Ergo, I've bolded statements that are detracting from your argument. Consider eliminating such statements in your response.
In a closed system.
Correct.
Incorrect.
Again, let's elevate this debate above childish one liners, shall we?
If you mean that energy is neither created nor destroyed, you are correct. If you are trying to claim that the system we are talking about does not lose energy, you are incorrect.
Of course the system loses energy, but that energy has to go somewhere. If it doesn't turn into heat and vibration, then where does it go?
The Almond said:
The falling floors of the twin towers had kinetic energy, and when they impacted the structure of the twin towers, nearly all of the energy went into the structure.
This has nothing to do with what you just said above.
Leaps and gaps in logic seem to be really common with "debunkers". You're trying to use physics for your argument, but because your argument is not supported by physics, you have to make these ridiculous leaps to arrive at your destination.
Please try to understand: The kinetic energy has to go somewhere. If it wasn't turned into heat and sound, what happened to it? Tell me where the energy of 13 falling floors went.
Also, the "falling floors"? You seem to be uncertain, again, whether you are talking about a discrete upper block or rubble. In any case, you also forget that not only the intact structure must absorb the force of "impact" (crushing)--as you correctly state that the ground does--but the upper block must also absorb it. Which is why it crushes up before crushing down is ever allowed to occur.
So all this crushing occurs. Where does the mass go? Does that mass have potential energy because of its height above the ground? Is that mass being accelerated towards the ground?
I'm not even sure what point you're attempting to make here,
The comments you've made so far indicate that you are unable or unwilling to consider my arguments in full. Rather, you would prefer to dismiss them outright:
but it's probably irrelevant.
You're striding towards "troll" classification. If your intention is to simply find an expedient way to dismiss my arguments (for instance, by not reading them), then I would suggest talking to a cat. Cats rarely have intelligent opinions, and those that they have are usually regarding trivial subjects such as the quality of canned tuna fish. You have my permission to dismiss all opinions that come from cats.
Oh, wait. You're probably attempting to suggest that not much mass or energy was lost to the system. The debris ejected upwards and outwards had the same potential energy as all the other debris. The energy required to eject this matter upwards and outwards, supposedly through "crushing", is energy lost to any further crushing.
Sadly, no. That's not what I'm saying. What I'm telling you is that the tower had some potential energy. When it began to fall, the potential energy was converted to kinetic energy. That kinetic energy, minus the energy that went into the production of sound and heat, was transferred to the structure. That energy went into destroying the structure, and the total energy is integrated over the entire reference frame of the towers, meaning that its shape mattered very little.
This is saying nothing, except perhaps you're trying to sound like you know what you're talking about.
I understand that you're rationalizing not considering my arguments. If you've decided that I'm an idiot, we don't need to continue this.
Incorrect. Friction affects different materials differently. This is also high school physics.
Which weighs more, a kilogram of bricks, or a kilogram of feathers? Mass is what determines kinetic energy, force of gravity and momentum. Properties like friction are not at issue in such calculations.
This is so utterly false as to be bizarre. All modern structures are designed to arrest their own collapse.
As a civil engineer with a bachelors and master's degree, I can assure you that no structure is designed to arrest a collapse of one floor falling onto another. Structures are designed to support static loads, and while a structure may be able to stop such a collapse due to factors of safety and over-design, it is not a design consideration. See
Structural Analysis by R.C. Hibbeler, 5th ed.
This is what modern engineering and building design are about.
Modern building design is about estimating and then designing for static loads caused by people and things. There are design considerations to prolong building survival in the event of fire, and new design considerations to prevent floor failure due to fires, but we don't design to prevent collapse if one floor of a building falls onto another.
There are no building codes existing today that would allow a highrise structure to self-pulverize, to collapse completely within seconds of free fall, to disintegrate in mid-air.
Upon what evidence do you make that assertion? Or perhaps you make it on your vast experience as a civil engineer? How many structures have you designed?
This is why demolition companies exist. Holy ****.
Ergo, I'm just curious about something. What would it take to convince you that the collapse of the twin towers was exactly the result of known, quantifiable physical processes? And what has convinced you that the towers were blown up by an explosives demolition company?
Which falls to the ground faster, Mr. Civil Engineer?
