Hardfire: Physics of 9/11

[beachnut]

... Very good model! Should be filmed with a high speed camera to show all these exciting events at a collision.

But it is not correct. If 11 floor fall on one floor statically, the floor fails; did he calibrate each support to this standard; NO

You failed, the model failed. You both fail to use proper modeling. You are biased and your models are failures; his model failed because he wants the washers to stop, so do you, so you do not model it correctly, you both are happy to have the momentum model fail to progress to prover your delusions on 911. Pathetically anti-intellectual claptrap.

7 years and you and he have failed to understand 911, and failed to model it correctly. The laughing with you guys is wearing thin, and will progress to at. I thought you and he were joking around when you present your tripe, but it appears you and he believe your own delusions.

 

[ozeco41]

But it is not correct. If 11 floor fall on one floor statically, the floor fails; did he calibrate each support to this standard; NO

You failed, the model failed. You both fail to use proper modeling. You are biased and your models are failures; his model failed because he wants the washers to stop, so do you, so you do not model it correctly, you both are happy to have the momentum model fail to progress to prover your delusions on 911. Pathetically anti-intellectual claptrap.

7 years and you and he have failed to understand 911, and failed to model it correctly. The laughing with you guys is wearing thin, and will progress to at. I thought you and he were joking around when you present your tripe, but it appears you and he believe your own delusions.

I agree all three paragraphs.

The sad thing is that psikeys washers model could so simply be modified to truly represent the floor pancaking component of collapse which is the key stepping stone to understanding the global collapse. (See my previous post)

Given that they are so transparently wrong on the basics it is charitable to suggest "delusion" because the other alternate is far less polite.

A quick "Alliteration on M" gives me:
Mischievous misleading by mendacious meanderings .... no doubt someone can improve on that .

 

[Heiwa]

But it is not correct. If 11 floor fall on one floor statically, the floor fails; did he calibrate each support to this standard; NO

You have completely misunderstood everything.

Part A (97 floors) carried part C (14 floors) for 30 years (assisted by columns)

Now take part C, remove all columns and stack or drop the 14 floors on the top floor of part A - floor #97.

What happens?

Does complete part A collapse? Remember it carried the 14 floors for 30 years.

Or does just part A floor #97 collapse? Well it has not carried anything except itself + furniture, &c for 30 years.

And how would A floor #97 collapse. Do the trusses or the joints to the A columns fail?

If the floor #97 trusses fail, the floor #97 bends and fail between supports, the 14 floor stack has to deform also and they get stuck on top.

So let's assume all floor #97 joints to columns fail. There are about 600 of those at each floor. Now a stack of 15 floors drop on floor #96 in part A and, let's assume, all 600 joints there also fail.

&c, &c!

But this is the psikeyhackr model! It has no columns! Only floors.

14 floors (or 20 washers) drop on 1 floor (one washer) held by 600 joints (1 toothpick), and so on.

In that model the columns (actually the center wooden rod) are not affected or damaged at all. Actually they are unloaded as the floors are disconnected, one after the other.

So if only all the floors drop - there is no global collapse at all. All part A columns remain standing. Nothing drops on them!

This NIST FQA or FAQ about floor strength, floors stacked on other floors and floors dropping and so on without mentioning the columns is just standard procedure to fool people like you beachnut.

 

[psikeyhackr]

0.01%, Yeah Right, ROFL

You didn't answer my question: why is it necessary. Why MUST you know the weight of something that even if your ballpark is off by 100% it only affects the entire mass of the structure by 0.01%?

.
And he proved that where?

So why is it that changing the distribution of mass in this simulated collapse without supports that had to be broken caused a 19 to 43% variation in collapse time? He just makes up 0.01% and throws it out and people here just accept it because he is in the APPROVED side.

http://www.centerforinquiry.net/forums/viewreply/52039/

Of course econ211 says this is irrelevant.

psik

 

[ozeco41]

You have completely misunderstood everything.

pot kettling again Heiwa?

So let's assume all floor #97 joints to columns fail. There are about 600 of those at each floor. Now a stack of 15 floors drop on floor #96 in part A and, let's assume, all 600 joints there also fail.

&c, &c!

Correct - that is what happened with the floor component of WTC Towers on 9/11 - PROVIDED psikey calibrates it by weakening the toothpcks for failure at a designed 5W so (say) actual failure in the 7W -8W range of static load.

But this is the psikeyhackr model! It has no columns! Only floors.

14 floors (or 20 washers) drop on 1 floor (one washer) held by 600 joints (1 toothpick), and so on.

Not so - the columns are represented by the rod. Remember it only models one aspect NOT the full structural scenario. psikey got that bit right.

In that model the columns (actually the center wooden rod) are not affected or damaged at all. Actually they are unloaded as the floors are disconnected, one after the other.

So it validly models part of the situation of the outer tube columns which were disconnected from the joists and then fell due to their instability with bracing in one axis removed. Surprise surprise the fell by rotating about that axis.

So if only all the floors drop - there is no global collapse at all. All part A columns remain standing. Nothing drops on them!

Once again I cannot tell if you really mean this or if you are being mischievous.

BUT The model is not a model of the full structure. You already know that the outer tube columns in real life were peeled off and simply fell over. And psikeys model partially showed the peeling off up to the point where the miscalibration allowed the falling mass to stop rather than continue. Simply a calibration error there.

This NIST FQA or FAQ about floor strength, floors stacked on other floors and floors dropping and so on without mentioning the columns is just standard procedure to fool people like you beachnut.

Unwarranted and somewhat pot kettley as to who is fooled.

 

[psikeyhackr]

Not so - the columns are represented by the rod. Remember it only models one aspect NOT the full structural scenario. psikey got that bit right.

.
psikeyhackr got something right? I can't take it. It's the BIG ONE. AHAHAhahahaaaa....

BUT The model is not a model of the full structure. ..... And psikeys model partially showed the peeling off up to the point where the miscalibration allowed the falling mass to stop rather than continue. Simply a calibration error there.

.
That of course assumes there was nothing else helping the building come down.

But it slowed and stopped FASTER with masses than without and calibration has nothing whatsoever to do with that. So why don't we know the distribution of steel and concrete from top to bottom of the towers?

That model is intended to be a PHYSICS MODEL for the demonstration of physical principles not a model of the World Trade Center. It is falling mass hitting sequential stationary masses on breakable supports. The shape of the washers being similar to the shape of the floor slabs is strictly coincidental. The idea was derived from FALL OF PHYSICS. I wanted something inexpensive whose destruction would not matter and could be repeated again and again under slightly different conditions. Toothpicks are pretty cheap.

But the intent was to show that the stationary masses would slow the falling mass down, not add to the kinetic energy and help the destruction which is what a lot of people claim. I also did not want a computer simulation. How can that be TRUSTED even if it is accurate. This is cheap enough so anyone can test it for themselves if they don't believe the results and no computer skills are required..

I would suggest wire instead of toothpicks though. Variations in strength could be tested with different thicknesses of wire and should be more consistent than chopped down toothpicks. I didn't think of that until I had finished shooting.

psik

 

[Heiwa]

.
psikeyhackr got something right? I can't take it. It's the BIG ONE. AHAHAhahahaaaa....


.
That of course assumes there was nothing else helping the building come down.

But it slowed and stopped FASTER with masses than without and calibration has nothing whatsoever to do with that. So why don't we know the distribution of steel and concrete from top to bottom of the towers?

That model is intended to be a PHYSICS MODEL for the demonstration of physical principles not a model of the World Trade Center. It is falling mass hitting sequential stationary masses on breakable supports. The shape of the washers being similar to the shape of the floor slabs is strictly coincidental. The idea was derived from FALL OF PHYSICS. I wanted something inexpensive whose destruction would not matter and could be repeated again and again under slightly different conditions. Toothpicks are pretty cheap.

But the intent was to show that the stationary masses would slow the falling mass down, not add to the kinetic energy and help the destruction which is what a lot of people claim. I also did not want a computer simulation. How can that be TRUSTED even if it is accurate. This is cheap enough so anyone can test it for themselves if they don't believe the results and no computer skills are required..

I would suggest wire instead of toothpicks though. Variations in strength could be tested with different thicknesses of wire and should be more consistent than chopped down toothpicks. I didn't think of that until I had finished shooting.

psik

You can probably delete the wooden rod on the floor (the column) too in your model! Just replace it with a cotton thread (attached to a hook in the ceiling of your flat) and attach the wire bits to the thread. Bending wire requires energy and slows drops of anyting.
That the energy of part C - your 20 washers - goes up in air (in a thread) in lieu down to ground (via a wooden rod) will really convince your viewers.

 

[beachnut]

You have completely misunderstood everything.

Part A (97 floors) carried part C (14 floors) for 30 years (assisted by columns)

Now take part C, remove all columns and stack or drop the 14 floors on the top floor of part A - floor #97.

This NIST FQA or FAQ about floor strength, floors stacked on other floors and floors dropping and so on without mentioning the columns is just standard procedure to fool people like you beachnut.

... the unique design of the WTC you deny is one more reason your ideas are moronic. Good for you purposely ignoring facts and evidence to make up dirt dumb conclusions with your kids jumping on beds, to lemon towers. Failure; 7 years of solid woo behind you what great depths into the 911Truth pit of anti-intellectual lies will you reach in the next 7 years.

There is zero evidence after reading all your work that you ever were any kind of an engineer. Your ideas are total junk. But I am only an engineer with a master degree who understands 911 due to facts, evidence, and knowledge. You have zero facts, zero evidence, and zero knowledge to form your failed ideas on 911; this is why you have only delusions on 911.

A floor on in the WTC will fail with 11 floors collapsing onto it if they are just placed statically on the lower floor. The model you like is pure poppycock like all your work; this is why you like the model is it pure stupid.

I do not need NIST to understand the WTC collapse; you can't refute anything NIST did. You have not, you can not.

You don't even know the weight one floor can hold! You show a complete lack of knowledge of engineering with your delusional conclusions.

This is a skeptic forum and your work is so pathetic on 911 that any layperson who can exercise logical and rational thinking can see you only have delusions.

You learned zip from Mackey and continue a rapid decent into the pit; and WWMSD expert modeler is right behind you orders of magnitude faster than free-fall.

 

[Newtons Bit]

.
And he proved that where?

So why is it that changing the distribution of mass in this simulated collapse without supports that had to be broken caused a 19 to 43% variation in collapse time? He just makes up 0.01% and throws it out and people here just accept it because he is in the APPROVED side.

http://www.centerforinquiry.net/forums/viewreply/52039/

Of course econ211 says this is irrelevant.

psik

Maybe it's 0.0001%. Seriously. The buildings were massive. A few tons (couple kips, a few thousand pounds, etc) is insignificant.

But you still didn't answer the question.

WHY ARE EXACT NUMBERS NECESSARY FOR YOU TO UNDERSTAND THE COLLAPSE.

I made it bigger for you. It should be harder to ignore. You've had weeks to come up with an answer to this. You should have at least been able to invent one by now.

 

[psikeyhackr]

Maybe it's 0.0001%. Seriously. The buildings were massive. A few tons (couple kips, a few thousand pounds, etc) is insignificant.

But you still didn't answer the question.

.
You obviously think just making up numbers PROVES SOMETHING.

A top down collapse means LOTS OF MASSIVE MATERIAL hitting LOTS OF OTHER MASSIVE MATERIAL. That means the more massive material below slows down the less massive material falling from above. Apparently you can only think in one direction.

The link I provided demonstrated a 20% CHANGE in collapse time resulting from altering the distribution of THE SAME MASS. So I have shown your 0.0001% crap is nothing but that. CRAP!

My video showed a gravitational collapse slowed down much more rapidly with one washer on each toothpick and that was only 5% of the falling mass. So I have shown mathematically and visually that your 0.0001% is a bunch of crap but all you can do is TALK. It is not my fault the the ENGINEERS that you hang out with are dumb memorizers that expect everyone to be impressed by their degrees.

Grade school kids should understand why the distribution of mass is important. Memorizers can't figure out when mathematics ain't physics.

psik

 

[psikeyhackr]

You can probably delete the wooden rod on the floor (the column) too in your model! Just replace it with a cotton thread (attached to a hook in the ceiling of your flat) and attach the wire bits to the thread. Bending wire requires energy and slows drops of anyting.
That the energy of part C - your 20 washers - goes up in air (in a thread) in lieu down to ground (via a wooden rod) will really convince your viewers.

.
Isn't cotton thread going to stretch?

How would you attach the wire to the thread? Why would it stay horizontal? Wouldn't evenly spaced knots be difficult to implement?

Knot worth the trouble.

psik

 

[twinstead]

I looked at my newspaper again this morning, expecting the headlines to scream "Rock-solid proof of inside job on 9/11 found. Country in an uproar. Engineers and scientists world-wide protest"

I didn't see it again.

 

[Heiwa]

.
Isn't cotton thread going to stretch?

How would you attach the wire to the thread? Why would it stay horizontal? Wouldn't evenly spaced knots be difficult to implement?

Knot worth the trouble.

psik

Make the thread of a dia 1 mm steel wire rod! It is better. I use it to fix many things. Worth the trouble. It will not stretch! Make knots/loops in the steel wire at regular intervals and put pieces of same wire through the knots/loops to represent the joints to break. They will stay horizontal with a bit of work. The main purpose of the vertical wire is to locate the horizontal wire pieces (the joints to break) in space without a column. Now you can drop your washers as you like ... and you'll get the same result as before. Obstructions (joints) in space will prevent a one-way crush down.

Re part C - drop mass, 20 washers - put some rubber between them to represent the flexible columns. Then part C will be more springy.

Good luck.

PS, you can use a thread attached to ground to stretch the wire vertically before test! Or extend the wire to the ground!

 

[Newtons Bit]

.
You obviously think just making up numbers PROVES SOMETHING.

A top down collapse means LOTS OF MASSIVE MATERIAL hitting LOTS OF OTHER MASSIVE MATERIAL. That means the more massive material below slows down the less massive material falling from above. Apparently you can only think in one direction.

The link I provided demonstrated a 20% CHANGE in collapse time resulting from altering the distribution of THE SAME MASS. So I have shown your 0.0001% crap is nothing but that. CRAP!

My video showed a gravitational collapse slowed down much more rapidly with one washer on each toothpick and that was only 5% of the falling mass. So I have shown mathematically and visually that your 0.0001% is a bunch of crap but all you can do is TALK. It is not my fault the the ENGINEERS that you hang out with are dumb memorizers that expect everyone to be impressed by their degrees.

Grade school kids should understand why the distribution of mass is important. Memorizers can't figure out when mathematics ain't physics.

psik

What are you even going on about? You've completely missed the point of just about every single thing I've written in this thread. Twisted it, misunderstood (probably deliberately) and skewed it. Having the weight of the perimeter panels off even by 100% only produces a tiny error in the total mass of the building. Here, let's look at an engineering example. But be warned, I'm using engineering jargon and my engineering judgment to make predictions of the building mass based on past experience with buildings.

The dead load of the floors is roughly 50 psf (includes super-imposed dead loads) averaged over the total building.

The in service live-load about 20psf.

The dead load of the floor trusses is probably about 3 psf.

The dead load of the columns (at the point of collapse) about 5 psf.

The dead load of the spandrel plates on the exterior of the building (what I'm assuming you're referring to as "panels") is about 0.1psf.


Total weight = 78.1psf.

Let's double the weight of the panels. It's now 78.2psf.

78.2/78.1 = 1.0013.

Not a real big difference is it? Now then, I just pulled these numbers out of my "filing cabinet" (an engineering euphemism for rear-end). You could actually compute the mass of all the concrete from the sections that NIST provides of the composite floor system. The SAP model that NIST used is available somewhere on the interwebs. You could use it to get cross-sectional areas of steel and therefore masses of that as well. You would have everything you need.

In any event, changing the distribution of mass DOES NOT CHANGE THE FACT THAT IT STILL PROGRESSES. Furthermore, your models are never going to be able to actually replicate the way the towers collapse. Your toothpick and washer model, though laudable in the fact that you actually put effort in trying to understand the collapse, has absolutely nothing to do with the WTC towers. The most obvious deficiency is in the strength of the "floors" in your model. Debris from above the WTC would punch through the flooring system. You can see this from the videos (those dust plumes that are below the exterior collapse front, that's a sign of debris on the interior part of the building collapsing faster than the top). Your rationales are also based upon a flawed understanding of the conservation of momentum. The impacting bodies DID NOT COLLIDE PLASTICALLY.

