Why a one-way Crush down is not possible

[aggle-rithm]

H. I like generalized reasoning. So far nobody as been able to produce an assembly of mass elements A+C, then taken off the top piece C of this assembly A+C (C = 1/10A) and dropping C on A to produce a one-way crush of A. It seems it is not possible. I have made an axiom about it. Please demonstrate that the axiom is faulty.

The axiom is merely incomplete (it only holds true in special cases that you do not specify). It is your reasoning that is faulty.

 

[sylvan8798]

It seems WTC 6 (your building K) must have been destroyed from below! Such a hole in the structure cannot have been done by anything falling on it from above.
My suggestion is that WTC 6 was destroyed by a bomb in the basement. It seems that it took place simultaneously with the controlled demolition of WTC 2. Suggest you start a new thread about the hole in WTC 6.

The topic is one way crush down. WTC 6 was destroyed by falling debris from WTC 1. I'm sure it must be hard for you to imagine how ridiculous you sound.

 

[Justin39640]

workin on it
as soon as i figure this thing out were gonna have some fun lol

 

[FineWine]

How many floors into the collision do you think the original 13 falling floors of the upper block of WTC 1 would remain intact? If they are turned into rubble at some point do you then think that the rest of the collapse to the ground is due to the large amount of looser material pummeling the lower structure in an avalanche fashion?

Are you playing dumb or is it real? Does the falling mass weigh more if it remains "intact"? Do you think the falling floors hit the next floor in line or do they magically hit ALL of the remaining floors? Do you accept Heiwa's lunacy that only the bottom floor of the falling mass contacts the floor below while the top floors float in midair?

You seem to have some understanding of engineering. Why are you making a fool of yourself trying to defend an insane hypothesis?

 

[FineWine]

D. Not really. I look at the total result when two assemblies, A and C, of mass elements collide. A is connected to ground. C is free to move/drop.

E. Yes, the ground is a very important factor to consider. A third assembly of material points.

F. Yes, A will deform relative ground, as will C, at contact C/A. The question which of A and C will fail first is subject topic + whether C can one-way crush A to ground.

G. See F. Has gravity a tendency to squash both assemblies of material elements, C and A, in collision? Deform, yes! Squash, no! Anyway, when a failure occurs, in C or A, we are no longer talking about C and A any longer. It is C_failed and A_failed that must be considered in what happens then. Quite interesting matter. Some people suggest a new assembly of elements pop up! B - an assembly of rubble, apparently of failed elements of C and/or A.

H. I like generalized reasoning. So far nobody as been able to produce an assembly of mass elements A+C, then taken off the top piece C of this assembly A+C (C = 1/10A) and dropping C on A to produce a one-way crush of A. It seems it is not possible. I have made an axiom about it. Please demonstrate that the axiom is faulty.

Heiwa, you have humiliated yourself for months with your fantastic idiocy. For once, tell us how only the bottom floor of thirteen or so falling floors contacts the floor immediately below. Tell us why you dream that the falling mass hits all the remaining 97 floors at once and not, as is obvious to everyone sane, EACH SUCCESSIVE floor.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

How was WTC1 destroyed later than WTC6 when WTC6 was destroyed by WTC1 falling on it?

And yes, hundreds of tons of debris dropped from nearly 1000 feet can easily punch a big hole in a building.

That is quite true. The impulsive load is very high at the velocity these hard and heavy pieces would have had when they impacted the roof and floors of WTC 6. I have done some calculations that show the impulses would have exceeded 100g's.

There is another point to be made and that is that the side walls survived much more so than did the roof and floor areas or plates of WTC 6. The walls were more robust in the vertical direction.

 

[Justin39640]

That is quite true. The impulsive load is very high at the velocity these hard and heavy pieces would have had when they impacted the roof and floors of WTC 6. I have done some calculations that show the impulses would have exceeded 100g's.

There is another point to be made and that is that the side walls survived much more so than did the roof and floor areas or plates of WTC 6. The walls were more robust in the vertical direction.

maybe cause they walls werent as tall as the towers
so they could stand without collapsing under their own weight

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Are you playing dumb or is it real? Does the falling mass weigh more if it remains "intact"? Do you think the falling floors hit the next floor in line or do they magically hit ALL of the remaining floors? Do you accept Heiwa's lunacy that only the bottom floor of the falling mass contacts the floor below while the top floors float in midair?

