Tower Collapse Questions for Critical Thinkers

[Reactor drone]

My bad, I had meant to respond to your request last night, but was distracted by company. Anyway, the video shows the top portion tipping sideways as the lower portion crumbles away, with the corner pushing though the debris cloud just before falling behind a larger one highlighted in this pic here (taken from around the 8s mark).

I wonder if you might expand upon the point you're trying to make here.I'm not sure exactly what your point is and what you think this video shows compared to what you think should be happening.

 

[kylebisme]

In.
Every.
Single.
Frame.

Would you please describe where Newton's third law can be observed in the reaction of the top sections of the buildings hitting the lower section in these verinage demolitions?

Every time they intercourse that law I can only assume these people can't grasp the idea that materials have a breaking point...

That isn't an issue here by any means. The breaking materials is essential to what I'm hopping you all might be willing to discuss at some point.

 

[kylebisme]

I wonder if you might expand upon the point you're trying to make here.

I'd really prefer someone else describe the observable effects of Newton's third law in the verinage demolitions first, so that it comes from someone whom others here are more inclined to believe.

 

[kylebisme]

That was funny and sad to see someone proving their ignorance in math and physics without a clue.

Ask Mackey to try his calculations on a given spring falling from a given hight, and then drop it to see how how far off he is.

 

[Newtons Bit]

Would you please describe where Newton's third law can be observed in the reaction of the top sections of the buildings hitting the lower section in these verinage demolitions?

Would you please point out how you think the laws of physics are being broken in those demolitions? Otherwise, I will reiterate my previous statement:

Newton's Third Law can be seen in every frame.

Do you have a point you are trying to make?

 

[Newtons Bit]

I'd really prefer someone else describe the observable effects of Newton's third law in the verinage demolitions first, so that it comes from someone whom others here are more inclined to believe.

The debris falling from the impact has a greater velocity and acceleration than that of the upper block. This means that there is resistance from the lower block acting on the upper block. This resistance can be measured as force. Those forces, by definition, are equal in magnitude to both the upper block and lower block. Thus the lower block and the upper block both suffer damage as seen in the videos. The location and magnitude of said damage depends on a number of factors to numerous to go into detail here: I really don't want to waste that much time on you.

 

[LashL]

Ask Mackey to...

You know, when you have been patiently and thoroughly schooled, as you have been here by R.Mackey (and others), you should at least try to learn from it.

 

[kylebisme]

The debris falling from the impact has a greater velocity and acceleration than that of the upper block.

Sure enough, debris falling from the impact have greater velocity and acceleration because they they are meeting less opposing force. But what I'm hopping you might here is how Newton's third law applies to the upper block itself. What what can be observed as the reaction to that upper block crushing the lower one in terms of change in velocity and acceleration?

I do thank you kindly for continuing to humor me here, as I feel you answering the above question will go well better than me doing so.

 

[beachnut]

Sure enough, debris falling from the impact have greater velocity and acceleration because they they are meeting less opposing force. But what I'm hopping you might here is how Newton's third law applies to the upper block itself. What what can be observed as the reaction to that upper block crushing the lower one in terms of change in velocity and acceleration?

I do thank you kindly for continuing to humor me here, as I feel you answering the above question will go well better than me doing so.

After proving you have no skills in math, physics or engineering to answer this or understand what happen on 911. Let me guess after someone posts the answer you will wave your hands and say wrong in a delusional manner and post some gibberish about springs. What is your major now?

 

[sylvan8798]

I have not, and would not, make any such claim; and miss assuming such arguments upon me to dismiss what I have said by dying well established an consistently demontarted principles of physics does nothing to further the course of rational discussion.

Is this a sentence? It's hard to have a rational discussion with a sentence like that.

Those demon tarts. They go straight to my thighs.

 

[kylebisme]

Spellchecking sometimes leaves me with with absurd grammatical errors due to my dyslexia, but surely it shouldn't be too hard to make sense of what I was going for there? Would you deny rational discussion with a deaf person due to poor enunciation?

 

[sylvan8798]

Enunciate how your concept of "path of least resistance" would or should have affected the falling mass of WTC 2, kyleb.

 

[Matthew Cline]

... as I feel you answering the above question will go well better than me doing so.

You could answer it yourself and then let others with experience in physics and engineering either confirm or correct your answer, rather than attempting to formulate the correct question to get the answer you're looking for.

 

[kylebisme]

Enunciate how your concept of "path of least resistance" would or should have affected the falling mass of WTC 2, kyleb.

As I explained previously, the path of least resistance is not a conceptualization of mine, but rather a widely understood principle. Also, as I explained to apathoid when he brought up the principle up:

Or is this a "path of least resistance" type of argument?

Path of least resistance, distribution weight, and ever other relevant principle of physics.

So, put simply, the path of least resistance affected the falling mass of WTC 2 exactly how it did. Why people are are attempting to assume on me some strange argument around fixating that principle that I never made, and trying to demean me for using the phrase in response to a question about it, all while pretending it isn't a long established principle, is for others to explain. Lacking psychic abilities, I can't rightly see in what goes on inside anyone's head but my own.

You could answer it yourself and then let others with experience in physics and engineering either confirm or correct your answer, rather than attempting to formulate the correct question to get the answer you're looking for.

Matthew, I respect how you have been reasonable with me throughout my few days here, but I hope might you understand how many others haven't been by any stretch. The whole path of least resistance nonsense, people accusing me of believing the jet fuel fire couldn't have deformed steel, and a whole host of other experience, has left me feeling it would be better someone else explains the physics my question refers to. Besides I was branded as failing physics by multiple people here with no one to suggest otherwise. With such circumstances considered, I hope you might respect my intent in letting someone who is considered more credible here explain the physics in question.

 

[Architect]

Solution: State simply, and clearly, exactly what you think the collapse pattern should have been including (for example) discussion of load paths during the event and why, therefore (and assuming you believe this to be the case) mass should have been significantly deflected/arrested/subject to rotation (delete as applicable).

 

[funk de fino]

I most certainly am referring to the behavior represented in Ohm's Law when I speak of "the path of least resistance" in regard to electricity, and a quick Google search finds nearly two thousand hits using the phrase while mentioning Ohm's Law. Here one example in a worksheet covering Ohm's Law:


Granted, in the answer to that question, they go on to note the semantic I suggested your argument might be based in:


Like the instructor, I'm surprised the phrase is missunderstood, I certainly never meant to imply what he reports his students take from it. I also respect his suggestion on rephrasing, but I'm at a loss as to what ground you think you might have to deny the use of the phrase as I did. Based on your lack of being able to formulate more than a hollow dismissal, I'm left to concluded you don't have any such ground to stand on.

I am an electrical and electronic engineer. I instruct on this stuff now. You made up laws. Ohms law is not applicable to anything we are discussing yet you brought it up. Ohms law does not mention "path of least resistance"

Current following paths can be worked out using Ohms law.

 

[dtugg]

Why are twoofers always pretending that they know what they are talking about when it is completely obvious that they don't have a clue?

 

[Mr.D]

Besides I was branded as failing physics by multiple people here with no one to suggest otherwise.

If you're really interested in learning, may I suggest starting a new thread with an apology and some straightforward statements about what it is you're confused or unsure about regarding the WTC collapses.

Then DROP THE ATTITUDE and politely ask some questions. You'll find some very knowledgeable people here with clear and highly readable writing styles.

 

[kylebisme]

I am an electrical and electronic engineer. I instruct on this stuff now.

Cool.

Ohms law does not mention "path of least resistance"

It doesn't mention the path of least resistance specifically, but that phrase is a commonly understood way of referring to the flow of current which Ohm's Law describes, as I substantiated here.

Ohms law is not applicable to anything we are discussing yet you brought it up.

I only referred to it as a side point, in response to denial of the path of least resistance having anything to do with physics, which can be found here. I did not attempt to construct any argument out of it.

Current following paths can be worked out using Ohms law.

Sure enough, and from among multiple paths of varying resistance; through which path does the most go though?

 

[MRC_Hans]

Sure enough, and from among multiple paths of varying resistance; through which path does the most go though?

You cannot equate DC electrical laws with dynamic mechanical functions.

I haven't bothered to read, but I assume it is ye olde, why didn't the falling building follow the path of least resistance nonsense.

According to that argument, anything collapsing, for whatever reason, should spread itself thinly across the surrounding landscape. Which is obviously never the case for solid structures.

However, if you take dynamics into account, you will find that a building collapsing straight down does in fact follow the path of least resistance. At the speed (close to free fall) of such a collapse, diverting the falling mass to one side requires a force that is similar to the mass of the falling mass.

Hans