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

tfk said:
The Wager:
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.



Tom
Click to expand...

OK, a complex, 3D, composite structure is dropped. Let's call it part C. It impacts whatever (!) structure. Let's assume it is same structure as C and that we call it part A. Part A carried part C before. Part C is now dropped on part A.

Then you talk about 'dropped parts have been broken up' (???) I assume you mean that part C is subject to local failures, when it impacts part A. Right?

Reason for this is that part A has applied dynamic force/energy on part C when C contacted A or A contacted C (same thing). This force damages elements in C.

Evidently this dynamic force A on C is greater than the static force that A applied on C before. But the dynamic force is of very short duration! It is a function of energy applied and distance of displacement of broken elements/connections.

Then you suggest that 'compacted rubble' exist. Let's call it part B. Sorry! No compacted rubble will develop when C impacts A. Only locally failed elements in C (and A of course) will develop, and the damaged elements will either be attached to A and C, or, in the case of C, drop off outside the structure.

The wager seems to be that part B will deliver 'a higher pressure' on part A and produce local failures in part A or a one-way crush down.

Sorry, part B does not exist and cannot be created by C and/or A at impact and can therefore not produce any forces or apply any energy on either A or C.

Suggest you look at the problem in 1D and regard parts C and A as chains of material points connected by potentials (springs). You will then realize that no new, compacted chain - part B - of material points without potentials will suddenly pop up in your model.
 
Heiwa said:
OK, a complex, 3D, composite structure is dropped. Let's call it part C. It impacts whatever (!) structure. Let's assume it is same structure as C and that we call it part A. Part A carried part C before. Part C is now dropped on part A.

Then you talk about 'dropped parts have been broken up' (???) I assume you mean that part C is subject to local failures, when it impacts part A. Right?

Reason for this is that part A has applied dynamic force/energy on part C when C contacted A or A contacted C (same thing). This force damages elements in C.

Evidently this dynamic force A on C is greater than the static force that A applied on C before. But the dynamic force is of very short duration! It is a function of energy applied and distance of displacement of broken elements/connections.

Then you suggest that 'compacted rubble' exist. Let's call it part B. Sorry! No compacted rubble will develop when C impacts A. Only locally failed elements in C (and A of course) will develop, and the damaged elements will either be attached to A and C, or, in the case of C, drop off outside the structure.

The wager seems to be that part B will deliver 'a higher pressure' on part A and produce local failures in part A or a one-way crush down.

Sorry, part B does not exist and cannot be created by C and/or A at impact and can therefore not produce any forces or apply any energy on either A or C.

Suggest you look at the problem in 1D and regard parts C and A as chains of material points connected by potentials (springs). You will then realize that no new, compacted chain - part B - of material points without potentials will suddenly pop up in your model.
Click to expand...



We're really sick of this crapola, Heiwa. The collapsing floors are the BIG PART. The single floors they crush in succession are the SMALL PART.

You can run, but you can't hide.
 
FineWine said:
We're really sick of this crapola, Heiwa. The collapsing floors are the BIG PART. The single floors they crush in succession are the SMALL PART.

You can run, but you can't hide.
Click to expand...

What floors are you talking about? Do they belong to small, upper part C or big, lower part A? Or rubble part B that does not exist??? And why should they collapse at all? Are you a supporter of the pan cake theory? NIST isn't.

NIST suggests that part C applies potential energy on part A and that part A cannot absorb that energy because part A is too weak = global collapse ensues. That's the OCT! In this thread we have advanced a little! It seems that everybody here now agrees that part A applies energy on small, weak, upper part C that is subject to local failures. The local failures in small, weak, upper part C absorbs a lot of energy and ... arrest should soon follow.

You know, topic is 'Why a one-way Crush down is not possible' and small, weak upper part C breaking up is one reason for that.

But thanks for your post anyway.
 
Heiwa said:
Then you suggest that 'compacted rubble' exist. Let's call it part B. Sorry! No compacted rubble will develop when C impacts A. Only locally failed elements in C (and A of course) will develop, and the damaged elements will either be attached to A and C, or, in the case of C, drop off outside the structure.
Click to expand...

How would fractured floor pans made of steel + reinforced concrete "drop off outside" ?
 
GlennB said:
How would fractured floor pans made of steel + reinforced concrete "drop off outside" ?
Click to expand...

From another post of mine in another thread - before even the floors are damaged by C dropping on A:

"Now we are going to remove all columns, one after the other, between parts C and A (so we can drop C on A).

Let's say we first remove one centre, the middle one, perimeter wall column in one wall. No problem - there is redundancy enough.

Then we remove the two adjacent perimeter wall columns of the first removed column. What happens? Well, it is a possiblity that the middle perimeter wall column above (and its local loads) will drop down to ground, the spandrels above connected to the middle perimeter column shear off, unless the floor trusses (and the hat truss!) above can pull it (and the load!) in position.

Regardless, it seems that part C will be severely locally stressed and possibly damaged when we start removing columns between parts C and A, thus before C is even dropped on A.

This is another reason why part C cannot one way crush down part A. C is simply less strong than A and subject to bigger local loads due to local failures between C and A. There are many others. And none of them has to do with scale or modelling. It is just simple structural damage analysis that is required and it is the same for any structure.

Anyone suggesting that you can remove all columns between parts C and A and then drop C on A is a fool. C is locally damaged before that, parts of C and loads should drop off and the remaining parts of C cannot crush down A.

Read my papers to get a better feel for the problem. "
 
Last edited:
Heiwa:
Read my papers to get a better feel for the problem.
Click to expand...

I think we have the root of the problem here. You don't care a jot about anything apart from people reading your drivel.
 
Last edited:
Heiwa said:
OK, a complex, 3D, composite structure is dropped. Let's call it part C. It impacts whatever (!) structure. Let's assume it is same structure as C and that we call it part A. Part A carried part C before. Part C is now dropped on part A.

You know what Heiwa? I noticed that you like to "dodge" an issue by adding "false ignorance" to a challenge.

All you had to do was acknowledge what I have put in bold above.

Then you talk about 'dropped parts have been broken up' (???) I assume you mean that part C is subject to local failures, when it impacts part A. Right?

This is the false ignorance you frequently display, there is no "assumption" here. To put it another way, 13 floors of mass are about to meet floor 97, so what is floor 97 going to do Heiwa? Do you think individual floor 97 is going to arrest the mass of 13 floors coming down upon it?

Reason for this is that part A has applied dynamic force/energy on part C when C contacted A or A contacted C (same thing). This force damages elements in C.

Why would you even try to confuse people with questions like this because it appears to be attempts at deception?

Evidently this dynamic force A on C is greater than the static force that A applied on C before. But the dynamic force is of very short duration! It is a function of energy applied and distance of displacement of broken elements/connections.

Will you accept the wager offered to you?

Then you suggest that 'compacted rubble' exist. Let's call it part B. Sorry! No compacted rubble will develop when C impacts A. Only locally failed elements in C (and A of course) will develop, and the damaged elements will either be attached to A and C, or, in the case of C, drop off outside the structure.

The wager, you accept or not?



Sorry, part B does not exist and cannot be created by C and/or A at impact and can therefore not produce any forces or apply any energy on either A or C.

And here is the "dodge!"

Suggest you look at the problem in 1D and regard parts C and A as chains of material points connected by potentials (springs). You will then realize that no new, compacted chain - part B - of material points without potentials will suddenly pop up in your model.
Click to expand...

Nothing like weaseling out of a challenge. Way to go Heiwa, you show your true nature.
 
GlennB said:
How would fractured floor pans made of steel + reinforced concrete "drop off outside" ?
Click to expand...

Heiwa said:
From another post of mine in another thread - before even the floors are damaged by C dropping on A:

"Now we are going to remove all columns, one after the other, between parts C and A (so we can drop C on A). .... "
Click to expand...

Your answer doesn't even begin to address my question.

When C falls on A, the steel+concrete floor pans in the impact area are trapped between C and A. There is no force capable of ejecting them sideways at this point.

Please try again, with a sensible attempt at an answer.
 
GlennB said:
How would fractured floor pans made of steel + reinforced concrete "drop off outside" ?
Click to expand...

as I can observe in the videos, most of these elements did not "drop", they were exploded outside.
... but Heiwa tries to see this "collapse" from your eyes, be happy!
, which is a challenge. ;)
So Heiwa excludes explosives and analyze, what would happen in a "natural" way of collapse. He concludes theoretically, that during the collision of A and C (upper block) elements of C would have been destroyed and pushed outside the crushing zone. Everybody can observe that on videos.

crushing zone: Where the upper block C hits the block A below.
 
GlennB said:
Your answer doesn't even begin to address my question.

When C falls on A, the steel+concrete floor pans in the impact area are trapped between C and A. There is no force capable of ejecting them sideways at this point.

Please try again, with a sensible attempt at an answer.
Click to expand...

Have you seen the videos from the collapse? :confused:

Please provide a sensible answer.
 
Last edited:
bio said:
as I can observe in the videos, most of these elements did not "drop", they were exploded outside.
Click to expand...

Scroll back and read for comprehension, bio.
I'm not talking about exterior columns which might well fall sideways (and many did).
I'm talking about horizontal floor pans, contained within the perimeter. They have nowhere to go when caught in the A-C impact zone.
 
GlennB said:
Scroll back and read for comprehension, bio.
I'm not talking about exterior columns which might well fall sideways (and many did).
I'm talking about horizontal floor pans, contained within the perimeter. They have nowhere to go when caught in the A-C impact zone.
Click to expand...

caught? How? Theoretically the collision should have destroyed everything. For example the concrete. It was pulverised by the pressure and then "dropped out" of the crushing zone. Can you see the dust clouds?

1200-foot-dia. debris field: no "pancaked" floors found
Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth
 
Somebody suggests:

"To put it another way, 13 floors of mass are about to meet floor 97, so what is floor 97 going to do Heiwa? Do you think individual floor 97 is going to arrest the mass of 13 floors coming down upon it?"

Yes, part C consists of 13 floors and part C of 97 floors and part C has a mass and part C a bigger mass. Let's not forget the primary, load carrying structural elements; the columns.

Yes, part A is going to arrest part C, but it is evidently not the individual floor 97 that is doing that as outlined above in many posts. Read them again and you'll find out. It is not difficult. At contact C/A many elements in C will get damaged and the potential energy applied by C on A is soon consumed as local failures. Happens everytime you drop C on A regardless of size, scale, etc.
 
Heiwa said:
Yes, part A is going to arrest part C, but it is evidently not the individual floor 97 that is doing that as outlined above in many posts. .
Click to expand...

There, you acknowledge individual floor 97 itself will not arrest part C.
Now that floor 97 becomes part of the mass, what's going to happen with floor 96? Is floor 96 going to arrest the collapse?
 
bio said:
For example the concrete. It was pulverised by the pressure and then "dropped out" of the crushing zone. Can you see the dust clouds?
Click to expand...

Yes. Dust clouds containing gypsum, smoke particles, insulation and paper fibres and rather little pulverised concrete.

A proper study of those dust clouds : Lioy at al

There are several others.
 
Heiwa said:
OK, a complex, 3D, composite structure is dropped. Let's call it part C. It impacts whatever (!) structure. Let's assume it is same structure as C and that we call it part A. Part A carried part C before. Part C is now dropped on part A.

Then you talk about 'dropped parts have been broken up' (???) I assume you mean that part C is subject to local failures, when it impacts part A. Right?

Reason for this is that part A has applied dynamic force/energy on part C when C contacted A or A contacted C (same thing). This force damages elements in C.

Evidently this dynamic force A on C is greater than the static force that A applied on C before. But the dynamic force is of very short duration! It is a function of energy applied and distance of displacement of broken elements/connections.

Then you suggest that 'compacted rubble' exist. Let's call it part B. Sorry! No compacted rubble will develop when C impacts A. Only locally failed elements in C (and A of course) will develop, and the damaged elements will either be attached to A and C, or, in the case of C, drop off outside the structure.

The wager seems to be that part B will deliver 'a higher pressure' on part A and produce local failures in part A or a one-way crush down.

Sorry, part B does not exist and cannot be created by C and/or A at impact and can therefore not produce any forces or apply any energy on either A or C.

Suggest you look at the problem in 1D and regard parts C and A as chains of material points connected by potentials (springs). You will then realize that no new, compacted chain - part B - of material points without potentials will suddenly pop up in your model.
Click to expand...

The wager is stated clearly.

The correct answer either:

A. Yes, we have a bet. I believe what I said to be true & have the courage to back it up by accepting your wager.

OR

B. No bet. I know what I asserted to be true is really false, and I choose not to accept your wager.

Do not worry. Everyone will understand perfectly.

Tom


PS. I guess that there is a third possibility:

C. No bet. I have no idea what goes on in complex collisions. I just make this stuff up as I go along.

Of course, there is no significant difference between B & C.
 
MIKILLINI said:
There, you acknowledge individual floor 97 itself will not arrest part C.
Now that floor 97 becomes part of the mass, what's going to happen with floor 96? Is floor 96 going to arrest the collapse?
Click to expand...

Exactly, floor 97 is not arresting part C. Part C is in fact arresting itself (!!!) by damaging itself (!!!) in contact with part A (including floor 97, of course).

Floor 97 is evidently included in the mass of part A. The mass of floor 97 cannot become included in the mass of part C. Why do you think that? Do you believe in the OCT, where masses in C - floors 98, 99, ... 110 suddenly get loose like flying pan cakes? NIST abandoned that crazy idea a long time ago.

The NIST/OCT idea is that the part C pan cakes, oops, floors 98-110 and their masses, separated by columns of course, suddenly applied potential energy on part A ... that collapsed like a house of cards! Part A was very weak structure, you know, according NIST, could not absorb strain energy, and could not resist all these loose parts dropping, like pan cakes, on it.

Please, try to read my papers and try to understand real physics and structural damage analysis. Do not make a fool of yourself, like NIST.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom