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

Grizzly Bear said:
As for the 1/10 vs 9/10 routine I'd personally love to see where in any principal of architecture or engineering the proportional size of two sections was in any way relevant to whether or not the progression of structural failure advances. According to whom is this a universal law in engineering? I'd love to know since I've spent 8 years taking design courses (between high school and college) and not have not once heard of this universal law until encountering the WTC conspiracy theories.
Click to expand...

I personally don't care who answers this one, Tony's free to go at it here or take it with him to the hardfire debate with Mackey. Or perhaps Heiwa can take a shot at it, or perhaps one of other AE911truth members would like a shot at it themselves. I'm genuinely curious of any literature that might be posturing that structural failure is directly reliant on a proportional scale such as this. I have at least 6 books that are in one fashion or another related to building construction, and structural design, and not once in my readings of any of them have I seen a premise such as this. Would anyone from that group care to source this premise or rule as stated from an academic source that architecture students would be using for study in the field? I'd very much appreciate any citations.
 
Last edited:
basquearch said:


HEIWA'S AXIOM PROVEN FALSE DESPITE PROPONENT'S INSOUCIANT HANDWAVING BLITHE GOAL POST MOVING.

These French know their structures.
ABC Balzac Vitry demolition.

1. Demolition without explosives.

2. No explosives sounds.

3. From photos, construction is load bearing precast concrete walls, poured
in place floor/wall connections. First floor are poured in place concrete
columns and beams.

4. Hydraulic jacks inside push one floor sideways.

5. Part C top crushes part A to bottom, disproving heiwa's axiom: "axiom is
about two parts C and A of identical strucure, where A carried C before and
where C is then dropped on A by gravity ... And no one-way crush down of A
takes place."

6. "Pyroclastic" concrete clouds formed without explosives.


" On the site of the Val-de-Marne, an officer explains the method of
demolition:
According to Daniel Rieber, driver of the work:
It is a so-called demolition by "verinage." the use of the hydraulic
cylinders that are operated remotely by an operator who can move the upper
part of the building laterally. Once it is out of its center of gravity, the
top goes down to the bottom and the building will collapse on itself down "

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=syzKBBB_THE

​
Click to expand...


.
basquearch said:
SZAMBOTI STILL GROGGY. MISSSES POINT. BELIEVES QUESTION IS ABOUT "DYNAMICS". BYSTANDERS REMIND HIM HEIWA'S AXIOM WRONG.
Part C top crushes part A to bottom, disproving Heiwa's Axiom: "axiom is
about two parts C and A of identical strucure, where A carried C before and
where C is then dropped on A by gravity ... And no one-way crush down of A
takes place."
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) by gravity crushing down (A)
Click to expand...


HEIWA IGNORES PROOF HAIWA AXIOM IS WRONG. BEATS STRAW MAN WITH RED HERRING INSTEAD


heiwa said:
originally posted by basquearch

HEIWA'S AXIOM PROVEN FALSE

2. No explosives sounds.
__________________________________________________________________

when two parts C and A collide there is a big bang followed by more bangs when structural elements/connections are ripped apart. Compare a car collision. Always a big bang.

It is very strange that on 911 nobody seems to have heard the sound of structural destructions. It must have been >130 db for the complete destructions when the three towers fell (and when two towers were struck)to distinguish that sound from, e.g. Explosives, is not easy. But a lot of people present didn't hear anything. I wonder why!
Click to expand...

Heiwa, Tony will you concede the Heiwa Axiom is wrong.​
 
Heiwa said:
Sorry, part C, floors 98-110, is supposed to contact part A, floors 1-97, fixed to ground.
Click to expand...


You should be sorry--you are a sorry excuse for an engineer. Floors 98-110 do not contact a mythical Big Part: they contact the floor immediately below. Duh!


Heiwa said:
If that takes place, both parts C and A, should deform and absorb energy. The only elements in contact are part C, floor 98, and part A, floor 97, where local failures may take place. To assume that only C crushes a bit of A, floor 97, is incorrect. Part A also crushes a bit of C, floor 98, and that is the beginning of the end, i.e. part A arrests part C, or what is left of it. As already explained several times, the energy applied is very small and should be absorbed within one second and associated local failures.
Bazant suggests that the energy applied can deform 110 floors of structure and then locally damage 280+ columns in interface C/A or in top of A, floors 96-97, enabling a second free fall, so that again 109 floors of structure deform and then locally damage another 280+ columns lower down producing rubble (part B), etc, etc. All pure nonsense.
Click to expand...



Yes, your postings are pure nonsense. Stop raving about an imaginary Part A and accept the reality that the falling floors crush the next floor in line, adding it to their total mass.
The falling floors, as you have been told repeatedly, do not impact a 97-floor block. They impact the floor immediately below.


Heiwa said:
Nobody in Germany and France where I am active supports Bazant! Or do you have any info to the opposite?
Click to expand...


It is safe to assume that you are lying as usual. Show us the name of a single engineer--I don't care how much he hates America--who would willingly associate himself with your fantastic idiocy.
 
Heiwa said:
Nobody in Germany and France where I am active supports Bazant! Or do you have any info to the opposite?
Click to expand...

Nobody in Greece and the UK, where I am active, supports Sir Isaac Newton either. Lordy ... must be decades since I saw a public demo with placards saying "Newton was right all along !" All that really happens is that nobody argues with Newton. So things stay pretty quiet on the street, macro-physics wise. Absence of counter-argument can be significant.
 
Heiwa said:
Say energy applied by part C with mass m dropping height h with acceleration g on part A is X.

Say energy required to deform parts C and A elastically before any failure is Y.

If X<Y part C bounces! Agree? No damages!

Let's assume X>Y. Thus energy (X-Y) = Z is available to cause local failures.

I suggest you need 10 Z to completely destroy the structure of one floor of parts A and C.

In this case Z will thus just produce local failures that damage 1/10th of one floor of parts C and A together.


Your car example is really stupid. A structure C(ar) which is 10 times heavier and 100 times more solid than part A is dropped on A. Evidently part C crushes part A.

On the other hand, if little part A is dropped on big part C, A gets damaged.
Click to expand...
.
Nice job producing something meaningless.

I asked you for NUMBERS. Not "X", "Y" & "Z".

You are able to write "X", but not __ GJ's?

You are the person that was strutting about the importance of a structural DAMAGE analysis. I still haven't seen squat out of you for this.

I just re-read your updated assessment. It's got just as many fundamental errors, silly errors, as your previous papers. Trivial to prove wrong.

But it had few numbers. The ones it DID have were generally wrong. Too bad you don't read the NIST report. You could fix some of those wrong numbers.

Now, how about answering my questions.

1. What are the weak link components on Floor 98 that would have to break in order for the collapse to continue?
2. What are the components of floors 96 thru 100 that actually DO break when the columns on floor 98 buckle?
3. What are the components of floors 96 thru 100 that actually DO break when Part C crashes into Floor 98?
4. How much energy would it take to break them? (In Joules, please.)

Tom
 
newton3376 said:
I'm more of a sarcastic smart ass...I have sort of a dark and cynical sense of humor too...so I'm rarely at a loss for words...

But I'll be damned if those truthers don't sometimes leave me doing the same thing....staring at the screen with a smile but also a WTF??!! look on my face...
Click to expand...
lol i figured loudmouth covered that too lol
it is mind boggling
i think i found a stundie nominee on youtube
its one of heiwas silly little tests
it sounds like its narrated by psykyhacker

i almost fell over
check out the end and part 2 lmao

aggle-rithm said:
...and a whooooole lot of mass.
Click to expand...
werd
 
Grizzly Bear said:
I personally don't care who answers this one, Tony's free to go at it here or take it with him to the hardfire debate with Mackey. Or perhaps Heiwa can take a shot at it, or perhaps one of other AE911truth members would like a shot at it themselves. I'm genuinely curious of any literature that might be posturing that structural failure is directly reliant on a proportional scale such as this. I have at least 6 books that are in one fashion or another related to building construction, and structural design, and not once in my readings of any of them have I seen a premise such as this. Would anyone from that group care to source this premise or rule as stated from an academic source that architecture students would be using for study in the field? I'd very much appreciate any citations.
Click to expand...

What I find bizarre is the idea that the number 1/10 is a universal constant, apparently right up there alongside pi, the speed of light, and the Planck length. How Heiwa arrived at this number will probably always remain a mystery.
 
FineWine said:
You should be sorry--you are a sorry excuse for an engineer. Floors 98-110 do not contact a mythical Big Part: they contact the floor immediately below. Duh!



Yes, your postings are pure nonsense. Stop raving about an imaginary Part A and accept the reality that the falling floors crush the next floor in line, adding it to their total mass.
The falling floors, as you have been told repeatedly, do not impact a 97-floor block. They impact the floor immediately below.


It is safe to assume that you are lying as usual. Show us the name of a single engineer--I don't care how much he hates America--who would willingly associate himself with your fantastic idiocy.
Click to expand...

Heiwa remains willfully ignorant. Floors 98-110 is the mass of 13 floors hitting the one (1) floor below. His willful ignorance is stuck on the 97 floors beneath instead of the one (1) floor, floor 97, that the mass of 13 is striking first.
I know I'm explaining it the same way as you are Fine, but Heiwa and his parrots are compromised if they acknowledge it.
 
Would it be within the rules for someone to open a thread called for instance 'The Bar' . A place where we could unwind and share a few vids and jokes and have a virtual drink after a hard day's debunking ? Sometimes a person is not in the mood for the cut-and-thrust but still wants to stay in the groove so to speak.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom