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

[Z]

I just want to know why Bill runs away from my questions earlier in the thread. I thought they were pretty clear and concise.

 

[tfk]

I hought your fellow residents might enjoy a little commotion. Those institutions can be a bit boring I believe.

.
Bill,

Be quiet now. This is a conversation between one engineer and another (alleged) engineer.

Please listen very carefully, Bill: You consistently behave like a silly, senseless, dull-witted clown. Just like you are behaving now. It's not clever. It's not amusing. It is simply annoying.

Even if you were serious, you have absolutely nothing of the slightest value to offer this conversation.

Do you possess the brains to understand the above?

Tom

 

[Bluesky]

Demolition using hydraulic jacks pushing structural walls over, no explosives, large clouds of dust produced by colliding concrete.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=syzKBBB_THE

In Balzac-Vitry the bottom 6 or 7 floors (A) carried the top 6 or 7 floors (C) before, and the top floors (C) are then dropped on (A) and (A) and (C) are crushed by gravity.

<snip for brevity>

This one is not for you Bill, as it is longer than 6 lines and I know you can't remember beyond 6. Its also not for you Heiwa, since you have seen it before and given one of your usual "read my paper" response. People liike Bill and Heiwa are best ignored and can continue to regurgitate the same nonsense for another 70 pages.

Occasionally there are some interesting philosophical comments or technical issues in this forum and the video by BasqueArch is really pretty interesting.

If you search for it on youtube then you can see the TM have already adopted it to prove that it sounds like the WTC CD and that CD does not need to start at the bottom of a building. But as usual these arguments contradict a bunch of their other arguments.

It shows rapid failure, probably at 60-80% g which was just like the WTC1 and 2.
It shows simultaneous failure of all columns at every level. (of course, it wouldn't fail if they weren't simultaneous.)
It shows that the tower failed thro the center of strength of the tower below.
It shows the "troubling" uniformity.
It does not topple
It shows a pyroclastic cloud of dust ( this was demolished without explosives)
It appears to defy the laws of aetruther physics
It disproves Heiwa's silly axiom

And it also shows how a local failure can can easily lead to a global collapse.
Even if the lower part was another 50 stories of the same type of structural system then you would expect it to keep on going. Its hard to see how it would stop, without a massive change of stiffness or robustness.

So to be consistent with this video the AE911truth theory, must be something like this:
1. WTC 1 and 2 were rigged with explosives at the area of plane impact.
2. No-one saw any evidence of the explosives being placed or pre-weakening works. (Elevator shafts only give access to only 10~15 of the 50 internal core columns at the impact levels)
3. The level of impact was coordinated with the attackers.
4. The explosives and controls survived the impact, the explosion and the subsequent fires.
5. Demolition involved pulling in the perimeter columns, perhaps using hydraulics like Balzac-Vitry and blowing the interior columns
6. Someone waited nearly an hour until most people escaped, but cruelly demolished the second building to be hit first.

If thats the ae911tm theory, then I think that the collapses would be indistinguishable from a collapse due to fire. This ae911tm theory appears to be the only credible way that CD could be used on WTC1 and 2, which kind of explains why most engineers don't believe it. And if you believe the CD theory above you should sign the ae911tm petition.

It is not really worth trying to engage in a discussion with the likes of Bill and Heiwa. The ae911tm do not want to discuss how they falsely claim expertise that they do not have. They only want to discuss a few small isolated aspects of each collapse. And then they simply regurgitate the same old nonsense, like Heiwa's mantra. What they are saying makes no sense, but as a series of sound-bites they are bound to keep attracting a few zealots, a few people who can't be bothered to read the details, a few contrarians and a few anti government people.

But they will never attract any of the world's leading tall building engineers. None of the top 1,000, from any country in the world. And the most effective response from the world's leading engineers is to ignore them. The ae911tm seek controversy, seek attention and want money. They are not interested in truth. So any debate with them is only serving their purpose, and so its pointless, including this one.

 

[bill smith]

.
Bill,

Be quiet now. This is a conversation between one engineer and another (alleged) engineer.

Please listen very carefully, Bill: You consistently behave like a silly, senseless, dull-witted clown. Just like you are behaving now. It's not clever. It's not amusing. It is simply annoying.

Even if you were serious, you have absolutely nothing of the slightest value to offer this conversation.

Do you possess the brains to understand the above?

Tom

Well I'll just have to do my best and soldier on T. So....when are you going to lay out the wager in around six lines and name the judges ? I doubt that anything less will be acceptable

 

[tfk]

Well, Anders has shown that he does NOT have the courage to back up what he asserted to be true.

There are two clear & unavoidable conclusions that can be drawn from this.

1. Anders knows that what he posted is wrong. He will neither admit that fact nor correct his error.

2. Anders considers the price that he would have to pay - to promise to engage in honest dialog, without evasion - is too great a risk for him to take.

Note well that the risk that he was unwilling to take, to debate honestly, is precisely the standard to which all honorable debaters commit themselves daily.

Both of these inescapable facts speak volumes about his honesty, his integrity and his true belief in his own theories.

Finally, all the above is true regardless of his being correct or incorrect on the subject of the wager.

Thanks, Anders.

Tom

 

[bill smith]

Heiwa is probably the most honourable debater around. He has challenged all comers to create a model that performs iin the way Bazant predicted. Despite several attempts to do so none have come close. The liklihood from this is that it cannot be done.
Furthermoore he has challenged all comers to come up with an example of the one way crush down of a structure by the lighest one-tenth of itself using gravity alone. The example may be chosen from the entire world history of construction on the planet Earth. Again....no takers.

Do you see what this means ? Anybody with a brain in their head should.

 

[tfk]

Well I'll just have to do my best and soldier on T. So....when are you going to lay out the wager in around six lines and name the judges ? I doubt that anything less will be acceptable

.
Apparently, you are incapable of comprehending the meaning of the words "... you have nothing of the slightest value to offer ...".

A dictionary, and about 2 hours of intense study, ought to reveal to you the hidden message.

Good bye. Don't let the door get you in the butt...

You are going away immediately, as far as I'm concerned. You'll be on ignore for me from now on.

Tom

PS. Bill, if you have any dignity, you'll correct your lies about me here:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=4941126

If you don't, well, who cares. Everyone knows how untrustworthy you are anyway.

 

[bill smith]

.
Apparently, you are incapable of comprehending the meaning of the words "... you have nothing of the slightest value to offer ...".

A dictionary, and about 2 hours of intense study, ought to reveal to you the hidden message.

Good bye. Don't let the door get you in the butt...

You are going away immediately, as far as I'm concerned. You'll be on ignore for me from now on.

Tom





PS. Bill, if you have any dignity, you'll correct your lies about me here:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=4941126

If you don't, well, who cares. Everyone knows how untrustworthy you are anyway.

You could still rescue the wager by being honest about it. Go on, for once in your life. Lay it out in few short clear lines instad of the usual verbiage. You suggested that he winner of the debate that you are being unclear about the terms of would be judged by qualified members of this forum. So why not tell us who you had in mind ? Or shall we guess ?

So it was not such a very impressive wager after all. You could stlll stop it coming apart at the seams by being honest and forthright along the lones of what I just suggested.

I will enjoy watching you ignore me. It will be something of a relief not to have a groupie like you any more.

 

[Heiwa]

Last chance, Anders.

In 5 minutes, I'll assume that you do NOT have the courage to defend your own assertions.

Tom

Well, I was invited for drinks + lunch at pool side and those things take time. Re your wager, I understand that you suggest that a part C of a structure A (C = 1/10 A), when C is dropped on A by gravity, C will get locally damaged due to impact C against A, but in spite of this, C will produce compressed rubble of the structure, part B, that in turn will produce big forces acting on A, with the result that A is crushed into pieces, and that this is what you are prepared to prove.
OK, go ahead. This is what this thread is all about, or just the opposite (C cannot crush A). I look forward to the evidence for your strange hypothesis.

 

[bill smith]

Moi aussi.

 

[MIKILLINI]

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.

I have read your papers Heiwa, and subsequent posts from people here who's knowledge of physics, architectural design, and structure analysis is more than capable of pointing out your flawed axiom.

 

[tfk]

Regarding compacted material imparting a higher instantaneous force and higher pressures than they could impart prior to their destruction.

All of this is a sudden realization to me that arose out of my attempts to describe these effects to Tony Sz. I should be grateful to him for the impetus to think about these effects carefully.

In retrospect, the effect is obvious. And you can see it's consequences everywhere.

As commonplace demonstrations of the effects, you might consider:

Trash compactors: whether the impact of a compacted 8 bags of trash into 1 would deliver a greater force and pressure when dropped from a 2nd story than the 8 bags of uncompacted trash.

Auto crushers: Whether a car, dropped on its roof from 10 feet, would produce a higher instantaneous force before or after it had been crushed down.

Snowballs vs. uncompacted powder.
___

So, I'll put together and present a formal proof later in the next couple of days.

But the gist of the issue is that every ability of any component of the total structure to flex, or change orientation, or detach from the larger structure represents a "degree of freedom". Each degree of freedom of any component of the structure reduces its contribution to the instantaneous impulse applied during a collision of the larger structure with anything else.

Any component of the larger structure that detaches from the larger structure due to inertial acceleration and are not in direct contact with the impacted object stop contributing to the impact at all. Parts that deform stretch out their impact in time. Parts that pivot or change orientation contribute only a fraction of their rigid body momentum to the impact.

All of these factor essentially stretch out in time the interval over which the larger structure delivers its change in momentum with respect to the impacted body.

In both cases ...

a) an assembled, pre-crushed body
and
b) a crushed, compacted assemblage of the same material,

... the total change in momentum when that body impacts another is the same. Same mass, same total change in velocity.

A fundamental statement of the principle of conservation of energy is the equivalence of impulse and change in momentum.

Impulse is the integral of force applied to a body over time of impact. Any factor that stretches out the total time over which the impact happens will automatically stretch out the average force, and will 99.99% of the time, reduce the peak force.

Any degrees of freedom within the impacting body will inevitably reduce the peak force in all collisions.

The point of all this is that, in the pre-crushed structure, such as one or more floors of a building such as the WTC, there are an enormous number of degrees of freedom of motion of the desks, tables, file cabinets, steel, etc. After that material gets crushed, disassembled and compacted, the vast, vast majority of those degrees of freedom have been removed. As a direct consequence, the peak force that this compacted material will deliver is guaranteed to be greater than the same material could have delivered in its "pre-compacted" state.

QED.

PS. A second component of this effect is that, for loosely connected "pre-compacted" material such as all the office contents, the minimum interval of time over which the collision can occur is given by:

t = (h*/v_avg) + t*

where:
h* = the distance of the "leading edge" of the furthest, structurally disconnected object in the structure from the impact point of the structure as a whole.
v_avg = the average velocity of the overall structure (and all components) over the collision interval
t* = the time duration for the crush of object at h*
t = the total time interval of impact.

Now let's compare some real numbers.

Consider some part of the pre-crushed structure that resided below the floor of (in this case) the 96th floor. Remember, the crush is coming from above, and the floor is the furthest distance from the impact plane. Consider this object to be 10' from the impact plane and 2' in height. Consider that it collapse promptly when the crush front arrives. That is, it provides little significant resistance to being crushed down to 20% of its original height.

In the case of the 96th floor of WTC1, the descent velocity after, say, 3 stories of fall at 0.7 G would be approximately 44 ft/sec. [41 ft/sec at initial contact & 47 ft/sec at end of 1 story's crush].

h* in this case is 10'
v_avg = 44 ft/sec.
t* = 0.036 sec.
and therefore the minimum pre-compacted collision interval, t, will be given by:

t_uncompacted = ~ 0.26 seconds.

Once the same material has been crushed and compacted, h* is approximately 0 (depending on the degree of compaction) and t* is reduced to a small fraction of its previous value. In this case, the total time interval for the collision will be related to a number defined by the compressibility (i.e., bulk modulus) of the compacted debris. This number will typically be measured in a few tens of milliseconds.

Therefore: t_compacted = ~ 0.010 to 0.020 seconds

The consequence here is that, after disassembly and compaction, ALL of the material arrives at the collision simultaneously and strongly interlinked. This dramatically reduces the impulse time interval and dramatically increases the peak force delivered in the collision compared to the un-compacted case.

QED 2.

 

[aggle-rithm]

Heiwa is probably the most honourable debater around.

Ooh, ooh, can I play, too?

"Passing a kidney stone is probably the most delightful experience possible."

Now, your turn.

 

[Heiwa]

Auto crushers: Whether a car, dropped on its roof from 10 feet, would produce a higher instantaneous force before or after it had been crushed down.

If you read my papers you'll find a reference to auto crushers and the energy and time required to crush a one tonne auto (37 kWh and several minutes as the machine takes its time). Evidently you can apply that energy instantaeosuly on a car to be crushed by gravity, i.e. by dropping it from a certain height h ... but what are you going to crush the car against? Ensure that the car to be crushed does not crush your gravity auto crusher! Anyway, I look forward to your evidence about crush forces at various times of crushing created by gravity alone.

 

[MIKILLINI]

Come on T. Lay it out in 6 lines and name the judges. It's not much to ask. Gotta be clear you know.

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.

Gee Bill, you make the statement "truth out of the mouth of babes" and yet you fail to comprehend this challenge because it's not simplified into 6 lines?

You'll be lost in understanding anything, but at least you make a good parrot for Heiwa.

 

[MIKILLINI]

Ooh, ooh, can I play, too?

"Passing a kidney stone is probably the most delightful experience possible."

Now, your turn.

 

[tsig]

Heiwa is probably the most honourable debater around. He has challenged all comers to create a model that performs iin the way Bazant predicted. Despite several attempts to do so none have come close. The liklihood from this is that it cannot be done.
Furthermoore he has challenged all comers to come up with an example of the one way crush down of a structure by the lighest one-tenth of itself using gravity alone. The example may be chosen from the entire world history of construction on the planet Earth. Again....no takers.

Do you see what this means ? Anybody with a brain in their head should.

Dead bodies have brains in their heads so are you saying that even the Zombies understand the truth of 911?

If you can bring them around it would be quite a coup for you but I think you are posting on the wrong forum for that constituency.

 

[tfk]

If you read my papers

.
Now, why would I want to do that.

If I want to read fantasy, I'll go for a good writer. John Varley, Greg Bear, Greg Brin.
.

blah, blah, blah...

.

All irrelevant, Anders.

This little experiment is over & done. You lose.

You proved to everyone, already, before I said a single word, that you knew that you were wrong.

You proved that you are willing to post comments that you know are wrong, and leave them without correction.

You proved that the concept of promising to debate honestly and honorably are anathema to you.

You. Lose.

Tom

 

[tfk]

Ooh, ooh, can I play, too?

"Passing a kidney stone is probably the most delightful experience possible."

Now, your turn.

Now that is DAMN funny, aggle.

Tom

 

[Heiwa]

.

This little experiment is over & done. You lose.

You. Lose.

Tom

LOL = Lots of Lose