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

[bill smith]

.

LoL.

As I said, "What proof?"

Please point at the proof that you are referring to.

It's as simple as copying a link from your post.

tk

Maybe later if you are a good boy.

 

[tfk]

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

.
Sometimes.

Two of us were doing Mt Whitney a bunch of years ago. Back side from the standard walk up. A long gully called "The Mountaineer's Route". Mixed rock, snow & ice. Started out a beautiful sunny, warm day. As we climbed, the sky clouded over, started to snow. By the time we got close to the top, it was a full on blizzard. Couldn't see 20'. St Elmo's fire leaping off of ice axe & crampons. Knee deep in powder on top of about 10' snow. We got to the summit cabin, spent about an hour waiting to see if it would let up. Eventually it did. Just a short intense dump that put about 3' of light powder on the mountain.

We started descending, now waist to chest deep powder. We had to pass thru about 4 avalanche chutes while traversing. We didn't bother roping up because... well because we were Young&Stupid, and it was easy. As long as you didn't lose it & take a 5000' ride down the chute. We were moving as fast as possible thru the 50 yard wide chutes, one at a time, and resting at the outcroppings between chutes. As I got to the middle, I heard a roar, looked up, and saw the avalanche bearing down. I had time to yell, burrow down and try make my projected area as small as possible. Just before the avalanche hit, I heard a loud distinctive "clang", felt about a 50 mph wind and grabbed onto my ice axe for all I was worth.

There was about 10 minutes (actually about 8-10 seconds) of distinct increasing, and then decreasing, pressure. About 50 pounds worth, it seemed at the time. And then silence.

Fortunately, it was too steep there for the snow to build up. It avalanched about 3 more times in the area while we were passing thru, but never over us. And the snow was so light & fluffy, that it didn't generate much force.

So we roped up (nice afterthought), and kept going.

Oh yeah, the most distinctive memory, that loud "clang"... That was my butt slamming shut in fear. Not the first, or last, time I came to recognize that sound.

What a great day.

Tom

 

[tfk]

Maybe later if you are a good boy.

.
All right.

Done with the games.

You have zero proof. You never offered a proof. You never even TRIED to offer a proof. You simply say it. And then say it again. And this is about the 5th time you've said it.

And there's still no proof. Never was. Never will be.

And when asked about it, instead of being honest, you start playing this game. Just like that OTHER insincere, evasive and deceptive person, Heiwa.

Is it a game that you think for a moment that you can win? By ANY definition of the word "win"??

tk

 

[FineWine]

From my paper:

When 33 000 tons of mass above in WTC1 falls down 3.7 metres due to gravity during and crushes all the columns abt 340 kWh (1.22 GNm) of potential, PE, or kinetic energy, KE, is produced by gravity force and a fair part of that energy is consumed to crush the columns. Let's assume that this event by gravity takes 5-6 seconds based on video clips (it should only take 0.8-0.9 seconds near free fall) and that there is a certain velocity when the upper part impinges the lower structure. In reverse - to first stop and second pull the upper block back up again you need a very big engine with power 204 000 kW that pulls up the mass above. Let's assume this engine is very effective and that you require 120 grams of diesel oil to produce 1 kWh. It means that 40 800 grams or 40.8 kgs of diesel oil is required to stop and pull the mass up again! It takes 6 seconds! It can be done. It shows how much energy was released when the top fell. 40.8 kgs of diesel oil.

Answers to all your questions are in my papers. Read them!

Your papers are worthless rubbish, written by an agenda-driven incompetent. You are unable to acknowledge that the collapsing floors that hit in rapid succession single floors, crushing them and adding them to the total collapsing mass, are the BIG part. You can run, but you can't hide.

 

[FineWine]

If I was Tony I would not become too involved in posting in the run up to the Hardfire debate. Anything that can be misconstrued and used against him will be. I would be preparing some 'surprises' if it was me because this show will be all about viewer perception. The debunkers may be concentrating more on making their opponents look like fools than anything else. Most viewers will likely not understand too much about the technicalities and will think that the side who appears most confident has won the debate. Thus a few 'surprises' up the sleeve could help to destabilise the debunkers and put the boot on the other foot.

I could be wrong about their approach but on he other hand forewarned is forearmed.

Bill, to you, a "surprise" is an incredibly stupid lie that gets exposed instantly and humiliates the person telling it. Tony Szamboti will be facing someone who knows a lot more than he does. Your coaching is the equivalent of an anvil tossed to a swimmer.

 

[FineWine]

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.

Your desperate lies won't save your sinking ship. The upper part of WTC 1 was not in "an advanced state of disintegration." Nobody thinks it was. Your incompetent guru has been exposed by real engineers. You know nothing at all.

That upper part, the collapsing floors, hits THE FLOOR IMMEDIATELY BELOW, NOT THE "REST OF THE BUILDING."

 

[FineWine]

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.

This stupid ploy is not working, Bill. No one believes you.

 

[twinstead]

That upper part, the collapsing floors, hits THE FLOOR IMMEDIATELY BELOW, NOT THE "REST OF THE BUILDING."

Even a non-engineer like me can understand this.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

That upper part, the collapsing floors, hits THE FLOOR IMMEDIATELY BELOW, NOT THE "REST OF THE BUILDING."

In other words, it's the local overloading of the structure that's important, not the impact on the overall structure. You don't even need to look at the floor behavior to understand this, it's clear from the behavior of the load bearing exterior columns as well.

 

[FineWine]

Even a non-engineer like me can understand this.

The deranged no-planers like to claim that the planes couldn't have penetrated the towers because they are so much smaller and lighter than the buildings. It's the same mad reasoning, the assumption that the plane hits the whole structure and not specific perimeter columns and windows. While Bill is hopelessly ignorant and unteachable, Heiwa is supposed to be an engineer. Yet, he tries to peddle the insane notion that the collapsing floors are arrested by the entire building. Is it possible that he suffers from a massive failure of conceptualization? Is it conceivable that he simply can't perceive that the falling mass crushes each floor in succession? I believe that he is a fraud, an agenda-driven charlatan like David Ray Griffin, but surely Grifter would have run away by now. Heiwa remains, carefully avoiding the questions that expose his fallacies and mindlessly chanting about his garbage papers.

 

[NobbyNobbs]

From my paper:

When 33 000 tons of mass above in WTC1 falls down 3.7 metres due to gravity during and crushes all the columns abt 340 kWh (1.22 GNm) of potential, PE, or kinetic energy, KE, is produced by gravity force and a fair part of that energy is consumed to crush the columns. Let's assume that this event by gravity takes 5-6 seconds based on video clips (it should only take 0.8-0.9 seconds near free fall) and that there is a certain velocity when the upper part impinges the lower structure. In reverse - to first stop and second pull the upper block back up again you need a very big engine with power 204 000 kW that pulls up the mass above. Let's assume this engine is very effective and that you require 120 grams of diesel oil to produce 1 kWh. It means that 40 800 grams or 40.8 kgs of diesel oil is required to stop and pull the mass up again! It takes 6 seconds! It can be done. It shows how much energy was released when the top fell. 40.8 kgs of diesel oil.

Answers to all your questions are in my papers. Read them!

1st of all, I can't understand why an engineer wouldn't stick to basic units. You've got tons, kWh, meters, and kg. So the first thing I've done is convert to mks.

Using your numbers,
33,000 tons = 3x10^7 kg
340 kWh = 1.224x10^9 J

PE converted to KE=mgh=3x10^7 x 9.8 x 3.7= 1.0878x10^9 J

So already, your math is off.

Then you say this process takes 5-6 seconds, according to video analysis. Which 5-6 seconds of which video are you referring to?

Finally, you are presumably figuring out how much of the KE was dissipated into heat by calculating how much diesel fuel it would take to lift the mass back into place. Assuming this is a legitimate method (a point I'm far from willing to grant), where did you get the figure of 204,000 kW?

 

[newton3376]

Sure thing, billy. And after you're done with your proof, you're going to put on your jammies & cape & fly into space to push aside the asteroid that is approaching the earth. And then have a nice evening with Lois Lane... Don't forget to wear your glasses so that she doesn't recognize you ...

LOL

I've been gone the last few days and haven't been checking the threads....

This comment brought tears to my eyes....freaking hilarious!

 

[FineWine]

Notice that when these clowns are asked to deal with the FACT that the collapsing floors crushed one floor at a time, they have absolutely nothing to say. Heiwa can't get away with chanting about his worthless paper, and Bill can't bray his usual off-the-wall idiocy.

There is no Big Part A, dolts. The floors were crushed in succession. A child could get the idea. Why can't you?

 

[alienentity]

Notice that when these clowns are asked to deal with the FACT that the collapsing floors crushed one floor at a time, they have absolutely nothing to say. Heiwa can't get away with chanting about his worthless paper, and Bill can't bray his usual off-the-wall idiocy.

There is no Big Part A, dolts. The floors were crushed in succession. A child could get the idea. Why can't you?

Now, if only you could convince Tony Szamboti of this fact, you'd be getting somewhere. Unfortunately this info seems to decelerate too gently to penetrate his cranium; I wish we could produce a bit more of an info 'jolt' to get his attention.

 

[Newtons Bit]

1st of all, I can't understand why an engineer wouldn't stick to basic units. You've got tons, kWh, meters, and kg. So the first thing I've done is convert to mks.

Using your numbers,
33,000 tons = 3x10^7 kg
340 kWh = 1.224x10^9 J

PE converted to KE=mgh=3x10^7 x 9.8 x 3.7= 1.0878x10^9 J

So already, your math is off.

Then you say this process takes 5-6 seconds, according to video analysis. Which 5-6 seconds of which video are you referring to?

Finally, you are presumably figuring out how much of the KE was dissipated into heat by calculating how much diesel fuel it would take to lift the mass back into place. Assuming this is a legitimate method (a point I'm far from willing to grant), where did you get the figure of 204,000 kW?

There's also no crane in the world capable of lifting this amount of weight. There's also no plant capable of generating 204,000KW. The two nuclear reactors on a Nimitz class carrier can generate this much power, but just barely, they'd both have to be at almost 100% capacity.

Of course, Heiwa says it can be "done". Just not by anything ever created.

 

[MIKILLINI]

Maybe later if you are a good boy.

Translation: I have no proof.

 

[MIKILLINI]

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.

Please explain advanced state, Bill. Are you talking of floor 98 or the whole block and was it advanced far enough to be unrecognizable or was it recognizable when it impacted floor 97?

 

[tfk]

There's also no crane in the world capable of lifting this amount of weight. There's also no plant capable of generating 204,000KW. The two nuclear reactors on a Nimitz class carrier can generate this much power, but just barely, they'd both have to be at almost 100% capacity.

Of course, Heiwa says it can be "done". Just not by anything ever created.

.
Well, there is.

This is 204 MegaWatts.

Typical large fission nuclear plants (San Onofre) generate between 1000 and 1400 MW.

But stringing all those power lines to the crane would be a bear...

So your point is solid.

Tom

 

[Heiwa]

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

Please, go ahead! Part C drops on part A and one-way crushes part A by gravity. While part C is one-way crushing A, part B develops and assists in the process. Big forces develop all the time. You can demonstrate that? I doubt it. But, go ahead. You are on topic!

 

[Heiwa]

1st of all, I can't understand why an engineer wouldn't stick to basic units. You've got tons, kWh, meters, and kg. So the first thing I've done is convert to mks.

Using your numbers,
33,000 tons = 3x10^7 kg
340 kWh = 1.224x10^9 J

PE converted to KE=mgh=3x10^7 x 9.8 x 3.7= 1.0878x10^9 J

So already, your math is off.

Then you say this process takes 5-6 seconds, according to video analysis. Which 5-6 seconds of which video are you referring to?

Finally, you are presumably figuring out how much of the KE was dissipated into heat by calculating how much diesel fuel it would take to lift the mass back into place. Assuming this is a legitimate method (a point I'm far from willing to grant), where did you get the figure of 204,000 kW?

Try using 33 000 tons = 3.3x10^7 kg, etc.