Merged Core-led collapse and explosive demolition

Oystein said:
Uhm, ergo? I am pretty sure ozeco posed this question to YOU more than anyone else, even though his post #935 (#938 is my quote of it) was in reply to GrizzlyBear. It is obvious from the debate here that GrizzlyBear has at least basic understanding of engineering, but that you do not.

Now ozeco presented the answer. Could you please check it out and tell us if you agree? Taking out 25% of the load bearing capacity doubles the load on the next row of columns in that illustration?

Once you have affirmed this, I would you like you to ponder what that means for the twin towers, as you assert that this "is very much what occurred on the wall where the plane crashed through".
Click to expand...

Then why didn't the building above the crash point fall in the direction of the damaged portion of the building?

Oh yeah, the core columns were still intact.
 
Clayton Moore said:
Then why didn't the building above the crash point fall in the direction of the damaged portion of the building?

Oh yeah, the core columns were still intact.
Click to expand...

<facepalm>

incredulity and ignorance.

He thinks it should have fallen over like a tree...

{snort} {snicker} {LOL}
 
Clayton Moore said:
Then why didn't the building above the crash point fall in the direction of the damaged portion of the building?
Click to expand...

As ozeco has stressed more than once, his simple example is merely illustrating a principle. Can you express that principle in your own words, to demonstrate that you understand it? Because I think you haven't.

Clayton Moore said:
Oh yeah, the core columns were still intact.
Click to expand...

Actually, they weren't. Some were severed or even damaged by the plane impacts. You don't even know the most basic facts about 9/11, do you?"
 
Clayton Moore said:
Then why didn't the building above the crash point fall in the direction of the damaged portion of the building?

Oh yeah, the core columns were still intact.
Click to expand...
No, the core columns were damaged, some cut by the impact of the plane. You can estimate the damage by taking the strength of steel vs the kinetic energy of the impact. You could but you call physics insane, so E=1/2mv2 for you is insane, you don't do physics. Therefore you will not grasp the damage. No big deal but you might want to focus on your delusion on the Holocaust instead of science.
 
aggle-rithm said:
It fell towards the Earth's center of gravity. It TILTED towards the damaged portion of the building as it fell.
Click to expand...

Clayton Moore said:
That's stupid. Where do you people come from?

Gravity collapse!!! ROTFL

Google gravity collapse ROTFL
Click to expand...

Actually what aggl-rithm said is in complete agreement with Newton's laws of motion.
 
TheRedWorm said:
What would you expect to happen? How should the buildings have collapsed?
Click to expand...

Clayton Moore said:
Then show us one. Other than WTC 1, 2, or 7.
Click to expand...

I do not see that you answered the question.

What would you have expected to happen and why?

These structures are the first skyscrapers to have globally collapsed primarily due to fire but fire was simply not the only factor in WTC 1&2. The fires began attacking a structure that had already suffered significant damage.

You guffaw at the idea that a tilted object falls straight down. You are demonstrating a pretty complete ignorance of physics.

ONLY IF the tilted object can continue to rotate will it fall over to one side. However if the pivot point is destroyed then this object will fall straight down. Its center of mass will no longer be able to travel horizontally once that opivot is gone..
 
Clayton Moore said:
Then show us one. Other than WTC 1, 2, or 7.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure whether you are acting the stupid part for fun.

The basic force involved in all building collapses is "downwards" which MEANS by definition "towards the earths centre of gravity" at that point on the earth. And, yes, before you ask, gravity does vary from point to point.

Any sideways movements in a collapse resulting from sideways forces which are only derived from the vertical forces because of leverages or pivoting which is part of each specific scene. Or because of external applied forces such as cables used to pull parts of buildings over.

You basic suggestion that somehow the WTC buidings had rules of their own is, as you must full well realise, nonsense.

If you want to stop playing silly games and discuss seriously just say so and I (or we) may be able to explain. Otherwise I leave you to your trolling game.
 
NoahFence said:
What are you saying? Gravity stops working after an object gets to a certain size?

:jaw-dropp

Yours is a special kind of stupid.
Click to expand...

Gravitational acceleration


In physics, gravitational acceleration is the acceleration on an object caused by gravity. Neglecting friction such as air resistance, all small bodies accelerate in a gravitational field at the same rate relative to the center of mass.[1] This equality is true regardless of the masses or compositions of the bodies. At different points on Earth, objects fall with an acceleration between 9.78 and 9.82 m/s2 depending on latitude, with a conventional standard value of exactly 9.80665 m/s2 (approx. 32.174 ft/s2). Objects with low densities do not accelerate as rapidly due to buoyancy and air resistance.

The barycentric gravitational acceleration at a point in space is given by:

\mathbf{\hat{g}}=-{G M \over r^2}\mathbf{\hat{r}}

where:

M is the mass of the attracting object,
\mathbf{\hat{r}} is the unit vector from center of mass of the attracting object to the center of mass of the object being accelerated.
r is the distance between the two objects.
G is the gravitational constant of the universe.

The relative acceleration of two objects in the reference frame of either object or the center of mass is:

\mathbf{\hat{g}} = -{G( M+m ) \over r^2}\mathbf{\hat{r}}

Thus, for a given total mass, relative gravitational acceleration does not depend on each mass separately. As long as one mass is much smaller than the other, relative gravitational acceleration is almost independent of the smaller mass.

All small masses brought in from far away and dropped one at a time will experience the same acceleration, relative to an inertial frame or the frame of the large mass. Disregarding air resistance, all small masses dropped simultaneously from the same height will hit the ground at the same time; for example, during Apollo 15 an astronaut on the Moon simultaneously dropped a feather and a hammer and they reached the ground at the same time.
Click to expand...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_acceleration

ROTFL

Disregarding 80 floors of building resistance!!!


ahahahhahahah
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom