Hardfire: Physics of 9/11

[psikeyhackr]

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.

.
I don't give a damn about an INSIDE JOB And I don't give a damn who did it.

They masses did not have to collide by whatever limited definition that you choose to select as plastic.

If the portion of the north tower above the impact zone could cause the portion below the impact zone to come down in less than 18 seconds then it had to break or dislocate the supports and it had to accelerate the mass. You can tap dance around with the definition of plastic all you want. My collapse model and FALL OF PHYSICS demonstrated that the MASS of the stationary portion would affect that collapse speeds and time. So what kind of SCIENCE is it to not know the distribution of that mass to analyze the event? In SEVEN YEARS?

psik

 

[Newtons Bit]

.
I don't give a damn about an INSIDE JOB And I don't give a damn who did it.

They masses did not have to collide by whatever limited definition that you choose to select as plastic.

If the portion of the north tower above the impact zone could cause the portion below the impact zone to come down in less than 18 seconds then it had to break or dislocate the supports and it had to accelerate the mass. You can tap dance around with the definition of plastic all you want. My collapse model and FALL OF PHYSICS demonstrated that the MASS of the stationary portion would affect that collapse speeds and time. So what kind of SCIENCE is it to not know the distribution of that mass to analyze the event? In SEVEN YEARS?

psik

What, you think if you get the EXACT weight of the structure and all of it's components that you'll be able to create a model that has a collapse time the same as the towers? And I'm still not seeing your point. How can you use this exact data to support anything?

You're still assuming that upper block collides with all of the lower block in order to get in moving. It doesn't have to do that. The upper block just needs to cause damage to portions of the floors so that they're no longer supports on two ends. Think about a truss getting severed in the middle from a large piece of debris. The (now in two pieces) truss will then rotate about the supports on each end as it accelerates downwards. After a small amount of rotation (probably about 10 degrees) the support fails. The floor now falls on its own accord without the help of any plastic or elastic or any other collision. Conservation of Momentum doesn't apply to the entire mass of each block.

 

[psikeyhackr]

What, you think if you get the EXACT weight of the structure and all of it's components that you'll be able to create a model that has a collapse time the same as the towers?

.
I say it should not collapse.

But that presents a problem for all of you people who CLAIM to know physics and think what happened was NORMAL. If the density of the towers increased going down then that had to make it more difficult to collapse. The falling mass must disable supports and accelerate an ever increasing mass which because of the conservation of momentum would cause it to lose more kinetic energy due to reduced velocity than it gained by increasing mass. That little matter of the energy being the square of the velocity in that equation.

But then that is EXACTLY what my collapse model demonstrated. But my toothpicks didn't get stronger going down. I could make levels stronger and heavier using various gauges of wire and varying the number of washers. But doing that with any correspondence to the WTC would require reasonably accurate data on the mass and strength of each level of the buildings.

This EXACT business you keep pushing is very un-engineering like. EXACTNESS is always limited. We only have the weight of the heaviest perimeter column panel from some 1970 magazine, 22 tons. That means somewhere between 21.5 tons and 22.5 tons. It does not mean 44,000.0000000 pounds. Since I don't have any numbers at all for the other 11 panels talking about EXACT is nonsense.

psik

 

[Gravy]

I say it should not collapse.

How droll.

 

[Furcifer]

.


But that presents a problem for all of you people who CLAIM to know physics and think what happened was NORMAL. If the density of the towers increased going down then that had to make it more difficult to collapse. The falling mass must disable supports and accelerate an ever increasing mass which because of the conservation of momentum would cause it to lose more kinetic energy due to reduced velocity than it gained by increasing mass. That little matter of the energy being the square of the velocity in that equation.

psik

Wow, I've said things like this as a joke, but I think you're serious.

If the density of the towers increased going down? If? Everyone and their brother knows they did except you. Way too keep up.

lol, this is priceless. You're clueless to what an increase in relative density does.

If floor 78 increase in mass by 100000000% and 79 increases by 100000000% WHAT DO YOU THINK THIS WILL DO WHEN THEY COLLIDE?

lol.

 

[R.Mackey]

How droll.

There's a typo in your post.

 

[Gravy]

There's a typo in your post.

 

[tsig]

.
I say it should not collapse.

But that presents a problem for all of you people who CLAIM to know physics and think what happened was NORMAL. If the density of the towers increased going down then that had to make it more difficult to collapse. The falling mass must disable supports and accelerate an ever increasing mass which because of the conservation of momentum would cause it to lose more kinetic energy due to reduced velocity than it gained by increasing mass. That little matter of the energy being the square of the velocity in that equation.

But then that is EXACTLY what my collapse model demonstrated. But my toothpicks didn't get stronger going down. I could make levels stronger and heavier using various gauges of wire and varying the number of washers. But doing that with any correspondence to the WTC would require reasonably accurate data on the mass and strength of each level of the buildings.

This EXACT business you keep pushing is very un-engineering like. EXACTNESS is always limited. We only have the weight of the heaviest perimeter column panel from some 1970 magazine, 22 tons. That means somewhere between 21.5 tons and 22.5 tons. It does not mean 44,000.0000000 pounds. Since I don't have any numbers at all for the other 11 panels talking about EXACT is nonsense.

psik

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/plans/table.html

Here are plans enjoy.

 

[Newtons Bit]

.
I say it should not collapse.

But that presents a problem for all of you people who CLAIM to know physics and think what happened was NORMAL. If the density of the towers increased going down then that had to make it more difficult to collapse. The falling mass must disable supports and accelerate an ever increasing mass which because of the conservation of momentum would cause it to lose more kinetic energy due to reduced velocity than it gained by increasing mass. That little matter of the energy being the square of the velocity in that equation.

But then that is EXACTLY what my collapse model demonstrated. But my toothpicks didn't get stronger going down. I could make levels stronger and heavier using various gauges of wire and varying the number of washers. But doing that with any correspondence to the WTC would require reasonably accurate data on the mass and strength of each level of the buildings.

This EXACT business you keep pushing is very un-engineering like. EXACTNESS is always limited. We only have the weight of the heaviest perimeter column panel from some 1970 magazine, 22 tons. That means somewhere between 21.5 tons and 22.5 tons. It does not mean 44,000.0000000 pounds. Since I don't have any numbers at all for the other 11 panels talking about EXACT is nonsense.

psik

The relevant portions of mass doesn't increase. The floors are constant (more or less). The columns change in size with respect to height. But the columns near the base didn't even collapse. Remember the spire that was left standing after the collapse? This is a testament to that fact.

I'm not pushing exact as in terms of significant digits. I think it's quite ludicrous of you to think so.

But in any event, you do realize that NIST cannot provide exact numbers of either steel or concrete? No, I'm not talking about significant digits like you are.

For example:

The concrete on the joists will pond: the joists sag while the wet concrete is poured. To get a level surface extra concrete is poured on. In a typical beam and girder system this is about 5psf of additional weight (for normal weight concrete). It will be somewhat more for a longer span system. But it will also be indeterminable.

The in-service live load can only be estimated. It may be off by quite a significant number.

And you're still missing a fundamental point. Your model assumes that the mass only begins it's initial downward descent through a transfer of momentum through a collision. The floors and columns below, after sustaining sufficient damage from falling debris above, will begin collapsing on their own without a transfer of momentum. You can only do so much with a conservation of momentum analysis. If you actually understood engineering (which is applied physics), you might understand why.

 

[Furcifer]

And you're still missing a fundamental point. Your model assumes that the mass only begins it's initial downward descent through a transfer of momentum through a collision. The floors and columns below, after sustaining sufficient damage from falling debris above, will begin collapsing on their own without a transfer of momentum. You can only do so much with a conservation of momentum analysis. If you actually understood engineering (which is applied physics), you might understand why.

I think you're giving him too much credit here. Between what he's said and his model he seems to be under the impression that inertia alone will slow the collapse.

Of course I'm still confused if he thinks the toothpicks represent the floor connections, or if he's trying to equate them to the "strength" of each floor? Maybe he'll clarify this when he figures it out for himself...

 

[Heiwa]

There's a typo in your post.

Try the test at post #742 at http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=140047&page=19

 

[alienentity]

I've watched shows 1 and 2, but show 3 got stalled at about 20 minutes. I'll finish it later.

Just wanted to thank Ryan for his efforts, and encourage him to continue with similar interviews.

I'm also plowing thru DRG NIST Review by Mr. Mackey, actually enjoying it quite a bit. An associate of mine, the same person who got me involved with this 9/11 truth bullsh*t, bought me a copy of Dr Griffin's latest book, I think it was titled 'Truther Twaddle #4', but I'm not exactly sure; anyway, I politely refused, as I'd already endured a video of one of the 'Griff's lectures, and was not about to subject myself to more of the same.
Therefore, I doubly applaud Mr. Mackey for reading DRG's tome AND writing a lengthy dissection which lucidly enunciates the considerable Twaddle Quotient contained within it.

One point for all of you JREF types who respect and even admire Mr. Mackey - he admonished you NOT to engage Heiwa, which is very sound advice, IMHO.

I see Heiwa has attempted to operate his Permanent Derail tactics here as well, with some considerable success. I suggest, if you find you MUST reply to Heiwa, use the standard code suggested on another thread. It saves time and pixels, which is really the thing to do with Heiwa, isn't it?

I believe the reply code for Heiwa's diagrams posted above is:

SR47B (SR stands for Skeptic Reply)

The code for Heiwa's diagrams, anytime they appear, is simply TQ23.5 (TR stands for Truther Query)

Someone earlier had asked about the weight, in tons, of the aircraft which hit the WTC towers. I found the current max weight of a Boeing 767-ER200 (corresponding with flight 175) is 395,000 lb or about 200 tons.

http://www.janes.com/aerospace/civil/news/jawa/boeing_767.shtml

 

[psikeyhackr]

The concrete on the joists will pond: the joists sag while the wet concrete is poured. To get a level surface extra concrete is poured on. In a typical beam and girder system this is about 5psf of additional weight (for normal weight concrete). It will be somewhat more for a longer span system. But it will also be indeterminable.

.
Like we are supposed to believe that people who design buildings didn't know that and take it into account in the design ahead of time?

What does that have to do with not knowing the weights and number of each of the 12 types of perimeter wall panels?

DODGES and EXCUSES!

psik

 

[Newtons Bit]

.
Like we are supposed to believe that people who design buildings didn't know that and take it into account in the design ahead of time?

What does that have to do with not knowing the weights and number of each of the 12 types of perimeter wall panels?

DODGES and EXCUSES!

psik

Engineers can only estimate ponding. It's somewhere AROUND 5psf for a typical building. Depending on how the contractor places the concrete it might be 3 and it might be 7.

Dodges and excuses? Get a grip on yourself, troll. You were asking for tables of concrete and steel. Now it's just steel when I tell you that it's impossible to know what the exact amount of concrete is.

 

[psikeyhackr]

Engineers can only estimate ponding. It's somewhere AROUND 5psf for a typical building. Depending on how the contractor places the concrete it might be 3 and it might be 7.

Dodges and excuses? Get a grip on yourself, troll. You were asking for tables of concrete and steel. Now it's just steel when I tell you that it's impossible to know what the exact amount of concrete is.

.
So doesn't that mean the designers are going to use worse case estimates in deciding how much steel is necessary to support all of that ponding.

Get a grip!

I have been talking about the wall panels for I don't know how long and you come up with this ponding business.

I'm not the one that has to come up with excuses for the NIST not telling us the numbers and weights of the perimeter wall panels. It is people who can BELIEVE things without data that need to get a grip.

psik

 

[A W Smith]

.
So doesn't that mean the designers are going to use worse case estimates in deciding how much steel is necessary to support all of that ponding.

YES exactly!!! Which is why we have been asking you to pick an upper and lower bound!!

 

[femr2]

femr2 ucoz model

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.

Ryan, you have now been fully aware of the model I have created since the 12th April. You have posted links to it and obviously read the content, which states quite clearly that the model is put forth to your 'challenge'.

In your own words it 'is clearly the best entry in response to my "Hardfire Modeling Challenge."', but you are still claiming that no-one has taken you up on said challenge.

As you are also aware, I have placed your prior questions (received via a YT user who contacted you about my site) along with appropriate answers in a simple forum. I have also clearly stated that the forum would be locked to accept posts from only yourself and I until full conclusion of any ensuing discussion, negating your concerns about derailment.

Well, here is the contact you have 'requested'. I put the model forth to your challenge. I do not wish to engage in 'behind closed doors' private email conversation, and would prefer to discuss through my forum. If you will only discuss here, then that will have to do, but I am sure you will agree that this is far from a suitable location.

 

[AZCat]

Well, here is the contact you have 'requested'. I put the model forth to your challenge. I do not wish to engage in 'behind closed doors' private email conversation, and would prefer to discuss through my forum. If you will only discuss here, then that will have to do, but I am sure you will agree that this is far from a suitable location.

Welcome to the forum, femr2. I haven't seen your model yet, but hopefully this will lead to some productive, interesting discussion.

 

[DavidJames]

Welcome femr2, I also look forward to the discussion.

Perhaps this thread should go under moderation.

 

[femr2]

Welcome to the forum, femr2. I haven't seen your model yet, but hopefully this will lead to some productive, interesting discussion.

If you google my name, it's the second link - WTC Collapse Simulator.

All the calculations are housed in a relatively simple, open, xl spreadsheet, which is focussed upon the generation of a collapse time for a gravity only driven collapse. The spreadsheet is available for download.

The visualisation module simply imports data directly from the spreadsheet, so until I 'finalise' the model, it's not currently available for download, though there are a few YT video scenarios available.

The forum is linked on the home page, and includes fairly detailed answers to Ryans' initial queries.