Hardfire: Physics of 9/11

[Furcifer]

* Inclusion of conservation of momentum energy loss for usage in subsequent deformation of materials.

Good job.

 

[psikeyhackr]

I would be careful about accusing others of egoistic drivel; hypocrisy is a bad thing.

.
And your explanation of what is incorrect about FALL OF PHYSICS is where?

psik

 

[twinstead]

.
And your explanation of what is incorrect about FALL OF PHYSICS is where?

psik

And your explanation as to why the commonly held view of what happened on 9-11 is incorrect is where?

 

[psikeyhackr]

And your explanation as to why the commonly held view of what happened on 9-11 is incorrect is where?

Please abstain from personal attacks and off topic posts.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Tricky

 

[psikeyhackr]

Please abstain from personal attacks and off topic posts.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Tricky

.
What PERSONAL ATTACK are you talking about?

I provided a link to valid statistical data. I didn't say anything about any specific person.

psik

 

[bill smith]

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

Psikey....you might find this interesting. It touches on a lot of your areas of interest.

http://www.fpe.umd.edu/documents/QuintiereNATOFinal.pdf

 

[beachnut]

Psikey....you might find this interesting. It touches on a lot of your areas of interest.

http://www.fpe.umd.edu/documents/QuintiereNATOFinal.pdf

Quintiere believes the WTC failed due to fire. 911Truth can't read?

I believe the fuel loading used by NIST is in error and was too low.

Quintiere disagrees with NIST and says the fire loading was higher than NIST used. This makes NIST conservative on their failure mode.

In this paper Quintiere used scale models. 911Truth could learn from Quintiere to use evidence instead of idiotic ideas made up due to ignorance.

Quintiere says there was more paper to burn up in the WTC. Why does 911Truth fail to read and comprehend what they post and fail to see it debunks their insane claims and failed ideas? Quintiere says there was more fuel load from office contents.

 

[bill smith]

Quintiere believes the WTC failed due to fire. 911Truth can't read?

Quintiere disagrees with NIST and says the fire loading was higher than NIST used. This makes NIST conservative on their failure mode.

In this paper Quintiere used scale models. 911Truth could learn from Quintiere to use evidence instead of idiotic ideas made up due to ignorance.

You have to learn to read between the lines Beachnut. NIST used the KNOWN amount of fuel. So what is Quintiere really saying ?

 

[ozeco41]

We really are in the last dying desperation claims by the truthers aren't we.

It must be over twelve months since I have seen any truther claim that has the slightest semblence of credibility.

Reduced to one issue "you cannot prove X wasn't therefore Goddidit" false dichotomies - many by innuendo. Apart from the gross errors of szamboti et al.

Dead but won't lie down.

 

[psikeyhackr]

We really are in the last dying desperation claims by the truthers aren't we.

Dead but won't lie down.

.
Where is your scaled model that can collapse like the WTC?

On, that's right! You need accurate data on the building to even make an accurately scaled model. That information is WHERE?

Oh we are supposed to get it from some Swedish guy who admits his data on the perimeter columns is interpolated.

This whole thing should be an embarrassment to the nation that put men on the Moon. The government can't supply accurate data on buildings designed before the Moon landing and most so called Truthers can't figure out what questions to ask. But they can run around screaming INSIDE JOB! INSIDE JOB!

Grade school kids all over the world should be laughing at engineers in the US. But no, they are complaining about science education in New Zealand.

Are you teaching over there econ211?

psik

 

[beachnut]

So as of this moment, I estimate psikeyhackr is responsible for 99 off-topic posts, and indirectly for 176 off-topic retorts, out of 1093 total -- that's over 25% of this entire thread. And that doesn't count the multiple splits and moderator actions already.

I have him on Ignore, and you should too. He apparently can't help himself. What's your excuse?

Don't answer that here, just try to keep the derail to Orient Express levels, please?

He could open his own thread of failed 911Truth ideas and lies.

 

[KreeL]

I would be very interested in NIST's computer modelling. They won't release it. I wonder why? Was it ever peer reviewed?

 

[Furcifer]

Dead but won't lie down.

Funny you mention that, I swear every time I read posts in this forum I envision that Monty Python scene.

"I'm not dead yet"

At least femr2's simulator is something new.

 

[Newtons Bit]

I would be very interested in NIST's computer modelling. They won't release it. I wonder why? Was it ever peer reviewed?

They didn't write the programs. They can't release what they don't own. Some of the models have already been released (like the SAP one).

Now try to stay on topic. This thread has nothing to do with NIST.

 

[KreeL]

NIST didn't write the programs, so they can't release their computer models. Okeedokeeeeee...I get it now. So who won't? Wasn't it their modelling that gave them their inspiration of the physics of the collapses? Isn't that what this thread is about? Physics? Why can't we at least see how they arrived at their conclusions?

In the released SAP models, don't they model both towers completely? Yet the perimeters can be tweaked to give different results. Has anyone deciphered yet exactly how they arrived at their assumptions through these models?

 

[Minadin]

You have to learn to read between the lines Beachnut. NIST used the KNOWN amount of fuel. So what is Quintiere really saying ?

Speaking of ubiquitous language, and laypeople misunderstanding terms used by engineers and scientists . . .

When Dr. Quintiere and the NIST use the term fuel when addressing the fires at the WTC, they're not speaking only of jet fuel, but rather, all of the combustibles present in the areas where the fires were burning. Chairs, desks, paper, carpet, jet fuel (among others) are all included in what they consider for the total fuel for the fire. Of course, one can only estimate the amount of the combustible building contents, even if there's fairly accurate information regarding the capacity and actual amount of jet fuel on board the planes.

 

[femr2]

NIST didn't write the programs, so they can't release their computer models. Okeedokeeeeee...I get it now. So who won't? Wasn't it their modelling that gave them their inspiration of the physics of the collapses? Isn't that what this thread is about? Physics? Why can't we at least see how they arrived at their conclusions?

In the released SAP models, don't they model both towers completely? Yet the perimeters can be tweaked to give different results. Has anyone deciphered yet exactly how they arrived at their assumptions through these models?

The ANSYS LS-DYNA software is a commercial product, sure, but we should expect access to the data itself. No different from them releasing an excel file. It all get's bundled into one file, exactly the same as them releasing the SAP data.

I have access to LS-DYNA and that model data really should be available. No excuses.

I find it odd that suggesting access to the 'official' model data results in a 'stay on topic' suggestion, but berating of 'truthers' does not.

I'd be classified as a 'truther' but this thread is not the place for demolition discussion, is it.

My own model highlights the significant effect that pile-driving mass loss has upon the collapse time, and also serious issues with the initial velocity.

However, I'm only really interested in refining the model, as unless it got to the same kind of detail as the NIST model, fed through FEA, discussion of using it as 'proof' is a bit redundant. Having the NIST model data and running it through LS-DYNA past 'collapse initiation' would be another matter entirely. I think it would be very interesting to see what would happen if the simulation was allowed to progress beyond the point at which NIST decided to 'stop' it.

 

[tsig]

You have to learn to read between the lines Beachnut. NIST used the KNOWN amount of fuel. So what is Quintiere really saying ?

I read between your lines and you seem to be confessing to mass murder. OK?

 

[WildCat]

My own model highlights the significant effect that pile-driving mass loss has upon the collapse time,

You think there was less mass in the "pile driver" as the collapse progressed?

 

[femr2]

You think there was less mass in the "pile driver" as the collapse progressed?

I am referring to mass lost from a post-floor impact pile-driving mass in a model.
The mass 'lost' from the model can be determined in several ways.
Even in situations where relatively low 'cap' mass loss is applied, where the mass of the pile-driver still increases, but not by the full mass of the impacted floor, the increase in collapse time can be very significant.

However, you are implying 'being boggled' about a situation within a dust cloud that none of us can see. The state of the descending cap is a much discussed topic, which I am sure you know. I would go into detail about the issues with the real-world events, but this is not the place.