The 9/11 Forum

OneWhiteEye wrote: DO YOU READ MY FUCKING POSTS OR NOT? IF NOT, DO NOT EXPECT ME TO READ YOURS!

The OneWhiteEye on Thu Mar 12, 2009 8:06 pm model looks as if C is same height as A but a little narrower; C slides inside A, etc. Sure I read all your posts to see your progress with Crush-down models.

My model is at http://heiwaco.tripod.com/mac5.htm . Part C moving cannot crush down part A because part A static crushes up part C. Basic. I still wonder what Benson thinks?

Heiwa wrote:The OneWhiteEye on Thu Mar 12, 2009 8:06 pm model looks as if C is same height as A but a little narrower; C slides inside A, etc.

That is correct, the 'model' of Mar 12 has a narrower upper block. But please take note of the following:

1) It's a 3D rendering, just a picture. It does not move, it has no physics behind it.
2) It was a first stab at trying to visualize what DBB was proposing, which specified an upper block that slips inside the lower one.
3) I objected to this sort of arrangement on the grounds that it was stilted towards exclusive crush-down, in fact guaranteed it.
4) I made the picture to illustrate how this was so.
5) DBB, upon examining the graphics, agreed it was unfairly constructed, and the arrangement was abandoned - A MONTH AGO.

Where have you been since?

And, when you do catch up reading my other posts and get up to speed with the PRESENT, maybe you could finally answer my query: what is wrong with the zero-g simulation, which acts according to your expectation?

Heiwa wrote:The OneWhiteEye on Thu Mar 12, 2009 8:06 pm model looks as if C is same height as A but a little narrower; C slides inside A, etc.

By the way, what does this example - which was a model proposed and rejected, never constructed - have to do with your earlier remarks? Such as,

...and maybe C bigger than A...

The example you give is just the opposite. Did you go combing through the thread to try to find something to support your assertions? 'Cause it didn't work, there are no posts that support your assertions.

My model is at http://heiwaco.tripod.com/mac5.htm .

I've discovered that repetition does not work when trying to get you to understand what I'm saying. Now, it's time for you to realize that repetition will not work for you, either. I looked at your page the first time you posted the link. What I saw was a big picture and a lot of words, nothing resembling a calculation or a simulation. I can do that, too!



Evidently, Part C crushes Part A completely while suffering no damage itself. QED.

OneWhiteEye wrote: Evidently, Part C crushes Part A completely while suffering no damage itself. QED.

Sure? I think it just bounces. Try the links in the article and you learn more.

Where is Benson? He initiated this interesting discussion!

Temper, temper...

OWE:

I have to agree with you, ...... Heiwa does tend to ignore his critics and act like he (alone!) has the moral high ground.

His Achilles' heel is the ABC Tour Balzac "verinage" collapse ..........

Physical Model, Type II --- Here are ideas for turning OneWhiteEye's computer simulations into physical models in your backyard. (Don't try this inside!)

For slabs, consider used tires, concrete blocks, building bricks, or, more sensibly
http://www.systempavers.com/Gallery/GalleryWalkways.aspx.

For spacers, representing columns, consider collections of soda sipping straws, glued top and bottom to the slabs on either side. Some genuine structural engineering will be required to put it just enough of these circular columns to maintain a DCR of about 1/2 throughout all the layers of the tower (however tall you want to make it). The spacer height should be about 3 times the thickness of the slabs.

Corners will be required, outside the slabs, so that the crushing is entirely one-dimensional. Now figure out a way to quickly cut through, or otherwise remove, all columns between two of the slabs. Turn on the video camera and cut.

Just in case, quickly jump back!

David B. Benson wrote:Temper, temper...

Yeah, but I got his attention... briefly.

Dr. G wrote:I have to agree with you, ...... Heiwa does tend to ignore his critics and act like he (alone!) has the moral high ground.

Yep.

Dr. G wrote:His Achilles' heel is the ABC Tour Balzac "verinage" collapse ..........

You nailed it. No sooner do you write that and he writes elsewhere:

Heiwa wrote:In post #1 I explain why a one-way crush down process is not possible under any circumstances, sizes, scales, &c, where upper part C is <1/10A and C is dropped on A.

It also explains why controlled demolition companies do not drop top parts of buildings to demolish them. It doesn't work.

Actually if you even tried to drop C on A the result would just be one BIG JOLT and then immediate ARREST of C on A with a fair amount of local failures to A and C structure, iwo contact area unless C just bounced on A. But no one-way crush down of A by C.

I find it amazing that I have to explain this easy to understand phenomenons, jolt, arrest and bounce, to the public.

[bolding mine]

Coincidence? I doubt it.

Dr. G wrote:OWE:

I have to agree with you, ...... Heiwa does tend to ignore his critics and act like he (alone!) has the moral high ground.

His Achilles' heel is the ABC Tour Balzac "verinage" collapse ..........

Hallo Dr. G. I get a lot of input from critics with capability to distinguish between right and wrong so I can improve my principles of right and wrong as described in my papers.
If you find anything wrong in my papers or posts, tell me, and I will put it right.

BTW - in my model above, when part C impacts part A and energy E is applied to both parts, what vertical support elements do you think fail first after elastic compression of C and A? The weaker ones in C just above impact or the stronger ones in A just below impact or some other elements? Do you think this Crush-down model contributes to the understanding of crush-downs?

So energy E is applied when C impacts A with velocity 8.52 m/s (drop 3.7 m) or 3.13 m/s (drop 0.5 m)! Let's say x % E can be absorbed as elastic compression of C and A (and ground!) and that then some elements cannot compress elastically any more and start to deform plastically, which consume y % of E.

What are displacement de and speed of top part of C, when x % E has been absorbed as elastic compression in A and C?

What are displacement df and speed of top part of C, when (x + y) % E has been absorbed as elastic compression and local failures of first support elements?

It is realized that displacements de and df of top part of C adds energy initially applied (E) on structure (easy co calculate if we know mass of C), but for easy reference energy losses due elastic compression and failures are given as % of E.

Gentlemen,

There is alot of off-topic stuff going on here. I remind you of the forum guidlines:

2. Discussion of the behavior or qualities of regular individuals and members is not permitted. If you have a problem with behavior of an individual member, report the behavior to the moderators. (This applies to OWE and Dr. G.)

8. Do not spam. Spamming is repeated posting the same image, statement or source. (This applies to Heiwa)

Nonetheless, Heiwa can be considered a leading figure because he is featured on AE911Truth and 911Blogger and has his own website. His behavior can be discussed in the "Leadership and Group Dynamics" area. Nonetheless, that subforum will be closely monitored and ad hominem attacks will not be permitted. Stay factual and describe behaviors.

/Administrator

Sorry, if my 40+ posts in this thread are considered spam. I just responded to new posts with arguments of various type but my message is clearly the same (see my web site) and as follows: You cannot design or build a structure C+A (or model) 1, 2 or 5 meters tall, or for that matter 100, 200 or 500 meters tall, and expect that it will one-way crush down, when you drop a part C on the remainder part A (C<1/10A). Thus there is only gravity force/energy input to system.
The structure shall evidently consist of different elements joined together in 3D with free space between elements, but it does not matter how strong or weak you do the elements and joints, C can never crush down A. There are three cases:
Case 1: If C is dropped from low height, everybody seems to agree that C may only bounce on A after a jolt with minor elastic deformations to structure during contact bounce.
Case 2: If C is dropped from a higher distance, it seems many agree that C and A will both suffer structural failures at contact interface and that then what remains of C will get stuck in A. As C and A have same structure, you will note that they are equally damaged.
Case 3: The controversy is the suggestion that, if you drop C from a sufficient height, so that sufficient energy is applied to the system, A will be totally one-way crushed down by C or what remains of C. But we know from case 2 that C will suffer equal damages as A at contact, so after a certain time the C structure consists only of broken elements/joints, while A still has a fair amount of intact elements/joints left. It is then suggested that the broken elements of C and an equal amount of broken elements of A can destroy the remaining intact elements/joints of A. In order to do that the broken elements must apply forces on the intact structure, but as the structure is 3D with plenty of space between elements, broken elements will just drop through the open space. The excess energy at impact cannot be applied to the intact structure by broken elements.

There are only two theories that suggest that structural one-way crush down is possible, i.e. Bazant and Seffen. Both treat the problem in 1-D and both suggest that part C is rigid, while part A is non-rigid, i.e. parts C and A are not same structure. The theories may be mathematically pleasing but have nothing to do with reality. I have sent a paper to ASCE Journal of Engineering Mechanics, editor Ross Corotis, on 3 February 2009 outlining the above. Paper is apparently still under peer review (17 April 2009).

Anders Björkman, a.k.a. Heiwa

David B. Benson wrote:For slabs, consider used tires, concrete blocks, building bricks, or, more sensibly
http://www.systempavers.com/Gallery/GalleryWalkways.aspx.

Good idea. To keep things a manageable size, perhaps bathroom (ceramic) tiles.

For spacers, representing columns, consider collections of soda sipping straws, glued top and bottom to the slabs on either side. Some genuine structural engineering will be required to put it just enough of these circular columns to maintain a DCR of about 1/2 throughout all the layers of the tower (however tall you want to make it). The spacer height should be about 3 times the thickness of the slabs.

Looking into it.

Good idea! Make floors of ceramic tiles and columns of soda sipping straws, SSS, and glue them together. Funny structure, but it is a structure.
I suggest top part C just consist of two tiles connected by four SSS in the corners. Lower part A should then be say 21 tiles (one on ground), each connected by four SSS in the corners above/below tiles. Suggest that if tile is say 15x15x0.5 cm (like in my bath room - weight abt. 0.35 kg each), just make each SSS 5 cm tall. It would appear SSS must have dia O.5 cm. SSS wall thickness is thin. But it works. Part A is 105 cm tall, mass 7 kg (excl. ground tile), and part C is 11 cm tall, incl. SSS below, to be removed prior drop, mass 0.7 kg. SSS has virtually no mass.
Now I drop part C on part A, from 3.7 m! Bottom C tile against top A tile.
Sorry. No one-way crush down! Part C got destroyed at contact with A and two C tiles bounced off in various directions. Part A SSS got slightly damaged up top but remaining SSS down below in A just deformed elastically and apparently assisted to bounce off C tiles.
Maybe it was not a good idea to glue SSS stubs on top/bottom of each tile corners?

Lets make the four SSS continious 117 cm long and glue them to the sides of the tiles (not top/bottom) close to corners. It is more complicated but works. Then we just cut the SSS at top to get a part C to drop!

Now it is the cut ends of the SSS that will contact tiles at impact. Be sure that SSS stubs really contact tiles at impact.

Result? It seems only two of four C SSS stubs contact top A tile, and two of four A SSS stubs contact C bottom tile so a perfect impact is impossible to achieve. The SSS stubs are outside the tiles. Part C tilts and bounces off. And no chance that SSS punches holes in the tiles!

Maybe the SSS glue connection to the tiles was too strong also? Below picture shows what otherwise would happen!

plastic straws? how about steel poles (really skinny ones). that would be more accurate. ceramic tiles are heavy!