Why a one-way Crush down is not possible

Status
Not open for further replies.
Heiwa said:
...However, if an element has two welded connections and a gravity force manages to destroy one, the same gravity force cannot destroy the second one. You need another gravity force to do the job ... and it does not exist.
Click to expand...
Utter nonsense.
If the connections are strength 1 and the weight falling under gravity is 5 it can break 2x1 at the same time OR 1 + 1 in sequence.

The falling mass at WTC 1 & 2 was many times the resisting capacity of the floor joist to column connectors to resist even if all had been impacted simultaneously.
 
ozeco41 said:
Utter nonsense.
If the connections are strength 1 and the weight falling under gravity is 5 it can break 2x1 at the same time OR 1 + 1 in sequence.
Click to expand...
I think Heiwa is actually saying that the gravity is "used up" or something... :boggled:
 
WildCat said:
I think Heiwa is actually saying that the gravity is "used up" or something... :boggled:
Click to expand...

Or it missed the chance! A moving gravity force may break one element in one location but it needs plenty of luck to break same elemnt in a second location. The force is probably somewhere else!

And that's Why a one-way Crush down .... .

But you can always believe otherwise.

Now tell, how do you do it with the religion? Or in original: , nun sag, wie hast du's mit der Religion?
 
Last edited:
Heiwa said:
Or it missed the chance! A moving gravity force may break one element in one location but it needs plenty of luck to break same elemnt in a second location. The force is probably somewhere else!
Click to expand...

It always is. That's why it's called cascading failure.
 
Heiwa said:
A broken weld connection between two elements, e.g. columns, is a valid failure and it may be produced by gravity.

However, if an element has two welded connections and a gravity force manages to destroy one, the same gravity force cannot destroy the second one. You need another gravity force to do the job ... and it does not exist.
Click to expand...
Are you seriously suggesting that the force of momentum from several free-falling floors would be dissipated/absorbed/whatever by the welds designed to support the static mass?
 
six7s said:
Are you seriously suggesting that the force of momentum from several free-falling floors would be dissipated/absorbed/whatever by the welds designed to support the static mass?
Click to expand...



Yes, I now believe that, although it seems impossible for an engineer to think such nonsense, this is what he is saying. I asked him several times to explain what stops the collapsing mass from smashing through each floor it encounters. He babbles incoherently and drifts away. But he clearly thinks that SOMETHING stops the downward momentum. It is obvious to everyone else that nothing could possibly arrest the collapse, but his views are set in stone and nothing can shake him loose from his errors.
 
FineWine said:
Yes, I now believe that, although it seems impossible for an engineer to think such nonsense, this is what he is saying. I asked him several times to explain what stops the collapsing mass from smashing through each floor it encounters. He babbles incoherently and drifts away. But he clearly thinks that SOMETHING stops the downward momentum. It is obvious to everyone else that nothing could possibly arrest the collapse, but his views are set in stone and nothing can shake him loose from his errors.
Click to expand...

I can only repeat: Now tell, how do you do it with the religion? Or in original: , nun sag, wie hast du's mit der Religion?
 
six7s said:
Are you seriously suggesting that the force of momentum from several free-falling floors would be dissipated/absorbed/whatever by the welds designed to support the static mass?
Click to expand...

There seems to be a lack of understanding of statics and dynamics. In wooland 10 lbs is 10lbs so if your structure can support 10lbs it can never be broken by that weight no matter what.

From this basic misunderstanding we get the top of the building bouncing or toppling off or getting stuck.
 
Heiwa said:
FineWine said:
Yes, I now believe that, although it seems impossible for an engineer to think such nonsense, this is what he is saying. I asked him several times to explain what stops the collapsing mass from smashing through each floor it encounters. He babbles incoherently and drifts away. But he clearly thinks that SOMETHING stops the downward momentum. It is obvious to everyone else that nothing could possibly arrest the collapse, but his views are set in stone and nothing can shake him loose from his errors.
Click to expand...
I can only repeat: Now tell, how do you do it with the religion? Or in original: , nun sag, wie hast du's mit der Religion?
Click to expand...
"He babbles incoherently and drifts away."

QED
 
tsig said:
There seems to be a lack of understanding of statics and dynamics. In wooland 10 lbs is 10lbs so if your structure can support 10lbs it can never be broken by that weight no matter what.

From this basic misunderstanding we get the top of the building bouncing or toppling off or getting stuck.
Click to expand...
I can hold a bullet in my hand, even toss it in the air and catch it.

So according to Heiwa, I could simply catch a bullet that somebody fires at me from a gun! No harm done...
 
tsig said:
There seems to be a lack of understanding of statics and dynamics. In wooland 10 lbs is 10lbs so if your structure can support 10lbs it can never be broken by that weight no matter what.

From this basic misunderstanding we get the top of the building bouncing or toppling off or getting stuck.
Click to expand...
So a CTist's House of Cards will never fall, huh?

 
WildCat said:
I can hold a bullet in my hand, even toss it in the air and catch it.

So according to Heiwa, I could simply catch a bullet that somebody fires at me from a gun! No harm done...
Click to expand...

Clearly not!! You used explosives. Glad you conceded CD.<insert words> there fore A cannot crush C!:)

Srsly I have looked as far as I can around that particular corner for that way lies madness.
 
tsig said:
There seems to be a lack of understanding of statics and dynamics. In wooland 10 lbs is 10lbs so if your structure can support 10lbs it can never be broken by that weight no matter what.

From this basic misunderstanding we get the top of the building bouncing or toppling off or getting stuck.
Click to expand...

Yes, something like that. Take eleven pieces of structure each 10 lbs and put them on top of each other. A nice tower of 11 pieces! The bottom one carries 100 lbs, 2nd from bottom 90 lbs ... and the top one 0 lbs. The ground carries 110 lbs. The bottom one seems pretty strong! And the ground ... not to forget.
Now remove the top one that carries nothing and drop it on the other 10 pieces. What happens?

Evidently the top one just bounces or gets destroyed by the stronger pieces below.

You do not seriously believe that the #11 top piece can one-way crush down 10 pieces below? And what about the ground? Will #11 top piece destroy that too?

Now tell, again, how do you do it with the religion? Or in original: (Heinrich) , nun sag, wie hast du's mit der Religion?*

*Who asks who, and why is this question relevant to many posters of this thread?
 
Last edited:
Heiwa said:
Yes, something like that. Take eleven pieces of structure each 10 lbs and put them on top of each other. A nice tower of 11 pieces! The bottom one carries 100 lbs, 2nd from bottom 90 lbs ... and the top one 0 lbs. The ground carries 110 lbs. The bottom one seems pretty strong! And the ground ... not to forget.
Now remove the top one that carries nothing and drop it on the other 10 pieces. What happens?

Evidently the top one just bounces or gets destroyed by the stronger pieces below.

You do not seriously believe that the #11 top piece can one-way crush down 10 pieces below? And what about the ground? Will #11 top piece destroy that too?

Now tell, again, how do you do it with the religion? Or in original: (Heinrich) , nun sag, wie hast du's mit der Religion?*

*Who asks who, and why is this question relevant to many posters of this thread?
Click to expand...


Your act is boring. You're wrong. It's as simple as that. The engineers here have explained to you why you're wrong, but you can't understand them. You disagree with the hundreds of highly qualified experts consulted by NIST. You keep raving about religion (whatever that has to do with building collapses) and nobody is fooled. You just don't know what the heck you're talking about.

The part of the building that initially collapses adds more and more mass as the collapse continues. Nothing can possibly arrest it. What don't you get?
 
Last edited:
Yes, something like that. Take eleven pieces of structure each 10 lbs and put them on top of each other. A nice tower of 11 pieces! The bottom one carries 100 lbs, 2nd from bottom 90 lbs ... and the top one 0 lbs. The ground carries 110 lbs. The bottom one seems pretty strong! And the ground ... not to forget.
Now remove the top one that carries nothing and drop it on the other 10 pieces. What happens?
Click to expand...

Why do you keep trying to model this with solid "floors". Pizza boxes, blocks etc have one thing in common. They don't fall apart into sections easily. This seems to be the main thing you don't get. Block 11 doesn't have to overcome ALL of Block 10, just a bit of it. Then Block 11 and the little bit of Block 10 overcome another little bit of Block 10 and so on until Block 10 is completely overcome and the falling mass starts on a little bit of Block 9..... Stop thinking of each floor as a solid object and instead think of each floor as a mass comprising of different materials which will seperate and not as a wooden or concrete block....

We all notice you continue to evade the question of how a sabot can destroy a tank many 1000s times it mass, why you can toss and catch a bullet but will fail to catch a fired bullet and what happens if you place a brick on your head vs dropping it into your head from 2 feet..... I wonder why that is?
 
PB2007 said:
We all notice you continue to evade the question of how a sabot can destroy a tank many 1000s times it mass, why you can toss and catch a bullet but will fail to catch a fired bullet and what happens if you place a brick on your head vs dropping it into your head from 2 feet..... I wonder why that is?
Click to expand...
Maybe, in a radical departure from conjecture-based conclusion jumping, Heiwa has finally adopted actual trials - beginning with the brick experiment
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom