Tower Collapse Questions for Critical Thinkers

If someone took a hacky sack and pelted you with it, would it hurt more than if he took the hacky sack apart and threw that separated mass at you?
 
how fast is said hackey-sack traveling?? What is the makeup of it's contents??

You're not very good at anologys are you??
 
kylebisme said:
If someone took a hacky sack and pelted you with it, would it hurt more than if he took the hacky sack apart and threw that separated mass at you?
Click to expand...

We're not talking about something being broken into sand-sized pieces here. The steel columns broke into sections ~30 feet long, and the slabs were being slammed over and over again as they fell, but as they first began to fall they would still have been LARGE pieces. Certainly large enough to cause failures on the next floor down. Stuff was being DRIVEN downward and compacted by the material still above it. Don't you get that?

You need better analogies. So far these are all fails. By a long shot.
 
Lupie said:
I can't believe that this "kylebisme" has managed to generate ten pages of responses to his completely ignorant, and uninformed theories. I guess it's ironic, that a little bit of stupid, can attract the attention of a whole lot of smart. When does it finally become a futile waste of time and words?
Click to expand...


Nine pages ago.
 
sylvan8798 said:
We're not talking about something being broken into sand-sized pieces here.
Click to expand...
We are talking about the difference between a solid chunk of mass and the same mass broken into smaller pieces. The sand-sized pieces were simply to highlight that distinction for those who were attempting to deny it.

sylvan8798 said:
The steel columns broke into sections ~30 feet long, and the slabs were being slammed over and over again as they fell, but as they first began to fall they would still have been LARGE pieces. Certainly large enough to cause failures on the next floor down. Stuff was being DRIVEN downward and compacted by the material still above it. Don't you get that?
Click to expand...
Surely you aren't suggesting the building just collapsed into its own footprint? If you are, how do you figure all this stuff wound up all over the place?
 
Last edited:
kylebisme said:
You are correct, but you are missing Bill's point. You could take a giant 2,000 pound weight that covered the area of your porch and collapse it by dropping that weight from high enough. However, if your broke that weight into a bunch of pieces, they wouldn't hit at the same time, and hence would have to be dropped from far higher to collapse your porch.
Click to expand...

you are so right.

this is just water drops... small parts that should break it up


what happened to the car?
 
Surely you aren't suggesting that everything that was broken fell OUTSIDE the footprint and that nothing was landing on the still-intact structure?
 
kylebisme said:
momentum = mass x velocity.

force = mass x acceleration

The two are related, but not the same; mass doesn't doesn't gain force though momentum. (That really isn't quite true, but the increase is immeasurably small until coming very close to the speed of light, which isn't rightly relevant here.)


Not that I was not commenting on the towers there, but rather the conversation you responded to was about these these collapses.
Click to expand...

wow... you finally shifted from weight to mass. It seems like you are learning about technical jargon.

I'm still waiting for the measure of structural integrity... newtons was it? (roflmao).

still waiting for the citation for the body panels of a peugeot are steel... what are the brakes then? or was it 0 for brakes and 0 for fuel tank?

reading for comprehension is your friend.
 
You know kylebisme, if you put this sort of effort into actually educating yourself about the subjects that you talk about, you might actually learn something. You come across as a total fool and pawn of the "truthers". If you were to put even half the effort into actually reading about what you are attempting to talk about, as you do into carrying the truther banner here, you might actually learn that there are only two versions of things. There is what has been proven as fact, and there is BS.

L.
 
Last edited:
triforcharity said:
Son, I think you just gave my dad a heart attack. I think most people here would agree, that a cardboard box is not the best anology. Either way, its still fail.

Wanna use a bucket and some water instead??
Click to expand...

He'd have to poke a hole in the box, set it on fire and wait an hour to make it realistice.
 
kylebisme said:
We are talking about the difference between a solid chunk of mass and the same mass broken into smaller pieces. The sand-sized pieces were simply to highlight that distinction for those who were attempting to deny it.
Click to expand...

It would still hurt, but it certainly wouldn't kill me, either way. You see, my body was designed to withstand impacts and loads from much smaller objects. A better anology would be (even though the fail is still the same)

Take a car, and set it on top of your body while prone=dead guy

Take same car, shread it up, and set it on top of you=still alive*


kylebisme said:
Surely you aren't suggesting the building just collapsed into its own footprint? If you are, how do you figure all this stuff wound up all over the place?
Click to expand...

No, he is not. Not at all. He is explaining the collapse. Good strawman though.
BTW, nice job on using my photo that I pointed you to for demonstration of "Outside of footprint".

HE'S LEARNT ONE THING AT LEAST!! WOO HOOO!!!



*you would still be dead either way.
 
Tsig,

He would have to open the box. He wouldn't know where it went, or understand how it got there.
 
TruthersLie said:
what happened to the car?
Click to expand...
It was damaged a lot less that it would have been if it a bag full of the watter that hit it dropped on it instead, or even considerably less watter.

sylvan8798 said:
Surely you aren't suggesting that everything that was broken fell OUTSIDE the footprint and that nothing was landing on the still-intact structure?
Click to expand...
No, I'm suggesting that what was landing on the structures wasn't anywhere close to enough to bring it the towers down. Furthermore, even if there had been enough, the collapse would have decelerated on the way down just like those seen here, or anywhere else one collection of mass crushes another under the force of gravity alone.
 
Last edited:
Hokulele said:
That depends on how you dump it and how strong the box is. If you can dump it all at once, there will be essentially no difference.
Click to expand...

To the extent that falling loose sand acts as a liquid, it might make a difference (I'm not a physicist or engineer). However, I rather doubt that the mass of rubble of the collapsing WTC buildings acted much like a liquid.

Newtons Bit said:
Loads don't just vanish instantly the moment after they are applied. This is easily modeled by the characteristic equation of vibration. This translates to something similar to a sinusoidal wave with an intial magnitude equal to the dynamic load effect of the force and decays down with each cycle.

The period of this sinusoidal wave in the WTC is measured in seconds.
The percent damping, or reduction in amplitude for every cycle is about 10% (which is exceptionally high for a building). This crude shock absorber you're talking about is insignificant.
Click to expand...

What range of frequencies/periods might cardboard boxes have, and what range of damping percentages? I'm guessing that the period is very short and the damping percent very high, and if it was the same as for the WTC that it's likely a dumped bucket of sand would collapse the box.
 
Can anyone provide an example outside the events of 9/11 where one collection of mass crushes another under the force of gravity alone, without decelerating on the way down?
 
Last edited:
kylebisme said:
Can anyone provide an example outside the events of 9/11 where one collection of mass crushes another under the force of gravity alone, without decelerating on the way down?
Click to expand...

Did you try that "Brick and Egg" experiment that was suggested earlier?
 
Brainache said:
Did you try that "Brick and Egg" experiment that was suggested earlier?
Click to expand...
The brick decelerates when it hits the egg and starts accelerating again from there. Surely you aren't suggesting the bottom portions of each tower was like a giant egg?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom