Isn't that an extreme fundamentalist mythical belief of paranormal nature?
The trigger! Join The Heiwa Challenge ... and see what happens when you trigger!
-
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
Isn't that an extreme fundamentalist mythical belief of paranormal nature?
The trigger! Join The Heiwa Challenge ... and see what happens when you trigger!
Kind of paranoid of you. Checking on IP addresses and download stats to say I have not seen your stuff is paranoid behavior. And avoiding answering any questions is classic 911Truth.
You are building a model to back in CD. I understand your model purpose you are afraid to state it but your web page clearly is from the 911Truth delusion camp of failed papers.
You can't explain the difference of the towers and WTC7 why worry about software you can't explain either? Your model is the topic along with Hardfire Physics.
You want to make a model with enough inputs so you can say, "see when you make the concrete into dust the WTC does not fall". While the dust insulation, ceiling tiles (of thermite in Hoffman worlds, one of your woo article of stupid conclusions), and wallboard primarily. Will you model the ceiling tiles being turned to dust? The wallboard? The friable insulation under each floor a finger can dislodge? Will you model the earths rotation on the fall, or deem it insignificant for speeds under MACH 3?
How will you model a floor of the WTC that fails when 25,000,000 pounds are placed carefully on it; the failure is instant?
Does your preordained conclusion have RDX and thermite, or what? Your purpose is important; When you do a thesis for your masters degree you have a purpose; what is the final big picture purpose easy to see from your web site but you are not proud of it here; your intended purpose is what?
Last edited:
Classic. Yet again.... 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.
Checking IP addresses ? Nah, just downloads. Who's paranoid ? I was showing you making conclusion without bothering to look at the information offered. Tsk.
"Your model is the topic along with Hardfire Physics."
My model is my topic here, yes, not 'conspiracies' or 'thermite'.
The model simulates a collapse with exactly zero explosives, thermite, space lasers, ferocious furry animals eating through steel beams or hordes of 'debunkers' running around telling people half an hour beforehand that unprecedented events are about to occur.
It is clear that none of you have any interest in actually discussing any model presented, other than to say it's not complex enough, so I'll probably not bother to continue. I think the most complex model in existence is that produced by NIST, but again, none of you seem interested in that either. Great stuff guys. I'm sure the insults will come again, justified by pointless claims of lack of knowledge, so in advance...Jokers. lol. x
twinstead
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2005
- Messages
- 12,374
Dude. It's called reality. Check it out once in a while.
Your web site presents woo papers and your real propose is to prove gravity collapse can't happen. I cheated, I looked at your web site long ago. Too easy to distract you from talking about your model. The failed papers at your web site make you look biased.
The model NIST used; talk about it. Got anything new beside the standard 911Truth tripe?
You are the one with all the 911Truth failed papers touted as real math and physics work on 911. This makes your pile of expert papers as good as nukes and thermite tripe.
You are the one who takes more time to see if someone downloaded your collapse junk than answering the questions on your model. If you were a serous person on science you would ignore the noise and dig for the important answers instead of seeing if I downloaded your avi.
I can't see you being serious when you present the tripe at your web site as serous papers on 911. http://femr2.ucoz.com/index/0-4
I was interested how you can model the maximum load of one floor at 25,000,000 pounds? Now what about the damaged floors? What can a damaged floor handle? WTC towers are a system of core, floors and shell. How much weight was above the impacts points on 911? What happens when 25,000,000 pounds land on one floor? How will you model this? Why does the chief structural engineer of the WTC towers agree impact, fires and gravity did all the damage at the WTC complex seen on 911? What would he say about your model?
Last edited:
psikeyhackr
Banned
- Joined
- Apr 30, 2008
- Messages
- 470
.
It's not my fault that you think I'm bluffing.
Is something stopping you from downloading the NCSTAR1 report?
You can search it for "conservation of momentum" for yourself.
But of course you can BELIEVE whatevery you want. Science ain't about believing. It's about understanding.
Believing is for RELIGION.
Have structural engineers told us the TONS of STEEL and TONS of CONCRETE on every level of the WTC towers? Is Gregory Urich a structural engineer? How can you apply the conservation of momentum to the towers without knowing the distribution of mass. I already did a model involving the conservation of momentum.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LXAerZUw4Wc
Where is yours? Where is one by those ENGINEERS you talk about?
psik
Newtons Bit
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Apr 12, 2007
- Messages
- 10,049
BigAl
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jun 9, 2007
- Messages
- 5,397
Oh Joy! A literalist thinks that counting words can lead to understanding of what caused the collapse of the WTC towers.
