rwguinn
Penultimate Amazing
no, but .00259 lb-sec2/inch does.
Hardfire: Physics of 9/11
- Thread starter R.Mackey
- Start date
no, but .00259 lb-sec2/inch does.
Pounds are not a unit of mass. Pounds are units of force. Therefore, Kips are units of force. Sometimes, engineers will call these forces 'loads', but don't let them fool you.
psikeyhackr
Banned
- Joined
- Apr 30, 2008
- Messages
- 470
.
I conceded I was mistaken about what kip was but a rocket engine could produce 10 kips of thrust. That does not mean it WEIGHED 10 kips. I have never seen anyone use kips for the weight of an object before.
Now does that change the fact that we do not know the numbers and weights of the perimeter wall panels? Is there some reason that we should not have that information? And why would you tolerate the NIST not providing it after taking 3 years and 20,000,000 taxpayer's dollars and giving us 10,000 pages that don't even specify the total for the concrete in the towers. They do it for the steel.
And then they tell us one plane had 5 tons of cargo and the other had 9. Why is that more important the the perimeter wall panels?
I think you people are just willing to tolerate AUTHORITY dishing out any bulldrek it wants.
psik
psikeyhackr
Banned
- Joined
- Apr 30, 2008
- Messages
- 470
.
Oh, we are supposed to get into that SLUGS business that real people don't use so engineers can impress us with how smart they are?
But the REAL ENGINEERS won't demand the weights of the wheat chex.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slug_(mass)
I guess physics didn't work before the invention of the slug. LOL
psik
Last edited:
It's the standard unit of weight (and other forces [loads]) in building design.
I've never heard it used to describe engine thrust, but I don't get into that sort of engineering often, or pretend to know anything about it other than the most basic principles.
Furcifer
Guest
- Joined
- Apr 30, 2007
- Messages
- 13,797
I think he's got you on ignore...
aggle-rithm
Ardent Formulist
What difference does it make? The people showing interest in that data have no idea what to do with it.
Newtons Bit
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Apr 12, 2007
- Messages
- 10,049
.
I conceded I was mistaken about what kip was but a rocket engine could produce 10 kips of thrust. That does not mean it WEIGHED 10 kips. I have never seen anyone use kips for the weight of an object before.
Now does that change the fact that we do not know the numbers and weights of the perimeter wall panels? Is there some reason that we should not have that information? And why would you tolerate the NIST not providing it after taking 3 years and 20,000,000 taxpayer's dollars and giving us 10,000 pages that don't even specify the total for the concrete in the towers. They do it for the steel.
And then they tell us one plane had 5 tons of cargo and the other had 9. Why is that more important the the perimeter wall panels?
I think you people are just willing to tolerate AUTHORITY dishing out any bulldrek it wants.
psik
Is there some reason you need to have an exact value?
.
I conceded I was mistaken about what kip was but a rocket engine could produce 10 kips of thrust. That does not mean it WEIGHED 10 kips. I have never seen anyone use kips for the weight of an object before.
Now does that change the fact that we do not know the numbers and weights of the perimeter wall panels? Is there some reason that we should not have that information? And why would you tolerate the NIST not providing it after taking 3 years and 20,000,000 taxpayer's dollars and giving us 10,000 pages that don't even specify the total for the concrete in the towers. They do it for the steel.
And then they tell us one plane had 5 tons of cargo and the other had 9. Why is that more important the the perimeter wall panels?
I think you people are just willing to tolerate AUTHORITY dishing out any bulldrek it wants.
psik
Energy available is a good measure why one-way crush down of WTC 1 is not possible. Take the first storey crush down. How much energy is available? Say it is 606 kWh, when upper part C drops free fall >3.7 m! How much energy is used first to compress the building structure A below and then to crush various material in the impact zone into rubble? And how much is used to accelerate this rubble to same speed as the upper part?
One storey has mass 3 760 tons. To accelerate it to 20 m/s requires 209 kWh.
So there is only 397 kWh left to compress a top storey structure of A and to to crush things.
Say that 209 kWh was used to compress the building structure parts C and A elastically after drop and at first impact until something breaks. This compression (energy absorption) will evidently decelerate the upper part C.
So only 188 kWh remains to crush things (the uppermost storey of part A)
We know a good car recycling factory requires abt. 36.8 kWh/ton to shred a car. Thus the energy available to crush one upper storey of WTC corresponds to the energy to shred 5.1 cars!
However one WTC storey has the mass of 3 760 one ton cars!
If you think you can crush 3 760 tons of steel and concrete using only 188 kWh or only 0.05 kWh/ton, then just prove that.
In all may calculations and models (pizza boxes, lemons, sponges, &c) it would appear that there is too little energy by gravity just to initiate any destruction. The same result applies to WTC 1.
This is THE reason why a part C of any structure cannot crush down the remainder part A of same structure by gravity (C<1/10A).
But as I always say! Suggest a structure, e.g. a composite one, where a little part C can one-way crush down bigger part A due to gravity only. If you can do that you will win a prize.
ozeco41
Philosopher
Well said Sir!!!
I offered to assist him get his models right but he has no interest in doing so.
