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

[aggle-rithm]

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.

Once again, Heiwa is missing the point and comparing something that is designed to move at relatively high speeds, and therefore is designed to handle significant dynamic loads, with a building, which is designed to handle mostly static loads.

Will he ever realize he's doing this?

Nah. How can 10 lines of Javascript realize anything?

 

[MIKILLINI]

Heiwa is probably the most honourable debater around.

He may be a hero in your fantasy world Bill, but in the real world: Nope.

There are many parrots in the real world and you play one really well.

 

[bill smith]

So let's hope ol' T expands on his 'rubble is better at crushing' theory. I do love imginative theories and they sure don't come much more imaginative than this one.lol

 

[beachnut]

Heiwa is probably the most honourable debater around. ...

It would be great if he used some engineering to go with his delusional axiom. It would be better if you understood engineering and physics.

Why is it impossible for you or Heiwa to post calculations to support what are lies? Oh; because they are lies. I have to answer my own questions you and Heiwa can't answer anything to do with 911 with a rational response. Why?

Where do you hide your calculations on this topic?

 

[A W Smith]

Heiwa = Bill Griffith?????

Nah. How can 10 lines of Javascript realize anything?

I am reminded of a web script from long ago. a "Zippy Meets Meta HTML" script that you could proxy web pages through and would insert "zippyisms" randomly throughout the web page text. Unfortunately the meta site is no longer available. But the technology is still there to create a Meta Anders Bjorkman page or a meta Psikeyhacker page.

 

[MIKILLINI]

So let's hope ol' T expands on his 'rubble is better at crushing' theory.

Gee Bill, you won't understand any of it since the explanation wasn't in 6 lines.
Are you ever going to get those training wheels taken off?

I do love imaginative theories and they sure don't come much more imaginative than this one.lol

This comment is correct in regards to Heiwa.

 

[tfk]

I am posting the wager again, for easy reference:

"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."

You will note that, in the wager, the existence of 3 dimensional structure, "such as multiple stories of a building", in its original "as built" state and, for comparison, in a crushed down, compacted state, are "GIVENS". That is, it is assumed a priori to the wager that those two parts exist. The question of how they came to exist is irrelevant to the bet.

[Side note: How they come to exist in the towers will be relevant at a later time. Just not now.]

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).

.
If you read my wager, you will find that "your paper" is irrelevant to the issue.

So I've crossed out that phrase.

As mentioned above, if you read my wager, you'll note that the mechanism by which the structure gets crushes is irrelevant.

So I've crossed out that phrase.

If you read my wager, you'll note that the energy & time required to crush the materials is not mentioned. It is irrelevant.

So I've crossed out that phrase.

If you read my wager, you'll find that the speed at which a car crusher takes to crush a car is not mentioned. It is irrelevant.

So I've crossed out that phrase.
.

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?

.
If you read my wager, you'll notice that the rate at which the energy is applied to the structure in order to crush it is not mentioned. It is irrelevant.

So I've crossed out that phrase.

If you read my wager, you'll notice that the mechanism by which the material is crushed is not mentioned, and is therefore, irrelevant. (For the moment.)

So I've crossed out that phrase.
.

Ensure that the car to be crushed does not crush your gravity auto crusher!

.
If you read my wager, you'll note that the mechanism by which the material gets crushed is not mentioned, so any damage to it is irrelevant.

So I've crossed out that phrase.
.

Anyway, I look forward to your evidence about crush forces at various times of crushing created by gravity alone.

.
Well, out of your entire first reply, this is the only sentence that remains.

I must say, Anders, that for an engineer, you do not focus on the problem at hand very well. As they say, "Make haste slowly."

This is not going very well for you thus far, is it, Anders?

I am glad that you are looking forward to learning a little bit. It is a welcome change in your attitude.

Unfortunately, you will have to wait a bit. It is a very busy day for me today, and I must be off.

Tom

 

[Heiwa]

I am posting the wager again, for easy reference:

"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."

You will note that, in the wager, the existence of 3 dimensional structure, "such as multiple stories of a building", in its original "as built" state and, for comparison, in a crushed down, compacted state, are "GIVENS". That is, it is assumed a priori to the wager that those two parts exist. The question of how they came to exist is irrelevant to the bet.

[Side note: How they come to exist in the towers will be relevant at a later time. Just not now.]


.
If you read my wager, you will find that "your paper" is irrelevant to the issue.

So I've crossed out that phrase.

As mentioned above, if you read my wager, you'll note that the mechanism by which the structure gets crushes is irrelevant.

So I've crossed out that phrase.

If you read my wager, you'll note that the energy & time required to crush the materials is not mentioned. It is irrelevant.

So I've crossed out that phrase.

If you read my wager, you'll find that the speed at which a car crusher takes to crush a car is not mentioned. It is irrelevant.

So I've crossed out that phrase.
.

.
If you read my wager, you'll notice that the rate at which the energy is applied to the structure in order to crush it is not mentioned. It is irrelevant.

So I've crossed out that phrase.

If you read my wager, you'll notice that the mechanism by which the material is crushed is not mentioned, and is therefore, irrelevant. (For the moment.)

So I've crossed out that phrase.
.

.
If you read my wager, you'll note that the mechanism by which the material gets crushed is not mentioned, so any damage to it is irrelevant.

So I've crossed out that phrase.
.

.
Well, out of your entire first reply, this is the only sentence that remains.

I must say, Anders, that for an engineer, you do not focus on the problem at hand very well. As they say, "Make haste slowly."

This is not going very well for you thus far, is it, Anders?

I am glad that you are looking forward to learning a little bit. It is a welcome change in your attitude.

Unfortunately, you will have to wait a bit. It is a very busy day for me today, and I must be off.

Tom

Well, it seems that you only say that, when part C is dropped on and impacts part A, the sudden, short lived, dynamic impact force between C and A is greater than the static force force between C and A before, when A was just carrying C. Actually this is exactly what I describe in my papers. This short lived force can only produce local failures in C (and also A) adjacent to the impact, which are then arrested when the energy applied has been transformed into failures of different kind.

Anyway, I look forward to any other explanation of what can take place.

 

[tfk]

Cripes, I've got to get out of here.

Let me just cross out the parts of your reply that are irrelevant to the wager. I'll explain why later in the day...

Well, it seems that you only say that, when part C is dropped on and impacts part A, the sudden, short lived, dynamic impact force between C and A is greater than the static force force between C and A before, when A was just carrying C.

.
Anders, you MUST be joking...

Would you please read my wager again. The price of fish at the market is just as related to my wager as your comment.
.

Actually this is exactly what I describe in my papers.

.
YOUR papers are irrelevant. So is the above comment.
.

This short lived force can only produce local failures in C (and also A) adjacent to the impact, which are then arrested when the energy applied has been transformed into failures of different kind.

.
Your broken record is irrelevant. Focus, Anders, FOCUS. The wager. It is only two sentences long.
.

Anyway, I look forward to any other explanation of what can take place.

.
I've already given a brief explanation of what takes place. (In my brief explanation.) You might start with that.

Tom

 

[bill smith]

Golly-Gosh and Cripes Heiwa... Is that the time already ?

One thing you have to know about T is that you can never win. No way. YOU don't WIN- he LOSES. So I always say ' let him lose and good luck '. It's better to be the bigger man sometimes.

 

[Heiwa]

Claim of tfk

"Dropped from the same height, a complex, 3 dimensional structure (part C), 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 (part A) on which they (elements of part C) fall AFTER the dropped parts (of part C) have been broken up & compacted (??) than they (elements of part C) 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. (part A)"

OK, part C drops and impacts part A and generates a force F₁. Then part C breaks up (-F₁ is doing that, while producing a JOLT), these broken C elements are compacted (and becomes part B - plenty force/energy required for that) and part B drops and generates a second impact force F₂ on A.

You suggest that F₂>F₁ ! Is that it?

In my opinion F₂ is ZERO as no rubble (part B) is produced or dropping.

Anyway, go ahead to prove whatever you believe in! Are you one of those that believes the Universe & Everything was created about 7000 years ago?

 

[GlennB]

In my opinion F₂ is ZERO as no rubble (part B) is produced or dropping.

My bolding.

Parts A and C won't get damaged at all now? You get weirder and weirder.

 

[Heiwa]

My bolding.

Parts A and C won't get damaged at all now? You get weirder and weirder.

Not at all! In my theory - read my papers - local failures (broken elements/connections) occur in both parts C and A at impact C/A and those failures absorb all applied energy. Are you also one of those that believes the Universe & Everything was created about 7000 years ago?

 

[GlennB]

In my opinion F₂ is ZERO as no rubble (part B) is produced or dropping.

In my theory - read my papers - local failures (broken elements/connections) occur in both parts C and A at impact C/A ....

Totally self-contradictory in the space of 2 hours? That probably isn't a record in your case.

 

[Newtons Bit]

Totally self-contradictory in the space of 2 hours? That probably isn't a record in your case.

He usually has the common decency to wait until the posts are a few pages apart and THEN change his story. But he doesn't just change his story, he shifts his perception of reality so that the previous response doesn't actually exist.

 

[GlennB]

He usually has the common decency to wait until the posts are a few pages apart and THEN change his story. But he doesn't just change his story, he shifts his perception of reality so that the previous response doesn't actually exist.

So it could well be a record?
It reminds me of a certain syndrome, which often presents with the 'out of sight, out of mind' attitude to one's previous statements and claims. But in black+white? The printed word? Quite remarkable.

 

[tfk]

Claim of tfk [Wrong, Anders. This is your misinterpretation of my claim. -tfk]

"Dropped from the same height, a complex, 3 dimensional structure (part C), 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 (part A) on which they (elements of part C) fall AFTER the dropped parts (of part C) have been broken up & compacted (??) than they (elements of part C) 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. (part A)"

.
Anders, please do NOT change what I wrote and leave it in quotations. This is rude. If you are going to CHANGE my quotations, by inserting your revisions, please note it.

In your quotation box above, I have bolded YOUR additions.

Most of your guesses are also incorrect. This is specifically why you should not attribute your guesswork to me.

I have shown in red the guesses that you have added which, once we get there, will be shown to be incorrect.

You've got to crawl before you toddle, Anders.

MY claim is NOT YET about the towers. We'll get there.

MY claim is EXACTLY as I stated it: about a structure, "like multiple stories of a building", in one of two states: a) "as built", and b) "crushed & compressed".

We can use any 3 floors of the WTC as our "typical structure". Your "Part C" and "Part A", even if you had identified them correctly, are both misleading and irrelevant. Please leave them out of the conversation for the moment.

First questions:

Do you, or do you not agree that, if dropped onto a solid surface, the peak force of a crushed and compacted mass of 3 stories of WTC would generate a higher AVERAGE force on the solid surface?

Do you, or do you not agree that, if dropped onto a solid surface, the peak force of a crushed and compacted mass of 3 stories of WTC would generate a higher PEAK force on the solid surface?

That's all for now.

Slow steps. We'll get there faster.

Tom

 

[newton3376]

.First questions:

Do you, or do you not agree that, if dropped onto a solid surface, the peak force of a crushed and compacted mass of 3 stories of WTC would generate a higher AVERAGE force on the solid surface?

Do you, or do you not agree that, if dropped onto a solid surface, the peak force of a crushed and compacted mass of 3 stories of WTC would generate a higher PEAK force on the solid surface?

That's all for now.

Slow steps. We'll get there faster.

Okay I have a question (keep in mind that I am an electrical engineer, not a mechanical engineer so bear with me here......)

If the crushed and compacted mass generates a higher average and peak force on the solid surface...

Is this because less energy goes into deforming the crushed and compacted mass as would go into deforming the "pre-broken" mass?

You can answer me by PM if you don't want to in the thread....

 

[FineWine]

What floors are you talking about? Do they belong to small, upper part C or big, lower part A? Or rubble part B that does not exist??? And why should they collapse at all? Are you a supporter of the pan cake theory? NIST isn't.

NIST suggests that part C applies potential energy on part A and that part A cannot absorb that energy because part A is too weak = global collapse ensues. That's the OCT! In this thread we have advanced a little! It seems that everybody here now agrees that part A applies energy on small, weak, upper part C that is subject to local failures. The local failures in small, weak, upper part C absorbs a lot of energy and ... arrest should soon follow.

You know, topic is 'Why a one-way Crush down is not possible' and small, weak upper part C breaking up is one reason for that.

But thanks for your post anyway.

Your lies have been exposed, Heiwa. You are an incompetent fraud.

The top part, the collapsing floors, is the BIG PART.

The bottom part, the floor immediately below, is the SMALL PART.

There is no big part A, Heiwa. You are either lying or incredibly obtuse. The falling floors do not hit the entire building. They hit ONE floor, Heiwa.

NIST says nothing about a mythical part C hitting a mythical part A. NIST says that the inward bowing of the perimeter columns caused floor trusses to fail.

Your insane babble about "small, weak part C" is WRONG.

The collapsing floors do not "arrest themselves," Heiwa. That notion is idiotic.

There is no "pancake theory." The floors necessarily pancaked after the perimeter columns buckled and the trusses failed.

The agenda-driven lunacy you've been peddling is ALL WRONG.

 

[Heiwa]

.

First questions:

AA. Do you, or do you not agree that, if dropped onto a solid surface, the peak force of a crushed and compacted mass of 3 stories of WTC would generate a higher AVERAGE force on the solid surface?

BB. Do you, or do you not agree that, if dropped onto a solid surface, the peak force of a crushed and compacted mass of 3 stories of WTC would generate a higher PEAK force on the solid surface?

AA. A crushed and compacted mass of 3 stories, let's call it Part C crushed, is dropped by gravity on a surface and generates a force F_Ccrushed. Yes, I agree. What shall I compare it with? An uncrushed Part C being dropped?

BB. Ditto?

The force generated by a part C impacting a part A is dynamic. Before and after impact it is zero. During impact the maximum value is the peak value. As the impact takes a certain time, you can probably calculate an average value of the dynamic force during impact. The force may, e.g. produce a nice bounce! C bounces up! This happens if A is really solid/inelastic and C is elastic.

However, if the force breaks an element in C during impact = no contact between C and A, the force becomes zero. When C and A make contact again a new force develops. Maybe C will bounce then?