• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Hardfire: Physics of 9/11

R.Mackey

Philosopher
R
Joined
Apr 21, 2006
Messages
7,854
Recently I alluded to a project I had in the works. I am pleased to announce that the project is now ready. A few weeks ago, Ron Wieck (known to veterans as pomeroo) and I recorded a series of shows for the public-access show Hardfire, discussing the physics involved in the September 11th conspiracy nonsense we've all had to suffer through for the past few years.

The first show is now ready, and can be found here: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2636718609916624673
There are two others which should be ready in a week or so.

We did these shows as a kind of coda to the never-ending conspiracy arguments that now seem to be dying out. Instead of taking on any individual or specific wild claim, what I attempt to do instead is walk through the process of science, and show how anyone can apply this approach to any claim one might encounter. The scientific method is available to anyone, and need not be expensive, either. I attempt to demonstrate this by walking through two of the more common Truth Movement misconceptions from first principles.

I apologize up front for the video and audio quality -- we make do with the equipment we have. I could not travel to NYC to join Ron in the studio, nor could he visit me in LA for fear of running into the professional wrestler who has been embezzling his NWO paychecks. But I hope the message is readable and clear.

An extended version of the presentation used in these shows will be available shortly at either of the two following websites: http://911myths.com/index.php/Ryanmackey or http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/ryanmackey

Any comments or feedback regarding the show, follow-up questions, etc. are welcome in this thread. Off-topic posts will be mercilessly reported regardless of source. :D Enjoy.
 
Haha, seconds before checking this thread, I changed my avatar to the professional wrestler (Yvon "The Beast" Cormier, with the hair).

Will check out the first show now, and looking forward to the rest. I'll link to the PowerPoint slides on my site now.

Thanks, Ryan.

ETA: Good job, clear explanations.
 
Last edited:
Only 20:05 minutes into the show but already it is obvious that this is a very useful, for all sorts of purposes, basic point-for-point clarification tool, and not only in the context of specific 9/11 claims but as a survey of physics 101 and the methodology of a scientific approach relevant to such inquiries in general.

I like it.
 
R.Mackey said:
Recently I alluded to a project I had in the works. I am pleased to announce that the project is now ready. A few weeks ago, Ron Wieck (known to veterans as pomeroo) and I recorded a series of shows for the public-access show Hardfire, discussing the physics involved in the September 11th conspiracy nonsense we've all had to suffer through for the past few years.

The first show is now ready, and can be found here: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2636718609916624673
There are two others which should be ready in a week or so.

We did these shows as a kind of coda to the never-ending conspiracy arguments that now seem to be dying out. Instead of taking on any individual or specific wild claim, what I attempt to do instead is walk through the process of science, and show how anyone can apply this approach to any claim one might encounter. The scientific method is available to anyone, and need not be expensive, either. I attempt to demonstrate this by walking through two of the more common Truth Movement misconceptions from first principles.

I apologize up front for the video and audio quality -- we make do with the equipment we have. I could not travel to NYC to join Ron in the studio, nor could he visit me in LA for fear of running into the professional wrestler who has been embezzling his NWO paychecks. But I hope the message is readable and clear.

An extended version of the presentation used in these shows will be available shortly at either of the two following websites: http://911myths.com/index.php/Ryanmackey or http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/ryanmackey

Any comments or feedback regarding the show, follow-up questions, etc. are welcome in this thread. Off-topic posts will be mercilessly reported regardless of source. :D Enjoy.
Click to expand...

I look forward to watching it Ryan.
One of the biggest problems with people like Steven Jones is the complete lack of a decent methodology. I remember thinking to myself, he would make a wonderful example for a critical thinking or research methodology class to tear apart.

One of these days I'll have to post what people quoted in the Jones "Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Collapse?" paper (and other relevant experts) had to say about his research.

Anyway, you put out some excellent stuff.

Scott
 
Last edited:
Nice job shill!
;)
DISCLAIMER:
I BOBERT WILL BE HAPPY TO TAKE GOVERNMENT MONEY IN A SUM EQUALLY AGREEABLE BY BOTH PARTIES TO ENGAGE IN SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES DESIGNED TO DESTROY THE TRUTH MOVEMENT.
 
Last edited:
Excellent presentation so far Ryan. I really look forward to your explanation of 1-12, Ron left us hanging there.

BTW, your voice is eerily similar to a good friend of mine, who incidentally also resides in SoCal; that did give me a startle.
 
Yup, in Part 2 I continue with how our computed values stack up against the predicted failure limits of the structural columns. Then in Part 3 we tackle a basic model of progressive collapse.

Stay tuned.
 
As I said in the introduction, there's a reason for that. The overwhelming majority of Truth Movement claims are based on physics. This approach may not work against claims of LIHOP theories, but frankly, those haven't been very popular. The Truth Movement would rather make claims about flight paths, impact damage, fires, collapses, etc. -- all purely physical phenomena. For those claims, these are the right tools.


ETA: I should also add that a key element in science is accepting criticism and responding to errors. I've already been alerted to one. The aircraft that struck USS Franklin is thought to be a D4Y Judy, and contrary to what I thought, it is not a wooden aircraft, but one of all metal. But it was hardly a robust aircraft, and widely held to be a flying coffin in combat. This doesn't change the argument one bit, but it's a mistake that I made, and I thank viewers for catching it. Let me know if there are others.
 
Last edited:
One of the reasons that I like this is that one of my earliest analogies to the truthers was to imagine that a 10,000 gallon water balloon would hit the building they were currently in at 500 mph and try to intuit what would happen - but you explain the science behind the fuel striking the building, to complete my comparison.
 
Watched and enjoyed.

Please let us know when the next part is up.


ETA: I am not sure that your description of Newton's third law was entirely accurate. It has nothing to do with the sum of the forces on one body. In this context it just means that the force that slows down the fuel is equal in size to the force acting on a column. Anyway, I am sure you already knew that.

(I hope I correctly remembered your comment. I don't have the time to re-watch. Sorry for the nitpick.)
 
Last edited:
Doctor Evil said:
ETA: I am not sure that your description of Newton's third law was entirely accurate. It has nothing to do with the sum of the forces on one body. In this context it just means that the force that slows down the fuel is equal in size to the force acting on a column. Anyway, I am sure you already knew that.

(I hope I correctly remembered your comment. I don't have the time to re-watch. Sorry for the nitpick.)
Click to expand...

Nitpicks are fine. I was trying, in a hurry, to remember some of the crazy claims made about Newton's Laws, and not coming up with a clear picture.

What I was getting at is that some people (like Heiwa and Tony Szamboti) have argued that, for instance, the Tower collapses, at contact of the upper block with the lower structure, Newton's Third Law specifies that (1) the force on the lower block is just equal to the weight, m g, of the upper block; and (2) damage inflicted to the two bodies must be the same. This is nonsense, of course. What Newton's Third Law specifies is that the force, whatever it is, is equal and opposite on the two bodies at the point of contact. To actually find that force, or the effect, takes more work.

I think Ron had asked me about Newton's Second Law, however. For that I was thinking of the geniuses who try to apply static analysis to dynamic situations. Search the Forums for "net force = 0" and you'll find them. This is a consequence of Newton's Second if something isn't accelerating, regardless of any other bodies in the problem, but of course many problems we look at are accelerating and this analysis fails there.

You can often ignore Newton's Third Law anyway, depending on the problem -- dropping a rock, for instance. The ground is pulled up with the same force that gravity pulls the rock down, but this equal-and-opposite force is negligible due to the disparity in mass.

Sorry if I confused anyone. All of that was completely unscripted.
 
Last edited:
R.Mackey said:
Any comments or feedback regarding the show, follow-up questions, etc. are welcome in this thread. Off-topic posts will be mercilessly reported regardless of source. :D Enjoy.
Click to expand...

Re your Power Point Slide Model Process - Step 1 - with upper block (let's call it part C) M = k m, suggest that it is represented like the structure below (let's call it part A) thus with k floors with mass m each separated by height h with columns in between. Thus upper block is not a block but an assembly of k floors held together by columns.

Suggest that you also include the butt ends of the broken columns between parts C and A!

And then let part C collide with part A!

Slide step 2 must then be modified - it is the columns' stub ends of parts A and C that make contact and you have to clarify with what, e.g. the floors that are punched through. Calculate the energy required for that.

Slide step 3 must also be modified as it not the columns of one storey (or the top storey of part A) only that are being deformed. All columns of part A evidently deforms elastically (and absorbs energy). More important is that the same thing happens to the columns of part C.

Nevertheless - I agree that further local failures will take place in the interface parts A/C after the top floor of part A and bottom floor of part C have been punched. You have to describe these and, e.g. calculate the energy required to produce them.

I have described this in my article at http://heiwaco.tripod.com/nist3.htm .

A simple 2-D beam model (full scale!) of WTC 1/2 can be made as follows:

Each storey unit is modelled as follows:

The floor is a horizontal beam, l = 60 m, with mass m as a uniform load.
On the floor beam are four vertical columns, h = 3.7 m; the end ones are wall columns and the inside ones core columns. The connection beam/columns can, e.g. be a pin joint at the ends and fixed joint at core.

Copy/paste this unit 110 times to form a 407 m tall tower. Adjust the column properties so that compressive stress in any column is 0.2 yield in wall columns and 0.3 yield in core columns. All column buts are fixed joints (incl. ground). Put a roof beam on top and fix it to the top columns.

This 2-D structure is quite flexible!

Test! Apply a force/energy corresponding to a plane impact at floor 95 (or 77) and then release it (energy consumed as local failures). The model will oscillate. The roof beam will probably displace sideways 2 (or 1) m for 1 minute or so. Check if you see same effect on any video of impact!

Application! Cut the model columns at floor 95 (or 77) and allow upper part C drop on lower part A. Analyse what happens at first contact cut columns/floors and associated failures and where the loads on affected floors are shifting. If part C manages to penetrate top floor of part A and part A manages to penetrate bottom floor of part C, check what happens next! I assure you that part C cannot crush part A.

Pls do not make the mistake of NIST and Bazant & Co to assume that part C is rigid! It is not! You must treat part C exactly like part A - flexible with a thin floor and fairly solid columns.

The 2-D model can evidently be made 3-D but it requires a little more time and PC capacity.

Good luck.
 
Last edited:
R.Mackey said:
What I was getting at is that some people (like Heiwa ...) have argued that, for instance, the Tower collapses, at contact of the upper block with the lower structure, Newton's Third Law specifies that (1) the force on the lower block is just equal to the weight, m g, of the upper block; and (2) damage inflicted to the two bodies must be the same. This is nonsense, of course. What Newton's Third Law specifies is that the force, whatever it is, is equal and opposite on the two bodies at the point of contact. To actually find that force, or the effect, takes more work.
Click to expand...

Evidently Heiwa does not suggest that the dynamic contact force is m g! Before first failure and after arrest of local failures the static contact force is however m g (as per Newton).

No, at collision contact at velocity v you have to consider the energy E applied (m v²/2) and what variable force and pressures and associated deformations and failures E can produce at various contact points. This simple fact forms part of the first paragrahs of my article - see link above. Pls, do not misquote me!
 
Last edited:
Ryan;

I will get to it this weekend, but thanks in advance for your effort.

Heiwa:

There is an expression, or saying, about people who talk about themselves in the 3rd person. Can you remember it?

TAM:)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom