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

Heiwa said:
Please, go ahead! Part C drops on part A and one-way crushes part A by gravity. While part C is one-way crushing A, part B develops and assists in the process. Big forces develop all the time. You can demonstrate that? I doubt it. But, go ahead. You are on topic!
Click to expand...
.
Do you accept, and promise to abide by, the wager?

Tom
 
tfk said:
.
Do you accept, and promise to abide by, the wager?

Tom
Click to expand...


So you "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".

What do you say; After the dropped parts (parts C and B?) have been broken up & compacted, then they (parts C and B?) would generate a higher peak force in the components of whatever structure (part A?) on which they fall.

Is that it? Broken parts C and B destroy part A?

As compacted rubble (part B) will also deliver a higher pressure ... and more damage in the impacted part (part A).

Do you suggest that rubble B can damage, one-way crush, intact structure A?

Anyway, topic here is whether part C can one-way crush down part A. Go ahead and prove it.
 
Heiwa:
Anyway, topic here is whether part C can one-way crush down part A. Go ahead and prove it.
Click to expand...

You know why I'm so fat? Because every time you write that sentence I have a biscuit.

Get a new record, this one is worn out.
 
Heiwa said:
Originally Posted by NobbyNobbs
1st of all, I can't understand why an engineer wouldn't stick to basic units. You've got tons, kWh, meters, and kg. So the first thing I've done is convert to mks.

Using your numbers,
33,000 tons = 3x10^7 kg
340 kWh = 1.224x10^9 J

PE converted to KE=mgh=3x10^7 x 9.8 x 3.7= 1.0878x10^9 J

So already, your math is off.

Then you say this process takes 5-6 seconds, according to video analysis. Which 5-6 seconds of which video are you referring to?

Finally, you are presumably figuring out how much of the KE was dissipated into heat by calculating how much diesel fuel it would take to lift the mass back into place. Assuming this is a legitimate method (a point I'm far from willing to grant), where did you get the figure of 204,000 kW?
Click to expand...
Try using 33 000 tons = 3.3x10^7 kg, etc.
Click to expand...

ok, then PE=mgh=3.3x10^7*9.8*3.7=1.19658x10^9 J

Your math is still off, just not by as much.

Could you also please answer the other questions in that post?
 
Tony Szamboti said:
Hardly. You can't use the Balzac-Vitry demolition to prove a one-way crush down of a tall building by a small part of it's upper floors could occur for two reasons. It was actually a simultaneous crush down/crush up, and the reason the upper block lasted long enough as a structure to get the job done was that it was nearly the size of the lower block.
Click to expand...

Demolition using hydraulic jacks pushing structural walls over, no explosives, large clouds of dust produced by colliding concrete.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=syzKBBB_THE


SZAMBOTI SUFFERS AMNESIA. BYSTANDERS RUSH IN WITH HEIWA'S AXIOM​
.
By Heiwa
Heiwa's Axiom "Axiom is about two parts C and A of identical structure, 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."
Click to expand...

In Balzac-Vitry 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)
and (A) and (C) are crushed by gravity.

(A) is crushed one-way (C) is crushed the-other-way.

ARBITRATOR CAN'T FIND "the reason the upper block lasted long enough as a structure to get the job done was that it was nearly the size of the lower block " IN THE AXIOM.
ARBITRATOR RULES AXIOM CLEAR AND MISTAKEN, SZAMBOTI WRONG AND PERTINACIOUS.
BYSTANDERS DISPERSE​
 
Last edited:
Heiwa said:
So you "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".

What do you say; After the dropped parts (parts C and B?) have been broken up & compacted, then they (parts C and B?) would generate a higher peak force in the components of whatever structure (part A?) on which they fall.

Is that it? Broken parts C and B destroy part A?

As compacted rubble (part B) will also deliver a higher pressure ... and more damage in the impacted part (part A).

Do you suggest that rubble B can damage, one-way crush, intact structure A?

Anyway, topic here is whether part C can one-way crush down part A. Go ahead and prove it.
Click to expand...
.
My statement of the conditions of the wager is explicitly clear.

There is no need for you to attempt to rephrase it.

Do you accept MY wager?

Yes or No will suffice.

It's pretty amusing that the prospect of losing & "having to tell the truth for a couple of weeks" ["OMG, not THAT!!"] has got you so hesitant...

Heck, Anders, I promise to do that already, and I'm going to win the bet. What could POSSIBLY have you so skittish...?

Tom
 
GlennB said:
In metric we call 1000kg a tonne.

In the USA a 'ton' is 2000lbs or 907kg, as opposed to the Imperial ton of 2240 lbs
Click to expand...

I think using ton vs. tonne is a bit too complicated for someone who doesn't understand the difference between mass and weight.
 
You've been asked repeatedly. They say the sixth time's the charm
Heiwa when will that article be published
​


Heiwa (from april 12 or so post)
...don't worry! One-way crush down is not possible.

The article was sent to ASCE Journal of Mechanical Engineering on 3 february 2009 and is still under peer review, i am told. Editor Ross Corotis has informed he will publish it.
[/quote]
 
Last edited:
Isn't it time this thread was closed or moved?

There is no new information from Heiwa, but worse, this is not a conspiracy theory. It's just an engineering derail.

Most of the posts are OT anyway. Other threads should be used to discuss these ideas.
 
AE,

I beg your indulgence for a brief period.

Heiwa is ruminating on his decision whether or not to place a wager with me.

When he loses this bet, he will be honor-bound (if he understands the term) to answer questions fully and honestly for a period of 2 weeks.

Is that alone not worth maintaining the thread for a bit longer?

tom
 
tfk said:
AE,

I beg your indulgence for a brief period.

Heiwa is ruminating on his decision whether or not to place a wager with me.

When he loses this bet, he will be honor-bound (if he understands the term) to answer questions fully and honestly for a period of 2 weeks.

Is that alone not worth maintaining the thread for a bit longer?

tom
Click to expand...

Respectfully, it's up to the mods anyway, and they've (amazingly) allowed this thread to go on and on. But, why not start a new thread featuring your wager?
 
alienentity said:
Respectfully, it's up to the mods anyway, and they've (amazingly) allowed this thread to go on and on. But, why not start a new thread featuring your wager?
Click to expand...

Absolutely, I'll do that just as soon as he gets back & says "yes" or "no".

(Or, more likely, "read my paper"...) :rolleyes:

Thanks,

Tom
 
Bill,
.
bill smith said:
So we know that the upper part C in WTC1 was in an advanced state of disintegration by the time it impacted the top of the lower 90% of the building as seen in the earlier proof.
Click to expand...
.
tfk said:
LoL. What "earlier proof"...??
Click to expand...
.
bill smith said:
Pay attention T. Do try to keep up.
Click to expand...
bill smith said:
Maybe later if you are a good boy.
Click to expand...
.
So, we are still waiting anxiously for your "proof" that that you promised in the first quotation above.

Everyone who has read your posts understands perfectly the care and rigor with which you select your words. The ardent jealousy with which you defend your credibility & your reputation on a daily basis.

They understand perfectly how seriously you treat the issues surrounding September 11. They know well the amount of respect that you have for the victims, the rescue workers, the memories and the sensitivity that this subject engenders in all US citizens.

And, knowing you as we do, we understand perfectly the probability that you would, simply & frivolously, make up out of thin air the promise of a proof that is so crucial to understanding the collapse of the towers.

So please. Keep us waiting no longer. Please point me to this proof that you've announced.

You've been astonishingly conspicuous in your absence the last two days. Surely this topic, and our anxious anticipation of your brilliant exposition, have just slipped your mind.

I just wanted to get this note to you in case we changed threads. Don't worry, tho. If we do change before you notice this, you can be comfortably assured that I'll be 100% certain to find you & give you the opportunity to show us exactly how honest & sincere you are.

With all due respect,

Tom
 
Last edited:
Heiwa said:
So you "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".

What do you say; After the dropped parts (parts C and B?) have been broken up & compacted, then they (parts C and B?) would generate a higher peak force in the components of whatever structure (part A?) on which they fall.

Is that it? Broken parts C and B destroy part A?

As compacted rubble (part B) will also deliver a higher pressure ... and more damage in the impacted part (part A).

Do you suggest that rubble B can damage, one-way crush, intact structure A?

Anyway, topic here is whether part C can one-way crush down part A. Go ahead and prove it.
Click to expand...

I said earlier you could be replaced by an unsophisticated AI.

Now I'm thinking 10 lines of Javascript could do the job.
 
Notice how Heiwa and his ridiculous parrot will NEVER touch the point that destroys his entire nonsensical garble of physics? Those falling floors are the BIG PART. The single floor they fall onto is the SMALL PART.
Heiwa, you are an incompetent fraud. You can run, but you can't hide.
 
BasqueArch said:
Demolition using hydraulic jacks pushing structural walls over, no explosives, large clouds of dust produced by colliding concrete.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=syzKBBB_THE

In Balzac-Vitry 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) and (A) and (C) are crushed by gravity. (A) is crushed one-way (C) is crushed the-other-way.
Click to expand...

<snip for brevity>

I have seen many examples of structures that prove that Heiwas axiom is nonsense, but this is the best. It certainly beats the pizza box version.!

It shows rapid failure, probably at 60-80% g which was just like the WTC1 and 2, and it failed thro the center of strength of the tower below. And also shows how a local failure can can easily lead to a global collapse. Even if the lower part was another 50 stories of the same type of structural system then it would keep on going.
 
FineWine said:
Notice how Heiwa and his ridiculous parrot will NEVER touch the point that destroys his entire nonsensical garble of physics? Those falling floors are the BIG PART. The single floor they fall onto is the SMALL PART.
Heiwa, you are an incompetent fraud. You can run, but you can't hide.
Click to expand...

Heiwa have you addressed this yet? This one paragraph is exactly what makes this layman understand why you don't know what you are talking about. We have one big, heavy A part, the top of the building above the collapse initiation point, falling onto a small B part, the floor below.

Even the children you write for would understand it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom