Tower Collapse Questions for Critical Thinkers

[stateofgrace]

Cool.

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.

Really ? So this crap you wrote earlier

Yet I never said anything to suggest the path of least resistance is a law of physics. That said, it is wrong to claim otherwise in such general terms. As Arus mentioned, the path of least resistance is a law of the physics of electricity, commonly known as Ohm's Law. Of course we are not talking about electricity, here but rather mass, and in the case of mass the path of least resistance is a principle of physics.

Originally Posted by kylebisme
That means that voltage favors the path of least resistance.

is just that, crap. I have a BSc in it pal and have worked for the last twenty odd years on the stuff. Maybe the next you start quoting laws, especially electrical ones try and at least understand them. Ohms law does not state anything about the path of least resistance, end of.

And yes you did try and construct an argument from it and no I have no intention of being tolerant to somebody like you, who tries to twist laws you clearly don't understand in order to promote your agenda.

 

[Dave Rogers]

For those who are wondering, there's no such measurement called "structural integrity" in any code book I've ever used.

On the other hand, it turns up in just about every series of Star Trek, so it must be Real Science. Like all debunkers, you're making the mistake of concentrating on non-fiction to prove your point. As somebody said recently, "you guys are so caught up in the way the world is, you distant yourselves from truth and reality."

Dave

 

[Dave Rogers]

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.

Perhaps you'd like to tell us all what conclusions you've reached about the falling mass of WTC2 based on your application of the principle of the path of least resistance, then. And, perhaps, outline the reasoning that leads you to those conclusions. As long as all you describe are your premises, then we don't have recourse to much else but our non-existent psychic abilities, because for us to know what's going on in your head, you have to tell us.

Alternatively, explain to me how the principle of the path of least resistance should be applied to the specific case of a brick falling on an egg. That way, you'll at least have demonstrated that your premises and reasoning can lead to a correct prediction of at least one real-world situation.

Analysis of the brick-on-egg problem that doesn't rely at any point on the principle of the path of least resistance will, of course, be rather a strong point of evidence that the principle is not of relevance to the description of a stationary object being crushed by another object falling on it. So make sure you use the principle in your reasoning.

And, of course, if you choose not to analyse the brick-on-egg problem based on the principle of the path of least resistance, you'll be presumed to be unable to do so.

Let me remind you of the problem:

Consider an egg lying on a horizontal hard surface, and a brick suspended a foot above it. If the brick is released, what path does it follow, and what happens to the egg?

Dave

 

[TruthersLie]

Sorry, dropping little C on big A cannot possibly create such a destruction! So the WTC 911 destructions are some sort of controlled demolitions using energy other than that of gravity acting on dropping mass(es).

Have you told that to the french demolitions companies who do EXACTLY that? who drop "little C on big A" and completely and utterly crush the building.

What have they told you about your claim that it is impossible? Huh?

 

[TruthersLie]

Nope, you are not

But he really does like to try to handwave away his mistakes and bs as "semantic" differences.

I"m still waiting to see how something can crumble down to its footprint...

 

[TruthersLie]

Actually it was the loss on moral integrity that caused the problem. The building were touted as the tallest in the world and that led to the sin of pride and we all know that pride goeth before the fall.

No no no.

MOTHRA

 

[TruthersLie]

Perhaps you'd like to tell us all what conclusions you've reached about the falling mass of WTC2 based on your application of the principle of the path of least resistance, then. And, perhaps, outline the reasoning that leads you to those conclusions. As long as all you describe are your premises, then we don't have recourse to much else but our non-existent psychic abilities, because for us to know what's going on in your head, you have to tell us.

Alternatively, explain to me how the principle of the path of least resistance should be applied to the specific case of a brick falling on an egg. That way, you'll at least have demonstrated that your premises and reasoning can lead to a correct prediction of at least one real-world situation.

Analysis of the brick-on-egg problem that doesn't rely at any point on the principle of the path of least resistance will, of course, be rather a strong point of evidence that the principle is not of relevance to the description of a stationary object being crushed by another object falling on it. So make sure you use the principle in your reasoning.

And, of course, if you choose not to analyse the brick-on-egg problem based on the principle of the path of least resistance, you'll be presumed to be unable to do so.

Let me remind you of the problem:

Consider an egg lying on a horizontal hard surface, and a brick suspended a foot above it. If the brick is released, what path does it follow, and what happens to the egg?

Dave

[smartassery on]
can I boil the egg?
Can I have an ostrich egg?
how about a boiled ostrich egg?
or can i have a BUNCH of eggs?
[smartassery off]


Mothra eggs will bounce bricks

 

[kylebisme]

Perhaps you'd like to tell us all what conclusions you've reached about the falling mass of WTC2 based on your application of the principle of the path of least resistance, then.

I would if I had ever done anything of the sort. However, having not done so, and having never suggested otherwise, I'm not rightly in a position to answer your request.

That said, any chance you might be able to answer a question for me? I am wanting someone who is considered more credible here to explain the affects of Newton's third law of motion as observable in these collapses. Specifically, in each instance, what can be observed as the reaction to the upper block crushing the lower one in terms of change in velocity?

 

[dafydd]

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?

And the less they know the more certain they are that they are right.Odd,isn't it?

 

[TruthersLie]

I would if I had ever done anything of the sort. However, having not done so, and having never suggested otherwise, I'm not rightly in a position to answer your request.

That said, any chance you might be able to answer a question for me? I am wanting someone who is considered more credible here to explain the affects of Newton's third law of motion as observable in these collapses. Specifically, in each instance, what can be observed as the reaction to the upper block crushing the lower one in terms of change in velocity?

What rather funny is that had you shown EVEN the slightest bit of abilities with math, physics or engineering there would be at least a half dozen really decent strutural engineers and physicists who might be willing to explain that to you...

 

[kylebisme]

What I find funny here is that I've know the answer to the question I'm asking since elementary school, while I get the strong impression that the many constantly attacking my intellect here couldn't answer the question to save their lives.

 

[Hokulele]

What I find funny here is that I've know the answer to the question I'm asking since elementary school...

Please post your answer.

 

[~enigma~]

which can be found here.

And it isn't a law nor was it ever a law. Stop imitating a moronic truther.

 

[kylebisme]

Please post your answer.

It isn't a matter of my answer, it's a matter of the answer, as the same laws of physics would apply regardless of my own existence. And again, as I've been branded as failing in my understanding of physics by many here, I'm figuring at least someone would be willing to demonstrate his/her own intellect by answering a simple question of Newtonian physics.

And it isn't a law nor was it ever a law.

It is a common way of describing a law of the physics of electricity, as I substantiated here.

 

[~enigma~]

It is a common way of describing a law of the physics of electricity, as I substantiated here.

Yet it isn't a law in spite of what you and your obvious pea brain believe. You are now going on ignore for wasting my oxygen.

 

[stateofgrace]

It is a common way of describing a law of the physics of electricity, as I substantiated here.

You are contradicting yourself, remember you wrote this , not so long ago ?

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.

Did you even bother to read any of the links from your search ? No, I thought not.

Here is your search.

http://www.google.com/search?source=ig&hl=en&rlz=&q=%22ohm%27s+law%22+%22path+of+least+resistance%22&aq=f&oq=&aqi=

Here is mine.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&...="OHM'S+LAW+PATH+OF+LEAST+RESISTANCE"&spell=1

Notice the differance ?

Here is Ohms law.

Ohm's law states that the current through a conductor between two points is directly proportional to the potential difference or voltage across the two points, and inversely proportional to the resistance between them.[1]

It does not mention the path of least resistance. You substantiated nothing, other than you are a liar, and know you are lying. Stop it before you embarrass yourself further.

ETA. This the final time I respond to this nonsense. Ohms law does not state anything about the path of least resistance. You have lied in order to claim you have substantiated it does.

 

[Reactor drone]

Originally Posted by kylebisme
What I find funny here is that I've know the answer to the question I'm asking since elementary school...

Please post your answer.

Or even post your question.All you've done so far is make vague comments about forces and laws without ever stating what you believe to be happening.

Please,clearly state your case just once.

 

[Matthew Cline]

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?

1) The forces exerted on the upper block would damage the upper block.

1b) The forces exerted on the upper block would damage the upper block to the exact same extent that the forces exerted on the lower block damaged the lower block.

2) Something else.

 

[kimota]

There's something that's been weighing on my mind about the physics of falling objects and since this thread is turning into a physics smorgasbord, I'd like to throw it out and let it get picked over.

Consider dropping an aerodynamcally uniform object, like a blank bowling ball from an airplane. Air resistance acts upon its descent, until it reaches terminal velocity. So, until that point, the air resistance is reducing only the rate of acceleration; the bowling ball still experiences downward acceleration and is increasing in velocity. When it reaches terminal velocity, the downward acceleration is zero, but the velocity and the kinetic energy that that entails is still there. And the air resistance doesn't affect the velocity after terminal velocity is achieved.

Now, a building collapsing on itself is not going to offer uniform resistance; the floors are going to resist more than the spaces between floors, but would the principal be the same or, at least, similar? That resistance would have to overcome the force from acceleration due to gravity before it can overcome the kinetic energy due to the velocity of the falling object in order to completely stop it from falling?

 

[Dave Rogers]

I would if I had ever done anything of the sort. However, having not done so, and having never suggested otherwise, I'm not rightly in a position to answer your request.

So can I take it that you have formed no conclusions from the collapse of WTC2? If so, I may be able to offer you some evidence to consider.

That said, any chance you might be able to answer a question for me? I am wanting someone who is considered more credible here to explain the affects of Newton's third law of motion as observable in these collapses. Specifically, in each instance, what can be observed as the reaction to the upper block crushing the lower one in terms of change in velocity?

As the upper block impacts the lower, there is a distinct and measurable upward acceleration imparted to it by the force exerted on it by the lower block. At the time of impact, let's define our terms such that the upper block is moving downwards with a velocity -V, where positive is defined as upwards, and accelerating with an acceleration -A, which is close to gravitational acceleration. The upward force F exerted on the upper block results in an acceleration +A1, which varies with time. This adds to the acceleration due to gravity to give a total acceleration A1-A. Since the lower block is able to support the static weight of the upper block, then the maximum value of A1 is expected to be greater than that of A, resulting in an overall deceleration for a short period of time.

The velocity of the upper block increases, therefore, up to the impact, then decreases very briefly while the impact takes place. Once the next set of floor supports has been destroyed, the upper block then accelerates with acceleration -A until it hits the next floor of the lower block. The velocity will be observed to increase up to the point of impact, decrease briefly, then increase further up to the point of impact of the next floor (which takes place at a greater velocity), and so on. Averaged over the entire collapse, there is a net acceleration. This has been verified by measurements of the Balzac-Vitry collapse.

One important point about this, though, is that it relies on there being a single, well-defined impact between the upper and the lower block, which in turn relies upon the upper block remaining level as it falls. This is not too difficult to achieve in a demolition where the initiation is controlled by a precisely timed means such as explosives or hydraulic jacks. If the initiation is not precisely timed - indicative of an uncontrolled initiation - then the upper block wil initially lose support asymmetrically, and will fall at an angle. It's perfectly simple geometry (though some of the truth movement's leading engineers are unable to visualise it) that an upper block, falling at an angle, will not make a single, well-defined impact with the lower block. Instead, one corner will impact first, locally overloading a part of the structure and collapsing it; the impact will then propagate across the structure to the opposite corner, collapsing individual elements as it goes. For the WTC towers, it is again trivial geometry to show that, if the angle of the upper block is greater than about four degrees, then the impact on any given floor is still in progress when the impact on the next floor begins. The result of this is to average out the large variations in acceleration seen in the verinage demolitions; rather than accelerating at close to 1g, decelerating abruptly, then accelerating again at close to 1G, the expected behaviour of the upper block is to exhibit an acceleration varying only slightly about an average negative value.

This is the effect referred to by Graeme McQueen and Tony Szamboti as "the missing jolt". What they fail to understand is that the absence of the jolt is a very strong piece of evidence that the collapse was not a carefully controlled, sequential pancaking, as would be expected from a controlled demolition, but a chaotic and asymmetric one, as would be expected from the uncontrolled and randomly ordered collapse of the main structural members due to progressive weakening. In other words, the missing jolt is a strong piece of evidence that the WTC collapses were not initated by controlled means such as explosives.

Dave