Why a one-way Crush down is not possible

[Seymour Butz]

We are Off Topic a long way, but one reason why a one-way Crush down is not possible is the high g-forces applied at contact.

Imagine a part C dropping on part A and that C bounces, as they usually do, when stiff objects collide. Soft objects, like ships, damage each other a little. One-way crush down never occurs.

Stiff C has dropped on A from 3.7 m and has thus velocity v (down) = 8.52m/s at impact with A. After say 0.05 seconds contact with stiff A, stiff C is bouncing up with say velocity v(up) = -0.7 v(down) = -5.97 m/s. The total change in velocity is thus 14.49 m/s during 0.05 s corresponding to a deceleration/acceleration of 290 m/s² or 29.5 g that stiff C was subject to.

Say that C does not bounce up after impact but comes to rest on part A. Only elastic compression/damping takes place. Thus C v(up)=0 after impact. The change in velocity is just 8.52 m/s. Say that it took 0.028 s. The deceleration is thus 304 m/s² or 31g.

Luckily, this high g-force deceleration only lasted 0.028 s, so no damages to A and C took place. On molecular contact level in C and A there was hard work going on that nobody noticed. Actually all energy applied by C at impact was absorbed and converted into heat!

It is why this thread is so hot!

You have just made an argument AGAINST entanglement/friction causing arrest. You're saying that it never should have happened.

You are contradicting previous statements about how you feel the collapse should have arrested.

Are you now going to change your website to reflect that change?

You can't have it both ways either.

 

[Heiwa]

Heiwa even acknowledges this in his "entanglement" argument. There can be no "entanglement" unless the columns miss each other. Do you agree?

When C and A are composite structures of different elements like strong vertical columns and rather weak horizontal floors, then, when C, after a drop of 3.7 m and velocity 8.52 m/s, contacts A, a bounce may still take place!

Reason is that the strong elements do not damage the weak elements at contact, only elastic compression takes place, very big g-forces occur for a very short time, &c, but there are no failures.

If C and A are slightly misaligned at contact and failures take place, you can be certain that the stronger elements damage the weak ones. And then we have a lot of damaged weak elements to consider - the floors. They are still hanging on to strong elements - columns - and normally these 'half-damaged, hanging on' floor elements get entangled and what structural damage analysists call 'damage arrest' or 'destruction arrest' takes place.

As shown in below illustration:

This I have explained since 2007. Thanks for reminding me!

 

[ozeco41]

.....and anyone here who has a high speed camera could build a two story model with a weight at the top and remove the columns from the second story and prove the weight will decelerate when it impacts the first story columns. However, if the first story columns are removed also, the weight will not decelerate.

..nor would it decelerate if the weight missed the columns and broke the weaker floor connections which is what happened at WTC 1 & 2 with a few extra details...

This is what really happened in those towers

...not true and evidence shows some of it clearly, the rest not so clearly

and you can try and trick all the people you want, but anyone with a scientific background will see through your false argument.

..that is known in the trade as the pot calling the kettle black - and in this instance the kettle is shining, the pot is non-reflective.

....Bazant said there needed to be a jolt because that is the only way a statically insufficient load above can overcome a structure below, which is designed to support several times that load.

. Several issues there (1) We are discussing what happened - not defending Bazant NOR using him as an authority. I for one doubt what he says. Anyone who writes mathematical soup and verbal gobbledegook style automatically raises my suspicions ; (2) The actual two structures below hit by the falling were not "designed to support several times that load" whether simply static or with the dynamic impacts added. (a) The core was obviously weakened significantly with only the amount of weakening not readily assessable; (b) the floors of the outer tube were designed for one floor load not the total weight of ten floors of the whole structure falling with dynamic impact; AND (c) the outer tube columns took no part other than to hold the floor connections up to the force required for the shear failure.

Simply put your claim is wrong in several aspects - all fatal to the claim.

 

[Seymour Butz]

So you're saying - AGAIN - that the column on column scenario is wrong.

Let's see if Bill gets it or not.

 

[GlennB]

In perfect conditions the maximum temperature that can be reached by hydrocarbons, like jet-fuel, burning in air is 825°C (1520°F) ....

Rubbish. Plain factually wrong. Nul points. Fail.

There are so many ways to demonstrate the erroneous nature of this statement that it's frightening. That you might post this gibberish in public betrays the cosmic nature of your ignorance and gullibility quotient.

 

[Heiwa]

You have just made an argument AGAINST entanglement/friction causing arrest. You're saying that it never should have happened.

You are contradicting previous statements about how you feel the collapse should have arrested.

Are you now going to change your website to reflect that change?

You can't have it both ways either.

No, I just explained what happens at a bounce or 100% damping/arrest of C by A.

Anyway, bounce, jolt, entanglement - part C can never crush down part A. Topic is Why a one way Crush down is not possible. I just explain why!

It is nothing new. A one-way Crush down has never taken place on Earth. Ever.

 

[AndrewIlluminatus]

I've done the maths. It gave the right answer.
Dave

Put garbage into a maths model and you get garbage out. To even suggest that a definitive and accurate model could be made when there are so many unknown variables involved indicates to me that you are evidently mind-programmed to believe what you have been told to believe. Of course your calculations gave you the "right answer", especially if the maths variables that you used were suggested to your mind "by the authorities" in the first place. About 20% of any population of humans will readily believe what they are told to believe "by the authorities", through a kind of authoritarian suggestive hypnosis (they make excellent slave soldiers and IRS guys), but in the USA I estimate that it is probably closer to 70 or 80%. The USA is much more advanced in managing and controlling the minds and thoughts of the common masses. Pavlov made some extremely profound observations both on animals and on human beings. He found among other things that conditioning techniques applied to animals or humans in a state either of psychological or physical stress, such as during a terrorist "shock and awe" attack, sank in very deeply, into the mind-body of the creature, and were extremely difficult to get rid of.

 

[ozeco41]

What I really want to know is whether the 250 remaining clumns hnelt or if they collapsed straight down on themselves. The evidence i have shown here points to the second scenario. .

Naughty claim that bill.

You posted a video which clearly showed what you apparently dont want it to show. So Heiwa posts two graphics which blur the clarity of the video.

If I was a cynic I would wonder if your loyalty to Heiwa's nonsense outranks you loyalty to truth, facts and evidence. And your story changing within a few posts. Tsk Tsk

The top block, as shown in your video and in the non fogged versions of the pics posted by Heiwa fell inside the bottom block.

 

[Seymour Butz]

Anyway, bounce, jolt, entanglement

Which is it?

If it bounces/jolts and collapse halts then entanglement/friction never takes place.

You can't have it both ways.

Pick one.

 

[alienentity]

This I have explained since 2007. Thanks for reminding me!

Perhaps you also need to be reminded that the floors were also falling, not just the columns.

Your attempt to introduce false arguments on the points of contact fails.

Heiwa, you've got a severe case of ASDES*, and you're wasting everybody's time by rehashing the same discredited stuff ad nauseum.

Stop this madness.

*Attention Seeking Dead-Ender Syndrome

 

[bill smith]

Is thre any video hat shows block C falling and impacting block A ? If so we might be able to see the bending columns. Is here such a video or is the 'falling block' only theoretical ?

 

[Seymour Butz]

or is the 'falling block' only theoretical ?

It's theoretical. It's an simplified exercise to study energy available ONLY. It does not attempt to explain the actual workings of the collapse. Which then renders Tony's paper moot.

IMHO, Heiwa actually gets something right when he states that the columns can't "meet".

 

[bill smith]

Naughty claim that bill.

You posted a video which clearly showed what you apparently dont want it to show. So Heiwa posts two graphics which blur the clarity of the video.

If I was a cynic I would wonder if your loyalty to Heiwa's nonsense outranks you loyalty to truth, facts and evidence. And your story changing within a few posts. Tsk Tsk

The top block, as shown in your video and in the non fogged versions of the pics posted by Heiwa fell inside the bottom block.

Was the top block smaller then ? If not how did it fit inside block A ? Why did A not go inside C ? If it had would that have made any difference ?

 

[AndrewIlluminatus]

Rubbish. Plain factually wrong. Nul points. Fail.

There are so many ways to demonstrate the erroneous nature of this statement that it's frightening. That you might post this gibberish in public betrays the cosmic nature of your ignorance and gullibility quotient.

OK so when you conducted your experiments what temperature did you reach with jet fuel and did the temperature melt steel and keep it molten for weeks, as was reported at the WTC terrorist event?

 

[ozeco41]

So you're saying - AGAIN - that the column on column scenario is wrong.

Let's see if Bill gets it or not.

See my previous post. This "counter attack" is simply a move to swamp the debate. Keep calm - "They" are an alliance with differing models of false explanation. I will just keep plugging away with rational commentary and avoiding the ad homery which seems to be fashionable on this forum.

The issue under the microscope is the reality of how both towers collapsed.

The top block fell by wedging itself inside the outer tube. The floors failed in sequential pancaking under the overwhelming overload. Whatever the details of how the core collapsed it did not and could not resist with full strength.

"They" keep ignoring the reality that, for the initial collapse to start as it did the core and other columns of the impact zone had already failed.

Read that again - the core had already failed - and add "at the impact zone level" - to be clear.

Therefore the core columns were already bent and or buckled and that bending or buckling would propagate. There is simply no mechanism where a process of dynamic collapse of a column will revert to a properly braced column loaded to a design level of axial compression under a collapse stae caused by overload.

(As an aside the focus on one detail - ignore the sequence or context - is standard "truther" tactics.)

That is the dynamic reality which underpins the weakness of Tony and several others assumptions

The columns were already compromised. The ones already cut would not hit butt on butt. They already had torn ends to ensure no butt to butt contact. A ready made create your own eccentric load at best, glancing load or miss at worst.

 

[beachnut]

Is thre any video hat shows block C falling and impacting block A ? If so we might be able to see the bending columns. Is here such a video or is the 'falling block' only theoretical ?

http://www.debunking911.com/sag.htm

Oops the WTC fell due to fire; you are showing your lack of knowledge by posting delusions and supporting junk science of Heiwa and his pizza box engineering.

Now what is your scenario on how the WTC collapsed relative to the OP?

 

[alienentity]

Why is this thread, and all the others connected with Heiwa, a dead-end?

Because the conspiracy theory of controlled demolition is most likely unprovable by either physics, forensics or any other known method of investigation.

If we take the basic competing ideas:

a) WTC buildings collapsed due to plane impacts, debris impacts and large fires

or

b) 'THEY' did it by planting explosives/thermite or using Star Wars Beam Weapons


and suppose that 'b' is incorrect, (very likely), then NO AMOUNT of inquiry, accusation, investigation or tortured physics calculations can make it correct, given an INFINITE amount of time.

In other words, past a certain point, it accomplishes nothing but to waste time and effort, it re-injures the original victims and their families. It ultimately leads nowhere.

Hence it is a classic Dead-End. Led by contrarian attention seekers.

 

[bill smith]

It's theoretical. It's an simplified exercise to study energy available ONLY. It does not attempt to explain the actual workings of the collapse. Which then renders Tony's paper moot.

IMHO, Heiwa actually gets something right when he states that the columns can't "meet".

Very interesting. So given that it seems totally impossible that 250 colmns could all collapse straight down perhaps it did not happen at all ? Perhaps there WAS no block C. So how did the building fall top-down without a driving force ?

 

[alienentity]

OK so when you conducted your experiments what temperature did you reach with jet fuel and did the temperature melt steel and keep it molten for weeks, as was reported at the WTC terrorist event?

Where's the proof of molten steel? And can you supply me with a picture of the pools of molten steel, and the lab tests to show its composition?

Thanks in advance.

ps I take it you have read my post to you and that you accept your collapse scenario was false? Or are you just ignoring the facts and moving on to the next conspiracy talking point?

 

[ozeco41]

Was the top block smaller then ? If not how did it fit inside block A ? Why did A not go inside C ? If it had would that have made any difference ?

It wedged itself in there bill. Obvious with the tilted top block - the tiltedbit is already smaller. It doesn't matter wheter "C" forced "A" wider OR "A" forced "C" narrower. Or a bit of both.

Debating HOW it happened is pointless. The real fact is it did. Accept that point then look at all the "lets confuse the issue misdirection" and evasions some members are posting. Sure indication they dont want the argument down the path that the evidence suggests.

See the most obvious trick - "AndrewIlluminatus" attempts the derail into consideration of temperature. Far too unsubtle.

So stay focussed bill - it gets easier once you get the base mechanism of how it actually happened.

Block "C" started the descent of the "Global Collapse" by wedging itself inside the outer tube of Block "A".