Merged Core-led collapse and explosive demolition

Clayton Moore said:
At what point in time was the initial falling mass itself fractured?

It gives a licking and takes a licking yet keeps on giving and taking a licking?
Click to expand...

Why does the mass of sliding snow near the top of an avalanche stay completely uncompacted?

Why does the mass of sliding snow near the bottom of an avalanche get highly compacted?

If you were caught in an avalanche, would you prefer to be near the top of the sliding mass or near the bottom?

Why are there ranges of mass & speed of highly compacted snow which can knock down a stout building, while an equivalent mass & speed of uncompacted snow can not?
 
Why all the incredulity? A single bird, weighing a few ounces at most, can completely topple a four-story braced structure. If it's angry enough.
 
Myriad said:
Why all the incredulity? A single bird, weighing a few ounces at most, can completely topple a four-story braced structure. If it's angry enough.
Click to expand...

Not if it's a moment frame, those things are well nigh indestructible.
 
Myriad said:
Here you go.
Click to expand...



Shill!


full.png
 
Clayton Moore said:
Yeah it's really complex. Object one hits object two. When do the successive concussions completely fracture object one?
Click to expand...


10 years ... and still this BS argument.

You adamantly refuse to understand that a compacted mass of debris at the bottom of the descending upper block has the ability to deliver a HIGHER impact load to the underlying structure than the same mass could deliver when it was in it uncompacted, "as built" state.

If I compact loose snow into a snowball, & then hurl it into the uncompacted snow drift, then there is NOT "equal fracturing" at the interface between the snowball & the loose snow. The snowball burrows quite effectively thru the uncompacted snow.

This is not anyone else's failure to explain.
It is your failure to learn.
 
tfk said:
10 years ... and still this BS argument.

You adamantly refuse to understand that a compacted mass of debris at the bottom of the descending upper block has the ability to deliver a HIGHER impact load to the underlying structure than the same mass could deliver when it was in it uncompacted, "as built" state.

If I compact loose snow into a snowball, & then hurl it into the uncompacted snow drift, then there is NOT "equal fracturing" at the interface between the snowball & the loose snow. The snowball burrows quite effectively thru the uncompacted snow.

This is not anyone else's failure to explain.
It is your failure to learn.
Click to expand...

Fabrication never ceases. In what universe does a mass of debris compact itself?
 
Clayton Moore said:
The pulverized cement became dust after being damaged and then became compacted?
Click to expand...

Newsflash - the building had more than concrete in it. And yes, after the dust settles, if there's enough it will compact.

But you're not very interested in facts.

By the way, how did "debris" all of a sudden get specified to "dust"?
 
You weren't missing anything. The comment was logic free. That's what it was missing.

And, well, facts.

And logic of course.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom