aggle-rithm
Ardent Formulist
...in any way that you can understand.
Why a one-way Crush down is not possible
- Thread starter Heiwa
- Start date
- Status
...in any way that you can understand.
twinstead
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2005
- Messages
- 12,374
Yea. I was curious, so I showed Mackey's posts to some engineer friends I have. To a man they had no major issues with it. Now of course to Heiwa this means nothing because I'm just some guy on the internet, but I just can't understand why he insists on implying the majority of the world's experts are totally wrong.
It smacks of total arrogance.
It smacks of total arrogance.
aggle-rithm
Ardent Formulist
Heiwa:
Please tell me if this is an accurate representation of the ideas from your web site:
Support C begins to fall at mass 14m.
When part C impacts part C, support elements move through the elastic phase and, if they deform enough, will break.
There are two possibilities: Supports in section C will break first, in which the mass of C is now 13m, or supports in section A will break first, in which the mass of C is now 15m.
Because this is a virtual model, broken supports are assumed to disappear.
Weaker supports cannot crush stronger supports. Crush-down is arrested when all supports in C are broken.
Please tell me if this is an accurate representation of the ideas from your web site:
Support C begins to fall at mass 14m.
When part C impacts part C, support elements move through the elastic phase and, if they deform enough, will break.
There are two possibilities: Supports in section C will break first, in which the mass of C is now 13m, or supports in section A will break first, in which the mass of C is now 15m.
Because this is a virtual model, broken supports are assumed to disappear.
Weaker supports cannot crush stronger supports. Crush-down is arrested when all supports in C are broken.
Last edited:
So let's settle for that a one-way Crush down (of a big part A by a small part C of same A by gravity alone - C is dropped on A) is not possible without observations and calculations. It is an axiom. The Björkman Axiom.
Actually, this is taught at every university of structura design andl analysis when crush-worthyness of structures are considered. The car industry is involved but also the ship building industry - my case. I can provide plenty of examples. Objective is to ensure that energy applied at impact is absorbed by the weak elements, friction, etc, etc.
The United Nations International Maritime Organization, IMO, thought for many years that when a ship A was hit by another ship C in collision, C always sliced A from bilge to deck, and the rules were based on that ignorant assumption. Nowadays (since say 1992), thanks to the better informed people including me, IMO has changed its opinion. Result? Better safety at sea. My business.
1. Yes, I assume, for the benefit of Bazant & Co, that C begins to fall = all supports between C and A are removed. It cannot happen, but I assume it in my paper.
2. So part C impacts part A (not C). Yes, elements of C and A in contact will deform and some may break.
3. ??? Not relevant. Just consider what element/connection is broken next.
4. Yes, you can assume that as long as you consider the associated energy that is "disappearing".
5. ??? Stronger elements will damage weaker elements at impact! Yes, a sledge hammer will easily crush a hen egg! Consider WTC 1 upper part C as a hen egg and the lower part A as something "stronger" than a hen egg and you are on your way to better understanding reality!
Please study my web page again and copy/paste anything you don't understand ... and I will explain.
Last edited:
Stop lying. You never explain because you are a dishonest incompetent.
Tell us why floor 97, the one with 13 floors falling on top of it, is the "stronger" element.
Time to send you running again. Your bubble-headed guru claims that only the bottom floor of thirteen collapsing floors hits the floor below. Why don't the top twelve floors add their mass and momentum to the impact? Do they really float harmlessly in midair?
Bye-bye, sucker.
You still have not understood? The part A columns, undamaged, between floors 96-97 would first damage floor 98 of the upper part C, then floor 99, then floor 100, etc. in a collision. This upper part C - thin floors 98-110 - has no chance versus the columns of of lower part A (floors 1-97).
It is quite simple - the stronger elements always destroy the weaker ones in a collision. That's why a one-way crush down of A by C assisted by gravity is not possible. A has stronger columns. Most C columns just miss A, if a collision really took place. But it didn't. C was blown apart before any 'impact'. You see it clearly on all videos. I explain it in my papers.
No need to get personal about this. It simply is like that. Why add personal insults to a friendly and lively discussion about a technical matter. You lack technical knowledge?!
Last edited:
You are a remarkably obtuse liar. The collapsing floors were not "blown away." They are clearly visible. Your papers are worthless, incompetent trash.
aggle-rithm
Ardent Formulist
Then why did you write this:
Next:
Do the question marks mean you disagree? If so, why did you write this:
Finally:
I don't see how. You don't appear to understand it yourself.
Last edited:
bill smith
Philosopher
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2009
- Messages
- 8,408
A metaphysical question Heiwa.
Do you think a layman can have enough innate technical knowledge to be able to be able to hold his own with a trained engineer in the 9/11 context ?
The answer is simple. A layman can easily hold his own with Heiwa because Heiwa is an obtuse incompetent flogging a mad political agenda. A layman doesn't know enough to discuss engineering with real engineers for the same reason a layman can't play chess with a grandmaster. Experts have hard-won knowledge that conduces to technical mastery. There are no shortcuts.
Your question reveals much, not that you or your muddle-headed guru would have any idea of what I'm alluding to. You used the oxymoronic phrase, "innate technical knowledge." There can be, of course, no such thing. Technical knowledge is acquired. Becoming an engineer requires hard work and, let's face it, the requisite intelligence level. You refuse to put any effort at all into learning, and by your own admission, you are extremely unintelligent.
bill smith
Philosopher
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2009
- Messages
- 8,408
You know what I meant.
Last edited:
That chess analogy is a good one. I play reasonable club level chess. I've even won a couple of prizes in local competitions. But a Grandmaster could thrash me with his eyes closed and I wouldn't even know what happened. We're not even playing the same game. I played in a simultaneous display against an International Master (a level below a GM) and he crushed me. I hadn't got a clue my position was so bad until it suddenly collapsed, rather like....The World Trade centre.
It's the same for all incompetents. We're full of ourselves, like Heiwa and co, and think we're holding our own, maybe even impressing a few people, all the while unaware of what total arses we're making of ourselves.
Last edited:
Yes! Anyone that for any reason believes that structures self-destruct from top down, e.g. because a government says so, will soon understand that it is not possible, when just explained what happens, when a part C drops on a part A of same structure = purpose of this thread.
It is quite interesting to note that none of the OCTists are capable to explain why a one-way crush down by gravity alone is not only possible but a normal event.
- Status