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

Tony Szamboti said:
The core remnant that buckled and collapsed due to it's own weight was only composed of inner core columns with very possibly a great deal of damage done to the horizontal beams between the columns. It was also a much smaller plan area and much more susceptible to buckling.

I am not saying this to continue the argument as it needs to be looked at rigorously to fully prove. I don't think it is a silly problem and I am interested in it and I will do a rigorous approach when I have time.
Click to expand...

It's kind of a no-brainer. Without the perimeter, there's no way the core columns could stand without being laterally supported. And the core didn't have any elements that were capable of resisting lateral forces.

I'm not even sure where you're trying to go with this. But one thing is for certain, the method in which you used to try and calculate the compression strength of your imaginary tube is invalid. It doesn't fit the basic assumptions the equations you used require.
 
Tony,

Tony Szamboti said:
I suggest you write things down and develop a simple model as TFK seems to be starting to do.
Click to expand...

I wasn't sugesting this little exercise for my benefit...

The purpose is to show that, counter to one's intuition, any given piece of rubble trapped at the bottm of the upper bock ultimately delivers a GREATER impact load on the lower portion than it did in its original undamaged state.

it doesn't become less capable of inflicting damage as rubble. It becomes more so.

Tom
 
Heiwa said:
Just local failures. A bit of structure part C damaging a bit of part A. No one-way crush down of A by C.
Click to expand...

Heiwa, you wrote last week that you have the 1 million dollars.

I've asked you to provide some verification for that claim. You haven't done this.

I suspect you are a fraud. Prove me wrong and provide some documentation.
 
tfk said:
Tony,



I wasn't sugesting this little exercise for my benefit...

The purpose is to show that, counter to one's intuition, any given piece of rubble trapped at the bottm of the upper bock ultimately delivers a GREATER impact load on the lower portion than it did in its original undamaged state.

it doesn't become less capable of inflicting damage as rubble. It becomes more so.

Tom
Click to expand...

LOL! Trapped rubble delivers a GREATER impact load!! Can you describe this phenomenon in simple terms! I have a structure! I drop a piece, part C, of this structure on it, part A, a lower part. Big impact load! Does part C suddenly produce rubble, part B, that impacts part A, again, and again?
According Bazant, YES!
In my simple opinion part A first decelerates part C (the jolt) and then starts to locally damage part C. Part C has no chance to produce and rubble (B)) that starts impacting anything, incl. A.
But maybe I don't understand these things? So please, explain!
 
alienentity said:
Heiwa, you wrote last week that you have the 1 million dollars.

I've asked you to provide some verification for that claim. You haven't done this.

I suspect you are a fraud. Prove me wrong and provide some documentation.
Click to expand...

Did I? Anyway, you are off topic a bit. Prove my Axiom wrong, and we are in business.
 
bill smith said:
Personlly I am slow to call anybody a liar but in certain cases it definitely applies. If this ever comes on top the people I mention here will be among the first to be arrested. Les Robertson, Shyam Sunder, Mark Loiseaux, and John Lloyd. There are many others of course but these are prime among them.
Click to expand...
As you support the fraud of Heiwa and the zero evidence effort of support for woo from Tony, you can add me to the list of people you will round up when delusions rule.

When will you show your calculation to support Heiwa, or better yet the calculations of Heiwa supporting his own delusion?
 
Heiwa said:
LOL! Trapped rubble delivers a GREATER impact load!! Can you describe this phenomenon in simple terms!
Click to expand...

I sure can.

I claim that, dropped from the same height, a complex, 3 dimensional structure, like multiple stories of a building, (i.e., something that is not a solid block) will generate a HIGHER peak force in the components of whatever structure on which they fall AFTER the dropped parts have been broken up & compacted than they would generate in their original, "pre-broken" state. As compacted rubble, it will also deliver a higher pressure, resulting in a higher stress and more damage in the impacted part.

That's the bet.

Note: the argument that "the pressure & stress will be the same when the impacted part breaks" is not an out. This relates to the peak force & pressure that the two components are capable of delivering.

In the case of the towers, the above applies to the tower debris compacted into the mass at the bottom of the descending block (i.e., Part B as defined by Bazant), after the debris has been crushed down to, say, 10 - 20% of the components' original height.

Note also that I am specifically excluding the vertical columns (<10% of the debris by weight, according to Ulrich) from the second part (i.e., higher pressure) of this assertion. Due to their initially vertical position, they are quite effective as spears, delivering high pressures. But, in the case of the towers collapse, the assertion above stands for the 90+% of the rubble that is NOT the vertical columns. For the columns, the FORCE will be greater, per my assertion, but not the pressure.

Obviously this does not apply to any debris that is thrown clear of the towers' footprint.

And this effect is true regardless of impact velocity. That is, in the case of the towers, this effect does not leverage the increased velocity of descending upper mass.

And it does not depend on the fact that there is a bigger hammer (i.e., more debris & more weight) behind the debris as the tower descends.

Even tho both of the above conditions ALSO increase the force generated by any given block of debris as time goes by.

The simple matter is that you have been claiming all along that "once the upper structure gets turned into debris, then it cannot deliver a significant impact force to the lower mass. This is obviously true for any piece that gets thrown clear of the towers.

But for all the compacted debris that stays within the footprint of the towers, your assertion is false.

Would you care to make a wager.

We'll proceed like any published paper. I'll make my case. You get to make a rebuttal. I'll answer your rebuttal. We'll submit it to the judges.

The judges of the wager will be any of the mechanical engineers, structural engineers or physicists posting here. Excluding you & me.

The wager:

When you lose this wager (and you will), you will promise to answer ALL the questions that anyone puts to you for two weeks. Honestly & in detail. Without resorting to evasion OR "read my paper".

You know, you will be honor bound to behave for 14 FULL DAYS the way that all the Non-truthers behave every day...

What a risk...

Tom
 
Last edited:
So we know that the upper part C in WTC1 was in an advanced state of disintegration by the time it impacted the top of the lower 90% of the building as seen in the earlier proof.

Moving down the building to the impact zone as promised check this video out.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dtx_GcFCs6c&feature=channel_page Video analysis WTC1

Let the video get to 7 seconds and freeze it. Let it run to 8 secs and freeze momentarily. Then to 10 secs and freeze mementrily again. One more time to 12 secs and freeze. Click again and at 13 seconds watch as ALL the rubble across the whole width of the building starts to go down together. Up till then only the debris on the right - which is seen to behave something like a thick liquid- is streaming off the still more or less intact top of part A.
 
Bill, I know that you get distracted easily, but would you care to answer these very simple questions posed by Z?

Z said:
What is the mass of upper part C intact, versus upper part C as a collection of rubble?

Does the mass reduce because it's no longer intact?

Does the impact of that mass reduce because it's no longer in tact?

If I drop one 50-lb weight on your foot, will it do more or less damage than if I drop a pile of ten 5-lb weights?

Which will cause more damage to a house - having a 3-ton boulder dropped on it from 50 feet, or having 3 tons of sand dropped on it from 50 feet?
Click to expand...
 
bill smith said:
So we know that the upper part C in WTC1 was in an advanced state of disintegration by the time it impacted the top of the lower 90% of the building as seen in the earlier proof.
Click to expand...
.

LoL

What "earlier proof"...??

Tom
 
carlitos said:
Bill, I know that you get distracted easily, but would you care to answer these very simple questions posed by Z?
Click to expand...

If he had cleanly admitted that the upper part was in an advanced state of disontegration we could have gotten to that yesterday .As it is now we will have to deal with that when we get to it.
 
i think the term disintegration has confused bill
a massive part broke into smaller parts that weighed 10 to who knows how many tons

i dont know about you
but when something that weighs 10 tons (or more) falls from 10 feet its gonna do a hell of a lotta damage if its landing on something other than solid earth
 
Justin39640 said:
i think the term disintegration has confused bill
a massive part broke into smaller parts that weighed 10 to who knows how many tons

i dont know about you
but when something that weighs 10 tons (or more) falls from 10 feet its gonna do a hell of a lotta damage if its landing on something other than solid earth
Click to expand...

I think they believe it was something like "gradually pouring powder or sand onto the lower section". Kinda like saying an avalanche is harmless because it's made of fluffy snow... I... don't... think... they've... seen... what... an avalanche... can do. When a couple hundred thousand cubic feet of snow hits a person like a brick wall at 60 miles an hour
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom