Hardfire: Physics of 9/11

[psikeyhackr]

You're coming across as close to insane.

All along, nobody has suggested that (say) 560 tons is insignificant. People have said that the difference between 550/560/570 is insignificant. If you extrapolate the known dimensions/masses up the towers - as suggested to you many times - you'll get close to the correct figure. Good enough for worthwhile calculations.

But where has anybody said that the entire mass of a floor of perimeter columns is "insignificant" ?

.
Oh really? Where did you provide any numbers? Those numbers are from far below where the planes hit. What were the numbers where the planes hit?

Tell that to FINEWINE. Don't accuse me of saying that bullcrap.

I am the one pointing out that the NIST isn't telling us the number and weights of all of the perimeter wall panels.

psik

 

[FineWine]

.
Oh really? Where did you provide any numbers? Those numbers are from far below where the planes hit. What were the numbers where the planes hit?

Tell that to FINEWINE. Don't accuse me of saying that bullcrap.

I am the one pointing out that the NIST isn't telling us the number and weights of all of the perimeter wall panels.

psik

It is incredible that you can't figure out that you're not tricking anybody. How long can you keep banging on about this stuff? Tell us why you need exact numbers. You must be tired of this question by now. Tell us why the engineers are wrong.

 

[R.Mackey]

If it would help you all speak more freely, I can ask the moderators to change the title of this thread to "Teh Psikeyhackr Shooting Gallery." That would be more representative of its content.

 

[TjW]

psikeyhackr in a barrel might be more appropriate.

 

[aggle-rithm]

.

So how did these engineers explain to you that 560 tons was not significant?

It depends entirely on the context.

If you're loading a Subaru, it's highly significant.

If you're building a skyscraper, not so much.

 

[psikeyhackr]

It is incredible that you can't figure out that you're not tricking anybody. How long can you keep banging on about this stuff? Tell us why you need exact numbers. You must be tired of this question by now. Tell us why the engineers are wrong.

.
I have told you before and before and before. The kinetic energy of the plane had TWO EFFECTS. It punched a hole doing structural damage and it deflected the building thereby starting an oscillation.

The NCSAR1 report contains a graph of the oscillation and explains how it was derived from video footage.

http://bp3.blogger.com/_7yk2MF3y9xE/Ra3c3Dt4VmI/AAAAAAAAAMo/fSAoXHZjI8w/s1600-h/1-5-26.jpg

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4543701&postcount=210

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4564373&postcount=394

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4420316&postcount=885

You cannot compute how much energy did structural damage without knowing how much shook the building. That cannot be computed without knowing distribution of mass. The perimeter column steel on every level would be part of that mass.

You are playing obfuscation games with the word EXACT. If the NIST can spend 3 years producing 10,000 pages with lots of diagrams of perimeter wall panels and tell us the original design called for 14 but only 12 were used on the building, I fail to see the difficulty of their telling us the number and weights of those 12 different wheat chex. Would 24 numbers take up too much space in their 10,000 pages of reports?

I built a demonstration of how changing mass and its distribution affected the behavior resulting from impacts.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z0kUICwO93Q

It is somewhat curious how people who claim to know physics can pretend they don't know physics. But then maybe they are just deluded about knowing physics.

Since mass has inertia regardless of the direction from which force is applied, the distribution of mass will affect the timing of a top down collapse which I also demonstrated.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LXAerZUw4Wc

That of course assumes what happened to the WTC was a top down gravitational collapse. If it wasn't then the people that want to believe there was have a serious obfuscation problem in maintaining their delusions.

But then how can anyone build an accurate SCALED MODEL for Ryan Mackey without that information. This thread is about Mackey's Hardfire presentation isn't it. Didn't Mackey talk about a SCALED MODEL in episode 3, Revenge of the Physics. If the distribution of mass in the WTC was not constant then doesn't the scaled model have to be inconstant in the same way? So doesn't that mean we need the actual, possibly EXACT, data on the real buildings?

Ask the GREAT Ryan Mackey.

THAT AIN'T IMPORTANT BECAUSE WE SAY SO! LOL

The JREF Wizards of Physics!

psik

 

[GlennB]

.
......So doesn't that mean we need the actual, possibly EXACT, data on the real buildings?

No, it doesn't. Use reasonable estimates - max and min - and see how it goes. If there's still any doubt then by all means seek to refine the data.

This happens a lot in science.

 

[psikeyhackr]

No, it doesn't. Use reasonable estimates - max and min - and see how it goes. If there's still any doubt then by all means seek to refine the data.

This happens a lot in science.

.
How much SCIENCE is about man-made objects designed in the 1960s and completed in the '70s?

Why shouldn't we have EXACT information about a man made object of such recent construction? It is not like we are talking about a volcano on a moon of Jupiter.

psik

 

[twinstead]

.

THAT AIN'T IMPORTANT BECAUSE WE SAY SO! LOL

So you're saying it IS important because YOU say so. Got it. Pardon me if I'm dubious.

LOL indeed

 

[psikeyhackr]

So you're saying it IS important because YOU say so. Got it. Pardon me if I'm dubious.

LOL indeed

.
Did the people who designed the World Trade Center have to figure out how much steel to put where or not? Did they have to document it for the building to be constructed or not?

So you explain why that information should not be easily obtainable even if it isn't necessary.

Why does the NIST report specify the total for the steel but not the concrete? But they tell us one airliner had 5 tons of cargo and the other had 9. Why is that more important than the weights of the 12 different panels?

Why do they tell us the original design called for 14 types of perimeter wall panels but then don't tell us the number and weights of the 12 that were used?

Why don't you concentrate on the building instead of on ME?

It is about solving the problem not competing with someone that disagrees with you about the problem. How can you be sure your solution is correct if you KNOW that you do not have complete and accurate information about the SUBJECT of the problem?

psik

 

[psikeyhackr]

If it would help you all speak more freely, I can ask the moderators to change the title of this thread to "Teh Psikeyhackr Shooting Gallery." That would be more representative of its content.

.
You can try to make fun of me all you want Mackey

BUT, you are the one that brought up this SCALED MODEL business in Hardfire 3.

Now how do you make a scaled model without accurate data on the WTC?

You explain THAT to everybody.

This may not be scaled but it is built so the parameters can be changed. Various gauges of wire would work better than toothpicks. They would just have to be tested to calibrate them for strength.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LXAerZUw4Wc

psik

 

[Toke]

Why does the NIST report specify the total for the steel but not the concrete? But they tell us one airliner had 5 tons of cargo and the other had 9. Why is that more important than the weights of the 12 different panels?

Impact speed.

Why don´t you demonstrate how a small variation in panel weight will change anything?

 

[TjW]

.
Did the people who designed the World Trade Center have to figure out how much steel to put where or not? Did they have to document it for the building to be constructed or not?

So you explain why that information should not be easily obtainable even if it isn't necessary.

Why does the NIST report specify the total for the steel but not the concrete? But they tell us one airliner had 5 tons of cargo and the other had 9. Why is that more important than the weights of the 12 different panels?

Why do they tell us the original design called for 14 types of perimeter wall panels but then don't tell us the number and weights of the 12 that were used?

Why don't you concentrate on the building instead of on ME?

It is about solving the problem not competing with someone that disagrees with you about the problem. How can you be sure your solution is correct if you KNOW that you do not have complete and accurate information about the SUBJECT of the problem?

psik

No one can supply you with acceptable data because you still haven't specified what constitutes acceptable.
Do you need it down to the gram?

 

[ElMondoHummus]

If it would help you all speak more freely, I can ask the moderators to change the title of this thread to "Teh Psikeyhackr Shooting Gallery." That would be more representative of its content.

Maybe you could ask for either a split or for moderation.

 

[R.Mackey]

There have already been at least three incursions of splits and moderation.

It appears this falls into a grey area. The trolls (and the idiots responding to them) exceed moderator capacity, yet they aren't so severe as to get banned. Frankly I doubt anyone would miss them, but it's their call.

I could report every single incident, but every time I'm away from the computer for a week, bam, ten new pages of garbage. I can't monitor it full-time either.

Follow-ups to the appropriate subforum. Off-topic here, but hey, what isn't?

 

[psikeyhackr]

Impact speed.

Why don´t you demonstrate how a small variation in panel weight will change anything?

.
The NIST report says the south tower moved 12 inches at the 70th floor because of the impact. That was 130 feet below the impact point on the 81st level. A linear extrapolation would indicate that the 81st level must have moved about 14 inches. Since the building got heavier going down then it should have moved at least 12 inches 130 feet above the impact point on the 92nd floor also.

So that means a 260 foot vertical section of the building moved 12 inches or more in less than 2 seconds. The NIST report does some complicated math to come to the conclusion that the plane stopped in 0.6 seconds. Since the perimeter panels were 36 feet high and there were 76 all of the way around the building there should have been 548 wall panels in that area.

So if they weighed half as much as the heaviest panels at the bottom that would be 6028 tons.

If they weighed one third as much as the heaviest panel that would be 4019 tons.

If they weighed a fourth as much as the heaviest panel that would be 3014 tons.

The plane was less than 200 tons and it is the velocity that is squared in the kinetic energy equation not the mass so why is the NIST bothering to tell us the weight of the cargo and not the wall panels?

Now since different levels moved different distances and the weights on those levels would be different the calculation of the amount of energy from the plane's kinetic energy that deflected the building would be rather complex. But it cannot be attempted without reasonably accurate information on the distribution of steel and concrete. But to pretend it is not important and dismiss data that should be easy to obtain is ludicrous.

It's like Ludicrous Speed out of Spaceballs.

psik

 

[psikeyhackr]

Moderately Incompetent Physics!

There have already been at least three incursions of splits and moderation.

It appears this falls into a grey area. The trolls (and the idiots responding to them) exceed moderator capacity, yet they aren't so severe as to get banned. Frankly I doubt anyone would miss them, but it's their call.

I could report every single incident, but every time I'm away from the computer for a week, bam, ten new pages of garbage. I can't monitor it full-time either.

Follow-ups to the appropriate subforum. Off-topic here, but hey, what isn't?

.
Sure, the wall panels have nothing whatsoever to do with Mackey's scaled model.

He has these m's and h's for mass and columns in those 2-6 and 2-7 diagrams. Weren't the perimeter wall panels what held up the outer edges of the floor slabs? Didn't they have mass?

But they are irrelevant to a scaled model so we don't need any data about them.

psik

 

[BigAl]

.
Sure, the wall panels have nothing whatsoever to do with Mackey's scaled model.

He has these m's and h's for mass and columns in those 2-6 and 2-7 diagrams. Weren't the perimeter wall panels what held up the outer edges of the floor slabs? ...
psik

No.

Do we have another case of imprecise language here?

WTC 1 and 2 had cosmetic aluminum panels over the exterior beams.

The panels were thin and in no way part of the load-bearing structure. If they weighed a total of 560 tons, (6 tons/floor) that weight would be noise in any calculations.

How many posts has this confusion caused ?

 

[psikeyhackr]

No.

Do we have another case of imprecise language here?

WTC 1 and 2 had cosmetic aluminum panels over the exterior beams.

The panels were thin and in no way part of the load-bearing structure. If they weighed a total of 560 tons, (6 tons/floor) that weight would be noise in any calculations.

How many posts has this confusion caused ?

.
Tell you what. Why don't you provide us with a quote from the NCSTAR1 report that supports what you claim about there use of the term "perimeter wall panel"?

I have had the report burned to DVD for the last two years.

psik

 

[BigAl]

.
Tell you what. Why don't you provide us with a quote from the NCSTAR1 report that supports what you claim about there use of the term "perimeter wall panel"?

I have had the report burned to DVD for the last two years.

psik

To someone that watched WTC go up and come down, "panel" is the aluminum exterior and that was the word you used in most of your posts.

"perimeter wall panel" something else and in fact the beams and is structural.