Tower Collapse Questions for Critical Thinkers

kylebisme said:
The problem is the lack of the rotation of the block being reflected in the destruction bellow it.
Click to expand...

How should a rotating upper block cause damage differently than a non-rotating upper block? What damage would you expect the rotating upper block to cause that wasn't observed?
 
Building Blocks 101

Advanced Leggos

K-nex - The next step.

Oh, and Excelerated stacking

I think that sums it up!!
 
Hokulele said:
It shows how CTists, when their argument lies in shreds, focus on irrelevant minutiae.
Click to expand...
.
Yeah right!

If I made a mistake like that how many people would be jumping all over me? LOL

Like things are in shreds because YOU say so. When did Ryan Mackey ever mention whether or not the center of mass was beyond the edge of the CORE? You people can just leave out whatever information you want or fail to ask about anything you want and still claim to be correct.

What force could make that mass rotate 52 minutes after the building stopped oscillating from impact of the plane when the plane only moved it less than 16 inches?

psik
 
R.Mackey said:
I covered this in great depth in my whitepaper...
Click to expand...
I finally got though your appendix B:

In the first part, you took the mass of the tower, wrapped it in a ball, and then dropped it from the height of the tower to see how much potential energy it released. What was the point of that?

Then you attempted to solve for the structural integrity of the tower by comparing the rate at which it collapsed to the acceleration of gravity, and went on to claim how much TNT it would have took to make it fall so quick, and concluded it had to have been gravity rather than TNT. Do you not see a problem with that?
 
kyle, did you drop a bowling ball from over your mama's glass coffee table yet? Did it stop in mid-air, move over a few feet, and then continue downward so as to "follow the path of least resistance"?
 
psikeyhackr said:
.


What force could make that mass rotate 52 minutes after the building stopped oscillating from impact of the plane when the plane only moved it less than 16 inches?

psik
Click to expand...

nanothermite rockets? After all, they are seen shooting out of the towers in all directions. A few even went into orbit, i heard. NASA had to shoot them down with laser weapons. All very hush-hush, on the QT.
 
CompusMentus said:
I think it's from a BBC production ("Why The Towers Fell").
During the last few minutes, it discusses the collapse mechanism of the South Tower. It is surmised there that the initial impact was ruled out as the direct cause of collapse and that the building fell (away from the jet impact zone) toward the fire in the NE corner.

Am I confusing something?

http://video.google.com/videoplay?d...pX2Mab0qgKTxZWtAw&q#docid=2741743293567850827
Click to expand...
It isn't you confusing things there, it's the people who made that absurd animation. They show the floor beams sitting alone and just falling off onto the ones bellow as if they had been held together with glue, which is just absurd. when in fact that were bolted and welded to be just as strong if not stronger than the steel beams themselves, and not just connected on the edges, but bolted and welded into to the floor pan above.

Matthew Cline said:
How should a rotating upper block cause damage differently than a non-rotating upper block? What damage would you expect the rotating upper block to cause that wasn't observed?
Click to expand...
Please see here.

~enigma~ said:
What part of "the force is straight down as physics dictates" is confusing you?
Click to expand...
I have long been clear on that. What part of "so is the path of most resistance" confusing to you?

jaydeehess said:
You mean the expellling of all the smoke within the fire floors as their floors become closer to their ceilings and the thousand square feet of drywall gets crushed in a second or two.? That cloud of 'dust'?
Click to expand...
I mean the dust and debris that are just as thick and white as the destructing building beside it. Besides, surely you don't mean to tell me that top section landed mostly in one piece before shattering into billions?

WildCat said:
kyle, did you drop a bowling ball from over your mama's glass coffee table yet? Did it stop in mid-air, move over a few feet, and then continue downward so as to "follow the path of least resistance"?
Click to expand...
I'd appreciate it you could restrain yourself from bringing my long departed mother into this. But I've got an opposed experiment for you. Try stacking 80glass coffee tables on top of each other and then drop a bowling ball on that, then you tell me were the path of least resistance winds up.
 
Last edited:
kylebisme said:
This actually exemplifies my point well, the first illustration that is. With the red block at the angle it is, would you expect the destruction of the blue block below to be horizontal, or match the angle of the red block?
Click to expand...

Why do you think the destruction was horizontal?It looks to me like there was an angle to the destruction,not a huge angle I'll grant you but then you wouldn't expect the angle to be huge given that the top of the tower hadn't rotated very far when the fulcrum was destroyed and the entire upper section started descending.

Expulsion of air as the building collapses follows the floor lines and you may be mistaking this for a "flat" collapse.
 
kylebisme said:
I finally got though your appendix B:

In the first part, you took the mass of the tower, wrapped it in a ball, and then dropped it from the height of the tower to see how much potential energy it released. What was the point of that?
Click to expand...

I did not. I computed the total energy as a proper integral. Read it again, and see if you get it this time.

kylebisme said:
Then you attempted to solve for the structural integrity of the tower by comparing the rate at which it collapsed to the acceleration of gravity, and went on to claim how much TNT it would have took to make it fall so quick, and concluded it had to have been gravity rather than TNT. Do you not see a problem with that?
Click to expand...

Your powers of comprehension are not promising. I did not solve for the "structural integrity of the tower," which is not even a well defined quantity. What I did instead was demonstrate that the time of fall means the lower portion absorbed a huge amount of energy during the collapse, indeed a number far, far higher than could have possibly been present in the form of explosives under even the wildest Truth Movement hypothesis. It proves that the Towers did not come down "too fast," but indeed, that any collapse, even one that absorbed practically all of the gravitational energy, would take only a few seconds longer than a true "free-fall."

If you've lost your own train of thought, here was my actual response. You were looking for a way to compare a "free fall" versus a fall impeded by the lower structure, and the effect it would have on the collapse time. That is precisely what Appendix B provides. If you don't understand that, you should probably re-read it or ask someone knowledgeable in physics to explain it to you.
 
psikeyhackr said:
What force could make that mass rotate 52 minutes after the building stopped oscillating from impact of the plane when the plane only moved it less than 16 inches?
Click to expand...
Much of the support was knocked out in that corner, the jet fuel fire heated up the steel in the area to the point of weakening it considerably, and the remaining office fires kept the steel rather warm, making it more flexible. Gravity is of course acting on the system the whole time, and those remaining beams slowly flex under the weight above them for that 52 minutes, at which point they had been bent so far that they simply folded over.
 
kylebisme said:
Hokulele said:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2243709&postcount=1243
Click to expand...
This actually exemplifies my point well, the first illustration that is. With the red block at the angle it is, would you expect the destruction of the blue block below to be horizontal, or match the angle of the red block?
Click to expand...

WTC1.jpg


So, are you saying that :

1) As the floors of the blue block were being destroyed, that the right side of each floor should have been destroyed before the left side, but what actually happened was that the left, right and center of each floor was destroyed simultaneously?

2) The tilt of the red block should have pushed the rubble of the blue block to the left?
 
R.Mackey said:
I did not. I computed the total energy as a proper integral. Read it again, and see if you get it this time.
Click to expand...
U = M g H / 3 = (3 x 108 kg) (9.8 m/s2) (417 m) / 3 = 4.09 x 1011 kg m / s2

You've got your estimated mass of the tower there, the height of the tower, and gravity; and you basicly just wrapped that combined mass of the tower into a ball and dropped it from the hight of the tower. Again, I am curious to know; what point did you see in doing this?

R.Mackey said:
I did not solve for the "structural integrity of the tower," which is not even a well defined quantity. What I did instead was demonstrate that the time of fall means the lower portion absorbed a huge amount of energy during the collapse...
Click to expand...
What are you suggesting absorbed a huge amount of energy during the collapse if not the structural integrity of the tower?
R.Mackey said:
... indeed a number far, far higher than could have possibly been present in the form of explosives under even the wildest Truth Movement hypothesis. It proves that the Towers did not come down "too fast," but indeed, that any collapse, even one that absorbed practically all of the gravitational energy, would take only a few seconds longer than a true "free-fall."
Click to expand...
And here you are suggesting explosives and gravity is an either/or situation. Again, do you not see a problem with that?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom