Tower Collapse Questions for Critical Thinkers

[kylebisme]

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?

1)Exactly.

2) Of course the rubble goes down.

3. Profit?

 

[R.Mackey]

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?

You skipped the earlier parts of the derivation. The big thing that looks like an "S" is called an "integral." Think of it as summing the area under a curve. The reason I did this is because you were the one confused about collapse time versus energy. Before one can speak intelligently about this problem, one needs to know how much energy one is speaking of. Virtually everyone else who read it seems to have understood.

What are you suggesting absorbed a huge amount of energy during the collapse if not the structural integrity of the tower?

Again, "structural integrity" is not a well defined term.

BLGB proves that the overwhelming fraction is absorbed through momentum transfer, dependent on the inertia of the lower block, and not its strength. This is also intuitive once you realize that steel only strains a few percent before it fractures or buckles.

And here you are suggesting explosives and gravity is an either/or situation. Again, do you not see a problem with that?

You aren't making any sense. You wanted to know why the collapse happened so fast. I explained it to you. They all happen quickly. This obviates any need for explosives.

If there were an evil plot to rule the universe, they would be smart enough to run this calculation as well, and they would therefore not bother planting additional explosives to "help" the collapse progress. Once it starts, it's all over. Only the truly inept -- the Truth Movement -- haven't figured this out yet.

 

[bill smith]

Very interesting discussion here. I hope RM sticks around for a while and does not 'raise his shields' by using the 'ignore' button anytime soon.

 

[kylebisme]

The reason I did this is because you were the one confused about collapse time versus energy. Before one can speak intelligently about this problem, one needs to know how much energy one is speaking of. Virtually everyone else who read it seems to have understood.

I understand that the potential energy of the system in question is not relative to the whole of the mass of the tower suspended at the maximum height of the tower, and I would hope everyone else can at least come to terms with that at some point too.

Again, "structural integrity" is not a well defined term.

What would you call the resistance afforded by the structure of the system of mass being crushed, and what were you attempting to solve for in your equation "1 – a / g" if not that?

BLGB proves that the overwhelming fraction is absorbed through momentum transfer, dependent on the inertia of the lower block, and not its strength.

Where can I find this alleged proof?

You aren't making any sense. You wanted to know why the collapse happened so fast. I explained it to you. They all happen quickly.

Can you provide alternate examples?

If there were an evil plot to rule the universe, they would be smart enough to run this calculation as well, and they would therefore not bother planting additional explosives to "help" the collapse progress. Once it starts, it's all over.

Sure, like if you stack 80 glass coffee tables on top of each other and then drop a bowling ball on that; once it starts, it's all over, eh? Assuming 10mm glass with a 1 kg/mm/mm tensile strength spaced 500mm apart, and a 10 kg ball with a 200mm diameter given say 100m over the top of the structure just for fun, how close to free fall would expect that ball to get after connecting with the first sheet of glass?

 

[GlennB]

Sure, like if you stack 80 glass coffee tables on top of each other and then drop a bowling ball on that; once it starts, it's all over, eh? Assuming 10mm glass with a 1 kg/mm/mm tensile strength spaced 500mm apart, and a 10 kg ball with a 200mm diameter given say 100m over the top of the structure just for fun, how close to free fall would expect that get after connecting with the first sheet of glass?

That's a terrible analogy. And a person such as yourself who "... studied architecture into college and moved to physics from there" should know why.

 

[kylebisme]

I simply improved on WildCat's single coffee table analogy, which I consider a reasonable simplified example. If you feel you can provide a better one, please share.

 

[GlennB]

I simply improved on WildCat's single coffee table analogy, which I consider a reasonable simplified example. If you feel you can provide a better one, please share.

Wildcat's analogy was intended to illustrate the superficiality of this so-called "path of least resistance" argument. As such, it was perfectly reasonable. Personally I prefer the analogy of dropping stones of various sizes from various heights onto a greenhouse roof. Sometimes they bounce sideways, sometimes they smash through. It depends.

Dropping a bowling ball on a stack of 80 glass coffee tables as an analogy to the WTC collapse mechanism, however, fails in many ways. With your educational background I'm sure that you can tell us what they are.

 

[~enigma~]

I have long been clear on that. What part of "so is the path of most resistance" confusing to you?

That's physics only in Truther World theme park. I hope you paid less then 39.95 for your admission and they gave you a neon green bracelet cause that gives you access to all the rides.

 

[kylebisme]

Wildcat's analogy was intended to illustrate the superficiality of this so-called "path of least resistance" argument.

Yet his analogy only has a single piece of mass to act as resistance, while the towers were made up of many pieces of mass, which is why I expanded his analogy by stacking tables.

Dropping a bowling ball on a stack of 80 glass coffee tables as an analogy to the WTC collapse mechanism, however, fails in many ways.

If you believe you have a rational argument to support this claim, then have out with it already. At this point I'm getting the impression you are just waving your hand around in your pocket, pretending you have something there.

That's physics only in Truther World theme park.

Are you suggesting the building wasn't straight down, that it wasn't otherwise surrounded by are or that the building provided less resistance than air?

 

[~enigma~]

Are you suggesting the building wasn't straight down, that it wasn't otherwise surrounded by are or that the building provided less resistance than air?

Apparently you have not mastered reading comprehension yet. I am suggesting NOTHING but did plainly state that "the path of least resistance" is not a law in physics.

 

[TruthersLie]

Wildcat's analogy was intended to illustrate the superficiality of this so-called "path of least resistance" argument. As such, it was perfectly reasonable. Personally I prefer the analogy of dropping stones of various sizes from various heights onto a greenhouse roof. Sometimes they bounce sideways, sometimes they smash through. It depends.

Dropping a bowling ball on a stack of 80 glass coffee tables as an analogy to the WTC collapse mechanism, however, fails in many ways. With your educational background I'm sure that you can tell us what they are.

Oh oh oh ...

choose me, choose me.

It is called SCALE.

I bet he went to the same architecture/engineering school that heiwa did....

 

[TruthersLie]

Apparently you have not mastered reading comprehension yet. I am suggesting NOTHING but did plainly state that "the path of least resistance" is not a law in physics.

Enigma... when have you ever met a truther who has any kind of reading comprhension skills?

This one thought the engine on an old puegeot was steel, then shifted to the body work being made of steel from a VERY bad table which he misread.

He has tried to pass off the "explosions" from the oral histories and the "molten steel" lies...

So it is nothing more than a typical twoof (and IMHO a sock)

 

[PixyMisa]

Sure, like if you stack 80 glass coffee tables on top of each other and then drop a bowling ball on that; once it starts, it's all over, eh? Assuming 10mm glass with a 1 kg/mm/mm tensile strength spaced 500mm apart, and a 10 kg ball with a 200mm diameter given say 100m over the top of the structure just for fun, how close to free fall would expect that ball to get after connecting with the first sheet of glass?

Now try it with 1mm glass. Oh, that made a difference, didn't it? Funny how scale matters.

 

[PixyMisa]

I bet he went to the same architecture/engineering school that heiwa did....

That's the most horrifying thought I've run across all year.

 

[GlennB]

If you believe you have a rational argument to support this claim, then have out with it already. At this point I'm getting the impression you are just waving your hand around in your pocket, pretending you have something there.

Why can a cat happily jump down 2 or 3 times its body length, while an elephant trying the same trick would smash its bones and rupture its internal organs, leading to a speedy death?

Oh wait - TruthersLie already claimed this one

With your knowledge of architecture and physics, why didn't you see this coming?

 

[Myriad]

I understand that the potential energy of the system in question is not relative to the whole of the mass of the tower suspended at the maximum height of the tower, and I would hope everyone else can at least come to terms with that at some point too.

If he'd calculated the potential energy of the whole mass of the tower suspended at the maximum height of the tower, the equation would have been U = M g H.

The equation R.Mackey actually derived does contain factors of M and H, so in that sense the potential energy of the system is expressed "relative to" the whole mass of the tower and relative to the maximum height of the tower, but it is not equal to that value, or even close to it.

If R.Mackey made a mathematical error, you should be able to point out the actual error, not just complain that the answer contains terms you don't personally approve of.

Respectfully,
Myriad

 

[WildCat]

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.

So much wrong here! The connections are the weak point, and floor pans do not add to the strength.

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.

It's done to point out the absurdity of your "path of least resisstance" argument. The path of least resistance is straight down, because he force required to break a floor is much, much less than the force required to move 20 floors 1 acre each in size 200 feet sideways to clear the building.

In what college were you an architecture and physics student?

 

[TruthersLie]

So much wrong here! The connections are the weak point, and floor pans do not add to the strength.


It's done to point out the absurdity of your "path of least resisstance" argument. The path of least resistance is straight down, because he force required to break a floor is much, much less than the force required to move 20 floors 1 acre each in size 200 feet sideways to clear the building.

In what college were you an architecture and physics student?

Wildcat... I have already answered it. From the asinine statements and outright poor reading comprehension skills, he must have went to the same school that Heiwa went to. The Wiley Coyote School of Advanced Physics and stuff.

 

[TruthersLie]

Yet his analogy only has a single piece of mass to act as resistance, while the towers were made up of many pieces of mass, which is why I expanded his analogy by stacking tables.

If you believe you have a rational argument to support this claim, then have out with it already. At this point I'm getting the impression you are just waving your hand around in your pocket, pretending you have something there.

Are you suggesting the building wasn't straight down, that it wasn't otherwise surrounded by are or that the building provided less resistance than air?

Maybe you should take some pointers.



AGain and again... the problem is about SCALE (which you don't seem to understand).


still waiting for those citations
a. puegeots body is steel
b. nanothermite tiles exist
c. proof of molten steel at gz
d. proof of any type of "public safety policy" which would have advocated putting CD charges in any building.
e. proof of any type of CD charges which use thermite

 

[VespaGuy]

With your knowledge of architecture and physics, why didn't you see this coming?

I'm still waiting for kylebisme to let us know the depth of his architectural knowledge. I wonder why he keeps ignoring my question...