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

Heiwa said:
The Balzac sur Vitry destruction is a controlled demolition. A big section of part A is first demolished by external means, part C drops, and when what remains of part A contacts dropping part C, part A still destroys part C. Needs clever planning, though.
Click to expand...

So your axiom sucks on straws.
 
Heiwa said:
The Balzac sur Vitry destruction is a controlled demolition. A big section of part A is first demolished by external means, part C drops, and when what remains of part A contacts dropping part C, part A still destroys part C. Needs clever planning, though.
Click to expand...

You believe the WTC was brought down by secretly placed explosives that somehow escaped detection despite the massive quantities and numerous personal that would have to be involved in such a process....

And you don't see how difficult this would actually be (by difficult I mean ridiculous enough that it didn't happen) but you make this comment about the Vitry destruction?
Heiwa said:
Needs clever planning, though.
Click to expand...
 

Attachments

  • vader_irony.jpg
    vader_irony.jpg
    17.8 KB · Views: 2
Um, quick question for an ignorant non-engineer:

As part C destroys portions of part A (and, I assume, has portions of itself destroyed as well), we're not actually claiming that the matter is annihilated, are we? So the falling mass - though no longer in the form of a rigid structure - is actually growing versus what it started at as part C, yes?

I mean, say part C was 1000 units of mass, and part A was 10,000 units. As part C meets part A, 50 units of mass are destroyed from each as part of any rigid structure, but now there's part C at 950 units, part A as 9950 units, and 100 units of mass - even assuming portions have been ejected or some converted to energy, let's estimate and say 90 units of mass remain from the impact.

So now we have 1040 units of mass falling onto 9950 units of mass... or, in other words, the total falling mass includes whatever remains of part C plus the damaged debris from both C and A that isn't ejected or converted to energy.

Seems to me, then, that as mass increases and the lower portion destabilizes - for surely destroying portions of its mass is going to cause structural instability - the destruction should increase, relatively, as it falls.

But I'm utterly ignorant of such things - tell me, does the disassembled mass from C and A figure further into the destruction of A?
 
Tony Szamboti said:
The complete central core was self-supporting.
Click to expand...

Really! So tube-in-tube construction is really unnecessary? All it takes is a central core and concrete floors hanging off of it?

You need to get this astonishing discovery into print as soon as possible! Engineers will be kicking themselves for over-engineering everything so needlessly!
 
aggle-rithm said:
really? His axiom doesn't mention that. It states that since a lower section is strong enough to hold the entire rest of the building, and therefore cannot be destroyed by it.

This is clearly wrong, but you know that.

Eta: His axiom does state that the ratio of 1/10 is important, after further investigation. This makes little sense. It has all the earmarks of a made-up number.
Click to expand...

Nation confuses heiwa challenge with heiwa axiom ! Stranger clarifies difference. Grateful citizens offer womenfolk to stranger.
heiwa said:
the heiwa challenge

it is assumed at jref 9/11 conspiracy theories forum that a structure will
be crushed, if you drop a piece (1/10th) of the same structure on it and
that it is quite normal - no conspiracy. So here is the challenge: Prove
it!...

Conditions:

... 5. Before test 1/10th of the structure is disconnected at the top at
h = 0.9 h without damaging the structure.
6. The lower structure, 0.9 h high is then called part a. The top part, 0.1
h high, is called part c.
7. Mass of part c should be <1/9th of mass of part a.
8. Now drop part c on part a and crush part a ...
Heiwa
Click to expand...
_______________________________________________________________________

heiwa said:
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 energy applied by c by gravity is limited and actually very small! And to break elements/connections require plenty of energy. So after a while
all energy applied is consumed as local failures in the structures and
transformed into heat. The collision and associated failures are then
arrested.

There is no possibility that part c can continue to apply 'dynamic load' to
'progress the collapse' or anything like that. Part c is getting destroyd by
part a.

That's why what we see of wtc 1 and 2 on 911 are controlled demolitions.
had the fires just weakened structural elements between parts c and a,
allowing part c to displace down, part a would have stopped part c withinn
one second. Only some more local failures would have taken place.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
BasqueArch said:
HEIWA'S AXIOM PROVEN FALSE


2. No explosives sounds.
Click to expand...

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!
 
Heiwa,

Problem one. More than 130 db, even for short periods of time, can cause PERMANANT damage. Permanant damage begins at 140 db.

Fail again.

Maybe you should stick to things more advanced. Simple things like fire and sound seem to be your downfall.

Here's a link to prove it.
http://www.gcaudio.com/resources/howtos/loudness.html

Here's the score for anyone paying attention.

HEIWA - 0 ZERO

Triforcharity - 3 One for the fire, two for the sound levels, and three for proving that Heiwa was NOT an expert in firefighting.
 
Last edited:
tfk said:
.

Show your numbers for BOTH of these. (No reference to paper, please.)

A. Energy required to disassemble ...

Floor 98: ___
Floor 97: ___
Floor 96: ___

... sufficiently for collapse to continue?

Please EXPLAIN carefully how you reached these numbers.
____

B. Kinetic Energy content in falling mass just as it is about to strike:

Floor 98: ___ ?
Floor 97: ___ ?
Floor 96: ___ ?

You don't have to explain these numbers.
___



I drop a car (2 tons) on top of you from 10' high. You are dead.

I pick up the piece of the car (2 tons, in pieces) and drop them on bill. Is bill dead? Or does he walk away?

By what bit of lunacy do you state that 10,000 tons of metal & concrete loses it's ability to crush something onto which it falls because it has itself been changed from a building into a pile of rubble?

Tom

PS. I offered you a wager based on your video. No response?
Click to expand...


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.
 
triforcharity said:
Heiwa,

Problem one. More than 130 db, even for short periods of time, can cause PERMANANT damage. Permanant damage begins at 140 db.

Fail again.

Maybe you should stick to things more advanced. Simple things like fire and sound seem to be your downfall.

Here's a link to prove it.
http://www.gcaudio.com/resources/howtos/loudness.html

Here's the score for anyone paying attention.

HEIWA - 0 ZERO

Triforcharity - 3 One for the fire, two for the sound levels, and three for proving that Heiwa was NOT an expert in firefighting.
Click to expand...

Yes, 130 dB is loud ... close to the contact. But it gets lower a bit away. Still strange that many witnesses claim they can distinguish between an explosion and a contact steel/steel.
 
And how many people, (myself included) have reported any hearing damage?? Not many that I can recall.

140 db is is like standing near a jet engine at 100 feet. That will cause severe damage even in short bursts. If it was 130 db, and I was no farther than 50 yards when it collapsed, then how do I not have permanant hearing damage??

FAIL AGAIN Heiwa!!

And how many people heard these CD explosives going off in NJ??? My guess, um..... Lets see.......None??

You're on a sinking ship heiwa. And it's most likely one you yourself designed.
 
Z said:
Um, quick question for an ignorant non-engineer:

As part C destroys portions of part A (and, I assume, has portions of itself destroyed as well), we're not actually claiming that the matter is annihilated, are we? So the falling mass - though no longer in the form of a rigid structure - is actually growing versus what it started at as part C, yes?

I mean, say part C was 1000 units of mass, and part A was 10,000 units. As part C meets part A, 50 units of mass are destroyed from each as part of any rigid structure, but now there's part C at 950 units, part A as 9950 units, and 100 units of mass - even assuming portions have been ejected or some converted to energy, let's estimate and say 90 units of mass remain from the impact.

So now we have 1040 units of mass falling onto 9950 units of mass... or, in other words, the total falling mass includes whatever remains of part C plus the damaged debris from both C and A that isn't ejected or converted to energy.

Seems to me, then, that as mass increases and the lower portion destabilizes - for surely destroying portions of its mass is going to cause structural instability - the destruction should increase, relatively, as it falls.

But I'm utterly ignorant of such things - tell me, does the disassembled mass from C and A figure further into the destruction of A?
Click to expand...

No mass is destroyed. Just elements/connections are broken and energy transformed into heat. So 40 units of mass are still attached to A and not dropping anywhere. And part C is slowed down - a jolt should occur, etc, etc.

Yes, you are utterly ignorant of such things. But it is good that you try to understand.
 
Tony Szamboti said:
Quite the contrary, it sounds like you are the one moving the goal posts. I don't know that it was his best example, but I seem to recall Anders saying that one pizza box can't crush down nine of them. The size differential was always a part of his criteria. The whole point being that the smaller upper part would be destroyed itself before having a chance to finish the job of crushing the much larger lower part.

By the way, an unofficial axiom and often used expression in engineering is that "the devil is in the details". Sorry if that bothers you but it is the real world.
Click to expand...

Before you nail your colours too firmly to Heiwa's mast, you need to remember that he also believes that the top 10%'s fall would still be arrested if it fell from a height of 2 miles. He is clueless.
 
Tony Szamboti said:
I am not going to sit here and argue with you as you are now twisting my words.

If you noticed, I said I didn't think the pizza boxes were Ander's best examples but that size was always a part of his criteria and you and Aggle-rithm were not considering that in your criticism.
Click to expand...

Are you going to retract your earlier false claims about the evidence of steel temps that NIST had?

Was it you who said you saw a documentary where someone admitted to demolishing the WTC (7)? One that no-one else had ever heard of or seen? One you could not find again.

It was when you were realcddeal was it not?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom