• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

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

Heiwa said:
1. No - a rigid body cannot be changed structurally in any respect.
Click to expand...
Maybe in your universe they can't, but in this universe it happens all the time, never seen a car crash have you.

Paul

:) :) :)
 
Heiwa said:
But I answered all your questions. If you don't like the answers is another thread. And I have no questions to you. Just a request - explain how rubble can compact and destroy non-rubble.
Click to expand...

You answered question 1. With your silly definition of "rigid body". But you did answer it, so we'll set that one aside.

You did NOT answer questions 2, 3, 4 or (request) 5.

Please do so. Then we will move on.

Tom
 
bill smith said:
Hey T. You know the noise a switch makes when it is slashed through the air ?....'whoosh' and then when it is really SLASHED throught the air ?....'WHOOSH'.

How's the compaction theory coming on ?...(.whoosh,whoosh ). Are you wearing your thick corduroy trousers ?...( WHOOSH ). lol
Click to expand...

you should have heard T's whip break the sound barrier as he unquestionably thrashed you and H here (figuratively)
 
newton3376 said:
Perhaps you misunderstand how this whole "question and answer" thing works....

Usually when someone asks a question you try to answer the actual question that was asked and not some imaginary question in place of it....Here is a simplified example of a question and answer session that makes sense....


Person A: Hey do you want to go to Fridays for lunch?

Person B: No....Im trying to eat healthy.


Notice that the person answered the question and then gave additional and relevant information...Here is another example, but this time things don't go as planned...

Person A: Hey do you want to go to Fridays for lunch?

Person B: I should get an oil change next week.

Person A: Um....ooooookay...So are you coming with us to Fridays?

Person B: I think I might buy a blackberry for my next phone.

Person A: Dude! Are you coming to Fridays or not?

Person B: I answered your question!!!

Person A: I D I O T


See how confusing that is? If the question was "Hey when do you think you should change your oil?" or perhaps "What do you think of the blackberry?" then this conversation might have made sense.....but THAT WASNT THE QUESTION NOW WAS IT?

Please try harder not to be a complete tool in the future Heiwa........thanks...
Click to expand...

But I answered all questions to the best of my capabilities, of course, the Japanese way; You try to answer all questions by a clear YES (very positive) and then you add something that yes, you have heard the question, etc, etc. So the answer of question 1 was NO. Not very Japanese but clear. A rigid thing cannot become rubble! I have a feeling tfk suffers from the ID ten T deficiency that seems frequent among many JREFers. I doubt he knows the difference between rubble and rubbish?
 
Justin39640 said:
so then neither is the part of the building you are referring to again and again and again and again ...... (infinity)
Click to expand...

Exactly, you start to learn. One reason why a one-way crush down is not possible is that part C is not rigid, as assumed by Bazant and NIST, so it is the first to absorb energy in a collision ... that is soon arrested. This simple fact cannot be repeated too often.
 
tfk said:
You answered question 1. With your silly definition of "rigid body". But you did answer it, so we'll set that one aside.

You did NOT answer questions 2, 3, 4 or (request) 5.

Please do so. Then we will move on.

Tom
Click to expand...

That you didn't like my answers is of course outside my control. Do not whine as a baby! Explain the compacted rubble theory! Grow up. No more excuses!
 
Heiwa said:
Exactly, you start to learn. One reason why a one-way crush down is not possible is that part C is not rigid, as assumed by Bazant and NIST, so it is the first to absorb energy in a collision ... that is soon arrested. This simple fact cannot be repeated too often.
Click to expand...

id hate to drive in a car that isnt rigid
lol
so i take it from what you are saying
for something to be rigid it has to be cast from a single piece?
 
Heiwa said:
But I answered all questions to the best of my capabilities, of course, the Japanese way; You try to answer all questions by a clear YES (very positive) and then you add something that yes, you have heard the question, etc, etc. So the answer of question 1 was NO. Not very Japanese but clear. A rigid thing cannot become rubble! I have a feeling tfk suffers from the ID ten T deficiency that seems frequent among many JREFers. I doubt he knows the difference between rubble and rubbish?
Click to expand...

We are not in Japan.
 
Heiwa said:
I have answered tfk:s questions! See post #1162. Now I expect tfk to explain the rubble compaction rubbish.
Click to expand...


Umm no you didn't.

He asked you if you UNDERSTOOD a rigid body is NOT equal to indestructible.. and your reply is NO blah blah blah.

so then we can take from your answers that you do NOT understand a rigid body is NOT indestructible.
 
TruthersLie said:
Umm no you didn't.

He asked you if you UNDERSTOOD a rigid body is NOT equal to indestructible.. and your reply is NO blah blah blah.

so then we can take from your answers that you do NOT understand a rigid body is NOT indestructible.
Click to expand...

Err, a rigid body is indestructible, theoritically. They don't actually exist in the real world, but are handy for explaining engineering concepts as it removes a large number of variables from a problem.
 
Newtons Bit said:
Err, a rigid body is indestructible, theoritically. They don't actually exist in the real world, but are handy for explaining engineering concepts as it removes a large number of variables from a problem.
Click to expand...

A major reason why Heiwa is not an engineer who understands engineering models.

Heiwa said:
...
3. There is no such thing as a 'crush down'; e.g. small part C being dropped on and one way crushing down bigger part A of same structure. The local failures are arrested when there is no more energy available. It would take less than a second in the WTC 1 case.
...
Click to expand...
Heiwa lie number 3. WTC 1 should have stopped falling in one second. Add this to the pizza box physics, kids on bed jumping, and dropping the top of the WTC from 2 miles and you have the perfection of insane engineering by a conspiracy theorist trying to apologizes for murdering terrorists; and doing it poorly.
 
Last edited:
beachnut said:
A major reason why Heiwa is not an engineer who understands engineering models.


Heiwa lie number 3. WTC 1 should have stopped falling in one second. Add this to the pizza box physics, kids on bed jumping, and dropping the top of the WTC from 2 miles and you have the perfection of insane engineering by a conspiracy theorist trying to apologizes for murdering terrorists; and doing it poorly.
Click to expand...

You forgot the lemons.....

Nothing says "building model" better than fruit....

When life gives them lemons....truthers make a model of the WTC.
 
Hmmm. Heiwa and his young ward bill have been unable to convince us that the OP's premise is valid. But, that of course is because we are all paid shills.

I guess the next step is to convince a respected engineering organization. That'll show us!
 
Heiwa said:
A car is not a rigid body. Thanks for your support.
Click to expand...
Well, that just goes and shows everyone that knows already, you have no idea of what you are talking about.

Everything can be broken.

Paul

:) :) :)
 
NB,

Newtons Bit said:
Err, a rigid body is indestructible, theoritically. They don't actually exist in the real world, but are handy for explaining engineering concepts as it removes a large number of variables from a problem.
Click to expand...
.
Semantics, IMO.

Depends on what you're trying to model. And how.

To me, "rigid body" doesn't mean either "it doesn't flex".

It means that "I consider any flexing that occurs to be insignificant to the outcome of my analysis. So I'm gonna ignore the flexing. Even tho I KNOW it really does flex."

And, in the same sense, it seems clear to me that Bazant does not mean either inflexible or indestructible in his paper. Since he has his "rigid body" crush up slightly at the beginning of the collapse and crush up completely at the end of the collapse.

In the global sense, there are several slight variations on the definition that most sensible engineers can figure out from context.

At the end of the day, I have to allow the people writing the paper to determine their chosen terminology. They should be clear. And in this case, I believe that Bazant et al are clear.

Tom
 
Last edited:
A number of posts have been moved to AAH for bickering and general incivility. Please try to see if you can disagree without becoming insulting.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Tricky
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom