Merged Core-led collapse and explosive demolition

Dave Rogers said:
As you quoted earlier, gravitational acceleration is the acceleration of an object caused by gravity. If it speeds up in the 10 or so feet more than it slows down when it hits a lower floor, then overall there is speeding up by gravity collapse. If it slows down more than it was speeded up, then it stops. Therefore, saying that "There is no speeding up by gravity collapse" is about as wrong as it's possible to be; either there is speeding up, or there isn't a collapse. And, as a result of the speeding up, things hit each other at very high speeds, and some of those things are very fragile, like - for example - plasterboard and sheetrock, the source of the majority of the dust produced by the collapse. Therefore,



...is utterly wrong too; things falling from a thousand feet get pretty badly broken. And, because not everything hits everything else perfectly squarely, some things will get knocked sideways, so that,



...is wrong as well.

I'm not saying this to you, by the way. You've made it clear that you're unable to think rationally, that you fix on a belief then deny everything, however obvious, that disagrees with it. After all, if you can say in the same post that gravity accelerates things yet it doesn't speed them up, there's hardly any point expecting you to respond to reason from someone else; clearly, you can't even respond to your own reasoning. But there are sane and reasonable people reading this, and every now and then they delurk and mention how helpful it was that, when a belief-driven idealogue spouted absurdities, there was someone pointing out exactly how absurd they were.

Dave
Click to expand...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acceleration


That crap about things falling 10 feet crushing things and being crushed is oh so much crap. Drop a brick on another brick from 20 feet, 30 feet, 50 feet, 100 feet. And nothing gets crushed to dust.
 
Dave Rogers said:
I think you've misinterpreted the proverb "The bigger they are, the harder they fall."
Click to expand...

I was thinking about the scaling problem yesterday, and came up with this thought experiment:

First, apply a small amount of pressure from your finger to an ant.
Then apply that same pressure to a human.

Observe the difference in results.

Now, drop an ant from 100 feet.
Then drop a human from 100 feet.

Observe the difference in results.

Of course, truthers will completely miss the point of this exercise. Too bad.

ETA: The point being, a more massive and robust structure becomes fragile in the context of gravity/acceleration because of its greater mass.
 
Last edited:
ergo said:
No, Grizzly, you have neither answered the questions, which were originally posed to Myriad, nor have you explained your own attempted response. I even simplified it here for you.

It's this continual avoidance of specific examination that makes arguing with bedunkers so tedious. But the more people see how they can't answer the questions, the more they'll be likely to investigate it for themselves.
Click to expand...

That's your specialty.
 
Clayton Moore said:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acceleration


That crap about things falling 10 feet crushing things and being crushed is oh so much crap. Drop a brick on another brick from 20 feet, 30 feet, 50 feet, 100 feet. And nothing gets crushed to dust.
Click to expand...

Let me walk you through this. Please answer in sequence.
  1. Why do you think that "nothing gets crushed to dust" when bricks (or other building materials) fall 100 feet? Do you believe that falling building material doesn't have enough energy to cause itseld and/or another brick to crush, producing some dust?
  2. If you answer "no" to the above, please tell me your reason. We can stop here then. If you answered "yes", go on
  3. Do you agree that there was a lot of dust created from concretre, drywall and other building materials when the towers collapsed?
  4. If you answer "no" to the above, please give reasons why you disagree. If you answered "yes" to the above, please continue
  5. You now claimed that the falling building mass didn't have enough energy to create much dust, yet you say that lots of dust was created. This implies that additional energy was provided somehow that crushed materials to dust. Do you agree with that line?
  6. If you disagree with the above, please explain why
  7. If you agreed with the above, then we next need an idea of how much energy was available from falling building material, AND how much energy yoou think was required to create all the dust that was observed. We need to put numbers to this. Do you agree?
 
Last edited:
Oystein said:
That is close enough to correct to make this into a simple model and apply some physics and math. Shall we?

So if a floor falls 10 feel...
...what direction does move to? (Answer: vertically down)
...what velocity does it pick up during that fall?

Now it hits the next floor and gets slowed down by it. Correct. By how much can it be slowed down - in other words, what acceleration in which direction does it experience?
What happens to the floor below? Does it move, too? How much? What happens to the supporting structure of that lower floor when the upper floor impacts? Forces, movements, energy dissipation...



None at all? When a floor slab that contains many tons of concrete falls 10 feet on another floor slab with tons of concrete, you expect no dust?
What if light-weigh gypsum wallboard gets caught between the floor slabs - no dust whatsoever?




You dodged three questions when you moved goal posts in the above post. I must repeat them:

  • - How much debris (height of pile, or volume) would you expect for a 110-story building?
  • How much debris (volume and/or pile height) did you observe?
  • Do you have any evidence to support your belief that the twin tower basements didn't collapse?

You see, you must answer tose questions, or else your contention that there was less debris than expected is moot.

You see, everybody here notices how you dodge and evade and run away from your own claims like a chicken from the fox. It must be a bit embarrassing for you...
Click to expand...

Bumped for Clayton Moore.
In particular because he continues to dodge three questions:

  • How much debris (height of pile, or volume) would you expect for a 110-story building?
  • How much debris (volume and/or pile height) did you observe?
  • Do you have any evidence to support your belief that the twin tower basements didn't collapse?
 
Oystein said:
Bumped for Clayton Moore.
In particular because he continues to dodge three questions:

  • How much debris (height of pile, or volume) would you expect for a 110-story building?
  • How much debris (volume and/or pile height) did you observe?
  • Do you have any evidence to support your belief that the twin tower basements didn't collapse?
Click to expand...

I can't project and answer questions about something that couldn't happen. Your questions are not unlike watching TV with someone who comments "If you did that to me I'd burn all your suits and overcoats."
 
Clayton Moore said:
I can't project and answer questions about something that couldn't happen. Your questions are not unlike watching TV with someone who comments "If you did that to me I'd burn all your suits and overcoats."
Click to expand...

What couldn't happen?
Are you now claiming the twin towers did not collapse?? :confused:
 
Clayton Moore said:
I can't project and answer questions about something that couldn't happen.
Click to expand...

So when you say that the amount of debris was wrong for a 110-storey building, are you saying that any amount of debris, however large or small, would be the wrong amount? Or are you saying that you have no idea how much would be the right amount, but you've decided, for no reason that you can explain, that the exact amount you saw was definitely wrong?

Clayton Moore said:
Your questions are not unlike watching TV with someone who comments "If you did that to me I'd burn all your suits and overcoats."
Click to expand...

And your responses are like those of a defence attorney who says to the jury, "If it's not obvious to you that my client is innocent, then I'm not going to help you figure it out by actually presenting my case."

Dave
 
Clayton Moore said:
I can't project and answer questions about something that couldn't happen. Your questions are not unlike watching TV with someone who comments "If you did that to me I'd burn all your suits and overcoats."
Click to expand...
If you can dodge a wrench...
 
Dave Rogers said:
So when you say that the amount of debris was wrong for a 110-storey building, are you saying that any amount of debris, however large or small, would be the wrong amount? Or are you saying that you have no idea how much would be the right amount, but you've decided, for no reason that you can explain, that the exact amount you saw was definitely wrong?



And your responses are like those of a defence attorney who says to the jury, "If it's not obvious to you that my client is innocent, then I'm not going to help you figure it out by actually presenting my case."

Dave
Click to expand...
What I'm saying is that using your premise of the how of the collapse does not jive with the minuscule amount of debris. The only way that level of destruction could be attained would be some type of controlled demolition.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bnKYrogPtcU&feature=related
 
Clayton Moore said:
What I'm saying is that using your premise of the how of the collapse does not jive with the minuscule amount of debris. The only way that level of destruction could be attained would be some type of controlled demolition.
Click to expand...

Damn, I think I've finally got the measure of how stupid a truther can be, then one of them goes and ups the ante on me. You're saying that a controlled demolition produces more debris? Where the **** does the extra debris come from?

Dave

ETA: Or, alternatively, in a collapse, where does some of the debris disappear to?
 
Last edited:
Clayton Moore said:
What I'm saying is that using your premise of the how of the collapse does not jive with the minuscule amount of debris. The only way that level of destruction could be attained would be some type of controlled demolition.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bnKYrogPtcU&feature=related
Click to expand...

Miniscule amount of debris?? Wow.

Care to link us to a video of a controlled demo that obliterates everything and turns the entire building to dust?

I can't stress this enough - you have no idea what you're talking about.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom