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

[tfk]

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!

.
You did not answer MY questions.

You changed them to YOUR questions & then answered YOUR questions.

Please answer MY questions.

Then I will be happy to answer yours. See how nicely that would work...?

Tom

 

[MIKILLINI]

Those same sane and smart people think that 1mm aluminium cut through 33 14'' x 14'' steel box columns that were braced against the concrete floors at 12 foot intervals . he 13 foot diameter lane severed these pretty cleanly and went on to destroy up to ten massive core columns snd partally carrying on to exit the building through maybe a dozen more 14'' x 14'' steel box columns.

I know Bill has me on ignore, so if someone can post this:

Bill, just picture yourself as a parrot flying in the path of a 757/767 and then the airliner traveling at 500 mph strikes you head on. What happens to the airliner Bill? Is there any damage? There is more than you can think.

Having an airliner traveling at 500 mph loaded with fuel (Gee Bill, you don't understand the fuel was also traveling the same speed) mass is similar to the same effect as bird damage to an aircraft. The mass is concentrated in one area and in this area is where the most damage occurs. But when you lack common intelligence to realize the dynamics of this....well, you are just a parrot.

Bread does not cut the knife and neither does liquid fuel nor paper-thin aluminium so maybe you see the level of respect that a person ight have for people who hold that opinion. So when people like that call a Truther stupid for making this point you can see why a stundie is a kind of ironic Oscar for us.

When you prove to incapable of understanding the kinetic energy involved with crashes, then any reasoning becomes skewered.

In just one word, that is the truth movement; Skewered.

 

[Heiwa]

NB,


.
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

Aha, now I understand how your rubble can demolish solid structure. The rubble becomes rigid for a while depending on the context and then becomes rubble again. The NWO physics in a nut shell. Thanks.
So we can conclude that only in NWO physics a one-way crush down is possible?

 

[MIKILLINI]

Aha, now I understand how your rubble can demolish solid structure. The rubble becomes rigid for a while depending on the context and then becomes rubble again. The NWO physics in a nut shell. Thanks.
So we can conclude that only in NWO physics a one-way crush down is possible?

Natural World Observed correctly makes it possible. You are learning, Heiwa.

 

[tsig]

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

A car is designed to be broken in a certain way that dissipates energy and keeps the occupants alive.

 

[BadBoy]

NB,


.
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

Hi

Something that I had been wondering about is the crush up. I've been following the thread and very much enjoy your posts (Im not an Engineer, just an IT proffessional). The bit I cant quite figure out, and its the only bit in Heiwas argument I cant quite resolve, is why the upper part C doesn't break apart as much as lower part A when collape occurs. I though perhaps it does, but that the general mass of the collapsed material keeps the progression going.

But (unless I have missunderstood) Bazant says theres a crush down first, followed by a crush up when C finally reaches whats left of A. Now I understand that its a simplified model, and I think I intuitively understand that this could happen, but Im not sure why.

Lastely I wish Heiwa would stop pratting about and get into the discussion properly so we can get to the end of your thought experiment. Im interested in the conclusions.

Cheers

Tim

 

[R.Mackey]

Something that I had been wondering about is the crush up. I've been following the thread and very much enjoy your posts (Im not an Engineer, just an IT proffessional). The bit I cant quite figure out, and its the only bit in Heiwas argument I cant quite resolve, is why the upper part C doesn't break apart as much as lower part A when collape occurs. I though perhaps it does, but that the general mass of the collapsed material keeps the progression going.

But (unless I have missunderstood) Bazant says theres a crush down first, followed by a crush up when C finally reaches whats left of A. Now I understand that its a simplified model, and I think I intuitively understand that this could happen, but Im not sure why.

You can read the man's own words here.

The short summary is as follows: The first impact may be more or less symmetrical, but you quickly generate a massive debris layer in between. The upper block only absorbs energy as its own weight decelerates, while the lower block gets hit by the weight of the upper block plus the debris layer.

Furthermore, the upper block rotates, and this causes its weight to fall on the floors inside the footprint of the lower block. The lower columns thus get pushed outward, rather than actually crushed to failure. So the upper block is mostly hitting the floors plus core of the lower block, while the damage inflicted on the upper block is floors plus core plus perimeter columns, which is stronger.

Don't bother waiting for Heiwa to make any kind of sense. He's been at this for years.

 

[bill smith]

You can read the man's own words here.

The short summary is as follows: The first impact may be more or less symmetrical, but you quickly generate a massive debris layer in between. The upper block only absorbs energy as its own weight decelerates, while the lower block gets hit by the weight of the upper block plus the debris layer.

Furthermore, the upper block rotates, and this causes its weight to fall on the floors inside the footprint of the lower block. The lower columns thus get pushed outward, rather than actually crushed to failure. So the upper block is mostly hitting the floors plus core of the lower block, while the damage inflicted on the upper block is floors plus core plus perimeter columns, which is stronger.

Don't bother waiting for Heiwa to make any kind of sense. He's been at this for years.

lol. Are you going to stick around and discuss it ?

 

[aggle-rithm]

Every time I check this thread, I fear for the future of the human race.

 

[aggle-rithm]

Those same sane and smart people think that 1mm aluminium cut through 33 14'' x 14'' steel box columns that were braced against the concrete floors at 12 foot intervals . he 13 foot diameter lane severed these pretty cleanly and went on to destroy up to ten massive core columns snd partally carrying on to exit the building through maybe a dozen more 14'' x 14'' steel box columns.

.

Did I say the Towers were not hit at all ?

I just have this morbid curiosity...what exactly ARE you saying here? That a plane did hit the towers, but it couldn't have actually done any damage? But it did, so there's something suspicious?

 

[Dave Rogers]

Bill, just picture yourself as a parrot [...]

lol. Are you going to stick around and discuss it ?

OK, looks like he's got that bit.

Dave

 

[tfk]

Aha, now I understand how your rubble can demolish solid structure. The rubble becomes rigid for a while depending on the context and then becomes rubble again. The NWO physics in a nut shell. Thanks.
So we can conclude that only in NWO physics a one-way crush down is possible?

.
Aha... As usual, your portrayal of "what I said" bears absolutely no resemblance whatsoever to "what I said".

That's becoming a fairly consistent theme.

And here, you are using your misportrayal as an excuse to get derisive, take your ball & go home. How unprofessional. How bereft of intellectual courage.

Now, if you're thru with your temper-tantrum, how about answering my questions.

Not your questions. My questions.

They are sitting right here: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=4966284

Questions 2 thru 5 are still unanswered.

BTW, your withdrawal from the discussion on the consequence of concentrated mass (1/2 story vs. 3 stories) is noted. Withdrawal is, of course, one form of concession. Not the intellectually honest form, of course.

Tom

 

[tfk]

Hi

Something that I had been wondering about is the crush up. I've been following the thread and very much enjoy your posts (Im not an Engineer, just an IT proffessional). The bit I cant quite figure out, and its the only bit in Heiwas argument I cant quite resolve, is why the upper part C doesn't break apart as much as lower part A when collape occurs. I though perhaps it does, but that the general mass of the collapsed material keeps the progression going.

But (unless I have missunderstood) Bazant says theres a crush down first, followed by a crush up when C finally reaches whats left of A. Now I understand that its a simplified model, and I think I intuitively understand that this could happen, but Im not sure why.

Lastely I wish Heiwa would stop pratting about and get into the discussion properly so we can get to the end of your thought experiment. Im interested in the conclusions.

Cheers

Tim

.
Howdy Tim,

Thanks for the comment.

I've got some pressing work this morning. I'll get you a comment later today.

Tom

 

[FineWine]

Aha, now I understand how your rubble can demolish solid structure. The rubble becomes rigid for a while depending on the context and then becomes rubble again. The NWO physics in a nut shell. Thanks.
So we can conclude that only in NWO physics a one-way crush down is possible?

Why do all physicists and engineers in countries unfriendly to America accept "NWO" physics? Shouldn't there ONE brave soul who swallows your hogwash?

 

[bill smith]

I just have this morbid curiosity...what exactly ARE you saying here? That a plane did hit the towers, but it couldn't have actually done any damage? But it did, so there's something suspicious?

Well for the reasons I gave in the post you reference I find it impossible to believe that the fragile delicate aircraft negotiated those massive obstacles by way of bludgeoning it's way tthrough. But at the time time I also find it hard to believe that the perps would NOT have used real planes and resorted to the use of holograms or injected images of planes. That just seems too cmplicated and vulnerable to errors. (even though there is considerable evidence to support the injected images of planes)

So to square this circle you have to start thinking in other directions. The crumbling core columns spring to mind as a possible area of conjecture.

 

[BadBoy]

.
Howdy Tim,

Thanks for the comment.

I've got some pressing work this morning. I'll get you a comment later today.

Tom

Cool

 

[FineWine]

Well for the reasons I gave in the post you reference I find it impossible to believe that the fragile delicate aircraft negotiated those massive obstacles by way of bludgeoning it's way tthrough. But at the time time I also find it hard to believe that the perps would NOT have used real planes and resorted to the use of holograms or injected images of planes. That just seems too cmplicated and vulnerable to errors. (even though there is considerable evidence to support the injected images of planes)

So to square this circle you have to start thinking in other directions. The crumbling core columns spring to mind as a possible area of conjecture.

Instead of trying to square a circle (you will have as much success as you have in defending your insane 9/11 fairy tale), why not try to understand Mackey's lecture? You difficulty in believing that physics really does explain the way our world operates is the result of your lack of intelligence and poor education. It is your job to try to learn what most of us learned in high school. There is no controversy about the airliners' ability to penetrate the buildings. Morgan Reynolds is a fraud and Jim Fetzer is nuts.

 

[Justin39640]

Instead of trying to square a circle (you will have as much success as you have in defending your insane 9/11 fairy tale), why not try to understand Mackey's lecture? You difficulty in believing that physics really does explain the way our world operates is the result of your lack of intelligence and poor education. It is your job to try to learn what most of us learned in high school. There is no controversy about the airliners' ability to penetrate the buildings. Morgan Reynolds is a fraud and Jim Fetzer is nuts.

High School physics seem to be lost on truthers
things they say and type can be debunked by simple everyday observations
or from knowledge a lot of kids get in the scouts (such as types of fire and smoke)

(for bill)
a smaller slower lighter B25 hit and entered the empire state building (lost in the fog looking to land)
heres a newsreel from then

notice that they report that parts and fuel went down the elevator shafts and started fires in the basement
sounds like evidence contrary to our janitor friend's story (and every other woo-monger out there)

 

[TruthersLie]

lol. Are you going to stick around and discuss it ?

WE are all still waiting to see your rebuttal of his physics of 9/11.

but since he has you on ignore, the childish attempt to appear that he isn't going to defend himself is noted.

Again twoof... can a paint fleck destroy a satelight? can a rock destroy 100 miles of forest? can water cut through steel? Can a piece of straw shatter a brick?

 

[BadBoy]

Hi

Something that I had been wondering about is the crush up. I've been following the thread and very much enjoy your posts (Im not an Engineer, just an IT proffessional). The bit I cant quite figure out, and its the only bit in Heiwas argument I cant quite resolve, is why the upper part C doesn't break apart as much as lower part A when collape occurs. I though perhaps it does, but that the general mass of the collapsed material keeps the progression going.

But (unless I have missunderstood) Bazant says theres a crush down first, followed by a crush up when C finally reaches whats left of A. Now I understand that its a simplified model, and I think I intuitively understand that this could happen, but Im not sure why.

Lastely I wish Heiwa would stop pratting about and get into the discussion properly so we can get to the end of your thought experiment. Im interested in the conclusions.

Cheers

Tim

The first impact may be more or less symmetrical, but you quickly generate a massive debris layer in between.

OK, I get that. In WTC1&2, also there would already have been quite a bit of debris before the collapse even started given that most of a Jumbo jet was sitting inside.

The upper block only absorbs energy as its own weight decelerates,

Now thats what I dont get, why doesnt the upper block crumble in the same way the lower block does? Im not arguing that it should, or that it did, just that I dont get why it didnt.

Furthermore, the upper block rotates, and this causes its weight to fall on the floors inside the footprint of the lower block. The lower columns thus get pushed outward, rather than actually crushed to failure. So the upper block is mostly hitting the floors plus core of the lower block, while the damage inflicted on the upper block is floors plus core plus perimeter columns, which is stronger.

Ok, this makes sense accept that the upper block rotation (I assume you mean the upper block didnt collapse completely orthagonal to the base?) caused that upper part C have some advantage over the lower part A. But this means that the collapse was only due to this spurious fact. Surely thats not what the debunking is suggesting. I thought the debunk was to prove that the mass of the upper floors + debries when it collapsed down created a force that the lower floor (top floor of part A) couldnt support and so collapsed. (not to mention the complete stupidity of CD)

I just dont get why:

a. the bottom floor(s) of part C didnt collpase instead of A or
b. both upper and lower parts collapsed into each other until part C completely disintigrates.

However, intuitively (and I can understand intuition is not always reliable - unless you are talking to a truther nutjob who thinks there were no planes at all etc) I can imagine the top half falling and by way of a progressive collapse (i.e the collapsed floors adding to the forces that are causing the collapse to continue) the whole building coming down.

What doesnt seem intuitive is the top half C killing itself on the bottom half A, leaving A with little or minimal damage or mutual amount of damage as C. The image of C falling on A and then of C getting smaller and smaller as A gets smaller and smaller is like something from a cartoon.

And obviously A couldn't hold up the collapse of C since it did actually collapse. Im rambling now and probably using all sorts of words inappropriately so apologies in advance for that. Basically though the answer above didnt do it for me. Perhaps its all just maths in which case Ill just have to accept it.

Don't bother waiting for Heiwa to make any kind of sense. He's been at this for years.

ya, figured that out a while ago. After writing this now Im not actually sure if he is suggesting that A arrests C or that C gets completely mashed up by A as it collapses.

Heiwa, as a newbie and a novice I feel you havet put together a good enough expose' by a long long long longer way. IMHO you are obviously well out-classed here. I would suggest you either give up since your not good enough to win the argument, or find a top class guy who agrees with you to complete your theory properly so it holds together, or find another angle. But from where Im sitting man, you been mulched pretty bad. And whatever about the physics the suggested alternative is just nuts.