You seem to have some understanding of engineering. Why are you making a fool of yourself trying to defend an insane hypothesis?

It seems you apparently believe that the upper block would not have remained intact but that the complete collapse was still inevitable with looser material falling onto the lower structure.

I can't immediately buy that explanation as there is something to be said for mass participation in a shock load. Pieces of rubble do not participate together very well.

I don't think it is foolish to explore these issues.

 

[aggle-rithm]

I can't immediately buy that explanation as there is something to be said for mass participation in a shock load. Pieces of rubble do not participate together very well.
.

"Participation"?

The pieces of rubble all move in the same direction because of gravity. There is no need for them to organize and communicate with each other.

 

[six7s]

"Participation"?

The pieces of rubble all move in the same direction because of gravity. There is no need for them to organize and communicate with each other.

All rubble is known to be part of teh cover up!

 

[A W Smith]

A ton of steel has SG 7.85. And SG of gravel? Say 1.5. So steel is heavier than gravel for same volumes. Water has SG 1. Take a shower!

http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/home

Björkman is an engineer who believes that weight = mass. No, really.

 

[sylvan8798]

That is quite true. The impulsive load is very high at the velocity these hard and heavy pieces would have had when they impacted the roof and floors of WTC 6. I have done some calculations that show the impulses would have exceeded 100g's.

There is another point to be made and that is that the side walls survived much more so than did the roof and floor areas or plates of WTC 6. The walls were more robust in the vertical direction.

It seems you apparently believe that the upper block would not have remained intact but that the complete collapse was still inevitable with looser material falling onto the lower structure.

I can't immediately buy that explanation as there is something to be said for mass participation in a shock load. Pieces of rubble do not participate together very well.

I don't think it is foolish to explore these issues.

So, on the one hand, you admit that loose falling debris could cause a significant portion of WTC 6 to collapse, but on the other hand, you still assert that loose falling debris can't damage WTC 1 or WTC 2? Do you have any idea how contorted you have to get to make these arguments? Why not join the sane and admit that Heiwa is an embarrassment to the engineering profession (if he even is one)?

As for the walls of WTC 6, the structure was likely much more of a conventional framing plan with columns probably on a 30' by 30' type grid and girders and beams in between. The only "walls" which would have been part of that type of structure might be masonry or concrete shear walls in the stairs/elevators, which don't typically carry much vertical load.

The Towers were unusual in that the exterior WALLS were also a major structural ELEMENT for both the vertical loads and the wind loads. During the collapses, the exterior walls tried to stay together as a unit and much of them fell outward, simply breaking away from the floors, or they lost lateral support and buckled, more or less as a unit.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

"Participation"?

The pieces of rubble all move in the same direction because of gravity. There is no need for them to organize and communicate with each other.

You don't seem to understand shock loading. If each individual item does not have the energy to demolish a structural element under it then it would need participation from the other pieces. Since the lower structure could take the static load above it with plenty of reserve to spare the load needed to be dynamic and in most cases removing an individual element would requires many times the load of an item similar to itself.

 

[sylvan8798]

You don't seem to understand shock loading. If each individual item does not have the energy to demolish a structural element under it then it would need participation from the other pieces. Since the lower structure could take the static load above it with plenty of reserve to spare the load needed to be dynamic and in most case removing an individual element would requires many times the load of an item similar to itself.

And by participate I mean most all of them arrive at the same time....

 

[Tony Szamboti]

So, on the one hand, you admit that loose falling debris could cause a significant portion of WTC 6 to collapse, but on the other hand, you still assert that loose falling debris can't damage WTC 1 or WTC 2? Do you have any idea how contorted you have to get to make these arguments? Why not join the sane and admit that Heiwa is an embarrassment to the engineering profession (if he even is one)?

What happened to WTC 6 is exclusive from the towers. The velocity of the debris in the first twenty stories in the tower collapses was not in the same category as the debris that hit WTC 6 and even then the high velocity debris did not take down the vertically stiff outer walls of WTC 6.

As for the walls of WTC 6, the structure was likely much more of a conventional framing plan with columns probably on a 30' by 30' type grid and girders and beams in between. The only "walls" which would have been part of that type of structure might be masonry or concrete shear walls in the stairs/elevators, which don't typically carry much vertical load.

I was discussing the exterior walls of WTC 6 which survived the pummeling to a large degree.

The Towers were unusual in that the exterior WALLS were also a major structural ELEMENT for both the vertical loads and the wind loads. During the collapses, the exterior walls tried to stay together as a unit and much of them fell outward, simply breaking away from the floors, or they lost lateral support and buckled, more or less as a unit.

How do you think the braced outer core columns in the towers collapsed all the way to the ground?

 

[Tony Szamboti]

And by participate I mean most all of them arrive at the same time....

That isn't mass participation in a shock load. The items have to be able to transmit the dynamic load and this usually requires a stiff connection. Loose rubble below would tend to attenuate the shock load from the items above.

 

[sylvan8798]

What happened to WTC 6 is exclusive from the towers. The velocity of the debris in the first twenty stories in the tower collapses was not in the same category as the debris that hit WTC 6 and even then the high velocity debris did not take down the vertically stiff outer walls of WTC 6.



I was discussing the exterior walls of WTC 6 which survived the pummeling to a large degree.

http://images.google.com/imgres?img...tomhouse&hl=en&client=safari&rls=en&sa=N&um=1

As I said, the exterior walls of WTC 6 were NOT A STRUCTURAL ELEMENT. The grid structure is clearly evident here. The structure that was most badly hit with debris collapsed, there was nothing particularly special about the rest of the structure, or about the exterior walls, that caused it NOT to collapse - it just wasn't hit as catastrophically.

How do you think the braced outer core columns in the towers collapsed all the way to the ground?

Their lateral support was also removed as the floor joists and the elevator area floor beams were broken and the connections were broken. The "spires" that remained standing for a few seconds after the main collapse couldn't stand under their own weight without any lateral bracing, and with the amount of damage done by the other structure breaking away from them.

The simple fact is that these buildings were not designed to undergo the kinds of loadings which took place during the collapse. Buildings are designed to stand there, mostly still, maybe sway a little in the wind and deflect under day to day loads of people walking around and furniture, flooring, machinery, etc. They are not designed to withstand getting stomped.

 

[sylvan8798]

That isn't mass participation in a shock load. The items have to be able to transmit the dynamic load and this usually requires a stiff connection. Loose rubble below would tend to attenuate the shock load from the items above.

Then, at the worst case, when enough loose rubble piles up, the structure fails under a static load. However, in this case, enough material was packed together to cause failure under dynamic loads, and the situation only worsened as the collapse proceeded and more mass was packed together, like an avalanche.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Then, at the worst case, when enough loose rubble piles up, the structure fails under a static load. However, in this case, enough material was packed together to cause failure under dynamic loads, and the situation only worsened as the collapse proceeded and more mass was packed together, like an avalanche.

Why would it fail under a static load? The structure below was designed to handle several times the load above it. The floors could handle 12 times their own weight.

Dynamic loads with an amplified force, due to a rapid transfer of momentum, can only be transmitted through stiff structures.

 

[R.Mackey]

Then, at the worst case, when enough loose rubble piles up, the structure fails under a static load. However, in this case, enough material was packed together to cause failure under dynamic loads, and the situation only worsened as the collapse proceeded and more mass was packed together, like an avalanche.

If you're going to retread well-traveled ground with Tony, it may help you to review this thread. In it you'll see what his core issue is, as well as why it's nonsense.

The simple facts are these: The impact was a dynamic load, not just a static load, and he merely believes otherwise because he doesn't understand that the fact it hit at an angle confounds his measuring technique. And that the static load carrying capacity of the lower structure only applies while it's intact, and if that load lands on the weaker floors instead of the columns, it punches through, and the whole structure becomes unstable as a result.

Furthermore, he's been explained this repeatedly, not just here but at other forums. Yet it makes no dent. I have a theory on why this is so and how to proceed, if you are interested. Best of luck.