• 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.

Tower Collapse Questions for Critical Thinkers

kylebisme said:
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.

Please see my brick in mud example above.
Click to expand...

If you've taken architecture courses far enough you should understand why this analogy is insufficient to match with the towers. We have another poster here, Heiwa, who does this worse. I'm asking that you not follow his example.

kylebisme said:
No, I mean parallel to the original fulcrum point the other supporting beams momentarily act as fulcrums themselves until progressing to the outside corner.
Click to expand...

studyg.jpg


The columns you're referring to were already buckling by the time this tilt initiated...
 
Isn't anyone else wondering why kyle here is using the analogy of a bucket of DIRT to simulate the "approximately 95% hollow and filled with air" Twin Towers?

I know I sure am. Why you would use a bucket of dirt to simulate a collapse of a mostly hollow tower makes absolutely NO sense to me, and I have absolutely NO background in physics, engineering, OR architecture.

So I'm sorry kyle, but whatever your argument is (I still can't figure out what you're arguing, honestly), it fails right there for me. The Twin Towers were completely unique structures; no other building at the time or since was built the way they were. Trying to find a fitting analogy for modeling the collapse of the South Tower is therefore, by definition, impossible. The only way you could possibly hope to model the collapse is by either completely recreating the building and getting the exact same set of circumstances to happen, or possibly by building a scale model (probably 1/4 size, so still a pretty big building) of the building and then getting the appropriately calculated force to destroy one corner to watch what happens. The bucket of dirt thing? Not working for you. At all. Find a better analogy, or support your assertions (whatever the heck they are) with appropriate calculations that can be verified by the knowledgable folks here.
 
Sabrina said:
Isn't anyone else wondering why kyle here is using the analogy of a bucket of DIRT to simulate the "approximately 95% hollow and filled with air" Twin Towers?

I know I sure am. Why you would use a bucket of dirt to simulate a collapse of a mostly hollow tower makes absolutely NO sense to me, and I have absolutely NO background in physics, engineering, OR architecture.
Click to expand...
You're right. It should be a bucket of FAIL. :p
 
Sabrina said:
Isn't anyone else wondering why kyle here is using the analogy of a bucket of DIRT to simulate the "approximately 95% hollow and filled with air" Twin Towers?

I know I sure am. Why you would use a bucket of dirt to simulate a collapse of a mostly hollow tower makes absolutely NO sense to me, and I have absolutely NO background in physics, engineering, OR architecture.

So I'm sorry kyle, but whatever your argument is (I still can't figure out what you're arguing, honestly), it fails right there for me. The Twin Towers were completely unique structures; no other building at the time or since was built the way they were. Trying to find a fitting analogy for modeling the collapse of the South Tower is therefore, by definition, impossible. The only way you could possibly hope to model the collapse is by either completely recreating the building and getting the exact same set of circumstances to happen, or possibly by building a scale model (probably 1/4 size, so still a pretty big building) of the building and then getting the appropriately calculated force to destroy one corner to watch what happens. The bucket of dirt thing? Not working for you. At all. Find a better analogy, or support your assertions (whatever the heck they are) with appropriate calculations that can be verified by the knowledgable folks here.
Click to expand...


Dirt? Dumb idea.
 
Kylebisme,

You're making a critical error. The towers are not a homogenous solid elements. A force applied at one corner of the building will not apply a large amount of moment to the upper block for two reasons:

1) the individual elements in the lower block will fail and become disconnected from the lower block.

2) the individual elements in the upper block will fail and become disconnected from the upper block.

You can't treat the problem as a solid block (which is what you're doing). It must be analyzed with discrete elements that have finite amounts of strength.
 
Arus808 said:
wtf analogy is this? this is plain stupid. ARE YOU freaking kidding? :jaw-dropp

BTW, You gave me my first stundie nomination
Click to expand...

Yay!

WildCat said:
Try this experiment kyle: Stand a pencil on your palm, and let it start to tilt. Then quickly move your palm downward and away to simulate the destruction of the fulcrum which can't possible hold the load of the top portion of the tower. Notice how the pencil at that point falls straight down?

It can't goe sideways because there is no force making it go sideways. Gravity pulls it straight down, incidentally the same problem you have trying to cut a column with therm*te.
Click to expand...

Win!

Sabrina said:
Isn't anyone else wondering why kyle here is using the analogy of a bucket of DIRT to simulate the "approximately 95% hollow and filled with air" Twin Towers?

I know I sure am. Why you would use a bucket of dirt to simulate a collapse of a mostly hollow tower makes absolutely NO sense to me, and I have absolutely NO background in physics, engineering, OR architecture.
Click to expand...

Because making mud pies is so much fun!
 
Typical Truther thread.

Truther asks leading, semi-incoherent question.

I try to figure out what is being asked and provide answers.

Argument continues, unabated. I have no idea what is being asked now, or where it's going. If the question that's really behind this is "why didn't the upper block topple off," it's because it can't. The maximum rotation seen at any point of collapse was about 26 degrees, and most of this happened as a free body, rotating around its center of gravity. The dimensions of the upper block are such that it would have taken almost 40 degrees of rotation before becoming a free body to move its center of gravity outside the footprint. In reality, it only rotated about ten degrees before coming loose. After it's loose, it cannot experience a "fulcrum"-like behavior, because there is no fulcrum. At that point, there is actually a restoring force exerted by the lower structure, not a continued torque towards rotating and toppling off.

Draw a free-body diagram if you don't believe me.


I covered this in great depth in my whitepaper, pp. 104-105 and 250-255. It's been out in the current draft for sixteen months or so.

The problem with the Truth Movement, as always, is that when it "asks questions and demands answers," the questions it asks are leading questions, and it is not intelligent enough to comprehend the answers.
 
Last edited:
kylebisme said:
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?
Click to expand...
.
OMG, intelligent questions. I feel faint. :D

This presents the problem of relating what should have happened to what did happen.

I think Richard Gage said the top tilted at 22 degrees at his show I attended in 2008. I recently saw some site that said 23 degrees. It certainly looks like more than 15 to me.

As to what should have happened. More weight should have been put on one side of the building and greatly overloaded that side crushing it more quickly which would then have caused the top to tilt more until the center of gravity was beyond the edge of the building. It then should have fallen down the side.

The fact that what did happen was so different from what should have happened demonstrates that other forces were involved in removing the resistance of the lower portion of the building.

Truther asks leading, semi-incoherent question.
Click to expand...
.
ROFL

How far did it have to tilt for the center of mass to no longe be above THE CORE? What would happen then? Who needs 40 degrees?

psik
 
Last edited:
psikeyhackr said:
As to what should have happened. More weight should have been put on one side of the building and greatly overloaded that side crushing it more quickly which would then have caused the top to tilt more until the center of gravity was beyond the edge of the building. It then should have fallen down the side.

psik
Click to expand...
Only in some Bizarro Universe where our beloved laws of physics don't apply. :newlol
 
tuc0 said:
Only in some Bizarro Universe where our beloved laws of physics don't apply. :newlol
Click to expand...
The part he won't get is this "more weight" that he's talking about is the center of gravity that he says should move because of the weight. Anyone else (everyone) see this confusion?:o
 
Last edited:
Hokulele said:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2243709&postcount=1243
Click to expand...

Quoting people I have on Ignore? Grr!

Anyway, the point is, once the upper section is detached, it no longer rotates around its base. It then rotates around its center of mass. That rotation can be any angle you want, it won't change the fact that it's coming straight down.

Once it breaks loose, the only alternative is to move the upper portion aside. It cannot survive this much force, nor is there anything around strong enough to provide such a force. As I computed in my whitepaper, the force required is roughly twice that of the Space Shuttle at liftoff.

That's all there is to it. Bleating appeals to "common sense" are useless in overturning the basic laws of mechanics.
 
'It then should have fallen down the side.' According to what physics principle?

And why didn't it fall down the side, as you suggest? nanothermite rockets propping it up on one side? I'm morbidly curious to know what on earth you're thinking.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom