-mail discussion with me, on the grounds that I would rather e-mail him than post on his forum. Somehow he believes this proves that I'm some kind of fraud, but I don't follow it at all.

My suspicion is that they want you to post there so they can say you acting in some official capacity for JPL.

 

[psikeyhackr]

F=M*A
if
A=g
then
F=W
On Earth. What it is on your planet, I have not a clue.

Weight is THE FORCE due to a Mass being at rest in the Earth's 1g field.
M'kay?

.
Are you attempting to imply that the weight of the perimeter wall panels had someting to do with the mass that was in the perimeter wall panels?

You mean a pound of mass produces a pound of force in Earth normal gravity?

HOW SHOCKING!!!

psik

 

[A W Smith]

I have shown you the scaling argument, You brushed it off saying physics doesn't need math to function. Which imo is one of the most blatant displays of ignorance ive heard.

I have asked you to pick an upper and lower bound for mass and run the math.
for whatever reason you ignored this request. Even though you can pick either Nists numbers for mass, Gregory Urich's numbers, Bazants numbers, Greenings numbers. Or anywhere in between and do the math.
You simply wont. I suspect because it will end your argument.

I have proven to you that a kip is interchangeable when describing force or weight. in fact if two engineers from either side of the Atlantic were to use the word "ton" in casual conversation. There could very well be a discrepancy in the units depending on which one is using a 2000# short ton? or a 2205# or 1000kg metric ton. or 2240# (1016.05 kg) long ton.

Kip however is the same world over

So psikeyhackr. WTF kind of ton do you want?


Edit to add

If fact psikeyhackr. Lets do this. I am just curious. Lets cut the tower at the tops of the perimeter wall tridents near the top of the seventh floor, Now lets hypothetically turn the tower upside down. So the thickest perimeter wall tubing. That of the panels beginning at about the seventh floor are now at floor 110 @ windows on the world. And the thinnest ones. the 1/4 inch wall thickness, or 3/8 take your pick. are now at the seventh floor. Average this to get a theoretical best case column thickness for survivability of impact at the plane impact levels for both towers. Now using the math from Ryans video. Will the perimeter wall panels survive impact? or not? Your move psikeyhackr.