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

Tony Szamboti said:
The Balzac-Vitry demolition was not a one-way crush down, where the upper block completely crushes the lower block and then crushes itself on the rubble pile of the lower block. In this case the upper block was being destroyed at the same time as the lower block. It would be more appropriately called simultaneous crush-down/crush-up.

It does not contradict Anders Bjorkman's criteria where he explains that 1/10th of the structure could not crush down 9/10th's of a structure. The point Anders is making is that the smaller upper portion would be destroyed before it got through much more of the lower structure than it's own size, and it would lose it's ability to pulverize at that point.

In the case of the Balzac-Vitry building the upper and lower block's were nearly equivalent in size. If the lower block had been 9 times taller than the upper block it is extremely unlikely that a complete crush down would have occurred.
Click to expand...


WRONG QUIZ KID

aggle-rithm is correct in the general comments that Heiwa made....ANY structure made out of ANY material...

Why do you think he (Heiwa) believes that lemons and cardboard are good examples to demonstrate the general principle of "no one way crush down"?

NOW when an example showing your stupid concepts to be utter crap is given to you what do you do?

Now all of a sudden you are concerned with the details!!!!

I happened to snap a photo of you and Heiwa...
 

Attachments

  • shifting_goalposts.jpg
    shifting_goalposts.jpg
    41.6 KB · Views: 99
Last edited:
newton3376 said:
WRONG QUIZ KID

aggle-rithm is correct in the general comments that Heiwa made....ANY structure made out of ANY material...

Why do you think he (Heiwa) believes that lemons and cardboard are good examples to demonstrate the general principle of "no one way crush down"?

NOW when an example showing your stupid concepts to be utter crap is given to you what do you do?

Now all of a sudden you are concerned with the details!!!!

I happened to snap a photo of you and Heiwa...
Click to expand...

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.
 
Last edited:
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 part C would be destroyed itself before having a chance to finish the job.
Click to expand...

You call yourself an engineer and you think cardboard and fruit are good ways to model something like the world trade center?

I am so glad I will likely never have to work with you in the real life world of engineering.....

Fruit and cardboard....simply incredible.

I really hope you do end up debating Ryan...I enjoy watching a slaughter. :)
 
newton3376 said:
You call yourself an engineer and you think cardboard and fruit are good ways to model something like the world trade center?

I am so glad I will likely never have to work with you in the real life world of engineering.....

Fruit and cardboard....simply incredible.

I really hope you do end up debating Ryan...I enjoy watching a slaughter. :)
Click to expand...

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.
 
Last edited:
Tony Szamboti said:
The Balzac-Vitry demolition was not a one-way crush down, where the upper block completely crushes the lower block and then crushes itself on the rubble pile of the lower block. In this case the upper block was being destroyed at the same time as the lower block. It would be more appropriately called simultaneous crush-down/crush-up.

It does not contradict Anders Bjorkman's criteria where he explains that 1/10th of the structure could not crush down 9/10th's of a structure. The point Anders is making is that the smaller upper portion would be destroyed before it got through much more of the lower structure than it's own size, and it would lose it's ability to pulverize at that point.

In the case of the Balzac-Vitry building the upper and lower block's were nearly equivalent in size and strength. If the lower block had been 9 times taller, and proportionately stronger as it descended, than the upper block, it is extremely unlikely that a complete crush down would have occurred.
Click to expand...

SZAMBOTI SUFFERS AMNESIA. BYSTANDERS RUSH IN WITH HEIWA'S AXIOM.

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.


INTERPRETER RULES AXIOM CLEAR, SZAMBOTI WRONG. BYSTANDERS DISPERSE.
 
Last edited:
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...

Maybe you could show us his best example. Lemons? Sponges? which one?
 
Tony Szamboti said:
The Balzac-Vitry demolition was not a one-way crush down, where the upper block completely crushes the lower block and then crushes itself on the rubble pile of the lower block. In this case the upper block was being destroyed at the same time as the lower block. It would be more appropriately called simultaneous crush-down/crush-up.

It does not contradict Anders Bjorkman's criteria where he explains that 1/10th of the structure could not crush down 9/10th's of a structure. The point Anders is making is that the smaller upper portion would be destroyed before it got through much more of the lower structure than it's own size, and it would lose it's ability to pulverize at that point.

In the case of the Balzac-Vitry building the upper and lower block's were nearly equivalent in size and strength. If the lower block had been 9 times taller, and proportionately stronger as it descended, than the upper block, it is extremely unlikely that a complete crush down would have occurred.
Click to expand...
And the stupid goes on and on...
1/10 th doesn't HAVT TO ****ING CRUSH all 9/10th's.
It just has to crush 1 floor.
which then adds to the 1/10 and subtracts from the 9/10ths. Carry on to completion
Buh-bye, idiots
 
Tony Szamboti said:
It does not contradict Anders Bjorkman's criteria where he explains that 1/10th of the structure could not crush down 9/10th's of a structure. The point Anders is making is that the smaller upper portion would be destroyed before it got through much more of the lower structure than it's own size, and it would lose it's ability to pulverize at that point.
Click to expand...
The problem is you and Anders appear to take Bazant's MODEL; a mathematically simplified MODEL, to a hyper realistic interpretation. For anyone with a competent understanding of what he was relaying, the very first thing that should have been abundantly clear is that it was not intended to be an exact replica of reality. It sat out to demonstrate a point, and it did it. It did not require the building's upper stories to remain in one piece, the mass is collectively falling as a unit anyway.

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.
 
Last edited:
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.
Click to expand...

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.

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...


I'm sorry, too. It is very, very clear that Heiwa's theory is a general purpose one, and the details are unimportant. If you start making exceptions for details, then the theory becomes meaningless.
 
Last edited:
rwguinn said:
And the stupid goes on and on...
1/10 th doesn't HAVT TO ****ING CRUSH all 9/10th's.
It just has to crush 1 floor.
which then adds to the 1/10 and subtracts from the 9/10ths. Carry on to completion
Buh-bye, idiots
Click to expand...

I wouldn't be too sure of myself here. It sounds like you don't have a full appreciation for the dynamics necessary.
 
Tony Szamboti said:
I wouldn't be too sure of myself here. It sounds like you don't have a full appreciation for the dynamics necessary.
Click to expand...

Then by all means--enlighten us! Tell us why the pulverized part of the lower section becomes irrelevant once it begins to move.

(Taking into account, of course, that stability of a tube-in-tube design requires the connection between the tubes to be intact.)
 
aggle-rithm said:
Then by all means--enlighten us! Tell us why the pulverized part of the lower section becomes irrelevant once it begins to move.

(Taking into account, of course, that stability of a tube-in-tube design requires the connection between the tubes to be intact.)
Click to expand...

The complete central core was self-supporting.
 
Last edited:
bill smith said:
Do you accept the visible evidence in the video I posted that the upper part C was not intact or rigid in the sense Bazant meant ?
Click to expand...

You really don't understand an engineering assumption?
 
Tony Szamboti said:
I am not going to sit here and argue with you as you are now twisting my words.
Click to expand...

Of course you aren't. I wouldn't try to argue either if I were you.

Tony Szamboti said:
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...
 

Attachments

  • backpedaling.gif
    backpedaling.gif
    35.1 KB · Views: 92
Tony Szamboti said:
I wouldn't be too sure of myself here. It sounds like you don't have a full appreciation for the dynamics necessary.
Click to expand...

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)
 
Last edited:
rwguinn said:
True--I've only got 40 years experience as a structural dynamicist...
Click to expand...

Pfffft.....40 years of relevant experience is nothing.....

The truthers have youtube and googlevideo....

You might be an engineer or scientist but they are professional investigooglers....

You don't stand a chance...;)
 
newton3376 said:
Pfffft.....40 years of relevant experience is nothing.....

The truthers have youtube and googlevideo....

You might be an engineer or scientist but they are professional investigooglers....

You don't stand a chance...;)
Click to expand...
With my dishpan helmet and duct-taped lance, my spavined horse and I will always stand up to overwhelming odds!
"...[FONT=Times New Roman,Times]Reaching for his saddlebag, he takes a rusty sword into his hand[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman,Times]Then striking up a knightly pose, he shouts across the ocean to the shore[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman,Times]Til he can shout no more..." Gord Lightfoot[/FONT]
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom