Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through
Since the collapse time isn't actually known to a precision of 20%, that's not a big problem.
Dave
-
Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more
Hardfire: Physics of 9/11
- Thread starter R.Mackey
- Start date
Since the collapse time isn't actually known to a precision of 20%, that's not a big problem.
Dave
psikeyhackr
Banned
- Joined
- Apr 30, 2008
- Messages
- 470
yawn!
But it was only a 64 foot collapse with NO structural resistance.
The point is that mass distribution affected the time therefore it makes no sense to not know the mass distribution of the WTC.
You guys are so SMART at being deliberately obtuse. Nothing but rhetoric, oratory and sophistry trash. And games with mathematics.
No REAL physics.
psik
.
But it was only a 64 foot collapse with NO structural resistance.
The point is that mass distribution affected the time therefore it makes no sense to not know the mass distribution of the WTC.
You guys are so SMART at being deliberately obtuse. Nothing but rhetoric, oratory and sophistry trash. And games with mathematics.
No REAL physics.
psik
.
But it was only a 64 foot collapse with NO structural resistance.
The point is that mass distribution affected the time therefore it makes no sense to not know the mass distribution of the WTC.
You guys are so SMART at being deliberately obtuse. Nothing but rhetoric, oratory and sophistry trash. And games with mathematics.
No REAL physics.
psik
So have you written to NIST to explain that their engineers are missing something that a person with no training can see? As the information showing the locations of every column, external and core, in the towers is easy to find, I keep wondering what you are going on about.
A couple of posts above I pointed out where the realistic mass figures had been indicated. You seem to have ignored this information in favour of ranting.
tsig
a carbon based life-form
- Joined
- Nov 25, 2005
- Messages
- 39,049
.
But it was only a 64 foot collapse with NO structural resistance.
The point is that mass distribution affected the time therefore it makes no sense to not know the mass distribution of the WTC.
You guys are so SMART at being deliberately obtuse. Nothing but rhetoric, oratory and sophistry trash. And games with mathematics.
No REAL physics.
psik
Math is the language of physics I'm sorry you can't read it.
Download
Updated version of the calculation model with the following changes:
* Removal of focus on Greening paper, column usage replaced by values which are constant.
* Inclusion of conservation of momentum energy loss for usage in subsequent deformation of materials.
* Specific floor heights used, rather than an averaged constant.
* Concrete crush scale maximum removed. Unlimited scale permitted.
* Manual concrete crush scale ramping parameters removed.
* Impact KE based concrete crush scale calculation added. Switchable.
* Floor-by-floor concrete crush volume percentage added.
* Floor-by-floor mass loss (kg) added. Switchable.
* Per floor Impact KE based mass loss calculation added. Switchable.
* Calculated mass switchable to include/exclude cap mass loss.
* Initial cap drop height modifier added.
* Average Debris Lateral Ejection Velocity included.
* Debris Lateral Ejection Energy Requirement Added. (Applied to mass lost)
* Concrete mass inside core uses floor-by floor specific area percentage modifier to account for variation in usable floor area.
* Graphs for tracking Kinetic Energy, Mass and Velocity.
Note: Values are intended to be changed. Preset values are just for example.
Updated version of the calculation model with the following changes:
* Removal of focus on Greening paper, column usage replaced by values which are constant.
* Inclusion of conservation of momentum energy loss for usage in subsequent deformation of materials.
* Specific floor heights used, rather than an averaged constant.
* Concrete crush scale maximum removed. Unlimited scale permitted.
* Manual concrete crush scale ramping parameters removed.
* Impact KE based concrete crush scale calculation added. Switchable.
* Floor-by-floor concrete crush volume percentage added.
* Floor-by-floor mass loss (kg) added. Switchable.
* Per floor Impact KE based mass loss calculation added. Switchable.
* Calculated mass switchable to include/exclude cap mass loss.
* Initial cap drop height modifier added.
* Average Debris Lateral Ejection Velocity included.
* Debris Lateral Ejection Energy Requirement Added. (Applied to mass lost)
* Concrete mass inside core uses floor-by floor specific area percentage modifier to account for variation in usable floor area.
* Graphs for tracking Kinetic Energy, Mass and Velocity.
Note: Values are intended to be changed. Preset values are just for example.
psikeyhackr
Banned
- Joined
- Apr 30, 2008
- Messages
- 470
.
I have emailed the NIST, Prof. Sozen at Purdue and Richard Gage.
If you don't comprehend the importance of how the steel and concrete in distributed through the height of a skyscraper then how do you convince yourself that you understand PHYSICS?
Search the NIST reports for "distribution of weight", "distribution of mass", "weight distribution" and "mass distribution". You will get two hits involving the distributions in the towers. One involves analyzing the plane impact and the other involves the wind.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z0kUICwO93Q
That is what my first video is about. But mass has inertia and it makes no difference the direction from which force is applied so the distribution of mass is important in analyzing a supposed top down gravitational collapse.. Anypne that can't figure that out obviously doesn't comprehend Newtonian physics.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LXAerZUw4Wc
DUH, we need engineers and scientists to tell us what to think about grade school physics. DUH!
psik
psikeyhackr
Banned
- Joined
- Apr 30, 2008
- Messages
- 470
.
So where did you explain what was incorrect about FALL OF PHYSICS?
You must have CORRECT DATA to plug into the equations in order to get the correct translation. Without the correct data it is just pseudo-intellectual masturbation that impresses dummies. So why don't you demand the numbers and weights of the what chex from the NIST?
How can anyone build a scaled model for the GREAT Ryan Mackey without correct data. Get Mackey to explain why that Mars probe crshed because of WRONG DATA.
http://www.tdan.com/view-articles/5128/
psik
psikeyhackr
Banned
- Joined
- Apr 30, 2008
- Messages
- 470
.
So you think it can be REALISTIC without actually being REAL.
Where are the quantities ond weights of the perimeter wall panels?
Why is that so difficult for the NIST? Wouldn't it fit in 10,000 PAGES?
psik
.
I have emailed the NIST, Prof. Sozen at Purdue and Richard Gage.
If you don't comprehend the importance of how the steel and concrete in distributed through the height of a skyscraper then how do you convince yourself that you understand PHYSICS?
Search the NIST reports for "distribution of weight", "distribution of mass", "weight distribution" and "mass distribution". You will get two hits involving the distributions in the towers. One involves analyzing the plane impact and the other involves the wind.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z0kUICwO93Q
That is what my first video is about. But mass has inertia and it makes no difference the direction from which force is applied so the distribution of mass is important in analyzing a supposed top down gravitational collapse.. Anypne that can't figure that out obviously doesn't comprehend Newtonian physics.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LXAerZUw4Wc
DUH, we need engineers and scientists to tell us what to think about grade school physics. DUH!
psik
The engineers here keep telling you that the information you profess to want is insignificant. I keep asking you why they're wrong. They understand physics far better than you do.
Please stop your uninformed ranting and answer the question Newton's Bit has asked several times. What difference would it make if your estimate of the weight of the perimeter panels was off by 20%? Your bluff has been called.
Furcifer
Guest
- Joined
- Apr 30, 2007
- Messages
- 13,797
If he feels it significant he's been told to use bounding limits. 1000000% increase in mass may be a little excessive, but he could start with 100% and see what effect that has on conservation of momentum and conservation of kinetic energy.
psikeyhackr
Banned
- Joined
- Apr 30, 2008
- Messages
- 470
.
Wasn't he saying it would only make a 0.01% difference then he got 0.0011% from somewhere? Why do I have to prove something and he doesn't?
I provided a link to FALL OF PHYSICS.
http://www.centerforinquiry.net/forums/viewreply/52039/
That shows the mathematical calculation that results in a 20% variation in collapse time due to changing the distribution of the SAME MASS. But it is ONLY 64 FEET. It also does not include the effect of physical supports having to be broken from above.
I demonstrated in a PHYSICAL MODEL that mass combined with physical supports slowed the falling mass down more then supports alone.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LXAerZUw4Wc
But you people act like the NIST has the right to leave out simple information like the weight of the perimeter wall panels even though they say in two places in their own report that the distribution of weight is important to the analysis.
Here is one:
http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/PDF/NCSTAR 1-5D Ceilings.pdf page 74
Since people don't just accidentally decide how much steel and concrete to put on every level of a 1360 foot building that can withstand 100+ mph winds the above statement is not surprising. The peculiar thing is that this was not discussed A LOT in preparing to analyze the event back in 2001.
I don't understand why they couldn't have had that info on the building by fall 2003 though and I certainly don't understand why we don't have it now. WTF
I love the jargon they have to come with for these kind of reports, " Single Impulse Excitations". You have to stop and think, "What the hell does that mean?" Oh. it was hit real hard one time and started vibrating. DUH! 500 mph airliners do that, but only once.
You people can believe I have to prove something to you all you want. Where is your model demonstrating anything. All you people can do is talk. Ryan Mackey can TALK about scaling a model but he hasn't been demanding the info from the NIST necessary to make one.
Believe what we say because we said it. Prove to us that you need the information to prove to us that we are talking bullcrap.
The NIST is already in the wrong for not supplying the information from the start.
ROFLMAO
psik
Grizzly Bear
このマスクに&#
It does not mean what you think it means... It's referring to the contents of the floors, not the distribution of the construction materials...
stop complaining and actually use some of the sources given to you... you were apparently bothered enough to build physical models but not enough to calculate what you want from materials that are readily available. Specs on different grades of steel are well documented
Furcifer
Guest
- Joined
- Apr 30, 2007
- Messages
- 13,797
Wow, I was surprised to see you had calculated something. Not surprised to see it ddin't resemble anything close to the mass distribution we already know. Why didn't you use the mass distirbution as we know it to be in your spreadsheet?(af "flawed" as it is) Or something that resembles it? Why not try in the last 6 months to improve upon it?
We all know why, you're scared at what you will discover.
psik,
psik, have you ever heard of an avalanche, or better, a rock slide? Small rocks start to fall, they encounter other small rock, or bigger ones. They do NOT have to pulverize the bigger rocks, they simply have to break them free from their attachments. Similarly, the WTC did not have to pulverize anything in order for the collapse to progress. The only thing that had to happen was that a bunch of small bolts & welds need to be snapped.
After the slide begins, you COULD ignore gravity and conclude that from any collision, there is as much force upwards as there is downwards. And you might ignore gravity and conclude that after a rock slide had begun and gained a bit of momentum, that it was just as likely to bounce the rocks UP the side of the mountain as it was to have the rocks all tumble (asymmetrically) down the mountain.
After all, there is "that little matter of action & reaction"...
But you would be wrong.
An avalanche will not spread from its initiating point 2000 meters downhill and plus 1000 meter up hill from its descending wavefront.
There is zero engineering basis for this 1:1, 2:1, 3:1 or any such ratio in the destruction of the lower & upper section. There is a solid engineering basis for the crush progressing in both directions for 1, perhaps 2 stories, and then progress one way: downward.
Your thinking is tied to objects far, far smaller than the towers. There are factors that become much more important simply by virtue of size.
For example, look at it differently. Suppose
Your demo could illustrate some interesting properties. It has some fundamental problems. But I applaud your going thru the effort. Your conclusions are, unfortunately, fatally flawed.
Fire didn't. Gravity did. Specifically, rotation of the upper section due to gravity & reaction forces.
There is no "oscillation" that matters. To any mechanical or structural engineer that has worked with large structures, once the collapse has progressed 3 stories, even without a single calculation, total collapse is inevitable. Of course, with calculation, Bazant has shown that total collapse was inevitable after just one floor of collapse.
And during that 1 to 3 story collapse, the distribution of the steel & the concrete and the strength of the steel & connections is essentially constant. After that, the distribution doesn't matter.
By the way, your simulation of the falling blocks is a physics model. NOT an engineering model. There are far, far too many factors that are ignored for this to be significant.
Sorry, psik. It is NOT ridiculous. It is irrelevant. We don't know exactly what it is for the same reason we don't know what the color of all the rooms were.
And if I'm the Project Engineer, I'm gonna ask 2 questions:
1. "does the answer change anything?"
2. "what is the effort required to get an answer?"
If the answer to 1) is "no", then I'm going to say "don't do it". The single most important asset that you have is time. Any time spent on something irrelevant is time pulled off of something that matters.
BTW, the engineers think that this is irrelevant, so they didn't spend that time. If you think that it is relevant, what stops you from pulling up the info. Didn't Urich already put out all this data, floor by floor? If he can do it...
tom
psik, have you ever heard of an avalanche, or better, a rock slide? Small rocks start to fall, they encounter other small rock, or bigger ones. They do NOT have to pulverize the bigger rocks, they simply have to break them free from their attachments. Similarly, the WTC did not have to pulverize anything in order for the collapse to progress. The only thing that had to happen was that a bunch of small bolts & welds need to be snapped.
After the slide begins, you COULD ignore gravity and conclude that from any collision, there is as much force upwards as there is downwards. And you might ignore gravity and conclude that after a rock slide had begun and gained a bit of momentum, that it was just as likely to bounce the rocks UP the side of the mountain as it was to have the rocks all tumble (asymmetrically) down the mountain.
After all, there is "that little matter of action & reaction"...
But you would be wrong.
An avalanche will not spread from its initiating point 2000 meters downhill and plus 1000 meter up hill from its descending wavefront.
There is zero engineering basis for this 1:1, 2:1, 3:1 or any such ratio in the destruction of the lower & upper section. There is a solid engineering basis for the crush progressing in both directions for 1, perhaps 2 stories, and then progress one way: downward.
Your thinking is tied to objects far, far smaller than the towers. There are factors that become much more important simply by virtue of size.
For example, look at it differently. Suppose
Your demo could illustrate some interesting properties. It has some fundamental problems. But I applaud your going thru the effort. Your conclusions are, unfortunately, fatally flawed.
Fire didn't. Gravity did. Specifically, rotation of the upper section due to gravity & reaction forces.
There is no "oscillation" that matters. To any mechanical or structural engineer that has worked with large structures, once the collapse has progressed 3 stories, even without a single calculation, total collapse is inevitable. Of course, with calculation, Bazant has shown that total collapse was inevitable after just one floor of collapse.
And during that 1 to 3 story collapse, the distribution of the steel & the concrete and the strength of the steel & connections is essentially constant. After that, the distribution doesn't matter.
By the way, your simulation of the falling blocks is a physics model. NOT an engineering model. There are far, far too many factors that are ignored for this to be significant.
Sorry, psik. It is NOT ridiculous. It is irrelevant. We don't know exactly what it is for the same reason we don't know what the color of all the rooms were.
And if I'm the Project Engineer, I'm gonna ask 2 questions:
1. "does the answer change anything?"
2. "what is the effort required to get an answer?"
If the answer to 1) is "no", then I'm going to say "don't do it". The single most important asset that you have is time. Any time spent on something irrelevant is time pulled off of something that matters.
BTW, the engineers think that this is irrelevant, so they didn't spend that time. If you think that it is relevant, what stops you from pulling up the info. Didn't Urich already put out all this data, floor by floor? If he can do it...
tom
The enormous amount of time you spend rolling on the floor could be better used in attempting to learn from the engineers here. You haven't impressed anyone except yourself. You still need to explain why the professionals are wrong.
psikeyhackr
Banned
- Joined
- Apr 30, 2008
- Messages
- 470
Yeah, why don't you research those.
The factor you are leaving out is that weaker layers underneath give way because they are weakened by rain or temperature. You think you can use that simpleminded physics by analogy. Those are cases where something is already on the brink of collapse and simply waiting for a trigger. That is why avalanches can be started by loud noises.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/20/science/20cold.html
Trying to compare natural phenomenon to a man made object designed to resist the known forces. I'm so impressed.
What does that have to do with our not being told the number and weights of perimeter wall panels on that man made object?
psik
Nobody is hiding the information from you, as you seem to imply.
The number of panels can be calculated, so calculate.
The thickness at the base of the building is known. The thickness at the top is known (see earlier posts). Assume a linear thinning up the building.
Stop whining and get on with it, instead of demanding that others provide the information on a plate.