So tell me again. WHY DOES NIST NEED TO PROVIDE AN EXACT NUMBER? What purpose does it serve? I think the report is already overloaded with useless information. I can only reason that such information was included was to justify the researchers jobs. Do you think your model actually does provide a real simulation of the collapse and if you can just get those darn mass distributions right you'll prove it's an "INSIDE JORB"? If so, I'd call you delusional.

By the way, no one is impressed with my engineering degree (except my mother): I only have a bachelors. The models I've done mathematically speak for themselves. They're not there to provide an illustration of exactly how the WTC collapse progressed for that is impossible.

If all the experts: NIST, ASCE, SEA, SEI, ACI, college professors, practicing engineerings, etc, are saying one thing and you're saying another, you may want to come up with a better argument than, "It is not my fault the the ENGINEERS that you hang out with are dumb memorizers that expect everyone to be impressed by their degrees."

Try actually proving something.

 

[Newtons Bit]

Frick. I wrote alot more and spent alot more time on that than I wanted. This is getting absurd. If you come up with some real psikeyhackr, try putting it in a cogent form and then let me know. I don't have enough time to spare to waste on this crap.

 

[Heiwa]

In any event, changing the distribution of mass DOES NOT CHANGE THE FACT THAT IT STILL PROGRESSES.

??, Doesn't it? Before it progresses, it has to do a lot of work; compress structures above/below, destroy and displace elements of structures below/above and then decide where to progress (up/down?)! Plenty of obstructions just below! Why not take the easy way out sideways? Or why not just give up? Stop destruction!

Why progress? It never happens in any structure, where the part supposed to progress through a big one is small! Pls do your home work! I asked Mackey same thing, and since he is absent from thread. It's a good sign.

 

[Furcifer]

Furthermore, your models are never going to be able to actually replicate the way the towers collapse. Your toothpick and washer model, though laudable in the fact that you actually put effort in trying to understand the collapse, has absolutely nothing to do with the WTC towers. The most obvious deficiency is in the strength of the "floors" in your model.

The sad thing is he actually knows this. There is no possible way for him not to. His "floor" connections are about 60X stronger than they should be (at least?) and attached to an indestructible core. The losses due to friction on this indestructible core, along with the obvious jamming of the toothpicks represent a source of error I can't begin to calculate. And yet he sits here and criticizes "degreed professionals" about a miniscule source of error? That's some irony.

I'm curious if he ever considered increasing the mass of his "floors" to 30 washers, half of his measured toothpick static load capacity, then dropping 300 washers (10X) down 1 story. Perfect, no, but at least a little better representation of what was happening.

The whole purpose of this challenge is lost on these fools simply due to the fact they have no intention of learning. There's no discussion to be had as they refuse to acknowledge anything outside their limited sphere of understanding which is soley based on a mistaken premise.

 

[R.Mackey]

Still not a single person has taken me up on the Challenge...

... so I don't think the purpose of the Challenge has been lost. They seem well aware that if they step up and do it right, they'll be forced to admit their beliefs are unsupported.

I remain appalled at the sheer amount of derail going on here, but since the "signal" from the Truth Movement is zero, signal-to-noise was destined to reach 0 dB. My email is still open, however, should anyone with a lick of sense appear.

 

[Newtons Bit]

Still not a single person has taken me up on the Challenge...

... so I don't think the purpose of the Challenge has been lost. They seem well aware that if they step up and do it right, they'll be forced to admit their beliefs are unsupported.

I remain appalled at the sheer amount of derail going on here, but since the "signal" from the Truth Movement is zero, signal-to-noise was destined to reach 0 dB. My email is still open, however, should anyone with a lick of sense appear.

If we keep derailing it, it keeps staying active and thus people are posting

We're doing you a favor, honest!

 

[R.Mackey]

It doesn't matter, I've long since given up. This policy of mine seems to be the prudent course of action.

Seriously, the only Truth Movement poster still here I have any respect for is metamars, because his ideas are at least thought-provoking in a "what if" sense, even if they're utterly impractical to impossible. The rest are just digital graffitos. People not in the Truth Movement, or those with valid technical questions, I'm still interested in, but the ones still lingering in the Truth Movement have all the information they need to make the right decision.