I have no problem with persons who wish to do so debating his model - provided they and he recognise it has little if any relation to WTC 9/11.
psikeyhackr
Banned
- Joined
- Apr 30, 2008
- Messages
- 470
.
It could be used to teach physics to grade school kids.
You don't think grade school kids can understand toothpicks? LOL
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LXAerZUw4Wc
psik
A W Smith
Philosopher
If you cant do it. Have your grade school kids come up with an upper and lower bound. Then you can approach the chalkboard and run the calcs. But I see you are afraid.
Last edited:
Response to Ryan Mackey's Challenge to 9/11 TRUTH
Ryan Mackey discusses the problems of building a physical model of the World Trade Center buildings, and issues a challenge to the 'truther' movement to respond:
(URL Removed due to JREF TOS)
The basic model he outlines can easily be compared to the mathematical model formulated at:
femr2. ucoz. com
(You'll need to download the energetics spreadsheet to analyse the calcs)
You can bring the discussion here:
(URL Removed due to JREF TOS)
There is a whopping 2 members on this forum, so the discussion can take place without all the distractions we have here on the JREF forums!
I recently contacted Ryan Mackey, and told him about this simulator and how it answers his challenge, he replied back by email which I then forwarded to the creator of the collapse simulator...
I would prefer to see him respond directly to this in open public debate, rather than me acting as a middle man to relay messages back and forth.
Ryan Mackey discusses the problems of building a physical model of the World Trade Center buildings, and issues a challenge to the 'truther' movement to respond:
(URL Removed due to JREF TOS)
The basic model he outlines can easily be compared to the mathematical model formulated at:
femr2. ucoz. com
(You'll need to download the energetics spreadsheet to analyse the calcs)
You can bring the discussion here:
(URL Removed due to JREF TOS)
There is a whopping 2 members on this forum, so the discussion can take place without all the distractions we have here on the JREF forums!
I recently contacted Ryan Mackey, and told him about this simulator and how it answers his challenge, he replied back by email which I then forwarded to the creator of the collapse simulator...
I would prefer to see him respond directly to this in open public debate, rather than me acting as a middle man to relay messages back and forth.
Since according to you, you aren't the author of the model, you are asking me to post through a "middle man." Your complaint is ridiculous.
As I've told you via e-mail, and is noted in the Challenge itself, e-mail is the indicated vehicle. Why I made this choice should be painfully obvious, as I have already made five attempts to keep this thread clean, to no avail. This thread simply doesn't work. I cannot hold a discussion here without psikeyhackr braying about TONS of STEEL or Heiwa claiming that structures are scale-invariant.
Those are my terms. If the author wants to contact me, he knows where to find me, and as you already know I respond promptly.
Instead, strangely enough, the author has talked about me on YouTube, has talked about me and even created a thread on his own forum with my name on it, and has received e-mail from me, forwarded by "his friends," yet has not contacted me himself. On the other hand, I've received e-mails from three separate people all pointing to these videos and his forum -- and there's only two non-debunker members of that same forum.
As for you personally, your e-mail was entirely unhelpful and abusive. I quote: "You have thoroughly destroyed your reputation as a reliable source of information. Thank you for your time in exposing your true nature to me." Yet you post here with essentially a rehash of your first e-mail to me, before the insults.
I don't know what to make of this behavior, and it doesn't matter. E-mail me for technical discussion, or don't waste my time.
I already have the information you provided above. You already have the response: If the real author wants to contact me, he can send me an e-mail. Simple as that. No middle-man.
If you have technical questions, you can post them here anyway, though the signal to noise here is so poor that I might miss them. Your choice.
If the author of the model does not want to e-mail me, as it appears, then that's his choice, and I respect it. Since you claim not to be him, you appear to be trying to bully me into conversing with him even though he hasn't contacted me. That strikes me as rather rude.
Last edited:
The author has confided to me that he would like an open public discussion focused entirely on the collapse simulator at:
femr2. ucoz. com
There are many people, including myself, that would like to see this addressed in an open public forum. This is a response to a challenge that YOU put forth. Calling it "ridiculous" only reveals how desperate you are...
You want to have a detailed technical discussion and you have already pointed out that it simply can not happen on this particular forum with all the distractions here... This is just another (in a long series) of desperate excuses from you.
The femr2 forum offers a place where a purely technical debate can persist free from abuse and distractions. Nothing will be discussed there except for the collapse simulator, just like what you said you wanted...
Now can we please hear some answers from you instead of more excuses?
Last edited:
rwguinn
Penultimate Amazing
Newtons Bit
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Apr 12, 2007
- Messages
- 10,049
Do these guys operate like 8th grade school girls or something? 
tsig
a carbon based life-form
- Joined
- Nov 25, 2005
- Messages
- 39,049
Now that's the way to sweet talk him.
Accusations of desperation are sure to convince everyone of your even handedness.
The author is welcome to send me an e-mail. If he wants to post my responses on his forum, he is welcome to do so. In fact, he has already done so, despite never attempting to contact me at all.
Who is "we," exactly? You are free to ask your own questions.
Furthermore, assuming you are telling the truth, viz. you and he are not the same person, then I don't understand why you're in this discussion at all. He can contact me himself, or not. It's entirely up to him. This doesn't strike me as any of your business.