Hardfire: Physics of 9/11

[psikeyhackr]

AGAIN, Greg Ulrich has already done a mass and steel study.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=92058

Learn to use the search function.

Hell, he even had his paper published in the journal of 9/11 stundies.

.
Is Greg Urich a structural engineer?

Is Greg Urich even a US citizen?

Is there some reason the government of the nation that put men on the Moon can't provide that information and we are supposed to trust some guy in Sweden who admits that the NIST has not provided the number and weights of the 12 types of perimeter wall panels even though they had 3 years and $20,000,000 and produced 10,000 pages that don't even specify the total quantity of concrete even though they do it for the steel?

The American JREFers should be really proud of this great display of competence on the part of the government.

psik

 

[Newtons Bit]

.
Is Greg Urich a structural engineer?

Is Greg Urich even a US citizen?

Is there some reason the government of the nation that put men on the Moon can't provide that information and we are supposed to trust some guy in Sweden who admits that the NIST has not provided the number and weights of the 12 types of perimeter wall panels even though they had 3 years and $20,000,000 and produced 10,000 pages that don't even specify the total quantity of concrete even though they do it for the steel?

The American JREFers should be really proud of this great display of competence on the part of the government.

psik

So your entire objection is that NIST didn't release the full set of structural drawings? I'm sorry buddy, but the government does not have the right to release those drawings. Those are the intellectual property of the company that designed them.

They will never be released to the public. Nor should they.

 

[psikeyhackr]

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=117412

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=137777

.
Like I trust the moderators on JREF.

I added a physics book that is available free online to your reading list and added a joke about 9/11.

One of your moderators declared it was off topic and moved it creating its own thread.

So you people can pretty much forget my trusting anything you say that I cannot verify from other sources. Like that business someone just pulled about Kirchooff's Current Law with some distantly related complications. Constant snow jobs just like the NCSTAR1 report.

psik

 

[psikeyhackr]

So your entire objection is that NIST didn't release the full set of structural drawings?

They will never be released to the public. Nor should they.

.
But Americans are supposed to rush off to Iraq and kill tens of thousands of people because they believe an airliner can level a building that they can't see the drawings of.

Some engineering magazine said the heaviest perimeter all panel was 22 tons back in 1970. Didn't they violate some law by releasing that information? So why aren't we told the number and weights of all of them.

So all you are really saying is, "Believe what you are told or you are STUPID!"

I would be very surprised if the supposed, biggest terrorist attack on US soil in history, didn't provide plenty of loopholes and legitimate reasons to allow that info to be released. If some people wanted it released.

psik

 

[psikeyhackr]

You knew this http://cnx.org/content/m0032/latest/ in grade school?

.
ROFLMAO

It is hilarious how people can deliberately select idiotic complications and pretend it is intelligent.

I said Kirchoff's Current Law.

http://www.physics.uoguelph.ca/tutorials/ohm/Q.ohm.KCL.html

And I schools deliberately make things unnecessarily complicated to. The schools are a business. You pay to have information dribbled out. And if they make it more complex than necessary it takes more time an money so it increases their income and students have no choice but to put up with the bullsh!t to get those pieces of paper.

It helps to find good books that explain things better that the ones the schools make you buy however. It makes things a lot less boring too.

I designed and built a telegraph in 6th grade for some kids at another school. The nuns would not teach science at my Catholic school. I had to learn on my own.

psik

 

[Newtons Bit]

.
But Americans are supposed to rush off to Iraq and kill tens of thousands of people because they believe an airliner can level a building that they can't see the drawings of.

Some engineering magazine said the heaviest perimeter all panel was 22 tons back in 1970. Didn't they violate some law by releasing that information? So why aren't we told the number and weights of all of them.

So all you are really saying is, "Believe what you are told or you are STUPID!"

I would be very surprised if the supposed, biggest terrorist attack on US soil in history, didn't provide plenty of loopholes and legitimate reasons to allow that info to be released. If some people wanted it released.

psik

There is more than enough information out there to form a rational extremely accurate estimate of the mass per floor (steel, concrete, in-service live-load and super-imposed dead loads). Gregory Ulrich has compiled this data. This data came from a number of sources, mostly governmental.

What's your problem? Why do you need more than this? How will the general public benefit from the release of this massive quantity of information that they don't have the expertise to understand anyways?


By the way, your argument is idiotic:

You don't violate copyright laws by saying what's in something, only by duplicating it.

Any researcher can request a copy of the plans and probably get them, they just have to pay for their reproduction.

 

[beachnut]

.
ROFLMAO

It is hilarious how people can deliberately select idiotic complications and pretend it is intelligent.

I said Kirchoff's Current Law.

http://www.physics.uoguelph.ca/tutorials/ohm/Q.ohm.KCL.html

And I schools deliberately make things unnecessarily complicated to. The schools are a business. You pay to have information dribbled out. And if they make it more complex than necessary it takes more time an money so it increases their income and students have no choice but to put up with the bullsh!t to get those pieces of paper.

It helps to find good books that explain things better that the ones the schools make you buy however. It makes things a lot less boring too.

I designed and built a telegraph in 6th grade for some kids at another school. The nuns would not teach science at my Catholic school. I had to learn on my own.

psik

I expect you to break the "inside job" soon!

I was using the 911Truth definition of soon = never.

If you were to start with "Physics of 9/11" as a guide; your models would improve.

Ironic your science efforts are not on par with your talk of greatness.

Greg estimated the weight of the WTC. Greg was upset all the models were using high values and thought by reducing the weight of the WTC he could prove the WTC towers could no fall due to fire, but he actually proved it could fail in fire.

The big clue for laypeople who do not want to get into the math, physics and structural engineering nitty-gritty, could talk to Robertson the chief structural engineer for the WTC towers.

Robertson explains the towers fell as they would after being damaged by impact and ravaged by fire. But you ignore logical conclusion based on absolute knowledge of the WTC structure for hearsay, lies, fantasy, your failed models, and your delusions.

Try again, and use some semblance of the scientific method this time.

 

[A W Smith]

.
Is Greg Urich a structural engineer?

Is Greg Urich even a US citizen?

Is there some reason the government of the nation that put men on the Moon can't provide that information and we are supposed to trust some guy in Sweden who admits that the NIST has not provided the number and weights of the 12 types of perimeter wall panels even though they had 3 years and $20,000,000 and produced 10,000 pages that don't even specify the total quantity of concrete even though they do it for the steel?

The American JREFers should be really proud of this great display of competence on the part of the government.

psik

You can get within 10 percent of the actual weights with information already publicly available. And thats being sloppy. You can likely get within 5% with a bit of attention to detail. So pick an upper and lower bound. Work with it and you will find it will not effect the final outcome. full scale MATH shows penetration and breaking of the perimeter columns by the planes fuel load alone. Also peer reviewed studies worldwide have shown collapse inevitable. Even those critical of NIST came to the same conclusion. Greenings work did, and electrical engineer Gregory Urich's work did. And they used MATH. Not toothpicks and washers. So your gonna hafta step it up a notch kid. Because you are clearly not prepared.

 

[tsig]

.
Like I trust the moderators on JREF.

I added a physics book that is available free online to your reading list and added a joke about 9/11.

One of your moderators declared it was off topic and moved it creating its own thread.

So you people can pretty much forget my trusting anything you say that I cannot verify from other sources. Like that business someone just pulled about Kirchooff's Current Law with some distantly related complications. Constant snow jobs just like the NCSTAR1 report.

psik

Those "distantly related complications" are direct results of "Kirchooff's Current Law" that you said you understood in grade school. Did you skip that year?

You might find if you examine the physics of 911 you might see more of those "distantly related complications" that slipped by you in the first grade.

 

[tsig]

.
ROFLMAO

It is hilarious how people can deliberately select idiotic complications and pretend it is intelligent.

I said Kirchoff's Current Law.

http://www.physics.uoguelph.ca/tutorials/ohm/Q.ohm.KCL.html

And I schools deliberately make things unnecessarily complicated to. The schools are a business. You pay to have information dribbled out. And if they make it more complex than necessary it takes more time an money so it increases their income and students have no choice but to put up with the bullsh!t to get those pieces of paper.

It helps to find good books that explain things better that the ones the schools make you buy however. It makes things a lot less boring too.

I designed and built a telegraph in 6th grade for some kids at another school. The nuns would not teach science at my Catholic school. I had to learn on my own.

psik

The "idiotic complications" are part of Kirchoff's Current Law.
2+2=4 is arithmetic but it gets a little more complicated than that later on.

What "good books that explain things better that the ones the schools make you buy" would you recommend to help understand the physics of 911?

 

[R.Mackey]

psik, you're still monotonous and you're still off-topic.

If you want to at least try to post on-topic, then I urge you to explain your model. Once again, the guidelines are here. You've already built an apparatus, so all you need to do now is explain what you built, why, what it models in real life, and what you learn from the results.

So far, absolutely no one has even attempted to take me up on the Challenge. I'm still getting nothing but chaff in my e-mail from the Truth Movement. One would almost suspect they didn't have a clue at all.

 

[Heiwa]

Topic is Mackey's Physics of 9/11 in Hardfire and how to model the WTC 1 destruction in scale.

Mackey suggests it is a solid mechancis problem; mass M = km hitting mass m, while columns (not part of M or m) break, M fuses with m, and this is repeated n times. The result of this model is that M = (k+n)m and a lot of broken columns.

Fair enough! But what has it to do with 9/11? Was the result of the destruction M = (k+n)m ? Isn't this the pancake theory?

What about if M does not fuse with m? And is it really M impacting on m. Isn't it one m (of km) of M that is contacting another m? If so, if one m contacts another m, wouldn't the two ms deform, get damaged, &c. Why would columns, not part of m and remote from m, get broken?

I am bold enough to challenge the assumption that if M impacts m, any columns are broken. Prove it!

We know the PE of the M drop. Is this PE sufficient to deform ALL the columns of the tower connecting the (k+n)m (floors) elastically and then buckle one set ot them between two ms? I would say NO. The PE is too small. And, if the PE would be sufficient, it is not the columns below m that are broken but the columns inside M. But before that happens, the two ms in contact are broken into small pieces - dust - and that's it. All PE is used up to destroy two ms.

Any comments, Mackey?

 

[Dave Rogers]

We know the PE of the M drop. Is this PE sufficient to deform ALL the columns of the tower connecting the (k+n)m (floors) elastically and then buckle one set ot them between two ms? I would say NO. The PE is too small.

But the reason you arrived at that conclusion is that you started by deliberately ignoring half the PE, then miscalculated the elastic energy produced by the other half. As I pointed out a few weeks ago, if you actually do the maths right, then the PE is sufficient to strain the entire structure, both upper and lower blocks, well beyond its elastic limit. And that's taking your most optimistic figures for Euler buckling and assuming that the elastic energy is homogeneously distributed throughout the structure. Even when you'd set up the most optimistic scenario you could think of, you still needed to cheat to get the answer you wanted.

Dave

 

[Newtons Bit]

Kinetic Energy available: 2105MJ

Kinetic Energy gains:
Potential Energy of the Upper Block + 64MJ
Potential Energy of the Lower Stories + 41MJ

Kinetic Energy Losses (including strain rates):
Loss of Kinetic Energy due to Inelastic Collision - 123MJ
Loss of Kinetic Energy due to Mass-With-Spring - 414MJ

Elastic Strain Energy of the Lower Stories - 213MJ
Inelastic Strain Energy of the Lower Story - 171MJ
Elastic Strain Energy of the Upper Block - 71MJ
Inelastic Strain Energy of the Upper Story - 171MJ

Pulverized Concrete - 0MJ

Total Energy Available + 2210 MJ
Total Kinetic Energy Losses - 1163 MJ
Total Energy Balance + 1047 MJ

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=97584

Can we PLEASE drop this subject now, Heiwa?

 

[Dave Rogers]

Kinetic Energy available: 2105MJ

Kinetic Energy gains:
Potential Energy of the Upper Block + 64MJ
Potential Energy of the Lower Stories + 41MJ

Kinetic Energy Losses (including strain rates):
Loss of Kinetic Energy due to Inelastic Collision - 123MJ
Loss of Kinetic Energy due to Mass-With-Spring - 414MJ

Elastic Strain Energy of the Lower Stories - 213MJ
Inelastic Strain Energy of the Lower Story - 171MJ
Elastic Strain Energy of the Upper Block - 71MJ
Inelastic Strain Energy of the Upper Story - 171MJ

Pulverized Concrete - 0MJ

Total Energy Available + 2210 MJ
Total Kinetic Energy Losses - 1163 MJ
Total Energy Balance + 1047 MJ

Gordon Ross getting his sums wrong - Priceless.

Dave

 

[Heiwa]

Kinetic Energy available: 2105MJ

Kinetic Energy gains:
Potential Energy of the Upper Block + 64MJ
Potential Energy of the Lower Stories + 41MJ

Kinetic Energy Losses (including strain rates):
Loss of Kinetic Energy due to Inelastic Collision - 123MJ
Loss of Kinetic Energy due to Mass-With-Spring - 414MJ

Elastic Strain Energy of the Lower Stories - 213MJ
Inelastic Strain Energy of the Lower Story - 171MJ
Elastic Strain Energy of the Upper Block - 71MJ
Inelastic Strain Energy of the Upper Story - 171MJ

Pulverized Concrete - 0MJ

Total Energy Available + 2210 MJ
Total Kinetic Energy Losses - 1163 MJ
Total Energy Balance + 1047 MJ

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=97584

Can we PLEASE drop this subject now, Heiwa?

Not really. According my calculations the WTC 1 upper block has mass 33 000 tons and with a drop of only 0.5 m the available energy is only 165 MJ. I know Bazant assumes 54 000 tons and a drop of 3.7 m and energy input 2000 MJ or 12 times more.
With my smaller energy input the upper part just bounces on the lower structure. Elastic strain energy there exceeds the energy input. This I would expect to happen.
But I am prepared to increase the energy input and see what happens then - plastic deformation - OK, it takes place. I describe it in my article. And then something breaks in both upper and lower parts. And it requires much more energy than just elastic and plastic deformation. And then damaged parts start to shift position and rub against each other and even more energy is consumed due friction (which Bazant ignores). When this takes place you should be able to see a deceleration/slow down of the upper part. So I would say WTC 1 upper part could only damage one or two stories below, while damaging same stories above ... and then arrest. It would take say 3 seconds. No loose debris would be formed.
However, just look at any video - the upper part is blown into pieces long before that.
Interesting subject actually. But I agree, Mackey is not interested in any energy calculations with his models. If you do simple energy calculations, you will find that a part C of a structure cannot crush down one-way a similar structure A, where C = 1/10A, by dropping C on A. C will always be destroyed long before A. In any size, scale, structure, material. Prove me wrong and you win a prize.

 

[beachnut]

Not really. According my calculations the WTC 1 upper block has mass 33 000 tons and with a drop of only 0.5 m the available energy is only 165 MJ. I know Bazant assumes 54 000 tons and a drop of 3.7 m and energy input 2000 MJ or 12 times more.
With my smaller energy input the upper part just bounces on the lower structure. Elastic strain energy there exceeds the energy input. This I would expect to happen.
But I am prepared to increase the energy input and see what happens then - plastic deformation - OK, it takes place. I describe it in my article. And then something breaks in both upper and lower parts. And it requires much more energy than just elastic and plastic deformation. And then damaged parts start to shift position and rub against each other and even more energy is consumed due friction (which Bazant ignores). When this takes place you should be able to see a deceleration/slow down of the upper part. So I would say WTC 1 upper part could only damage one or two stories below, while damaging same stories above ... and then arrest. It would take say 3 seconds. No loose debris would be formed.
However, just look at any video - the upper part is blown into pieces long before that.
Interesting subject actually. But I agree, Mackey is not interested in any energy calculations with his models. If you do simple energy calculations, you will find that a part C of a structure cannot crush down one-way a similar structure A, where C = 1/10A, by dropping C on A. C will always be destroyed long before A. In any size, scale, structure, material. Prove me wrong and you win a prize.

This proved your 2 mile drop to be pure fantasy; can you get on topic and drop your failed junk science with ships in the z-plane and kids jumping on beds as your failed models for the WTC. Don’t post your web site again.

The big problem with more than 11 floors stopping on a single floor is instantaneous failure of that floor. Sorry, you are working in the z-plane not sinking on the sea; you forget gravity loads on the floors below, and thus you failed. This proves you wrong and I want the money but you are such a bad engineer and you can’t comprehend I just won the prize and you failed again; each time you post your web site you fail.

The upper portion is not blown into pieces, you are a broken record; stop spamming this thread take your junk science to your own special junk thread of dirt dumb engineering with boats in the vertical.

If the upper portion is blown to pieces, when all those pieces drop on the lower floor, that floor fails all the way to the ground as seen on 911. I win again. Do the math stop making up lemons and kids on bed stupid analogies. Take it to your junk threads

 

[psikeyhackr]

psik, you're still monotonous and you're still off-topic.

.
The Empire State Building was completed 70 years before the WTC was destroyed. What kind of computers did they have back then? This ain't rocket science. The physics of a problem this simple is monoTONous.

This should have been solved SIX YEARS AGO.

So where is the data to make the SCALED MODEL you talked about in Hardfire 3?

That data would not involve TONS of STEEL and TONS of CONCRETE now would it?

Your 2-6 and 2-7 diagrams did say something about MASS.

psik

 

[Heiwa]

The big problem with more than 11 floors stopping on a single floor is instantaneous failure of that floor.

Big problem? First of all there were another 96 floors below that floor of instantaneous failure according you.
The big problem is those 96 floors below. One-way crush down? Has never happened before/after 9/11.
Is the one-way crush down theory correct? Is 11 floors (part C) crushing 97 floors (part A) with negligible damages to part C possible?
It seem Mackey has great problems to produce a structure in any scale, size and material to prove the one-way crush down theory.
I have tested numerous structures of all kind - never anything close to one-way crush down.
The one-way crush down theory is just a fairy tale. But if you can come up with a structure that one-way crushes down, you'll win two prizes. One from Mackey and one from me.

 

[Newtons Bit]

.
The Empire State Building was completed 70 years before the WTC was destroyed. What kind of computers did they have back then? This ain't rocket science. The physics of a problem this simple is monoTONous.

This should have been solved SIX YEARS AGO.

So where is the data to make the SCALED MODEL you talked about in Hardfire 3?

That data would not involve TONS of STEEL and TONS of CONCRETE now would it?

Your 2-6 and 2-7 diagrams did say something about MASS.

psik

The Empire State Building will also fall down if you remove all of the interior dry wall partition walls. It's actually a very good example of engineers making incorrect assumptions.