The "Path of most resistance"

[Darat]

Posts in breach of the Membership Agreement have been dumped to AAH. If you believe a Member is a "sock puppet" use the report feature or contact a member of the Mod Team via a PM.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Darat

 

[Seymour Butz]

When debunkers claim a "falling block" or "pile driver" did they just mean the core?

This reminds me another typically stupid truther saying.

Idiots claim that the "pile driver" should have stopped, since it was losing mass over the side, as evidenced by the rounded hill of debris. Pure stupid.

Once there's enough mass falling to strip off floors, the mass accumulation can equal the mass lost "over the side" as the collapse continues, and it'll never stop, since except for the meachanical floors, the floor connections were identical.

It doesn't take ANY mass from the core to achieve this. The floors alone will strip off other floors.

 

[alienentity]

Yes, we're back to the "Path of Least Resistance."

<snip>
So there's no reason at all to expect it to go sideways. Straight down is the only way it can fall.

Ryan, are these concepts generally understood and taught in physics?

 

[sylvan8798]

Ryan, are these concepts generally understood and taught in physics?

You probably wouldn't find a physics or engineering text which uses the phrase "path of least resistance". Motion according to F=ma is covered extensively in first semester physics, as well as in the pre-engineering course(s) Statics and Dynamics, where things either sit still or move according to some relationship, respectively. Resistance is generally an electricity concept, covered and quantified there.

People often mention water, but fluids flow along gradients, which are just directions with the least pressure, and the effect is on an instantaneous basis. For example, you might have some water at the top of a hill that could, hypothetically, flow upward to the left for 1 foot and then freefall through space for 50 feet downward, or alternatively flow down a craggy ravine to the right with lots of rocks and plants for 50 feet (with more net resistance). It doesn't calculate the total net resistance in advance and choose to go left. Resistance shows up again in hydraulics, where friction forces, etc, can slow the flow of fluids in pipes and channels.

To suggest that the WTC towers should have fallen over sideways, or some such thing, would imply that they KNEW IN ADVANCE OF FALLING which way had "less resistance". Does that make sense to anyone but a truther?

 

[Klimax]

What if one side of given floor got loose sooner and it became inclined plane,would mass then slide sideway and possibly not crush further?

 

[jaydeehess]

And the lower block applied a force UP thereby reducing the acceleration of the collapse from 32.2ft/s^2 to something slower.

Yes, depending on the time of colapse that one uses, anywhere from 10% to 50% less than 32.2ft/s^2

(except in the case where a Truter says they fell "faster than free fall" in which case they illustrate Mark Twain's "better to be thought a fool than open one's mouth and remove all doubt")

 

[jaydeehess]

What if one side of given floor got loose sooner and it became inclined plane,would mass then slide sideway and possibly not crush further?

Yes but this inclined plane consisting of the floor pan simply cannot support that mas and dynamic load it is subject to and thus quickly is no longer an inclined plane as either it buckles in the middle or the truss seats at the other end also snap.
Secondly this can only happen between core and perimeter and thus could only affect, at most, half of the building in one direction.

 

[BigAl]

What if one side of given floor got loose sooner and it became inclined plane,would mass then slide sideway and possibly not crush further?

Where is it going to go? It's all adding to the collapse initiation.

 

[R.Mackey]

Ryan, are these concepts generally understood and taught in physics?

Potential energy is brought up in elementary (high school or earlier) Physics.

Conservative fields are brought up in freshman Physics and Vector Calculus. Force as the gradient of a conservative field and the path thereby followed comes from Mechanics, say sophomore Physics.

So I'd say "yes." Nothing controversial at all about it.

 

[Travis]

Ah, this brings back memories of the "net force = zero" crowd. You have to love the tragic misunderstanding of forces and reactions to forces the Truth crowd demonstrates time and time again.

 

[Dave Rogers]

What if one side of given floor got loose sooner and it became inclined plane,would mass then slide sideway and possibly not crush further?

That would only work if the floor were supported only at the sides, and could be disconnected simultaneously across one side. In fact they were supported along all four sides and all around the core, so only if all the connections along three sides of the perimeter and all four sides of the core failed simultaneously could a floor hinge downwards to form an inclined plane. It would then run into problems from fouling on the core as it rotated, which would tend to break up the floor slab anyway. And finally, to make the upper mass slide sideways, the floor would still have to exert about the same force as would be required to stop the upper block dead in a purely vertical impact, which we know it isn't strong enough to do.

Short answer: No.

Dave

 

[Klimax]

Where is it going to go? It's all adding to the collapse initiation.

I just thought that part mass could fall beside of tower,so it could be arrested.

However it looks like it wouldn't happen anyway...