Tower Collapse Questions for Critical Thinkers

[kylebisme]

Here is a video for reference sake, if someone knows of a better one, please share it and I will add it to this post.

For ease of responding, I'll number the questions below:

1) What is the orientation of the upper portion mass?

2) How does this orientation relate to the force exerted on the lower portion of mass?

3) Is that distribution of force reflected in the destruction of the lower portion of mass?

 

[rwguinn]

Gibberish.
Makes absolutely no sense.
The "orientation of the force" is vertical. The rest of the post is meaningless from a physics pov.

 

[Arus808]

Lets see, the top is leaning toward the area that the plane impacted with, meaning that the support columns there have lost its total strength and/or are missing.


dont see an issue here since the top came straight down anyway

 

[~enigma~]

http://img16.imageshack.us/img16/3619/startlight.jpg
1) What is the orientation of the upper portion mass?

Askew.

2) How does this orientation relate to the force exerted on the lower portion of mass?

It transmits the force vertically as all laws of physics dictate it should.

3) Is that distribution of force reflected in the destruction of the lower portion of mass?

Yes we see a vertical force in the destruction of the tower as all laws of physics dictate we should. Any more stupid questions?

 

[R.Mackey]

1) What is the orientation of the upper portion mass?

2) How does this orientation relate to the force exerted on the lower portion of mass?

3) Is that distribution of force reflected in the destruction of the lower portion of mass?

Go straight to the source.

1) "Tilt of approximately 3 to 4 degrees to the south and 7 to 8 degrees to the east occurred before bulding section fell." NIST NCSTAR1-6D, Table E-1.

2) A graphical representation of the stress at the moment of collapse initiation (predicted) is given in NCSTAR1-6D, figures 4-120.

3) Not directly, no. The columns above can only transmit a force through them equal to their individual buckling strength, which does not account for the magnitude or complexity of impacts at the interface. Force and destruction are also not directly related quantities in any event.

 

[Baylor]

For ease of responding, I'll number the questions bellow:

1) What is the orientation of the upper portion mass?

2) How does this orientation relate to the force exerted on the lower portion of mass?

3) Is that distribution of force reflected in the destruction of the lower portion of mass?

The Education system in Tampa must suck.

 

[Quad4_72]

http://img16.imageshack.us/img16/3619/startlight.jpg

Here is a video for reference sake, if someone knows of a better one, please share it and I will add it to this post.

For ease of responding, I'll number the questions bellow:

1) What is the orientation of the upper portion mass?

2) How does this orientation relate to the force exerted on the lower portion of mass?

3) Is that distribution of force reflected in the destruction of the lower portion of mass?

What complete and utter garbage. Who the hell made this trash up? This is awful. The top portion fell down on the lower portion and crushed everything. Are you suggesting something else happened? Please provide proof for your claims.

 

[TJM]

"Tower Collapse Questions For Critical Thinkers to Shred"

Fixed the thread title for you.

 

[CHF]

Oh I get it - another truther who thinks the top portion should have toppled over the side thanks to some mystery horizontal force.

Why do these people have a hard time with the concept of GRAVITY?

 

[Thunder]

i majored in geography. but even I understand why the top section didn't just tip over. this would have required the section on the other side of the impact literally lifting up and over the rest of the tower.

one side go up...while the other go down? that would have been impossible.

the side nearest impact began toppling first..and then brought the rest of the block with it.

duh!!!

 

[Thunder]

Oh I get it - another truther who thinks the top portion should have toppled over the side thanks to some mystery horizontal force.

no..it would have had to been an UPWARD (45 degrees to the north) force. the opposite side of the tower would have to have been pushed up.

this could not have occured unless there were massive cables attached to the top of the tower....which would have literally "pulled" the tower northward.

i think i am right about this. again, geography major.

 

[DGM]

Oh I get it - another truther who thinks the top portion should have toppled over the side thanks to some mystery horizontal force.

Why do these people have a hard time with the concept of GRAVITY?

It's difficult when your only building experience involves Lego's.

 

[Reactor drone]

When looking at the tilt and determining whether the upper section would continue to tip over like a falling tree you need to consider the structure and how it's failing.

Initial failure is on the corner most damaged by the impact so that corner starts to accelerate downwards first and the tower pivots about the less damaged corner.

As the tilt progresses the columns on the less damaged side get bent and the loads that were passing straight down through them shift off axis and those columns fail,destroying the pivot point and causing that side of the building to start accelerating downwards.

With the whole upper mass now descending and encountering the resistance of the lower floors the angular momentum of the upper section is reduced/redirected.

At least from a simplistic layman's point of view.

 

[Quad4_72]

I should not have even responded in this thread. It's so incredibly dumb. The mods should definitely remove the thread for just for being excessively stupid.

 

[~enigma~]

Oh I get it - another truther who thinks the top portion should have toppled over the side thanks to some mystery horizontal force.

Why do these people have a hard time with the concept of GRAVITY?

Because if you remove it you get Gravy.

 

[kylebisme]

Lets see, the top is leaning toward the area that the plane impacted with, meaning that the support columns there have lost its total strength and/or are missing.

dont see an issue here since the top came straight down anyway

If you took a bucket of loose dirt, set a brick on it, and wet down one corner, would you expect the brick to sink straight down?

"Tilt of approximately 3 to 4 degrees to the south and 7 to 8 degrees to the east occurred before bulding section fell." NIST NCSTAR1-6D, Table E-1.

That was before collapse, I am askinging about the picture which shows durring.

A graphical representation of the stress at the moment of collapse initiation (predicted) is given in NCSTAR1-6D, figures 4-120.

Do they substantiate how thier values were derived anywhere?

3) Not directly, no. The columns above can only transmit a force through them equal to their individual buckling strength, which does not account for the magnitude or complexity of impacts at the interface. Force and destruction are also not directly related quantities in any event.

What are you suggesting creates destruction other than accelerated mass?

 

[dropzone]

Kyle, down is down, and it remains so wherever you go. Things that drop at an angle will, as soon as the force that pushed them at an angle is eliminated, will drop down. Straight down. Which is pretty much from there to the center of the Earth. The same down as when you drop a shoe. Sure, there's some adjustment because the Earth is rotating, but in the greater scheme of things that ain't worth ****, and down continues to be down.

 

[Sherman Bay]

kylebisme, what's your point? What are you trying to prove? That the tower didn't collapse? Went up? Sideways?

 

[kylebisme]

Oh I get it - another truther who thinks the top portion should have toppled over the side thanks to some mystery horizontal force.

I said nothing to suggest that, and I'd appreciate it if you could restrain yourself from lumping me together with people who insist our government planned 9/11 and other such crackpottery.

i majored in geography. but even I understand why the top section didn't just tip over. this would have required the section on the other side of the impact literally lifting up and over the rest of the tower.

one side go up...while the other go down? that would have been impossible.

Unless the axis it tilted on was it's corner, it would be impossible for one side not to come up as the other went down, and at least according to the NCSTAR1-6D figure 4-120, the axis it titled on was more towards the center.

the side nearest impact began toppling first..and then brought the rest of the block with it.

Please see my brick in mud example above.

 

[Juniversal]

If you took a bucket of loose dirt, set a brick on it, and wet down one corner, would you expect the brick to sink straight down?

And I thought using a pizza box as an analouge for the Twin Towers was bad lol...