Proposed Design for Progressive Collapse Demonstration

[FineWine]

Another way of looking at the same incident is that the upper part of an upstanding mass consisting of 97 floors resists the bottom floor of a collapsing mass consisting of 13 floors.

But that's not what happens.

I want to flesh out this response a bit.

You're sitting in a chair on A97. The bottom floor of the thirteen floors collapsing on top of you contains just a few lightweight folding chairs. The floors above them contain printers' plates weighing several tons each.

Whew! You're really lucky those other floors aren't on the bottom of the collapsing mass!

Is there a glimmer of realization? Do you begin to sense that what Heiwa has fed you is utterly mad?

 

[bill smith]

But that's not what happens.

I want to flesh out this response a bit.

You're sitting in a chair on A97. The bottom floor of the thirteen floors collapsing on top of you contains just a few lightweight folding chairs. The floors above them contain printers' plates weighing several tons each.

Whew! You're really lucky those other floors aren't on the bottom of the collapsing mass!

Is there a glimmer of realization? Do you begin to sense that what Heiwa has fed you is utterly mad?

Some weeks ago I posted the statement below thinking that it paraphrased Newton's similar law. 'Every action has an equal and opposite reaction'. However several posters came back and told me that my statement is in fact incorrect. So thinking as I still do that it is applicable and immutable let it henceforth be known as 'Smith's Law'

Smith's Law
''Whatever downwards force the moving body exerts on the stationary body of identical construction fixed in the ground is reciprocated by the stationary body equally and oppositely. After that it depends which body is used up first.''

 

[Dave Rogers]

You are right. There is no money in The Heiwa Challenge - nur Ehre - but if a Challenger wants to to bet, Heiwa never says no in this particular case. Reason being, Heiwa is right and cannot lose - thanks to the Björkman Axiom.

So, in effect, you admit that a successful entry for the Heiwa Challenge would disprove the Bjorkman Axiom? Given that you quite specifically offered $1M to anyone able to disprove the Bjorkman Axiom - I can look up the link if you try to deny it - it therefore follows that any successful entry to the Heiwa Challenge would satisfy this condition and win the $1M you offered. Are you now withdrawing that offer?

Dave

 

[bill smith]

??? A solid ball C with mass m hitting another same mass ball A at velocity v; C stops and A goes off a velocity v (almost - very quick acceleration of A and retardation/deceleration of C and some loss of energy due to compression at hit). What has this to do with Myriads Proposed Design for Progressive Collapse Demonstration? C is supposed to one way crush down A! Not to stop!

Or two solid balls C1 and C2 contacting three balls A1, A2 and A3, the latter being in contact with each other; first C1 hits the three balls A123 and A3 is shot away, then C2 hits three balls C1A12 and A2 is shot away. Simple solid mechanics! Has nothing to do with structural damage analysis, e.g. WTC1!

WTC 1! Part C consists of say 13 floors, C1, C2 ... C13 (roof/hat truss) and part A consist of 97 floors, A97, A96, ... A1, with A1 connected to ground. A1 has very strong supports above it - A1 carries A2 ... A97 + C1 ... C13!

So first contact may be floor C1 hitting floor A97.

So what do you expect would happen? That ground below floor A1 flies away?

No, actually the energy that C1 applies to A97 at contact is first transformed into compression of all supports between ground and floor A97 for which you need a force F that C1 applies on A97.

A97 is clever and applies a force -F on C1 and its supports up to C13. What do you think -F does? Does it compress the C supports? Yes, it does! Does it decelerate C1? Yes it should.

As the supports between C1 and C2 are weaker than the supports between A97 and A96 (even with regard to fact that C1 now rests on A97) you can be sure that the C supports fail first if any supports fails (otherwise C bounces on A). What happens then?

Right! C2 drops on C1 that is resting on A97. What happens then?

Right! Supports between C2/C3 fails and C3 drops on C2 that is resting on C1. Etc, etc. Maybe local destruction stops when C5-C13 just bounce?

You see, you cannot one-way crush down a structure A by a small part C of same structure previously resting on A just using gravity energy.

The perpetrators of the WTC 1 9/11 destruction knew this so they planted disinfo to the contrary at once! A man in the street explained to FOX TV that towers just self destruct one-way crush downs global collapses due to local failures up top and a few days later a certain professor confirmed this strange phenomenon small C crushes big A (C rigid though, A very weak to suit!). The shocked public believed it. But they were simply fooled.

As is clear from this and similar JREF threads a one-way gravity crush down of a structure is not possible.

Good post Heiwa. That's crystal clear. I will pass that on where I can.

 

[BigAl]

Originally Posted by Heiwa ??? A solid ball C with mass m hitting another same mass ball A at velocity v; C stops and A goes off a velocity v (almost - very quick acceleration of A and retardation/deceleration of C and some loss of energy due to compression at hit). What has this to do with Myriads Proposed Design for Progressive Collapse Demonstration? C is supposed to one way crush down A! Not to stop!

Good post Heiwa. That's crystal clear. I will pass that on where I can.

"Assume a spherical rigid World Trade Center."​

("Assume" is used in the sense Einstein or my engineering instructor would use it, not the way Bill and C7 abuse it.)

(Bill, it's an engineering/science joke. You aren't old enough to get it. Ask your science teacher.)

 

[jhunter1163]

Some weeks ago I posted the statement below thinking that it paraphrased Newton's similar law. 'Every action has an equal and opposite reaction'. However several posters came back and told me that my statement is in fact incorrect. So thinking as I still do that it is applicable and immutable let it henceforth be known as 'Smith's Law'

Smith's Law
''Whatever downwards force the moving body exerts on the stationary body of identical construction fixed in the ground is reciprocated by the stationary body equally and oppositely. After that it depends which body is used up first.''

Stundied!

 

[bill smith]

Stundied!

Thanks a lot. It will take pride of place in my trophy room.

 

[Heiwa]

If that's really the case, then please explain how this works. Surely you've seen one of these toys before; how do they work according to your theory?

I like your toy with balls hanging in strings that can hit one another. Imagine two balls C and A with equal mass m and internal structure and length of strings. They are both hanging from a nail in a vertical, solid wall. Neither C nor A is solid.

Now pull ball C away from the wall and release it. What happens? Aha, ball C hits ball A that is resting against the solid wall.

Sorry, no one way crush down of anything happens. Ball C just bounces on ball A!

Now, replace ball C with smaller ball with m/10 (and adjust string length so ball C will contact ball A at center and repeat. What happens? Does little C one way crush down A? No way. C bounces again.

You see, C cannot one-way crush down A.

Thanks for your design! It simply proves that one-way crush down is not possible.

You have to come up with a better design to prove the opposite.

 

[FineWine]

Some weeks ago I posted the statement below thinking that it paraphrased Newton's similar law. 'Every action has an equal and opposite reaction'. However several posters came back and told me that my statement is in fact incorrect. So thinking as I still do that it is applicable and immutable let it henceforth be known as 'Smith's Law'

Smith's Law
''Whatever downwards force the moving body exerts on the stationary body of identical construction fixed in the ground is reciprocated by the stationary body equally and oppositely. After that it depends which body is used up first.''

So, when the twenty, or fifteen, or thirteen collapsing floors hit the next floor in line, it is important that the bottom part of the collapsing mass container "lighter" objects than the top part. Your top floor of the bottom part, A97, will stop the total collapse better if the the first floor it contacts contains lawn furniture and not printers' plates?

You completely ignored my point, which destroys the nonsense Heiwa peddles, the nonsense you accept uncritically.

 

[FineWine]

Good post Heiwa. That's crystal clear. I will pass that on where I can.

Yes, you will pass on Heiwa's idiotic ravings, but not the refutations of them. I wonder why you and your muddle-headed guru ignore my posts.

 

[bill smith]

So, when the twenty, or fifteen, or thirteen collapsing floors hit the next floor in line, it is important that the bottom part of the collapsing mass container "lighter" objects than the top part. Your top floor of the bottom part, A97, will stop the total collapse better if the the first floor it contacts contains lawn furniture and not printers' plates?

You completely ignored my point, which destroys the nonsense Heiwa peddles, the nonsense you accept uncritically.

Please bear in mind that the supporting columns became lighter as they got higher. So the strongest support columns in the upper collection of floors were still weaker than the weakest in A97. Now look at this piece of Heiwa's post.

''Part C consists of say 13 floors, C1, C2 ... C13 (roof/hat truss) and part A consist of 97 floors, A97, A96, ... A1, with A1 connected to ground. A1 has very strong supports above it - A1 carries A2 ... A97 + C1 ... C13!

So first contact may be floor C1 hitting floor A97.

So what do you expect would happen? That ground below floor A1 flies away?

No, actually the energy that C1 applies to A97 at contact is first transformed into compression of all supports between ground and floor A97 for which you need a force F that C1 applies on A97.

A97 is clever and applies a force -F on C1 and its supports up to C13. What do you think -F does? Does it compress the C supports? Yes, it does! Does it decelerate C1? Yes it should.

As the supports between C1 and C2 are weaker than the supports between A97 and A96 (even with regard to fact that C1 now rests on A97) you can be sure that the C supports fail first if any supports fails (otherwise C bounces on A). What happens then?

Right! C2 drops on C1 that is resting on A97. What happens then?

Right! Supports between C2/C3 fails and C3 drops on C2 that is resting on C1. Etc, etc. Maybe local destruction stops when C5-C13 just bounce?''

I think tht this is difficult to defute as well as being crystal clear, even to a layman.

 

[beachnut]

... I think tht this is difficult to defute as well as being crystal clear, even to a layman.

The moronic conclusions of Heiwa's are clear to you? What engineering school did you graduate from? A layperson can see Heiwa ideas are delusional. You cut and paste the idiotic Heiwa junk and you can imply the same delusional conclusions.

The best part about your post is the summary is it is difficult to "defute".

Did you take physics in high school; yet?

 

[1337m4n]

After that it depends which body is used up first.''

"Used up"?

What do you mean, "used up"? Mass doesn't just vanish from existence. It's not as if the falling block was made from antimatter.

 

[FineWine]

Please bear in mind that the supporting columns became lighter as they got higher. So the strongest support columns in the upper collection of floors were still weaker than the weakest in A97. Now look at this piece of Heiwa's post.

''Part C consists of say 13 floors, C1, C2 ... C13 (roof/hat truss) and part A consist of 97 floors, A97, A96, ... A1, with A1 connected to ground. A1 has very strong supports above it - A1 carries A2 ... A97 + C1 ... C13!

So first contact may be floor C1 hitting floor A97.

So what do you expect would happen? That ground below floor A1 flies away?

No, actually the energy that C1 applies to A97 at contact is first transformed into compression of all supports between ground and floor A97 for which you need a force F that C1 applies on A97.

A97 is clever and applies a force -F on C1 and its supports up to C13. What do you think -F does? Does it compress the C supports? Yes, it does! Does it decelerate C1? Yes it should.

As the supports between C1 and C2 are weaker than the supports between A97 and A96 (even with regard to fact that C1 now rests on A97) you can be sure that the C supports fail first if any supports fails (otherwise C bounces on A). What happens then?

Right! C2 drops on C1 that is resting on A97. What happens then?

Right! Supports between C2/C3 fails and C3 drops on C2 that is resting on C1. Etc, etc. Maybe local destruction stops when C5-C13 just bounce?''

I think tht this is difficult to defute as well as being crystal clear, even to a layman.

Please stop this idiocy. You have been exposed. An amorphous mass of collapsing floors hits A97. You have tried pretending (or possibly you are so obtuse that you believe impossible nonsense) that only the lowest floor of the collapsing mass contacts the next floor in line. My simple illustration of your befuddlement blew you and the nutty guru out of the water. You are mindlessly parroting someone who is either mad or giving a good impression of being mad.

When the collapsing mass, NOT MERELY C1, hits A97, A97 GETS CRUSHED.

The collapsing mass, which now INCLUDES A97, proceeds to crush the next floor, and the next, and the next...

 

[BigAl]

Please bear in mind that the supporting columns became lighter as they got higher. So the strongest support columns in the upper collection of floors were still weaker than the weakest in A97. Now look at this piece of Heiwa's post.

''Part C consists of say 13 floors, C1, C2 ... C13 (roof/hat truss) and part A consist of 97 floors, A97, A96, ... A1, with A1 connected to ground. A1 has very strong supports above it - A1 carries A2 ... A97 + C1 ... C13!

So first contact may be floor C1 hitting floor A97.

So what do you expect would happen? That ground below floor A1 flies away?

No, actually the energy that C1 applies to A97 at contact is first transformed into compression of all supports between ground and floor A97 for which you need a force F that C1 applies on A97.

A97 is clever and applies a force -F on C1 and its supports up to C13. What do you think -F does? Does it compress the C supports? Yes, it does! Does it decelerate C1? Yes it should.

As the supports between C1 and C2 are weaker than the supports between A97 and A96 (even with regard to fact that C1 now rests on A97) you can be sure that the C supports fail first if any supports fails (otherwise C bounces on A). What happens then?

Right! C2 drops on C1 that is resting on A97. What happens then?

Right! Supports between C2/C3 fails and C3 drops on C2 that is resting on C1. Etc, etc. Maybe local destruction stops when C5-C13 just bounce?''

I think tht this is difficult to defute as well as being crystal clear, even to a layman.

Take a physics course when you get to High School.

 

[bill smith]

Please stop this idiocy. You have been exposed. An amorphous mass of collapsing floors hits A97. You have tried pretending (or possibly you are so obtuse that you believe impossible nonsense) that only the lowest floor of the collapsing mass contacts the next floor in line. My simple illustration of your befuddlement blew you and the nutty guru out of the water. You are mindlessly parroting someone who is either mad or giving a good impression of being mad.

When the collapsing mass, NOT MERELY C1, hits A97, A97 GETS CRUSHED.



The collapsing mass, which now INCLUDES A97, proceeds to crush the next floor, and the next, and the next...

Shouting won't make it true FineWine.

 

[FineWine]

Shouting won't make it true FineWine.

You are truly an exasperating so-and-so. Absolutely nothing will make what I said untrue.

Look, forget what Heiwa raves about. He is either mad or pretending to be. You are sitting comfortably on A97, the top floor under the collapsing mass of floors. Thirteen floors are headed straight for you. Now...

Does it matter if the first floor about to the hit the ceiling of your floor contains lightweight garden furniture or metal printers' plates weighing a ton each?

Are you "lucky" if the floor with the garden furniture is C1 and the floor with the plates is C2, and "unlucky" if the contents are reversed?

Your nutty guru seems to think you are perfectly safe in either case. Do you understand why he is absurdly wrong?

Do you believe that floors C2 through C13 float in midair as the ceiling of A97 magically "arrests" the collapse?

Is a glimmer of light shining through yet?

 

[Myriad]

Please bear in mind that the supporting columns became lighter as they got higher. So the strongest support columns in the upper collection of floors were still weaker than the weakest in A97. Now look at this piece of Heiwa's post.

''Part C consists of say 13 floors, C1, C2 ... C13 (roof/hat truss) and part A consist of 97 floors, A97, A96, ... A1, with A1 connected to ground. A1 has very strong supports above it - A1 carries A2 ... A97 + C1 ... C13!

So first contact may be floor C1 hitting floor A97.

So what do you expect would happen? That ground below floor A1 flies away?

No, actually the energy that C1 applies to A97 at contact is first transformed into compression of all supports between ground and floor A97 for which you need a force F that C1 applies on A97.

Not "first." The first thing that happens is a mostly inelastic collision between C1 and A97, resulting in C1's velocity beings slowed by half and accelerating A97 to that same velocity, which is half the downward velocity of C2-C13 at that point.

Of course, that situation can't last long! The inertia of C2 (moving downward twice as fast as C1-A97) causes the supports between C1 and C2 to compress, while the inertia of A96 (which has C1-A97 moving downward toward it) causes the supports between A96 and A97 to compress.

That puts about equal compressive forces on the supports above C1 and the supports below A97

A97 is clever and applies a force -F on C1 and its supports up to C13. What do you think -F does? Does it compress the C supports? Yes, it does! Does it decelerate C1? Yes it should.

More or less correct. C1 has decelerated to half the velocity of the floors above, and A97 has accelerated to that same velocity. The C1-C2 supports begin compressing, as do the A96-A97 supports.

As the supports between C1 and C2 are weaker than the supports between A97 and A96

By a small fraction.

(even with regard to fact that C1 now rests on A97)

Nothing has come to rest yet. Everything that was moving originally is still moving, and A97 is now also in motion. It won't stop unless something makes it stop.

you can be sure that the C supports fail first if any supports fails (otherwise C bounces on A). What happens then?

The bottom C supports probably fail first because they're slightly weaker. However, the failure of the C supports doesn't stop the downward momentum of C1-A97, so the top A supports also fail, within the same fraction of a second.

Right! C2 drops on C1 that is resting on A97. What happens then?

C2 (and the rest of C) drops on C1-A97 while C1-A97 drop on A96 (and the rest of A). This time, C1-A97 lose much less of their velocity in the collision because they outmass A96. So now C2-C1-A97-A96 are moving toward A95 considerably faster than C3 is moving toward C2. That puts far more pressure on the A95-A96 supports than on the C3-C2 supports. Even though the A supports are a fraction stronger, this time the A supports fail significantly sooner. The asymmetry increases as the collapse progresses, so crush-down proceeds faster than crush-up.

Right! Supports between C2/C3 fails and C3 drops on C2 that is resting on C1. Etc, etc. Maybe local destruction stops when C5-C13 just bounce?''

Wrong.

I think tht this is difficult to defute as well as being crystal clear, even to a layman.

Not at all.

Respectfully,
Myriad

 

[FineWine]

Not "first." The first thing that happens is a mostly inelastic collision between C1 and A97, resulting in C1's velocity beings slowed by half and accelerating A97 to that same velocity, which is half the downward velocity of C2-C13 at that point.

Of course, that situation can't last long! The inertia of C2 (moving downward twice as fast as C1-A97) causes the supports between C1 and C2 to compress, while the inertia of A96 (which has C1-A97 moving downward toward it) causes the supports between A96 and A97 to compress.

That puts about equal compressive forces on the supports above C1 and the supports below A97



More or less correct. C1 has decelerated to half the velocity of the floors above, and A97 has accelerated to that same velocity. The C1-C2 supports begin compressing, as do the A96-A97 supports.



By a small fraction.



Nothing has come to rest yet. Everything that was moving originally is still moving, and A97 is now also in motion. It won't stop unless something makes it stop.



The bottom C supports probably fail first because they're slightly weaker. However, the failure of the C supports doesn't stop the downward momentum of C1-A97, so the top A supports also fail, within the same fraction of a second.



C2 (and the rest of C) drops on C1-A97 while C1-A97 drop on A96 (and the rest of A). This time, C1-A97 lose much less of their velocity in the collision because they outmass A96. So now C2-C1-A97-A96 are moving toward A95 considerably faster than C3 is moving toward C2. That puts far more pressure on the A95-A96 supports than on the C3-C2 supports. Even though the A supports are a fraction stronger, this time the A supports fail significantly sooner. The asymmetry increases as the collapse progresses, so crush-down proceeds faster than crush-up.



Wrong.



Not at all.

Respectfully,
Myriad

A lovely, lucid explanation. Thank you.

Do you agree with me that Bill Smith is claiming that it matters if C1 has less mass than C2, and that Heiwa thinks the collapse will be arrested no matter how large the falling mass is?

 

[1337m4n]

Is anyone going to explain to me what is meant by "used up"?

How does a gigantic chunk of concrete and steel get "used up"? What does that even mean?