Moderated Continuation - Why a one-way Crush down is not possible

[bill smith]

What if "part C" was not required to remain intact in order to apply a sufficient dynamic load to the collapse interface to progress the collapse further down?

Do you accept the visible evidence in the video I posted that the upper part C was not intact or rigid in the sense Bazant meant ?

 

[aggle-rithm]

Do you accept the visible evidence in the video I posted that the upper part C was not intact or rigid in the sense Bazant meant ?

No one has ever claimed that Bazant's model was a 100% accurate reflection of reality. It was a MODEL that left out factors that would complicate equations needlessly if included.

He assumed a rigid mass because it had essentially the same effect as a disintegrating mass, and made the calculations a lot simpler.

Try to keep up. We've discussed this already.

 

[Heiwa]

What if "part C" was not required to remain intact in order to apply a sufficient dynamic load to the collapse interface to progress the collapse further down?

Axiom is about two parts C and A of identical strucure, where A carried C before and where C is then dropped on A by gravity ... and no one-way crush down of A takes place. Evidently no structure is rigid (not even a diamond) so we assume ordinary, normal structures.

As far as I am concerned, when two parts of identical structures collide in any direction, elements of both parts are locally damaged at the interface, i.e. both parts are affacted. According Bazant 'crush fronts' develop in both parts, whatever that means?

In my opinion, there is only one crush front and it it the interface between parts C and A. This interface changes as elements/connections of both parts are getting damaged.

According Bazant the 'crush front' crushing up part C stops after having crushed 1% of part C, while the 'crush front' crushing down part A continues through 100% of part A. Part A becomes rubble - part B - that is just all elements of part A compressed 4 times! All nonsense, of course.

In reality, as everybody knows, elements/connections in both parts A and C fail at contact C versus A (Bazant disagreeing and suggesting that detailed analysis is superfluous) and each failure transforms energy applied into heat.

The energy applied by C by gravity is limited and actually very small! And to break elements/connections require plenty of energy. So after a while all energy applied is consumed as local failures in the structures and transformed into heat. The collision and associated failures are then arrested.

There is no possibility that part C can continue to apply 'dynamic load' to 'progress the collapse' or anything like that. Part C is getting destroyd by part A.

That's why what we see of WTC 1 and 2 on 911 are controlled demolitions. Had the fires just weakened structural elements between parts C and A, allowing part C to displace down, part A would have stopped part C withinn one second. Only some more local failures would have taken place.

 

[rwguinn]

No one has ever claimed that Bazant's model was a 100% accurate reflection of reality. It was a MODEL that left out factors that would complicate equations needlessly if included.

He assumed a rigid mass because it had essentially the same effect as a disintegrating mass, and made the calculations a lot simpler.

Try to keep up. We've discussed this already.

Let's try this one last time, with an analogy:
You hit a baseball with a bat. The ball flies out toward the fence (You soccer (football? Futbal?) players have kicked the thing toward goal)
The ball itself is spinning, and deforming in numerous ways as it flies. It is far from actual rigidity, in itself. it is a dynamic entity, pulsating aand wobbling as it goes.
Yet, to determine the results of the action, we do not consider the local motions! We consider the ball as a point-a rigid body -- for the purposes of calculation of distance of flight, impact energy, maximum height of flight path.
We don't care what it is doing locally for the purposes of those calculations! That is rigid body motion!
BTW--The same thing, only more obvious, applies to, say, a thrown water balloon, a fired arrow, and just about anything in motion.

 

[tfk]

Bill,

This will be my last discussion with you on this subject. You have nothing to offer except ignorance & attitude.

You are welcome to to see if you can sucker someone else into a Perpetual Circle of Stupid.

You are even welcome to continue the insulting "Heiwa, why can't Tom explain this?" comments.

Allow me to answer that question right now:

"For the same reason that the Chihuahua cannot understand. The two of you possess about the same cognitive abilities. One MAJOR difference is that the Chihuahua is willing to TRY to learn. As proven by the fact that he has been house-broken. You have not, and I am frankly sick & tired of cleaning up the piles that you drop here constantly. Bjorkman can walk you from now on."

Good. Now I think that the concept of Bazant's rigid body' is completely clear to everybody.

.
It has been clear to everyone who has anything to offer the TECHNICAL discussion since freshman year in engineering school.

This concept is so simple that it has been clear to everyone with a functioning brain just about the FIRST time that it was explained. In my limited experience here, that would be just about everyone except you, Christopher7 & Heiwa. I'm sure that others could expand that list.

I have little doubt that it is STILL not clear to you.
.

Part C is considered to be a rigid block everywhere except at the point of contact where it is being damaged/eroded.

Whew...that was the long way round for such a simple thing. In fact it means almost the same in English as it does in Engineerese.

So the upshot is- correct me if I'm wrong- that if we can show by video evidence that Part C no longer conformed to the above definaition and that the upper portion had compacted by say 15% or more PRIOR to the collision with Part A that Bazant's 'rigid block' is unfrocked and disproven. Ruled out in short ?

....and we can discuss the implications of that a little later.

.

No, bill, we can NOT "discuss the implications a little later".

If I thought that you possessed the SLIGHTEST desire to actually learn something, then I'd put out the effort to explain this stuff. Two years of your annoying insincerity have taught me otherwise.

So this is where my explanations to you stop.

You've got your guru. Bug him. I don't accept petulant, arrogant, insulting, insincere or incompetent students. You're 0 for 5. That makes you PERFECT "Heiwa material".

Tom

 

[bill smith]

Bill,

This will be my last discussion with you on this subject. You have nothing to offer except ignorance & attitude.

You are welcome to to see if you can sucker someone else into a Perpetual Circle of Stupid.

You are even welcome to continue the insulting "Heiwa, why can't Tom explain this?" comments.

Allow me to answer that question right now:

"For the same reason that the Chihuahua cannot understand. The two of you possess about the same cognitive abilities. One MAJOR difference is that the Chihuahua is willing to TRY to learn. As proven by the fact that he has been house-broken. You have not, and I am frankly sick & tired of cleaning up the piles that you drop here constantly. Bjorkman can walk you from now on."


.
It has been clear to everyone who has anything to offer the TECHNICAL discussion since freshman year in engineering school.

This concept is so simple that it has been clear to everyone with a functioning brain just about the FIRST time that it was explained. In my limited experience here, that would be just about everyone except you, Christopher7 & Heiwa. I'm sure that others could expand that list.

I have little doubt that it is STILL not clear to you.
.

.

No, bill, we can NOT "discuss the implications a little later".

If I thought that you possessed the SLIGHTEST desire to actually learn something, then I'd put out the effort to explain this stuff. Two years of your annoying insincerity have taught me otherwise.

So this is where my explanations to you stop.

You've got your guru. Bug him. I don't accept petulant, arrogant, insulting, insincere or incompetent students. You're 0 for 5. That makes you PERFECT "Heiwa material".

Tom

Sorry about that T. But....life goes on.

 

[NobbyNobbs]

(A)The energy applied by C by gravity is limited and actually very small! (B)And to break elements/connections require plenty of energy. (C)So after a while all energy applied is consumed (D)as local failures in the structures and transformed into heat. The collision and associated failures are then arrested.

A. The energy "applied by C by gravity" (poor terminology--as an engineer you should have known to write "the gravitational potential energy of part C") is limited only by the mass of part C and the distance it falls. A dozen stories worth of office building does not release a "very small" amount. Have you calculated how much energy is released?

B. How much energy is "plenty"?

C. Energy is not "consumed". And what is the basis for your statement that all the energy is converted to heat?

D. What impact would those local failures have on the remainder of the structure?

 

[bill smith]

So...an important take-away message of today is that Bazant's theory that the upper part C in WTC1 was a 'rigid body' is definitively broken beyond repair. Let us never tolerate preposterous theories like that again.

 

[beachnut]

So...an important take-away message of today is that Bazant's theory that the upper part C in WTC1 was a 'rigid body' is definitively broken beyond repair. Let us never tolerate preposterous theories like that again.

What engineering school did you attend where you just make up lies and spew them about models you don't understand?

 

[aggle-rithm]

Axiom is about two parts C and A of identical strucure, where A carried C before and where C is then dropped on A by gravity ... and no one-way crush down of A takes place. Evidently no structure is rigid (not even a diamond) so we assume ordinary, normal structures.

As far as I am concerned, when two parts of identical structures collide in any direction, elements of both parts are locally damaged at the interface, i.e. both parts are affacted. According Bazant 'crush fronts' develop in both parts, whatever that means?

In my opinion, there is only one crush front and it it the interface between parts C and A. This interface changes as elements/connections of both parts are getting damaged.

According Bazant the 'crush front' crushing up part C stops after having crushed 1% of part C, while the 'crush front' crushing down part A continues through 100% of part A. Part A becomes rubble - part B - that is just all elements of part A compressed 4 times! All nonsense, of course.

In reality, as everybody knows, elements/connections in both parts A and C fail at contact C versus A (Bazant disagreeing and suggesting that detailed analysis is superfluous) and each failure transforms energy applied into heat.

The energy applied by C by gravity is limited and actually very small! And to break elements/connections require plenty of energy. So after a while all energy applied is consumed as local failures in the structures and transformed into heat. The collision and associated failures are then arrested.

There is no possibility that part C can continue to apply 'dynamic load' to 'progress the collapse' or anything like that. Part C is getting destroyd by part A.

That's why what we see of WTC 1 and 2 on 911 are controlled demolitions. Had the fires just weakened structural elements between parts C and A, allowing part C to displace down, part A would have stopped part C withinn one second. Only some more local failures would have taken place.

You've never given me a satisfactory answer to this. You simply ran away and came back a few days later, pretending it never happened.

How does your "axiom" explain the Balzac sur Vitry demolition, in which part C clearly crushes part A to the ground?

 

[MIKILLINI]

Sorry about that T. But....life goes on.

Even if you remain ignorant, Bill, life does go on.

 

[Heiwa]

A. The energy "applied by C by gravity" (poor terminology--as an engineer you should have known to write "the gravitational potential energy of part C") is limited only by the mass of part C and the distance it falls. A dozen stories worth of office building does not release a "very small" amount. Have you calculated how much energy is released?

B. How much energy is "plenty"?

C. Energy is not "consumed". And what is the basis for your statement that all the energy is converted to heat?

D. What impact would those local failures have on the remainder of the structure?

A. Yes of course, see my paper! (mass times height times g (J)).
B. In this case much more than the gravitational potential energy of part C.
C. Well, to produce a failure of a structural element/connection you need to apply energy, in this case only gravitational potential energy. The result is that the gravitational potential energy is transformed into heat; the broken elements/connections get warm.
D. The local, initial structural failures evidently provide a new interface between parts C and A (both damaged) where more local failures may develop in both parts C and A as long as gravitational potential energy is available. Under no circumstances (Bazant objecting, of course, as he considers it superfluous) can the failures be limited to only one structure - part A - leaving the other structure - part C - intact, as both structures are identical.

 

[Heiwa]

How does your "axiom" explain the Balzac sur Vitry demolition, in which part C clearly crushes part A to the ground?

The Balzac sur Vitry destruction is a controlled demolition. A big section of part A is first demolished by external means, part C drops, and when what remains of part A contacts dropping part C, part A still destroys part C. Needs clever planning, though.

 

[tfk]

So...an important take-away message of today is that Bazant's theory that the upper part C in WTC1 was a 'rigid body' is definitively broken beyond repair. Let us never tolerate preposterous theories like that again.

"Son of Stupid Rides Again...!"

 

[triforcharity]

The Balzac sur Vitry destruction is a controlled demolition. A big section of part A is first demolished by external means, part C drops, and when what remains of part A contacts dropping part C, part A still destroys part C. Needs clever planning, though.

INSTA-GOALPOSTS STRIKES AGAIN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


You must have the setup of those things down to a science!!

 

[tfk]

The energy applied by C by gravity is limited and actually very small! And to break elements/connections require plenty of energy. So after a while all energy applied is consumed as local failures in the structures and transformed into heat. The collision and associated failures are then arrested.

.
Show your numbers for BOTH of these. (No reference to paper, please.)

A. Energy required to disassemble ...

Floor 98: ___
Floor 97: ___
Floor 96: ___

... sufficiently for collapse to continue?

Please EXPLAIN carefully how you reached these numbers.
____

B. Kinetic Energy content in falling mass just as it is about to strike:

Floor 98: ___ ?
Floor 97: ___ ?
Floor 96: ___ ?

You don't have to explain these numbers.
___

There is no possibility that part C can continue to apply 'dynamic load' to 'progress the collapse' or anything like that. Part C is getting destroyd by part A.

I drop a car (2 tons) on top of you from 10' high. You are dead.

I pick up the piece of the car (2 tons, in pieces) and drop them on bill. Is bill dead? Or does he walk away?

By what bit of lunacy do you state that 10,000 tons of metal & concrete loses it's ability to crush something onto which it falls because it has itself been changed from a building into a pile of rubble?

Tom

PS. I offered you a wager based on your video. No response?

 

[Mr.Herbert]

INSTA-GOALPOSTS STRIKES AGAIN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
You must have the setup of those things down to a science!!

Heiwa's Portable Goal Posts !

 

[BasqueArch]

Originally Posted by aggle-rithm
How does your "axiom" explain the Balzac sur Vitry demolition, in which part
C clearly crushes part A to the ground?

The Balzac sur Vitry destruction is a controlled
demolition. A big section of part A is first demolished by external means,
part C drops, and when what remains of part A contacts dropping part C, part
A still destroys part C. Needs clever planning, though.

HEIWA'S AXIOM PROVEN FALSE DESPITE PROPONENT'S INSOUCIANT HANDWAVING BLITHE GOAL POST MOVING.

These French know their structures.
ABC Balzac Vitry Demolition.

1. Demolition without explosives.

2. No explosives sounds.

3. From photos, construction is load bearing precast concrete walls, poured
in place floor/wall connections. First floor are poured in place concrete
columns and beams.

4. Hydraulic jacks inside push one floor sideways.

5. Part C top crushes Part A to bottom, disproving Heiwa's Axiom: "Axiom is
about two parts C and A of identical strucure, where A carried C before and
where C is then dropped on A by gravity ... and no one-way crush down of A
takes place."

5. "Pyroclastic" concrete clouds formed without explosives.


" On the site of the Val-de-Marne, an officer explains the method of
demolition:
According to Daniel Rieber, driver of the work:
It is a so-called demolition by "verinage." The use of the hydraulic
cylinders that are operated remotely by an operator who can move the upper
part of the building laterally. Once it is out of its center of gravity, the
top goes down to the bottom and the building will collapse on itself down "

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=syzKBBB_THE

HEIWA GIVE AGGLE-RITHM THE MONEY !​

 

[aggle-rithm]

The Balzac sur Vitry destruction is a controlled demolition. A big section of part A is first demolished by external means, part C drops, and when what remains of part A contacts dropping part C, part A still destroys part C. Needs clever planning, though.

It also completely invalidates your theory.

You said that ANY structure of ANY kind is invulnerable to this type of collapse. Sand castle, house of cards, it makes no difference. That INCLUDES a structure that has been weakened in preparation for controlled demolition.

It also demonstrates beyond a shadow of a doubt that even a destroyed section C can cause section A to collapse. Section A doesn't "know", or care, whether the great mass falling on it is an intact structure or not.

If you qualify it by saying it applies only to structures that are capable of surviving a top-down collapse, then, of course, your axiom is true. It's also meaningless.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

It also completely invalidates your theory.

You said that ANY structure of ANY kind is invulnerable to this type of collapse. Sand castle, house of cards, it makes no difference. That INCLUDES a structure that has been weakened in preparation for controlled demolition.

It also demonstrates beyond a shadow of a doubt that even a destroyed section C can cause section A to collapse. Section A doesn't "know", or care, whether the great mass falling on it is an intact structure or not.

If you qualify it by saying it applies only to structures that are capable of surviving a top-down collapse, then, of course, your axiom is true. It's also meaningless.

The Balzac-Vitry demolition was not a one-way crush down, where the upper block completely crushes the lower block and then crushes itself on the rubble pile of the lower block. In this case the upper block was being destroyed at the same time as the lower block. It would be more appropriately called simultaneous crush-down/crush-up.

It does not contradict Anders Bjorkman's criteria where he explains that 1/10th of the structure could not crush down 9/10th's of a structure. The point Anders is making is that the smaller upper portion would be destroyed before it got through much more of the lower structure than it's own size, and it would lose it's ability to pulverize at that point.

In the case of the Balzac-Vitry building the upper and lower block's were nearly equivalent in size and strength. If the lower block had been 9 times taller, and proportionately stronger as it descended, than the upper block, it is extremely unlikely that a complete crush down would have occurred.