Hardfire: Physics of 9/11

[Furcifer]

.
If we don't know the mass then we can't make Mackey's scaled model. You did notice all of those horizontal things labeled "m" in his 2-6 and 2-7 diagrams didn't you?
psik

The irony is those m's are scalar quantities.

 

[Sunstealer]

Design of Concrete Structures, 13th Edition and Steel Designer's Manual will provide you all the figures you ever need in order to calculate these on you own. Don't know why you're so obsessed with it... but have at it.

Calculate! Calculate? You must be mad expecting any of them to actually use mathematics. I've yet to see a single truther on JREF actually do a calculation that requires more than 2 lines.

psikeyhacker hasn't got the understanding or knowledge of mathematics to do anything but the most rudimentary calculations. He's certainly not going to read a book and learn, let alone buy one!

Gonna prove me wrong psikeyhacker?

No you just going to hide away like all the other truthers when asked for math.

 

[GlennB]

.
In reality grade school kids in a playground deal with the conservation of momentum on a regular basis, they just don't know the equation. But they can predict how masses of various sizes will behave more or less when they collide with each other.

Grade school kid Mike has two brothers, Dave and Steve.....

Mike, how many brothers do you have?
Two
What are their names?
Dave and Steve.
How many brothers does Dave have?
One

(classic child psychology test)

Pick a better line of argument than the reasoning of small kids, psikey

While we're here ....

a few years ago I was "debating" with a truther over at the old Loose Change forum. Mr. Truther was spouting about "conservation of momentum", reasoning that two pool balls rolling at the same speed and colliding head-on must come to a dead stop. Based on m = -m . This was an adult. Who had clearly never played pool.

 

[aggle-rithm]

Grade school kid Mike has two brothers, Dave and Steve.....

Mike, how many brothers do you have?
Two
What are their names?
Dave and Steve.
How many brothers does Dave have?
One

(classic child psychology test)

Oh, yeah? Well, I have four brothers, but my sister has FIVE.

Explain THAT, "expert"!!!

 

[FineWine]

.
The supports must be bent, broken or dislocated. The mass must be accelerated to come down in less than 18 seconds.

What if there wasn't enough energy to do that even if none was lost in any other way?

Then the collapse was IMPOSSIBLE due to the planes and fires and SOMETHING ELSE had to be responsible. If we don't know the mass then we can't make Mackey's scaled model. You did notice all of those horizontal things labeled "m" in his 2-6 and 2-7 diagrams didn't you? I think it is pointless to talk theoretical bulldrek when you don't have the data.

So what is your objection to demanding the data from the NIST? What is wrong with knowing the number and weights of perimeter wall panels?

Trying to use physics to prove the physically impossible could happen must be a frustrating task. Of course that could be a reason to hide information.

psik

Earlier, you asked: "What Conspiracr [sic] Theory have I EVER talked about?" You have answered your own question.

You aren't going to tell us why the engineers are wrong to say that your obsession with the perimeter panels is pointless, are you?

 

[psikeyhackr]

Earlier, you asked: "What Conspiracr [sic] Theory have I EVER talked about?" You have answered your own question.

You aren't going to tell us why the engineers are wrong to say that your obsession with the perimeter panels is pointless, are you?

.
Why do you assume the engineers are right if they don't tell you something as simple as the distribution of steel and concrete in the towers. It is not about your UNDERSTANDING anything it is just about your TRUSTING.

The NIST report tells us that one airliner had 5 tons of cargo and the other had 9.

Do you think that is more important than the number and quantity of wheat chex.

It is acknowledged that the perimeter columns supported 50% of the weight of the buildings. How can they not be important to an analysis of the collapse of the buildings?

psik

 

[femr2]

.
Why do you assume the engineers are right if they don't tell you something as simple as the distribution of steel and concrete in the towers. It is not about your UNDERSTANDING anything it is just about your TRUSTING.

The NIST report tells us that one airliner had 5 tons of cargo and the other had 9.

Do you think that is more important than the number and quantity of wheat chex.

It is acknowledged that the perimeter columns supported 50% of the weight of the buildings. How can they not be important to an analysis of the collapse of the buildings?

psik

Although masses are not stated, the core cross-sectional dimensions, by-column by-floor-range are available here:
Structural Data
Core Column Cross-sections

Dimension data on external columns is still scant, but it states 0.25in thickness at 98 to 3in thickness at base. Without further data I suggest a linear ramp from known data for 98 to, what, 144 times the mass at the base ? (3x3)/(0.25*0.25) until you receive more specific data.

If anyone has more specific core and external column mass and strength data, links would be very handy...

 

[Furcifer]

Although masses are not stated, the core cross-sectional dimensions, by-column by-floor-range are available here:
Structural Data
Core Column Cross-sections

Dimension data on external columns is still scant, but it states 0.25in thickness at 98 to 3in thickness at base. Without further data I suggest a linear ramp from known data for 98 to, what, 144 times the mass at the base ? (3x3)/(0.25*0.25) until you receive more specific data.

If anyone has more specific core and external column mass and strength data, links would be very handy...

http://911research.wtc7.net/papers/urich/MassAndPeWtc1.htm

I don't know if you've seen this?

 

[femr2]

I don't know if you've seen this?

Yes, though in it's PDF form. Thanks. It has a link to data in XL format, which is very handy. I still have some of the data to incorporate in the model, but I'm not at all happy with the external steel distribution method, nor the basis upon which it's done. (By steel order documentation only. Not necessarily accurate. Maybe they ordered more and lost the paperwork.)

Edit: Dumbness deleted

 

[Furcifer]

Yes, though in it's PDF form. Thanks. It has a link to data in XL format, which is very handy. I still have some of the data to incorporate in the model, but I'm not at all happy with the external steel distribution method, nor the basis upon which it's done. (By steel order documentation only. Not necessarily accurate. Maybe they ordered more and lost the paperwork.)

Why would there only be a factor x30 to x40 for the mass when the cross-sectional area could be up to ~ x144 ?

The external box column external dimensions remained constant, yes ? It was just the steel thickness that varied ?

OK, i thought you meant the core.

 

[FineWine]

.
Why do you assume the engineers are right if they don't tell you something as simple as the distribution of steel and concrete in the towers. It is not about your UNDERSTANDING anything it is just about your TRUSTING.

The NIST report tells us that one airliner had 5 tons of cargo and the other had 9.

Do you think that is more important than the number and quantity of wheat chex.

It is acknowledged that the perimeter columns supported 50% of the weight of the buildings. How can they not be important to an analysis of the collapse of the buildings?

psik

Now you're shifting from perimeter panels to perimeter columns. You seem to be thrashing about, desperately trying to find a point to make. I assume that engineers are right when they're all in accord about a subject that is central to the work they do. Why do you assume they're wrong? Is it possible for anyone to teach you anything?

 

[A W Smith]

Now you're shifting from perimeter panels to perimeter columns. You seem to be thrashing about, desperately trying to find a point to make. I assume that engineers are right when they're all in accord about a subject that is central to the work they do. Why do you assume they're wrong? Is it possible for anyone to teach you anything?

Im not so sure it matters WHAT they were to begin with. They peeled away as can be seen from images of them strewn across west street for example. At first I thought psikeyhackr needed the info because of impact sway. THAT wasn't it. Then it was the penetration by the aircraft, THAT wasn't it. Now its crush down. WTF psikeyhacker? pick a friggin horse already!

 

[Newtons Bit]

Yes, though in it's PDF form. Thanks. It has a link to data in XL format, which is very handy. I still have some of the data to incorporate in the model, but I'm not at all happy with the external steel distribution method, nor the basis upon which it's done. (By steel order documentation only. Not necessarily accurate. Maybe they ordered more and lost the paperwork.)

Edit: Dumbness deleted

I don't think you understand how the process works. I'll explain an idealized normal bid non-fast track job (like the WTC)

When the design team (architect, structural, electrical, mechanical, plumbing, landscape, sometimes interior design) is finished with the project construction documents (typically called blueprints by laypeople) they open up bidding to any interested contractors. All of these contractors get a copy (or two or more) of the plan set. The contractor that wins the bid then hires their own steel sub-contractor or maybe does the steel work them self(it depends on the contractor and the type of bid, etc).

This steel sub contractor will then look at the structural construction documents and produce their own set of drawings called shop drawings. These drawings are different from the construction documents, which are generalized. The shop drawings detail and dimension every single piece of steel, be it a beam, column, base plate, gusset plate, shear tab, brace, whatever so that it can be fabricated in a shop from large lengths of steel delivered from the mill. These shop drawings are then sent back to the structural engineer (usually through the circuitous path of the general contractor, then to the architect, then to the engineer) who reviews the drawings, comments on them and sends them back (through the same circuitous path).

The steel sub then takes adjusts their drawings to these comments (or argues about it, sometimes even ignoring them) and fabricates the necessary pieces and ships them off to the site.

All of the structural steel will be in the same package. It's hard to lose.

 

[A W Smith]

interested in the wall thickness of the perimeter columns? lets cut to the chase. Call this guy up.


http://www.karlkoch.com/profile.htm

 

[tsig]

.
You don't know the difference between respect and subservience.

You don't DEMAND that they explain simple things in a comprehensible manner. In reality grade school kids in a playground deal with the conservation of momentum on a regular basis, they just don't know the equation. But they can predict how masses of various sizes will behave more or less when they collide with each other.

The supposed downward collisions of the WTC towers make no sense in terms of the way mass and strength must be distributed in a skyscraper in order for it to support its weight and withstand the wind for 28 years.

So why haven't we been told the TONS of STEEL and TONS of CONCRETE that were on every level? Why doesn't RICHARD GAGE make a big deal about it? He emailed back that he agreed with me when I emailed him about Frank Greening being wrong in his potential energy assumptions. He hasn't responded about the collapse video though.

I have communicated with Truthers that have the same attitude as you but they worship Steven Jones and Kevin Ryan. Same mind set, different religion. I am about understanding things objectively for myself.

You are of course free to explain what principles of physics are violated in my models. Of course they are sufficiently simple to build and test yourself so it should be hard for me to cheat.

psik

Once again you say you have a model yet say there is not enough info to build a model.

 

[tsig]

.
Why do you assume the engineers are right if they don't tell you something as simple as the distribution of steel and concrete in the towers. It is not about your UNDERSTANDING anything it is just about your TRUSTING.

The NIST report tells us that one airliner had 5 tons of cargo and the other had 9.

Do you think that is more important than the number and quantity of wheat chex.

It is acknowledged that the perimeter columns supported 50% of the weight of the buildings. How can they not be important to an analysis of the collapse of the buildings?

psik

They don't seem essential for your analysis of the collapse since you already have a physical model.

 

[psikeyhackr]

The SCALES of Physics care for no NASA scientist.

They don't seem essential for your analysis of the collapse since you already have a physical model.

.
But it is NOT a SCALED model.

R.Mackey could tell you that.

I could calculate the average energy required to break a toothpick from that but it would be about the same at each level.

If I redid it with wire I could experiment with various gauges and determine the energy requirements there and probably solve the problem of the washers not being level. I can vary the weight on each level with the the number of washers. I could even go so far as to sort the washers by thickness since they are not very high precision.

But all of that is meaningless without the ACTUAL ACCURATE data on the building. Are you saying the perimeter columns were not a significant percentage of the weight on each level of the towers? And since they were 50% of the strength they would affect the wire gauge I would have to use.

The GREAT Ryan Mackey opened up a nice can of worms when he started talking about SCALING a model, because he is pointing out how much the NIST is not telling us. And he complained about my constantly bringing up TONS of STEEL and TONS of CONCRETE on each level.

psik

 

[Grizzly Bear]

Calculate! Calculate? You must be mad expecting any of them to actually use mathematics. I've yet to see a single truther on JREF actually do a calculation that requires more than 2 lines.

psikeyhacker hasn't got the understanding or knowledge of mathematics to do anything but the most rudimentary calculations. He's certainly not going to read a book and learn, let alone buy one!

If he can't get the information he wants from where he's utterly obsessed with getting it... then there are ways for him to develope approximate figures... The WTC used A50 steel if I recall correctly (and this assumes I recall this off the top of my head) -- the stats of which are documented in tables in various publications (one being the steel designer's manual). However, if he's too lazy to do the work himself then it's not my problem...

 

[GlennB]

.

But all of that is meaningless without the ACTUAL ACCURATE data on the building.

Up above in this thread are links to details of the core column dimensions for the whole building, and the gradation of the exterior columns from bottom to top.
Assume the exterior columns thin linearly from bottom to top and you'll be very close to real life, I have no doubt.
The floor spans and concrete are known.

You seem to have everything you need. Why are you still complaining?

 

[psikeyhackr]

If he can't get the information he wants from where he's utterly obsessed with getting it... then there are ways for him to develope approximate figures... The WTC used A50 steel if I recall correctly (and this assumes I recall this off the top of my head) -- the stats of which are documented in tables in various publications (one being the steel designer's manual). However, if he's too lazy to do the work himself then it's not my problem...

.
I haven't noticed anybody comment on FALL OF PHYSICS:

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

I computed a 20% variation on collapse time on a 64 foot top down collapse by changing the distribution of mass. And that was without any strength of supports needing to be broken. You people want to change the subject from "analyzing what happened on 9/11 which requires accurate data", to "prove to us you are smart by jumping through the hoops you say". But since you presume you are correct even though you don't have accurate data you need to come up with bullcrap excuses for not having or demanding it.

psik