• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

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

Cuddles

Penultimate Amazing
C
Joined
Jul 28, 2006
Messages
18,840
The original thread had become rather long, so it has been closed to help the server cope. Please continue the discussion here.

However, note that due to the excessive amounts of insults, bickering and general derailing, this thread is being set to moderated status. Do not attempt to take the discussion to other threads to avoid this.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Cuddles
 
Heiwa,

Heiwa said:
You ask:

AA. Do you claim that the collapse of WTC7 was impossible?

BB. Just to be clear, is "bigger" by weight?

CC. Does this mean that you believe that, if the failure in the WTC7 tower occurred on the 24th (out of 47) floor, then the failure would have arrested. But that if it occurred on the 23rd, the failure progresses to the ground?

DD. And similarly, for the 56th vs. 54th floor of the Towers?

AA. WTC 7 is an obvious controlled demolition.
BB. By strength and weight.

CC. According NIST column 79 failed at floor 13 or so as a consequence of thermal expansion ... and the whole structure was destroyed. Cannot happen.

DD. Local failures in a structure cannot produce a one-way crush down.

Happy?
Click to expand...


Happy?
No. This would be much easier if you would simply answer the questions that I ask.

1. With your answer DD, you are saying that Controlled demo is impossible. Bombs produce only "local damage" no matter where they are placed.

2. Please answer question here: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=4907221

3. Please answer question here: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=4908416

Note that both of these question are directly on topic for this thread.

Tom
 
tfk said:
Anders,

I noticed that you submitted a comment to NIST on WTC7.

http://wtc.nist.gov/comments08/andersBjorkmanwtc7comments.pdf

Did you get a reply?

If so, would you care to share NIST's reply to you?

Tom
Click to expand...

No reply from NIST of any kind back then and ever since. Not even a copy of the final WTC 7 report or info that it was published. This NIST asking for comments was just a stunt or show. They were and are not interested in structural damage analysis and safety of buildings. Only good thing is that the US Government cannot find a new head of NIST today. Nobody wants to take charge of a sinking ship?
 
Gamolon said:
Heiwa,

You claim that Bazant got it ALL wrong in his paper here:
http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/people/bazant/PDFs/Papers/466.pdf

Can you please discuss one of his calculations that he got wrong?

Thanks.
Click to expand...

One basic Bazant assumption is wrong; upper part C is assumed rigid during one-way crush down and not rigid during crush up - one way up! You have to be consistent. Evidently upper part C is not rigid. Part C is very similar to part A. Part A is just stronger! It carried part C before.
So you gave to treat part C as, e.g. an assembly of material points/elements with a mass connected to one another by 'potentials' or springs. Same for part A.
The only thing that can deform/fail is a 'potential' or spring in this simple model. Thus neither C nor A is rigid. They are elastic. They can fail.

And then you allow part C to impact part A! First step is to see how all potentials react! They deforml! In both C and A. With a 'light' impact the result is that C bounces on A. At a more serious impact one or more 'potential' or springs breaks. And you can be sure that potentials/springs in C break. And that is the reason why a one-way crush down cannot take place.

So what happens then, when 'potentials' start to fail?

For a 'potential' to fail, you require energy. The only energy available is the potential energy of C - or all its material points. Actually it is quite small compared to the energy required to break a potential/spring. So, after a few potential/springs being broken the local failures are arrested.

Maybe I will write a scientific paper about this obvious matter.
 
Heiwa, I have asked you this several times, and I'm not giving up until I get a response.

You seem dead sure that your "crush-down" theory is rock solid, yet it seems you cannot respond to a critical weakness:

Why does your theory no longer apply when local failure is caused by demolition explosives? What is special about this case that doesn't apply to any other cause of failure?
 
aggle-rithm said:
Heiwa, I have asked you this several times, and I'm not giving up until I get a response.

You seem dead sure that your "crush-down" theory is rock solid, yet it seems you cannot respond to a critical weakness:

Why does your theory no longer apply when local failure is caused by demolition explosives? What is special about this case that doesn't apply to any other cause of failure?
Click to expand...

I have a feeling that Heiwa believes that more than just the initiation of collapse was caused by CD....I think he believes that part "A" was sequentially removed by CD during the collapse as well to give the illusion of a progressive collapse.
 
newton3376 said:
I have a feeling that Heiwa believes that more than just the initiation of collapse was caused by CD....I think he believes that part "A" was sequentially removed by CD during the collapse as well to give the illusion of a progressive collapse.
Click to expand...

His absolutism is proving to be his undoing. If indeed he has a structural collapse theory that holds true for ANY type of structure, for ANY type of local failure, then that would be a pretty impressive feat. He would deserve world-wide acclaim for discovering such a simple, universally-applicable principal.

Unfortunately, videos like this would need to be explained by something a little more solid than the sound of crickets chirping.
 
aggle-rithm said:
Heiwa, I have asked you this several times, and I'm not giving up until I get a response.

You seem dead sure that your "crush-down" theory is rock solid, yet it seems you cannot respond to a critical weakness:

Why does your theory no longer apply when local failure is caused by demolition explosives? What is special about this case that doesn't apply to any other cause of failure?
Click to expand...

The local failures shall only be caused by gravity forces/energy. The only gravity energy avaiable is the potential one and it is quite small and can only cause local failures at and in vicinity of contact(s).

So gravity cannot produce a one-way crush down, i.e. an upper part of a structure crushing down a lower part. It is impossible.

Controlled demolition is something else, e.g. you destroy by energetic means parts of the lower structure first (preferebly low down), which allows the upper part to drop down and get damaged in contact with ground and rubble of lower part. Thus the upper part is not one-way crushing the lower part, which is already destroyed by controlled demolition.
 
Heiwa said:
Controlled demolition is something else, e.g. you destroy by energetic means parts of the lower structure first (preferebly low down), which allows the upper part to drop down and get damaged in contact with ground and rubble of lower part. Thus the upper part is not one-way crushing the lower part, which is already destroyed by controlled demolition.
Click to expand...

You are wrong! Please look at the video my previous post links to. Clearly, only one floor is destroyed by explosives. The rest are destroyed by gravity as the upper section falls down onto it.
 
Heiwa said:
The local failures shall only be caused by gravity forces/energy. The only gravity energy avaiable is the potential one and it is quite small and can only cause local failures at and in vicinity of contact(s).
Click to expand...

This directly contradicts what you said earlier...that "any kind of local failure" will end in an arrested collapse.
 
aggle-rithm said:
His absolutism is proving to be his undoing. If indeed he has a structural collapse theory that holds true for ANY type of structure, for ANY type of local failure, then that would be a pretty impressive feat. He would deserve world-wide acclaim for discovering such a simple, universally-applicable principal.

Unfortunately, videos like this would need to be explained by something a little more solid than the sound of crickets chirping.
Click to expand...

Actually if you read through his posts (painful I know...) you will see that he actually does claim EXACTLY THAT!!!

Incredible I know.....but what do you expect from someone who refers to lemons as a "model" or example of why a skyscraper couldn't fall (without CD) the way it did?
 
aggle-rithm said:
You are wrong! Please look at the video my previous post links to. Clearly, only one floor is destroyed by explosives. The rest are destroyed by gravity as the upper section falls down onto it.
Click to expand...

Are you sure it was explosives? I thought this video was the one where the supports on that floor were brought down with some kind of hydraulics...
 
newton3376 said:
Are you sure it was explosives? I thought this video was the one where the supports on that floor were brought down with some kind of hydraulics...
Click to expand...

I don't know...but even if you assume for argument's sake that it is explosives, then it blows a gaping hole in Heiwa's entire premise.

If it isn't, then it serves the same purpose. And suddenly becomes more interesting, of course!

ETA: Watching the video again...you're right. I don't see any explosives at all. The supports just buckle, and the building comes down.

EXACTLY what Heiwa claims is impossible.
 
Last edited:
Heiwa said:
Controlled demolition is something else, e.g. you destroy by energetic means parts of the lower structure first (preferebly low down), which allows the upper part to drop down and get damaged in contact with ground and rubble of lower part. Thus the upper part is not one-way crushing the lower part, which is already destroyed by controlled demolition.
Click to expand...

Let's apply this reasoning now to WTC's 1 and 2. Why don't we see the lower section getting destroyed by explosives? Do you propose that the explosives were timed perfectly so that they would go off in sequence as the upper section fell, their effects hidden by the debris?

How was the shock wave muffled? How were they planted in an occupied building without anyone noticing?

This wouldn't be impossible, of course, but the chances of pulling off such a feat without a single misstep would be vanishingly small...especially if you had to do it three times!

There would have to be one HELL of a payoff to make such a stunt worthwhile. Far more than the paltry oil revenues from Iraq or a few years of profits for Haliburton. The benefit-risk analysis would have 86'd this ridiculous plan long before it got off the drawing board.
 
Can we FINALLY put this train wreck of a thread out of its misery?

Heiwa has been proven spectacularly wrong, and -- judging from his silence -- it may finally have penetrated into his awareness. It's time for him to go back under his bridge.
 
Last edited:
aggle-rithm said:
Can we FINALLY put this train wreck of a thread out of its misery?

Heiwa has been proven spectacularly wrong, and -- judging from his silence -- it may finally have penetrated into his awareness. It's time for him to go back under his bridge.
Click to expand...


Aggie,

You're right. It has become transparently evident from the questions that he carefully refuses to answer that he knows he's wrong.

Tom
 
aggle-rithm said:
I don't know...but even if you assume for argument's sake that it is explosives, then it blows a gaping hole in Heiwa's entire premise.

If it isn't, then it serves the same purpose. And suddenly becomes more interesting, of course!

ETA: Watching the video again...you're right. I don't see any explosives at all. The supports just buckle, and the building comes down.

EXACTLY what Heiwa claims is impossible.
Click to expand...

You guys talking about the Balzac sur Vitry demo in France? It was 2 or 3 floors, hydraulics and cables. No explosives.
They used suction devices to stop the upper block [C] from bouncing off the lower block [A] (not really...)
;)
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom