Hardfire: Physics of 9/11

[femr2]

When you fail at using math and engineering to back your belief, you fall back on Argument from Incredulity.

I suggest returning to math and engineering, otherwise, you look no better then the other 9/11 CTists.

Would you care to explain why the LS-DYNA software failed to find a solution post-initiation for the Towers, but did not fail to find solution for the full descent of the WTC 7 model ?

 

[DavidJames]

Would you care to explain why the LS-DYNA software failed to find a solution post-initiation for the Towers, but did not fail to find solution for the full descent of the WTC 7 model ?

I admit I'm not smart enough to know the answer. Since it's your question, what do you plan on doing to find the answer, other then ask and ignore answers on this forum, I mean.

You seemed to have missed my earlier post about your credentials.

 

[beachnut]

Would you care to explain why the LS-DYNA software failed to find a solution post-initiation for the Towers, but did not fail to find solution for the full descent of the WTC 7 model ?

Design of the WTC towers was unique, care to explain how WTC7 and the towers were different? What was the difference in KE in the two structures. Gee, WTC7 was unique also. Did you study the structures before you asked the dumb question? Or do you know the answer?

Are you an engineer? You don't seem to have respect for the complexity of the real world.

Care to explain why after initiation of collapse on 911 the towers were doomed? The chief structural engineer of the WTC towers understands 911; why does 911Truth continue in ignorance? The chief structural engineer understands the impacts and fire led to the collapse why are you wasting your time trying to prove explosives or thermite did it? As an engineer I don't need NIST, Robertson, or others to explain the big picture to me, why can't 911Truth get the big picture; my Masters degree in engineering is not required; laypeople understand while 911Truth wallows in ignorance. What is your conclusion on the WTC towers? Were the impacts, fire and gravity enough? yes or no

 

[femr2]

I admit I'm not smart enough to know the answer. Since it's your question, what do you plan on doing to find the answer, other then ask and ignore answers on this forum, I mean.

You seemed to have missed my earlier post about your credentials.

You seem to have forgotten how the conversation came to be here, namely why NIST have not released the model data. What I intend to do about it is to try and get hold of that data.

I didn't miss your earlier post, I ignored it. My credentials are no-ones concern and totally unrelated to any of the questions I have raised, or posts I have responded to. You are welcome to infer what you please from that.

 

[bill smith]

Would you care to explain why the LS-DYNA software failed to find a solution post-initiation for the Towers, but did not fail to find solution for the full descent of the WTC 7 model ?

David Chandler mentions NIST's program and data on WTC7 at the end of this clip.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vz43hcKYBm4&feature=channel

 

[femr2]

Design of the WTC towers was unique, care to explain how WTC7 and the towers were different? What was the difference in KE in the two structures. Gee, WTC7 was unique also. Did you study the structures before you asked the dumb question? Or do you know the answer?

Are you an engineer? You don't seem to have respect for the complexity of the real world.

Care to explain why after initiation of collapse on 911 the towers were doomed? The chief structural engineer of the WTC towers understands 911; why does 911Truth continue in ignorance? The chief structural engineer understands the impacts and fire led to the collapse why are you wasting your time trying to prove explosives or thermite did it? As an engineer I don't need NIST, Robertson, or others to explain the big picture to me, why can't 911Truth get the big picture; my Masters degree in engineering is not required; laypeople understand while 911Truth wallows in ignorance. What is your conclusion on the WTC towers? Were the impacts, fire and gravity enough? yes or no

You have not explained why the LS-DYNA software failed to find a solution post-initiation for the Towers, but did not fail to find solution for the full descent of the WTC 7 model.

This thread is about models, not 'conspiracy theories', nor discussion of the wider arena of 'demolition', 'thermite' or any of the other distractions being repeatedly introduced.

 

[DavidJames]

My credentials are no-ones concern and totally unrelated to any of the questions I have raised, or posts I have responded to. You are welcome to infer what you please from that.

I agree, credentials are not what sways an argument. I only raised them because you did.

But when someone resorts to Arguments from Incredulity, I wonder why. I think I know why now. No need to respond, I'll return to watching you squirm and look more and more like the rest of them.

Edit, I also noticed you didn't answer my question about you trying to find the answer to your question outside CT Forums.

 

[tsig]

.
Oh, I get it. If the NIST defines itself to be stupid then it is perfectly alright them to be really STUPID!

If you download the 10,000 page NCSTAR1 report and search it for "conservation of momentum" you will only find two occurrences.

In one case it refers to the analysis of air flow in a fire. In the other case it is about the effect of the airliner impact on the trusses supporting the floor slabs.

But about the ALL IMPORTANT effect of conservation of momentum on the overall collapse of the entire building they say nothing. How do you explain people claiming to be world renowned experts ignoring the obvious?

So if you choose a sufficiently narrow definition of your job you can be as incompetent as you want and still be successful. As long as you can find people DUMB ENOUGH to tolerate that crap.

psik

I have never read NIST nor do I plan to do so.

If you continue to say that I have I may have to take it personally.

 

[femr2]

I agree, credentials are not what sways an argument. I only raised them because you did.

But when someone resorts to Arguments from Incredulity, I wonder why. I think I know why now. No need to respond, I'll return to watching you squirm and look more and more like the rest of them.

Edit, I also noticed you didn't answer my question about you trying to find the answer to your question outside CT Forums.

You seem to have forgotten how the conversation came to be here, namely why NIST have not released the model data. What I intend to do about it is to try and get hold of that data.

You appear to have missed my response.

 

[tsig]

You seem to have forgotten how the conversation came to be here, namely why NIST have not released the model data. What I intend to do about it is to try and get hold of that data.

I didn't miss your earlier post, I ignored it. My credentials are no-ones concern and totally unrelated to any of the questions I have raised, or posts I have responded to. You are welcome to infer what you please from that.

OK then my inference is that you have no ability to understand what you are talking about.

 

[psikeyhackr]

I have never read NIST nor do I plan to do so.

If you continue to say that I have I may have to take it personally.

.
When did I say anybody was supposed to read it? I haven't read the whole thing either, maybe about 300 pages. I search on stuff I consider to be important to the problem and read text around that to see what they say on the subject.

I was really shocked when I could never find the total for the concrete in the towers.

psik

 

[beachnut]

You have not explained why the LS-DYNA software failed to find a solution post-initiation for the Towers, but did not fail to find solution for the full descent of the WTC 7 model.

This thread is about models, not 'conspiracy theories', nor discussion of the wider arena of 'demolition', 'thermite' or any of the other distractions being repeatedly introduced.

Oh, the WTC towers were unique, and WTC7 was unique. Please explain the structural difference and why those unique feature may have different solutions in software?

ensuing explosions

What ensuing explosions? Your model was produce due to your conspiracy theory on the towers; I am exploring not only your model, which can be simplified to one page excel spread sheet or done on paper by any engineer or layperson, but your reason to pursue your model.

many believe that the collapses were in fact the result of Controlled Demolition

You have no opinion? Yet you host the woo of century.
http://femr2.ucoz.com/index/0-4
The junk science of 911.
http://femr2.ucoz.com/
You have no conclusion? lol

You will need a working knowledge of mathematics and physics to get the most from these documents, but you are highly encouraged to ensure you spend the time to read, understand and distribute knowledge of these papers:

The papers you offer up as science on 911 are:

• Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe
• The Missing Jolt: A Simple Refutation of the NIST-Bazant Collapse Hypothesis
• The North Tower's Dust Cloud - Analysis of Energy Requirements for the Expansion of the Dust Cloud Following the Collapse of 1 World Trade Center
• WTC 1 Collapse Time Calculations
• Direct Evidence for Explosions: Flying Projectiles and Widespread Impact Damage
• Analysis of Mass and Potential Energy in the World Trade Center Twin Towers
• Momentum Transfer Analysis of the Collapse of the Upper Storeys of WTC 1

Only one neutral paper close to reality you don't need people who understand math and physics you need CTers who don't understand math and physics, else they see these papers are by 911Truth delusion makers.

Your purpose of a model is too prove the WTC can't collapse due to gravity. Just state it like you do in a thesis. Be an engineer and at least state your purpose like your favorite papers; all by people who are or were trying to apologize for terrorist by proving the WTC did not collapse as expected it would by the Chief Structural Engineer of the towers themselves the final authority on his own structure. WTC7 burned for hours and collapsed; no surprise ask a fireman what they expect on an un-fought building fires.

You see explosions, the result of Controlled Demolition bringing down the WTC instead of an unforeseen result of the aircraft impacts, ensuing damage and subsequent fires. Like others who want something they finally have to settle for the evidence and they end up with the reality of aircraft impacts (7 to 11 times greater than design), ensuing damage (1300 and 2093 pounds of TNT KE damage) and subsequent fires (multiple floor started at the same time with the heat energy of jet fuel equal to 315 tons of TNT in each tower).

What time does your current model show for collapse time? Does it match work by Kuttler? How can someone use science and screw up as bad as Kuttler at modeling what really happened? You 911Truth junk science experts will do anything to try and back in your delusions. Good luck.

 

[femr2]

Oh, the WTC towers were unique, and WTC7 was unique. Please explain the structural difference and why those unique feature may have different solutions in software?

What ensuing explosions? Your model was produce due to your conspiracy theory on the towers; I am exploring not only your model, which can be simplified to one page excel spread sheet or done on paper by any engineer or layperson, but your reason to pursue your model.
But you have no opinion? Yet you host the woo of century.
http://femr2.ucoz.com/index/0-4
The junk science of 911.
http://femr2.ucoz.com/
You have no conclusion? lol
The papers you offer up as science on 911 are:

• Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe
• The Missing Jolt: A Simple Refutation of the NIST-Bazant Collapse Hypothesis
• The North Tower's Dust Cloud - Analysis of Energy Requirements for the Expansion of the Dust Cloud Following the Collapse of 1 World Trade Center
• WTC 1 Collapse Time Calculations
• Direct Evidence for Explosions: Flying Projectiles and Widespread Impact Damage
• Analysis of Mass and Potential Energy in the World Trade Center Twin Towers
• Momentum Transfer Analysis of the Collapse of the Upper Storeys of WTC 1

Only one neutral paper close to reality you don't need people who understand math and physics you need CTers who don't understand math and physics to see these papers are by 911Truth delusion makers.

Your purpose of a model is too prove the WTC can't collapse due to gravity. Just state it like you do in a thesis. Be an engineer and at least state your purpose like your favorite papers; all by people who are or were trying to apologize for terrorist by proving the WTC did not collapse as expected it would by the Chief Structural Engineer of the towers themselves the final authority on his own structure. WTC7 burned for hours and collapsed; no surprise ask a fireman what they expect on an un-fought building fires.

You see explosions, the result of Controlled Demolition bringing down the WTC instead of an unforeseen result of the aircraft impacts, ensuing damage and subsequent fires. Like others who want something they finally have to settle for the evidence and they end up with the reality of aircraft impacts (7 to 11 times greater than design), ensuing damage (1300 and 2093 pounds of TNT KE damage) and subsequent fires (multiple floor started at the same time with the heat energy of jet fuel equal to 315 tons of TNT in each tower).

What time does your current model show for collapse time? Does it match work by Kuttler? How can someone use science and screw up as bad as Kuttler at modeling what really happened? You 911Truth junk science experts will do anything to try and back in your delusions. Good luck.

You have not explained why the LS-DYNA software failed to find a solution post-initiation for the Towers, but did not fail to find solution for the full descent of the WTC 7 model.

This thread is about models, not 'conspiracy theories', nor discussion of the wider arena of 'demolition', 'thermite' or any of the other distractions being repeatedly introduced.

 

[femr2]

What time does your current model show for collapse time?

It depends entirely on what parameters are set, which is, after all, the reason I made it...to enable people to change the parameters used and see how they affect the collapse time, not to dictate what parameters they should use and what results they are supposed to getting.

Values I may think are appropriate are bound to differ from parameters you think are appropriate, such as how much energy to apply to failure of the structural supports, and by what method, how much concrete is crushed, to what scale and by what method, how much mass is lost from the system, and by what method, etc.....

Once there is minimal issue from others about the mechanisms used, it would then be appropriate to begin discussion of the actual parameters used and the resulting time generated. Until then, I see little point in stating 'a time'.

From experimentation what does stand out is the significant effect that mass-loss has upon collapse time, and the very rapid velocity of the initial phases of the actual event (Even when setting parameters resulting in a near-16s collapse time, the initial velocity of the modeled collapse is much slower than the actual event.)

Animated Graph (Mass)
Shows effect of varying the mass-loss. All other factors are switched off, so the first frame is unsupported freefall. Subsequent frames have gradually increased mass loss of cap per floor impact, in increments of 0.5% per frame.

 

[beachnut]

From experimentation what does stand out is the significant effect that mass-loss has upon collapse time, and the very rapid velocity of the initial phases of the actual event (Even when setting parameters resulting in a near-16s collapse time, the initial velocity of the modeled collapse is much slower than the actual event.)
...

Your model is flawed and your statement is not true; just your opinion based on hand waving. You failed to show the actual event was slower or faster; you just wave your hands and pronounce it!

 

[psikeyhackr]

There's only one reason to investigate what happened after failure.

It's the same reason the presence of "molten" metal needs to be investigated, or paint chips need to be analyzed, or innocent witnesses need to be badgered by over-zealous truthers.

It's a way to keep that tiny, tiny window of opportunity just SLIGHTLY open, so there's still a chance that maybe, just MAYBE, the conclusions that they reached before looking at the evidence might POSSIBLY be viewed as at least partially correct, in some form or fashion.

Frankly, it's a little sad.

.
So we don't need an explanation of how that top 10% of the north tower can crush the rest in less than 18 seconds?

Isn't that what Mackey's scaled model business is supposed to be about?

psik

 

[femr2]

Your model is flawed and your statement is not true; just your opinion based on hand waving. You failed to show the actual event was slower or faster; you just wave your hands and pronounce it!

What is wrong with the model ?
What about the statement is not true ?
I can add further detail in relation to the initial velocity. No problem.

Strangely enough I've used the model a fair bit, so of course I'm in a position to make observation about it. I've included a graph showing the effect of mass loss on collapse time for the model. I'll do another similar one showing the velocities, and pop a link up.

(Add: Just checked the download stats for the graph, and you never bothered to download it. Way to go beachnut.)

 

[FineWine]

.
Oh, I get it. If the NIST defines itself to be stupid then it is perfectly alright them to be really STUPID!

If you download the 10,000 page NCSTAR1 report and search it for "conservation of momentum" you will only find two occurrences.

In one case it refers to the analysis of air flow in a fire. In the other case it is about the effect of the airliner impact on the trusses supporting the floor slabs.

But about the ALL IMPORTANT effect of conservation of momentum on the overall collapse of the entire building they say nothing. How do you explain people claiming to be world renowned experts ignoring the obvious?

So if you choose a sufficiently narrow definition of your job you can be as incompetent as you want and still be successful. As long as you can find people DUMB ENOUGH to tolerate that crap.

psik

Why don't the engineers, who know much more than you do, find NIST's work to be incompetent? Will you ever tell us what you know that they don't?

 

[FineWine]

.
When did I say anybody was supposed to read it? I haven't read the whole thing either, maybe about 300 pages. I search on stuff I consider to be important to the problem and read text around that to see what they say on the subject.

I was really shocked when I could never find the total for the concrete in the towers.

psik

Why don't you believe the engineers who have called your bluff?

 

[rwguinn]

Why don't the engineers, who know much more than you do, find NIST's work to be incompetent? Will you ever tell us what you know that they don't?

Despite the NIST's charter on the WTC collapses, despite all the discussion here:
The CT's will never accept the fact that the NIST's job ended at the point the upper floors contacted the intact structure below.
Every model in the world (by competent engineers and physicists) whows that the energy involved is far in excess of the capability of any single floor to withstand it, and that it only builds (increases, makes collapse more certain) from there.
Investigation of where and how each element of the structure fails after that point is a waste of time and money. The NIST charter in this instance was to determine the trigger. The result of that trigger being pulled is obvious, and visible to all the world.