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

[Heiwa]

.

Heiwa is NOT getting the concept of "compacted". Compacted is approximately equivalent to "broken down, lying flat, still in the box". Dropping one piece, then another, then another is NOT equivalent to compacted.

LOL! A compacted structure approximately equivalent to broken down and still in the box!

 

[bill smith]

LOL! A compacted structure approximately equivalent to broken down and still in the box!

I think 'compaction' os going to be key here. I will be interested to see how that will be assumed to work.

 

[MIKILLINI]

LOL! A compacted structure approximately equivalent to broken down and still in the box!

See post #695. By the way, it's an odd thing for you to laugh about something still in the box.

After all, wasn't it you that used pizza boxes as a model?

 

[Heiwa]

See post #695. By the way, it's an odd thing for you to laugh about something still in the box.

After all, wasn't it you that used pizza boxes as a model?

Evidently - the pizza box is there to prevent the pizza being compacted. It is a very useful model - easy to understand. The pizza box is like a sponge! Elastic! It can absorb energy to protect the inside pizza from being compacted. Like a floor assembly of WTC 1. It protects the people and furniture on the floor from being compacted. If you are able to really crush/compact a pizza box, I can assure you that it will not be able to crush/compact other pizza boxes.

Now tfk suggests that an IKEA box with a not yet assemblied book case is a compacted book case, i.e. when you drop an assemblied IKEA book case C on another IKEA bookcase A, A (or C?) compacts itself into a solid, organized IKEA box, B, that, apparently is able to one-way crush down other assemblied IKEA book cases A into more boxes, B! NWO IKEA disassemby theory. Back into the box! Quite ludicrious, in my opinion.

If you drop out a pizza in a box on something, I can assure you that it will not look like that one in the pizza box. You agree?

 

[tfk]

fk:

Your graphs of force shouldn't level out to zero, they should level out to m*g.

You're also leaving out the effects of damping and free-vibration. However you may not want to break everyone's head by introducing that.

.
Hot dang. Who did THAT??!!

Gonna have to fire my proof-reader. Thanks...

Tom

PS. I wonder if Jones uses "pwoof-readers"...

PPS. Or maybe even "pwoof weaders": Elmer Fudd ???

 

[tfk]

What has all this to do with Why a one-way Crush down is not possible? The latter is a structural damage analysis matter where various elements and connections break in an order that can be established using available tools.

.
If will show, shortly, exactly why your statements, "that once something has turned to rubble, it cannot exert a significant force on the lower floors" is wrong.

You're awfully impatient. Especially for someone who has been spinning his wheels with his nonsense for the better part of, how many years now?

Tom

 

[bill smith]

We will be looking for something a good deal stronger than an argument about the word 'significant'. We are expecting to see reasoning that shows how a compacted layer of rubble exerts a greater force than the original intact structure from which it was made. In a way that is significant of course.And something about the forces involved on both sides of the compaction mechanism.

 

[Heiwa]

.
If will show, shortly, exactly why your statements, "that once something has turned to rubble, it cannot exert a significant force on the lower floors" is wrong.

You're awfully impatient. Especially for someone who has been spinning his wheels with his nonsense for the better part of, how many years now?

Tom

I am just curious how you will explain how 'something' is turned into rubble! I assume you mean that first some structural elements/connections fail and then some other elements/connections fail, when C contacts A ... but where is the rubble B; the bits of completely broken elements at all connections?

It is not easy to completely disconnect an element from a structure by dropping a bit of structure on it. And then to assemble all these completely broken bits ... and compact them. Into a box? Requires energy! And then the rubble box is dropping? Sounds like rubbish to me! But cross the Rubicon and complete your job.

 

[tfk]

LOL! A compacted structure approximately equivalent to broken down and still in the box!

.
Patience, Anders, patience.

It's called "a limit". An upper bound.

The terminal velocity of the upper block was ~10 stories/sec. Or ~120 ft/sec. Or ~ 80 mph.

Now, lets assume that you're sitting in your office on the 20th, 30th or 50th floor of some office tower one bright September morning ...

Suddenly, a 40,000 tonne structure, "plowing" another 50,000 tonne juggernaut of steel, concrete, rebar, etc. in front of it, came crashing down thru your ceiling at 80 mph??

What level of compaction would you consider "likely" to occur to you & your floor's contents??

You are right about one thing, tho. And I'm happy to see that you're starting to appreciate the difference between a horizontal collision & a vertical one.

The level of compaction will be somewhat less - at least initially - than a person (and office contents) sitting on a highway & being struck HORIZONTALLY by the world's biggest (and fastest) snow plow, pushing a similar 50' think aggregate of concrete, steel, rebar & office contents in front of it. At 80 mph.

The compaction will be slightly less, by the virtue of the fact that, just before the 80 mph mass of debris crashed thru your ceiling, your floor gave out & you started falling. Giving you a little bit of speed before the mass of steel & concrete caught up to you & your desk.

So, maybe it's only a 70 mph collision instead of 80... By, I bet that bug on your windshield was pretty relieved that you were only do 70, eh?? MUCH better than 80.

But your "crushed, but uncompacted state" is likely to be very short lived. It'll last only until you run into that stubbornly resistant-to-collapse section of braced floor, and the 20 tons of (say, batteries, heavy equipment or whatever ...) that happen to sit 2 or 5 stories directly below your office.

THAT collision is gonna put a little "compaction" into your day...

So, Anders, how "cramped" do you think it's gonna be after, say, 10 of THOSE collisions??

Because that is how compacted the leading edge of the descending mass is going to get.

It's starting to make a trip thru my trash compactor sound positively "roomy".

Tom

 

[bill smith]

All this rubble was presumably lying on top of part A when Part C fell on top of it and compacted it. I am almost licking my lips in anticipation of the explanation here.

 

[Heiwa]

.
Patience, Anders, patience.

It's called "a limit". An upper bound.

The terminal velocity of the upper block was ~10 stories/sec. Or ~120 ft/sec. Or ~ 80 mph.

Now, lets assume that you're sitting in your office on the 20th, 30th or 50th floor of some office tower one bright September morning ...

Suddenly, a 40,000 tonne structure, "plowing" another 50,000 tonne juggernaut of steel, concrete, rebar, etc. in front of it, came crashing down thru your ceiling at 80 mph??

What level of compaction would you consider "likely" to occur to you & your floor's contents??

You are right about one thing, tho. And I'm happy to see that you're starting to appreciate the difference between a horizontal collision & a vertical one.

The level of compaction will be somewhat less - at least initially - than a person (and office contents) sitting on a highway & being struck HORIZONTALLY by the world's biggest (and fastest) snow plow, pushing a similar 50' think aggregate of concrete, steel, rebar & office contents in front of it. At 80 mph.

The compaction will be slightly less, by the virtue of the fact that, just before the 80 mph mass of debris crashed thru your ceiling, your floor gave out & you started falling. Giving you a little bit of speed before the mass of steel & concrete caught up to you & your desk.

So, maybe it's only a 70 mph collision instead of 80... By, I bet that bug on your windshield was pretty relieved that you were only do 70, eh?? MUCH better than 80.

But your "crushed, but uncompacted state" is likely to be very short lived. It'll last only until you run into that stubbornly resistant-to-collapse section of braced floor, and the 20 tons of (say, batteries, heavy equipment or whatever ...) that happen to sit 2 or 5 stories directly below your office.

THAT collision is gonna put a little "compaction" into your day...

So, Anders, how "cramped" do you think it's gonna be after, say, 10 of THOSE collisions??

Because that is how compacted the leading edge of the descending mass is going to get.

It's starting to make a trip thru my trash compactor sound positively "roomy".

Tom

Who is interested in the terminal velocity of your compacted boxes collisions? Or the 10th collision. Let's start with the first 'collision' followed by 'compaction' of box 1. At what velocity does it take place?

I really like to see you dropping an assembled, IKEA book case at this velocity on some solid surface and how it compacts itself into a box! Let's put a mouse in the book case and see what happens to it, too!

 

[tfk]

I am just curious how you will explain how 'something' is turned into rubble! I assume you mean that first some structural elements/connections fail and then some other elements/connections fail, when C contacts A ... but where is the rubble B; the bits of completely broken elements at all connections?

It is not easy to completely disconnect an element from a structure by dropping a bit of structure on it. And then to assemble all these completely broken bits ... and compact them. Into a box? Requires energy! And then the rubble box is dropping? Sounds like rubbish to me! But cross the Rubicon and complete your job.

.
"Where is the rubble..."??
"... completely disconnect an element ..."??

Anders, please...

First... "It is not easy to completely disconnect an element from a structure ..." All those external column assemblies flying thru the air tell me that you're pulling this silly statement out of your nether regions.

Next: Note that the steel columns are a very small percent of the total weight of the building. About 10% of the weight per floor in Part C, about 25% thru the middle stories of the and about 1/3rd of the weight per floor in the lower stories.

Then the vast majority of the outer columns were thrown clear of the towers & played no role in the crush down.

The trusses & concrete floors were NOT dragged out of the collapsing structures by the external columns. That is imminently clear on the videos. The connections between the trusses & the outer columns were snapped, leaving the trusses, concrete floors AND ALL THE OFFICE CONTENTS behind.

THIS is the source material for the rubble. And you don't need to "disconnect any element from the structure" because the office contents weren't bolted or welded to the structure in the first place. They were just sitting there. "Pre-disconnected".

[sarcasm]
By the minions of the NWO. Who snuck in the night before & unplugged everything. So that the electrical cables wouldn't mess up the collapse...
[/sarcasm]

Geesh..!!

Think a little bit before you type, would you, Anders.

Tom

 

[Heiwa]

.

... the vast majority of the outer columns were thrown clear of the towers & played no role in the crush down.

You are off topic and your head. You are supposed to explain how rubble (B) is produced when an upper assembly of elements (C) contacts a lower assembly of elements (A) and how this rubble (B) then is first compacted and second drops on A and produces more rubble B that is again compacted and drops on A ... 97 times or so. I am not interested in if some rubble is thrown clear ... the rubble is supposed to be compacted. Please wage your wager and don't WWW (wag, waffle and wail)!

 

[bill smith]

I sense a general collapse of T's argument. Thus the dissembling. Maybe Heiwa can coax him out a little further on the branch.lol

 

[BadBoy]

Hi, I’m a newbie and found my way here by way of the global warming debate. I've been reading this thread for a while now (I know, poor me) and have made the following personal observations:

- At first I thought Bill was just an annoying person who was trolling for arguments and should probably be ignored. Then I found the thread where he had interpreted an (obvious) wireframe overlay on an edited video showing a still standing core after the outside had collapsed and was arguing for this being the actual structure. After that I decided he wasnt just trolling for an argument, but that he actually believes his arguments make sense.... I almost feel sorry for him.

- As for Smiths Law, even if it were proven to be true, it don’t prove, imply or even weakly follow that Truthers arguments must therefore be correct.

- Heiwa, it’s obvious to me you lost your argument long ago. Unfortunately just saying something over and over again doesn't make it so. If you are REALLY interested in the truth, I'd like to see you discuss the argument points tfk raised recently in this thread. I really would. Lets say, as a newbie I want to be convinced, so far you really haven't managed to even nearly touch my interest with your arguments (and hitting me with Smiths Law is a non argument)

 

[bill smith]

Hi, I’m a newbie and found my way here by way of the global warming debate. I've been reading this thread for a while now (I know, poor me) and have made the following personal observations:

- At first I thought Bill was just an annoying person who was trolling for arguments and should probably be ignored. Then I found the thread where he had interpreted an (obvious) wireframe overlay on an edited video showing a still standing core after the outside had collapsed and was arguing for this being the actual structure. After that I decided he wasnt just trolling for an argument, but that he actually believes his arguments make sense.... I almost feel sorry for him.

- As for Smiths Law, even if it were proven to be true, it don’t prove, imply or even weakly follow that Truthers arguments must therefore be correct.

- Heiwa, it’s obvious to me you lost your argument long ago. Unfortunately just saying something over and over again doesn't make it so. If you are REALLY interested in the truth, I'd like to see you discuss the argument points tfk raised recently in this thread. I really would. Lets say, as a newbie I want to be convinced, so far you really haven't managed to even nearly touch my interest with your arguments (and hitting me with Smiths Law is a non argument)

Welcome to the forum. Let's hope it will be productive all round.

 

[tfk]

Anders,

You are off topic and your head.

.
Jeebus, Anders. The fact that you got an "F" in my little pop quiz does give you license to kick & scream and pitch a hissy fit.

Take a pill, calm down.

As I explained before (you see why your grades are so bad? You don't pay attention), this discussion is 100%, DIRECTLY on topic. As any COMPETENT engineer could tell you, the specific details of the debris pile is CENTRAL to the question of why & how the upper portion crushed down the lower portion.

And a competent discussion of the debris pile will also prove, as I am in the process of doing, that your "debris can generate no impact" assertion is pure bunk.

Now, I can understand COMPLETELY how you would like very much for discussion that disprove your nonsense to be banished. You'd no doubt like it banned from newspapers & engineering schools too. Unfortunately, that ain't likely to happen.

[Overheard at Anders' Friday nite poker game:

Snidely Whiplash: "Hey, Anders. Why are there two jokers tucked up your sleeve?"
Anders: "That discussion is off-topic. Now, are you going to see my raise, or do I win?"
Snidely: "I think we better have a chat about them jokers..."
Anders: "Moderator...!! OFF TOPIC...!! MODERATOR..!!!"

Somehow, Anders, I suspect that ole Snidely was unconvinced by your suggestion that the subject was "off-topic".
I have an amazing coincidence to report... So am I.
___
.

You are supposed to explain how ...

.
And exactly who died and left YOU handing out assignments??
LoL.

Sorry, Anders.
You are not the conductor.
You have precisely ZERO say in what anybody "is supposed to be" discussing.
You drop in & drop out of this discussion as it pleases you.

And when you chose to simply ignore people who were trying to have an honest discussion with you, you were, frankly, tossed out of the orchestra.

So, you'll understand if I ignore you for the moment, and finish explaining to the folks here who DO want to learn about this how it really works.
.

You are supposed to explain how ... rubble (B) is produced when an upper assembly of elements (C) contacts a lower assembly of elements (A) and how this rubble (B) then is first compacted and second drops on A and produces more rubble B that is again compacted and drops on A ... 97 times or so.

.
There's that "supposed to... " again. LoL.
.

I am not interested in if some rubble is thrown clear ... the rubble is supposed to be compacted. Please wage your wager and don't WWW (wag, waffle and wail)!

.
I'll get back to you. As time permits.

You know, every once in awhile, it's NOT "all about you".

Unlike SOME posters around here (naval architects who shall remain nameless), I am not so rude as to just ignore one of the other posters. And thus far, there is nothing that you've offered that is the slightest difficult to explain. So I will get back to you. If I forget, just remind me.

Besides, don't you know anything about modern teaching theory? You are NOT supposed to give your attention to the "problem students". It just feeds their desire for attention. And encourages more misbehavior. Plus, it's not fair to the other good kids.

Ooops, there's the bell, Anders. Hit the playground. Play nice with the other kids...



Tom

 

[newton3376]

***Snip freaking awesome post***

Tom...excellent post.

This is what I thought you were going to do and I'm glad I was right.....don't let Heiwa distract the discussion.....keep going with your explanations.....

Nice job.

 

[newton3376]

fk:

Your graphs of force shouldn't level out to zero, they should level out to m*g.

You're also leaving out the effects of damping and free-vibration. However you may not want to break everyone's head by introducing that.

Nice catch newtons bit.....

 

[bill smith]

I've seen T. beaten in argument plenty of times but this one is the most comprehensive thrashing I've seen him take yet. And it was administered with such casual ease and grace. Admirable Heiwa.