Hey, psik; It's in the equations.
I was
That's true and fair. Your posts have been constructive and appreciated.
Of course I have a very different view of the events to many here, but no matter how often I state that I'm really not interested in discussing 'conspiracy theories' here, it seems to make little difference to those who appear to be so focussed on 'debunking' that they cannot separate the 'crusade' from the 'task'.
Anyway, yes, I'm still looking into the additional factors discussed previously, such as the inclusion of floor truss collapse and some form of synchronous elastic collision mechanism (or multi-stage collapse, for crush up/crush down)
I'll respectfully request that all those who wish to discuss conspiracy theories or the end result of my model before the end of any conversation that may result in refinement of it to put me on 'ignore'.
You're not a scientist and you seem unable to learn anything from people who are scientists and engineers. How many times will you ask the same questions? You certainly can't say that they haven't been answered.
psikeyhackr
Banned
- Joined
- Apr 30, 2008
- Messages
- 470
.
And you will listen to people that you regard as scientists and engineers even though they cannot demonstrate that they have GOT THE DATA CORRECT.
So you regard science as a religion where you need a priesthood to tell you what to think. You don't need your priesthood to demonstrate to you that they have the data correct. They can't tell you the number and weights of the perimeter wall panels but you worship at their feet anyway.
So stay on your knees. I don't give a damn.
This is grade school physics.
Here is a scientist for you.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8_tf25lx_3o
psik
psikeyhackr
Banned
- Joined
- Apr 30, 2008
- Messages
- 470
.
It is not just counting words it is what they apply the words to once you find them.
In one case it is air flow in a fire. In the other case it is the airliner against the floor trusses.
They never apply the conservation of momentum to the collapse. How else would you find that without a word search unless someone is dumb enough to try to read the 10,000 pages of mostly drivel?
And where does the CORRECT DATA come from to put into the equations?
The numbers and weights of the wall panels are where?
How is anyone supposed to make a scaled model for the Great Ryan Mackey without the correct data?
psik
I am interested in your model. Hard to ignore your goal of proving CD took place. If your final model is correct with the the correct initial conditions; your model will support impacts, fire, gravity collapse. If not your model is wrong, proved wrong 7 years, 7 months and 21 days ago when 19 terrorist killed pilots and flew planes into buildings.
I can't wait to see your model show the initial collapse to the ground in 12.08 seconds with sections of the core still standing for 20 to 30 seconds; exposed core with zero detonations, zero thermite, zero RDX, laterally not stable fall hundreds of feet. Your model will be grand.
It is ironic as 911Truth believers debunk their own ideas with their own work. Don't be ashamed of your apologies for terrorists by posting the work of 911Truth on your web site. Stand up and be as disrespectful as you can; be proud to have failed papers on 911. What else can you do? A correctly executed model of the WTC collapse will debunk all those 911Truth papers on your web site. The faster you get serious the faster you will become a person with rational conclusions on 911 and drop the hearsay, lies and fantasy.
Good luck with you model; but why hide your CT 911Truth goals? Your web page presents 911Truth tripe as the word on math and physics; why deny your roots?
Are you going to use non-linear differential equations? Will you use some stochastic estimation and control theory to help model variables? What is your background? Will you use your backgraound to add fidelity to your model?
I think you can drop the air resistance. Large masses scare the air away. When an elephant falls the air makes way, when a feather falls the air stays. I guess you are not using diff equations or modeling the errors in the system with Kalman filters. And don't say I have not downloaded your model. I can't find any of the hard stuff; non of the hard stuff that JFK said it takes to go to the moon. "We do these things" stuff.
What is the full collapse time? your spread sheet has 43.106 seconds - means?
Your momentum only time is good and matches the WTC collapse times in scale which is why you think CD. ?
Last edited:
In a spreadsheet based model ? No.
No.
Initial simplistic calcs indicate about 0.5s collapse time addition if it's included. It will not be dropped. (It's not included yet btw)
The rest of your post is irrelevant to the discussion I am engaging in. I suggest you don't waste your time with any more of the same, as I'll simply ignore it.
(the part telling me you ignored parts of my post is irrelevant as are the papers from 911Truth posted at your web site)
drag - btw, your model said so too
... but it can be neglected (like the lift due to the earth rotation when you fly east at speeds under MACH3). But the .5 second calculation would be interesting.
Besides your failed CD conclusion; what is the full collapse time of 43.106 seconds? I got less than 16 seconds on your model by making correct inputs; got to find the other variable/parameters to enter/change the correct engineering values to get the collapse time correct. 43 seconds is pretty far out and putting in the wrong values produces erroneous results. ... setting the model up to prove CD is misleading.
I see why you try to add variables to simulate longer than reality collapse times you are one of the many?
It is not many, it is a fringe few who believe that delusion based on lies, hearsay, junk science and fantasy.
The aircraft mass includes 66,000 pounds of fuel which burned off with the heat energy of 315 tons of TNT in each tower. Greening not using the aircraft mass is just fine; you could ignore it too. Not only does the aircraft make up less than 1/300th of the mass up at the top, 66,000 pounds of the aircraft mass or more went up in heat (burnt away or left; so did oxygen generators, tires, seats, luggage, plastic, hydraulic fluid, oil, ejected aircraft parts, and papers on the plane ... etc). It is your model but the aircraft mass is insignificant; it can be crossed off.
No big deal; but are you an engineer?
... what was second stage collapse time?
... found more variable and parameters and came up with a total collapse time of 13 seconds. Kind of close to the real collapse time using your model.
It reminded me of my aero professor crossing out terms for the equations of motion that were negligible. Tweak here, tweak there and your 911Truth model proved gravity collapse. neat
... outstanding, it works for both towers - your model proved all the papers you listed on your web site to be failed (Greg's weight paper is the best, but he was trying to back in CD too but he was getting close to reality when he took the time to research and think) - if you are not an engineer your model's results are better than all of 911Truth efforts...
... now what!? where will Jones stick his super-nano-thermite?
Your model it is easy to use and making proper engineering assumptions it matches the gravity collapse on 911. Engineering assumptions must be made based on the unique structure of the WTC. It is important to think about the shell, the floors, and the core and how they fail as a system.
Failing to make the proper engineering assumptions and not understanding the dynamics of the WTC; the model will not give rational collapse times.
Do you have an average weight for one WTC floor? No shell, no core, just the floor? The model has some numbers I think can lead to a floor weight, but does anyone have an estimate of one floor? I have an estimate of 2.1 to 2.3 million pounds; is this close?
Last edited:
The parameter will not be removed. If you want to reduce the mass yourself, go ahead.
Last edited:
All of your misconceptions are on display here. I don't "regard" the engineers here as engineers. That's what they really are. They studied long and hard to become engineers. You haven't matched their effort and you don't know what they know. When they tell you that your obsession with the perimeter panels is pointless, they are communicating some of their knowledge to you. You ignore them because you can't shake your fixed idea. You are the typical rebel without a clue. You think you've made some earth-shattering discovery and you get frustrated when people who know much more than you do explain that you're wasting your time. There is no point in continuing to ask why you profess to want the weights of the perimeter panels. It is clear that you just don't know.
rwguinn
Penultimate Amazing
You are doing this with a linear model, and expect to see realistic collapse times.
Despite the fact that the LS-DYNA, when faced with the Non-linear geometry and Non-linear material properties can't converge in any reasonable delta-t time step, and the other collapse models (Bazant, Le, Greening & Benson, among others) Are too simplistic, you are simplifying even further, and going linear.
Oh, good stuff.
As for why LS-DYNA won't converge, take a look at the stress/strain curve for steel. See that nice long, near-zero slope out there from yield to rupture? (I'll let you ignore the negative slope at the "knee")
psikeyhackr
Banned
- Joined
- Apr 30, 2008
- Messages
- 470
.
No it is just back to YOU taking their word instead of thinking for yourself.
Youhave to study long and hard to know that every level of a skyscraper must support all of the weight above it? The wall panels supported 50% of the weight and 12 types were used. So if Lon Waters can make a website with the sizes of the core columns all of the way up, what sense does it make to not be able to do that for the perimeter panels?
You can just come up with rationalizations for not thinking for yourself.
psik
BigAl
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jun 9, 2007
- Messages
- 5,397
Arrogance and ignorance is an ugly combination and make for so many content-free posts.