Tower Collapse Questions for Critical Thinkers

bill smith said:
Which body is eroded (worn away) by the attrition of the two bodies to the point of being non-viable (no longer of significance in terms of affecting the other body) first ? The 87 floors or the 13 floors ?
Click to expand...

Now we're back to the idea that a giant pile of compacted rubble can't cause structural failures. By this reasoning, a giant pile of snow certainly could never have done this:

http://www.capretzer.com/images/forensics/snowLoadCollapse.jpg

or this:

http://images.google.com/imgres?img...collapse+snow&hl=en&client=safari&rls=en&um=1

or this:

http://images.google.com/imgres?img...collapse+snow&hl=en&client=safari&rls=en&um=1

...
...
...
 
kylebisme said:
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.
Click to expand...

Hokulele said:
Please post your answer.
Click to expand...

kylebisme said:
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.
Click to expand...

kylebisme, can you understand why people here have lost patience with you? Could it be your smug, arrogant, condescending attitude?

Instead of dancing around the issue, state your case in a clear, concise manner, present your evidence, and be prepared to defend it.

You have done none of these things (except the dancing-between-the-raindrops act). It is no wonder that people here regard your behaviour as trollish.
 
jaydeehess said:
Oh, well now that you have completely failed at explaining the term it makes so much less sense.
Thank you.

What has more mass bill, an intact concrete floor or the same floor after being broken up? If in both cases the mass is moving which one has more momentum?
Click to expand...

Well the broken floor is not really one mass. It is many small masses. These small masses will strike the lower solid intact floor independently as small masses. The small masses will also interaact with each other while falling, losing some energy in the process.

Like if you drop a box of sand on the Tower it will have more effect than the same amount of loose sand which will behave more like a liquid and flow over and around the massive upstanding core columns.
 
Last edited:
bill smith said:
Well the broken floor is not really one mass. It is many small masses. There small masses will strike the lower solid intact floor independently as small masses. The small masses will also interaact with each other while falling, losing some energy in the process.

Like if you drop a box of sand on the Tower it will have more effect than the same amount of loose sand which will behave more like a liquid and flow over and around the massive upstanding core columns.
Click to expand...

bill, which has more mass the intact floor or the broken floor?

How many broken floor masses can be supported by one unbroken floor?
 
bill smith said:
Well the broken floor is not really one mass. It is many small masses. There small masses will strike the lower solid intact floor independently as small masses. The small masses will also interaact with each other while falling, losing some energy in the process.

Like if you drop a box of sand on the Tower it will have more effect than the same amount of loose sand which will behave more like a liquid and flow over and around the massive upstanding core columns.
Click to expand...
Like a shot gun filled with small shot? Oops it make a big hole. Darn, you and physics are still strangers.

I have seen water cut metal; darn your delusions on 911 are based on failed science.
 
jaydeehess said:
bill, which has more mass the intact floor or the broken floor?

How many broken floor masses can be supported by one unbroken floor?
Click to expand...

Well obviously they would not have the same sudden shattering impact as the impact that a solid floor would, so in broken pieces maybe six or eight floors could be supported by one.
 
Last edited:
bill smith said:
Like if you drop a box of sand on the Tower it will have more effect than the same amount of loose sand which will behave more like a liquid and flow over and around the massive upstanding core columns.
Click to expand...

Yeah, but even the loose sand would instantly collapse the floors and the columns would topple over due to loss of lateral bracing, so you fail again.
 
bill smith said:
Well obviously they would not have the same shattering impact as the impact of solid floor would, so in broken pieces maybe six or eight floors could be supported by one.
Click to expand...

What are you trying to say? Your lack of understanding of the physical world is due to what?

You are saying a shotgun blast from buck shot, small buck shot is not as effective as a single shotgun slug. The buck shot will flow around my body like water. I can see why you support Heiwa's delusions, you have no practical knowledge or experience in science.
 
bill smith said:
The small masses will also interaact with each other while falling, losing some energy in the process.
Click to expand...


You really shouldn't try to learn physics from Heiwa.

bill smith said:
Like if you drop a box of sand on the Tower it will have more effect than the same amount of loose sand which will behave more like a liquid and flow over and around the massive upstanding core columns.
Click to expand...


Which would have absolutely no effect on the failure of the floors.
 
bill smith said:
so in broken pieces maybe six or eight floors could be supported by one.
Click to expand...

ha ha ha ha

Next time I think I'm overweight I'll put my hands on the bathroom scales too. Should reduce my weight by half.
If I'm losing weight, I'll stand on one foot to sort it out. Dramatically.

(Is Bill going for a Stundifiability record?)
 
bill smith said:
Well obviously they would not have the same sudden shattering impact as the impact that a solid floor would, so in broken pieces maybe six or eight floors could be supported by one.
Click to expand...

So in your mind it all comes down to how quickly the mass is impigned upon the floor?

Did you see anything happening in slow motion on 9/11?

Furthermore just how many floors did you see above the collapse zone in each case?

Yes, extending the time of momentum transfer lessens impulse force but in this case no matter how slow the upper mass comes down it will eventually see the mass of essentially the entire upper block being impinged upon the next lower floor. (and this then includes sections of the core columns, not just the floors. Column sections would remain pretty much as solid objects throughout the collapse)
 
GlennB said:
ha ha ha ha

Next time I think I'm overweight I'll put my hands on the bathroom scales too. Should reduce my weight by half.
If I'm losing weight, I'll stand on one foot to sort it out. Dramatically.

(Is Bill going for a Stundifiability record?)
Click to expand...

Just sneak up on the scale slowly it will not 'know' you are even there.


Wile. E. Coyote just heard a beep-beep.
 
bill smith said:
Well obviously they would not have the same sudden shattering impact as the impact that a solid floor would, so in broken pieces maybe six or eight floors could be supported by one.
Click to expand...

Next time there's a tsunami, we won't need to worry. Bill's new discovery proves it.
Water is not a solid, it'll just splash a few things and drain away, right?:D
 
alienentity said:
Next time there's a tsunami, we won't need to worry. Bill's new discovery proves it.
Water is not a solid, it'll just splash a few things and drain away, right?:D
Click to expand...

An avalanche wouldn't hurt to try either on my next skiing trip
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom