Tony Szamboti
Illuminator
- Joined
- Jun 2, 2007
- Messages
- 4,976
I doubt that you are an engineer. You never involve yourself in technicalities.
Why a one-way Crush down is not possible
- Thread starter Heiwa
- Start date
- Status
I doubt that you are an engineer. You never involve yourself in technicalities.
No matter what my numbers are, they won't suddenly cause your incompetence, lies, and mistakes to evaporate.
For the third time, assume that I am completely in accord with the BLGB paper, and work from there.
You should be learning, not arguing, so I conditionally agree.
Your technical errors are glaring to the engineers here. They have corrected you repeatedly. You made the absurd claim that the war on terror is somehow an invention of Dick Cheney (why Cheney?), which implies that Islamist terrorists had not been attacking American interests for the decade before Bush became president. America has stolen nobody's resources. That obvious fact remains true despite your agenda-driven myths. So, for you, it's all about politics.
Hokulele
Deleterious Slab of Damnation
Judges also would have accepted "start with understanding the correct reason why there's no jolt," but a little extra clarity never hurt.
Heh. The whole concept of a "Missing Jolt" was starting to bother me. It is almost identical to a Creationist's use of the term "Missing Link", implying that it should have been there, and that there is something fishy about the lack of one. In reality, you can't "miss" what never should or would have existed in the first place.
Tony, please go on record as acknowledging that Heiwa's reaction to the ASCE journal's inevitable rejection of his nonsense-physics will be as follows: he will rave incoherently and accuse all the real engineers of being shills and religious fundamentalists. Acknowledge for the rest of us that you understand that there is no--zero--chance of the ASCE journal taking seriously his mad garble of basic physics. Your own credibility as an engineer is in tatters. You suffer from the "truther" disease, an inability to take a backward step and admit any degree of error. Start the repair work by acknowledging that Heiwa is completely wrong about everything.
It is certain that Heiwa will learn absolutely nothing from his smackdown by the real engineers at the ASCE journal. How about you?
It is certain that Heiwa will learn absolutely nothing from his smackdown by the real engineers at the ASCE journal. How about you?
AZCat
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Feb 6, 2007
- Messages
- 1,672
Considering your track record on engineering issues, I'm not bothered at all by your opinion or your lies.
tsig
a carbon based life-form
- Joined
- Nov 25, 2005
- Messages
- 39,049
delete
Last edited:
The material, size and particulars of the elements (and connections) in the structures A and C are same and you can chose any types. As part C is smaller than part A, part C cannot apply sufficient energy on part A without destroying itself! Thus a one-way crush down of part A by part C is not possible under any circumstances.
You are kindly requested to demonstrate the opposite if you can.
Evidently, the application of kinetic energy by part C on part A must also be associated with a deceleration of the intact elements of part C away from interface C/A. This deceleration may cause a 'bounce' (no element failures, just elastic deformations and part C moves up) or element failures. In the latter case part A structure soon arrests the part C. In both cases all or part of the applied energy is transformed into elastic deformations.
Last edited:
The basic error of the BLGB paper and its 1-D theory is the assumption that upper part C is rigid. Evidently any part of a real structure cannot be rigid!
funk de fino
Dreaming of unicorns
Like read the NIST reports fully.
Can't help but notice here that Szamboti is requiring Mackey to provide an exhaustive Finite Element Model for WTC1, otherwise he'll apparently throw a hissy fit and take his ball home. I recall that current state-of-the-art FEM is way way short of being able to do that. The Bazantian monolithic axial impact model is amenable to analysis, however, so - according to him - this is the only way we may look at the issue. Conveniently for Szamboti this will produce the 'jolt' he lives for.
Szamboti's technique here is similar to the Pentagon truthers who demand to see a clear video of AA77 hitting the building, otherwise the truth of the matter will always be open to debate. It can't be done, of course, as no such video exists.
Psychologically, what's happening here seems to be a variation on the "poisoning the well" logical fallacy. Szamboti has poisoned this particular well by insisting on impossible conditions in advance. He has created a personal reality where his position is by his own definition invulnerable, but doesn't realise it. An irreducible delusion in action.
Last edited:
aggle-rithm
Ardent Formulist
Semantic gobbledy-gook. Destroyed or not, the upper portion can still have the momentum to destroy the lower portion.
Now, if your theory is, "it's impossible for anything other than a solid object to destroy another solid object", then it may actually mean something. However, there are thousands of examples that prove that theory wrong.
Think floods, tsunamis, and hurricanes.
Justin39640
Illuminator
- Joined
- May 22, 2009
- Messages
- 4,202
this ones for you heiwa
i have been messing around with the 3D modeling software - blender (open source) and its game engine (physics engine)
so i decided to model the "Heiwa Challenge"
and low and behold HES RIGHT! (well at least on my model)
the building does bounce a little too
but
unfortunately for mr Heiwa
my models have the benefit of living in a clean simple world
the column supports are unable to be broken or deformed and its falling in a vacuum
in a real world drop like this, undoubtedly columns WILL deform
pretty much this model shows that you dont care for those silly lil things called variables
ive only been messing with this program a few days
so i will probably come back with a model that better represents the topics at hand
i have been messing around with the 3D modeling software - blender (open source) and its game engine (physics engine)
so i decided to model the "Heiwa Challenge"
and low and behold HES RIGHT! (well at least on my model)
the building does bounce a little too
but
unfortunately for mr Heiwa
my models have the benefit of living in a clean simple world
the column supports are unable to be broken or deformed and its falling in a vacuum
in a real world drop like this, undoubtedly columns WILL deform
pretty much this model shows that you dont care for those silly lil things called variables
ive only been messing with this program a few days
so i will probably come back with a model that better represents the topics at hand
newton3376
The Truth Movement.....still not at 1%
- Joined
- May 16, 2009
- Messages
- 1,320
Some of the things I am reading in this thread are just incredible.....
I'm just a lowly electrical engineer so discussions of structural engineering, collapse dynamics, etc are technically out of my field of expertise.....but even I can see the idiocy of what some of you truthers are saying...
So the material, size, and particulars of the elements and connections are the same....so what?
Let me get this straight....you are saying that because part C is smaller than part A then part C can only supply sufficient energy on part A (to "destroy" part A and cause a collapse and structural failure) if part C "destroys" itself?
So your argument against a gravity driven collapse that causes eventual failure (of course the failures would be local and not global....part C doesnt impact and cause failure to EVERY SINGLE section of part A instantly) is that "one of the sections is smaller than the other"?
Thats your argument? Its smaller? So because the over all section is smaller it therefore CANT supply sufficient energy?
That seems just a *tad* bit silly.....
Why does deceleration have to cause a "bounce" and not simply cause a.....well.....DECELERATION?
You seem to be assuming that it MUST bounce and that it must also not cause ANY element failures....
Lets say we have a "target" and a "bullet" made of the same material....arent you essentially saying that the bullet MUST bounce because...
A. Its smaller than the "target"
B. They are made of the same material
Cant the bullet still penetrate the material and simply slow down because of the initial impact?
I just don't get how you justify these assumptions you are making.....it seems strange to me....
But maybe I am completely wrong here and out of my element cause Im just an EE....someone correct me if I am way off base here.
I'm just a lowly electrical engineer so discussions of structural engineering, collapse dynamics, etc are technically out of my field of expertise.....but even I can see the idiocy of what some of you truthers are saying...
So the material, size, and particulars of the elements and connections are the same....so what?
Let me get this straight....you are saying that because part C is smaller than part A then part C can only supply sufficient energy on part A (to "destroy" part A and cause a collapse and structural failure) if part C "destroys" itself?
So your argument against a gravity driven collapse that causes eventual failure (of course the failures would be local and not global....part C doesnt impact and cause failure to EVERY SINGLE section of part A instantly) is that "one of the sections is smaller than the other"?
Thats your argument? Its smaller? So because the over all section is smaller it therefore CANT supply sufficient energy?
That seems just a *tad* bit silly.....
Why does deceleration have to cause a "bounce" and not simply cause a.....well.....DECELERATION?
You seem to be assuming that it MUST bounce and that it must also not cause ANY element failures....
Lets say we have a "target" and a "bullet" made of the same material....arent you essentially saying that the bullet MUST bounce because...
A. Its smaller than the "target"
B. They are made of the same material
Cant the bullet still penetrate the material and simply slow down because of the initial impact?
I just don't get how you justify these assumptions you are making.....it seems strange to me....
But maybe I am completely wrong here and out of my element cause Im just an EE....someone correct me if I am way off base here.
.
What utter claptrap.
EVERY "simplifying assumption" used in modeling is inherently untrue.
For example, neglecting air resistance in low velocity phenomena is a simplifying assumption. So is a linear approximation of a non-linear function.
So is the simplifying assumption of the upper part as a "rigid body".
Both of these are fundamentally untrue. But the error that they introduce to the answer to the specific question you are asking is small.
The fact that you indulge in sophistry like this comment, Heiwa, is just one clear example of your a) incompetence, 2) deceitfulness or iii.) both.
___
In addition, YOUR assertion of what is meant by a "rigid body" is simply a lie, Anders. It is NOT a mistake, because it's been explained to you a dozen times here.
To competent engineers, "rigid body" does not mean "indestructible". Bazant is a competent engineer. Ergo, he does not believe that his use of the term "rigid body" implies indestructibility.
You, on the other hand, have repeated implied, and perhaps even said literally, that "rigid body means indestructible".
There are three possible explanations for this persistent sophistry.
a) You are incompetent.
2) You are deceitful.
iii) You are both.
Care to "pick an alphanumeric between a & iii", Anders?
tom
Grizzly Bear
このマスクに&#
- Joined
- May 30, 2008
- Messages
- 7,963
Heiwa's most fundamental error by far is that size is literal; the relationship between weaker and stronger is directly contingent upon size and applicant to every case. Unless he understands that his overall assertion is wrong, explaining even rudimentary material won't cure him of his incompetence, or his deceitfulness, heiwa's been here long enough that had he the capability to understand this in the first place he would have understood this a long time ago.
Last edited:
No, if the assembly of elements of the upper part are similar to the lower part, except that the lower part previously carried the upper part and thus was slightly stronger, then the upper part can never have the momentum to destroy the lower part.
There is not one example of a structure where an upper part C can one-way crush down the lower part A (C = 1/10 A) when dropped on A by gravity.
Floods, tsunamis or hurricanes have nothing to do with a part C dropping on a part A by gravity.
Part C has simply less elements connected to one another than part A = C is smaller than A.
This means that part C can absorb less strain energy (elastic deformation) and plastic energy (plastic deformation) and requires less energy to be ripped apart (failures) than part A.
When part C applies its energy on part A, it is in the form of forces that displace elements in part A and produce elastic and plastic deformations and failures in A. However, part A - assisted by ground, applies the same forces on part C and thus produces elastic and plastic deformations and failures in C.
That's to begin with. So after a while part C is heavily damaged after the collision C/A, if the energy was sufficient to start with. Next step is what damaged part C can do later! Can it continue to one-way crush down part A? The answer is no.
If you do not agree, go to The Heiwa Challenge thread and demonstrate your belief with a suitable structure.
Hm, there is no need whatsoever to introduce a simplifying assumption that upper part C is rigid (and lower part A is not), in a 1-D theory of two structures (linear chains with material points?) C and A colliding. You evidently have to treat both parts C and A equally, e.g. as assemblies of material points/elements connected by springs or whatever (that can absorb energy as deformation or failure).
And then do your calculations how the material 'points' displace and what happens to the connections at impact C/A.
You will find that the material points in part C displace relative each other, i.e. part C is not rigid. In a rigid structure no elements displace relative any others and it is not the case in subject topic.
If Bazant or BLGBG or Seffen or Mackay is so clever that you suggest, Bazant & Co should of course do a proper theory where the elements in the upper part are free to displace with regard to one another. The result will be that upper part C cannot one-way crush down lower part A.
Last edited:
newton3376
The Truth Movement.....still not at 1%
- Joined
- May 16, 2009
- Messages
- 1,320
Good....you at least defined what you actually mean by "smaller"....
Thats a start....
I assume "part A" means "the entire structure below part C" since you are dividing the structure into areas below and above the area that collapses.
So if you are saying that the entire area above the impact zone can absorb less energy than the entire area below the impact zone then I would say that my gut reaction is to agree using the structure as a whole......
This is where there I have some issues with what you are saying....
It seems to me that you are applying Newtons third law in a rather peculiar way...
1. You seem to be using the entire structure "A" instead of the actual contact points that "C" would be applying forces to....
By doing this you seem to be implying that instead of causing local structural damage to A at the points of contact, that "C" should be causing some kind of global damage to the entire structure of "A".
2. You seem to be assuming that the "deformations" in "A" and "C" will necessairly be of the exact same nature....
If "C" has already "broken free" and is essentially falling and the contact points for "A" are still attached to the rest of the structure then why would the "deformation" in both be exactly the same? Why couldnt the "deformation" in "A" consist of structural points being "deformed" to the point of breaking?
This statement seems to assume that "C" just goes straight through without any additional material breaking off and adding to the original "C". If "C" breaks structures to the point of failure as it falls then what prevents those pieces from also falling and causing additional damage themselves?
- Status