Merged Continuation - 9/11 CT subforum General Discussion Thread

[sylvan8798]

Even in those car accidents, does one car usually go through the other one? Let's take two other vehicles: two trains. If two locomotive cars hit each other head on does one plow all the way through the other one?

The point is that what they do has zero to do with some "path of least resistance" nonsense. Absolutely zero.

Resident physicist bangs head on keyboard.

 

[DeathDart]

Take 3 alphabet blocks.

Put 1 on top the other.

Put the 3rd one on top the other two.

Take a large glass of sand.

Pour sand over blocks.

Does sand go around blocks, or does sand go through blocks?

Sand must be at room temperature, not glowing from intense radiation.

Blocks are wooden solids.

 

[leftysergeant]

Was that material mass from the falling section or mass from the lower section? Methinks it was from the lower section.

Also, one of the upper section was maybe a dozen floors in size. Why was it not destroyed by the lower section as it (the upper section) fell?

At the intertface it was a mash-up of both. Although the structure may have beren discombobulated in the collision, the mass was still there and as heavy as ever. Much of the more fragile material slid off right away, but heavier elements kept on moving straight down until they got piled too deep to rermain stable.

Like I say, though, what did not fall off was heavy enough to be harmful to the structure below it.

 

[Animal]

Take 3 alphabet blocks.

Put 1 on top the other.

Put the 3rd one on top the other two.

Take a large glass of sand.

Pour sand over blocks.

Does sand go around blocks, or does sand go through blocks?

Sand must be at room temperature, not glowing from intense radiation.

Blocks are wooden solids.

Maybe dense dart can figure out the difference between his play blocks and a steel frame structure.........................on second thought, never mind.

 

[DeathDart]

Maybe dense dart can figure out the difference between his play blocks and a steel frame structure.........................on second thought, never mind.

Captain Zapp Brannigan please begin Asteroid Bombardment of southern Michigan

 

[beachnut]

Do you really think there is any validity to your analogy here? The impact of two cars often occurs in a split second. Even in those car accidents, does one car usually go through the other one? Let's take two other vehicles: two trains. If two locomotive cars hit each other head on does one plow all the way through the other one?

The Twin Towers were not damaged evenly. In fact, one tower was damaged toward one of its corners. Its collapse did not reflect this lack of uniformity however.

I am not the one who said this nonsense, but go ahead, support it with math, use some differential equations, and physics to show us why you and your fellow 9 years of failure in 911 truth buddy are right.

... The path of least resistance is through the air, not through the building.

Go ahead tempesta, support this failed physics of 911 truth. When will you prove it, it will be a whole new kind of physics.

Why would you support the path of least resistance claptrap? Do you think the buildings are electric?

 

[sylvan8798]

Get a 9V battery, some wire, and a couple of resistors, say 200 Ohms and 400 Ohms. Set up a circuit with two wires acting in parallel. Insert the 200 Ohm resistor in the path of Wire 1 and the 400 Ohm resistor in the path of Wire 2. Hook up the battery. What will the current be in Wire 1 and in Wire 2?

 

[sylvan8798]

Take 3 alphabet blocks.

Put 1 on top the other.

Put the 3rd one on top the other two.

Take a large glass of sand.

Pour sand over blocks.

Does sand go around blocks, or does sand go through blocks?

Sand must be at room temperature, not glowing from intense radiation.

Blocks are wooden solids.

The sand will pile up on top of Block 3 in a cone shape, until the slope of the cone sides reaches a certain critical angle. Then additional grains will slide down the slope of the cones and fall off. Poor analogy to WTC. Nothing about paths of least resistance here either. Keep trying.

Found that physics text yet?

 

[DeathDart]

The sand will pile up on top of Block 3 in a cone shape, until the slope of the cone sides reaches a certain critical angle. Then additional grains will slide down the slope of the cones and fall off. Poor analogy to WTC. Nothing about paths of least resistance here either. Keep trying.

Found that physics text yet?

I was just about to write about the cone shape.

Leftysargeant is again annoyingly correct. I didn't know that three floors were joined by the external walls. The building acts like a hydraulic ram after the collapse, though when the debris starts to push the outer walls apart it does allow more lateral motion.

By that time you run out of building.

 

[DeathDart]

I actually like the design, but it is subject to an apparently non-terminating cascade failure. If it had three or four high strength towers supporting the edges, or a couple of flying buttresses it couldn't hurt.

Better if it was totally underground.
That is why I like caves. Trolls live in caves, right?

 

[Oystein]

Do you really think there is any validity to your analogy here? The impact of two cars often occurs in a split second. Even in those car accidents, does one car usually go through the other one? Let's take two other vehicles: two trains. If two locomotive cars hit each other head on does one plow all the way through the other one?

The Twin Towers were not damaged evenly. In fact, one tower was damaged toward one of its corners. Its collapse did not reflect this lack of uniformity however.

Both the train and the car analogies are of limited validity, as neither experiences an accelerating force at the rate of 9.8m/s/s straight down.

The train example is particularly inapt as the cars of a train have very much different proportions relative to one another than the floors of a tall building.

 

[Oystein]

Take 3 alphabet blocks.

Put 1 on top the other.

Put the 3rd one on top the other two.

Take a large glass of sand.

Pour sand over blocks.

Does sand go around blocks, or does sand go through blocks?

Sand must be at room temperature, not glowing from intense radiation.

Blocks are wooden solids.

There's the reason why your comparison is not just bad, but moronic.
Were the WTC towers solids?

You basically fail at scaling the model. A solid wooden block is capable of supporting a great many of its kind. The WTC highrises were far from solid, they were about 95% air*, and at each floor they were designed to carry a static load of only 2-3 times the actual load placed above each floor.

Some months ago, somebody proposed modelling the WTC columns with pencils, but did neither experiment nor math and just imagined it would speak for nutty CTs. I however did measure the strength of pencils, and also the strength of spaghetti vs. their own mass and length, and found that spaghetti are a much closer analogy - due to scaling effects, pencils are much too strong to stand for steel columns. So I formulated and calculated how a true scale model built of spaghetti would perform. You can probably find it using the search function: Search for post by "Oystein" within this subforum that have the word "bavette" in them.
The easy to visualize catch was this: You can rest the weight of your hand on X vertical spaghetti. If you now assemble 2X spaghetti and let your hand fall from a height which is twice the length of your spaghetti columns, you will find that you shatter them completely, and your hand will not be deflected one bit from vertical.



*: It's those 95% air that the collapsing part of the builduing is mostly falling through.

 

[Oystein]

I actually like the design, but it is subject to an apparently non-terminating cascade failure. If it had three or four high strength towers supporting the edges, or a couple of flying buttresses it couldn't hurt.

Better if it was totally underground.
That is why I like caves. Trolls live in caves, right?

Hmm not a surprise.

Buh-bye!

 

[sylvan8798]

Both the train and the car analogies are of limited validity, as neither experiences an accelerating force at the rate of 9.8m/s/s straight down.

Well, we've ALL got that . I assume you mean an accelerating force of g in the same direction of the motion?

The train example is particularly inapt as the cars of a train have very much different proportions relative to one another than the floors of a tall building.

And obviously, the shape and design of the front end of a train is such that there is some impact resistance and elasticity which might deflect the oncoming trains to one side enough such that one shoots past the other (derailing of course). Truthers find it difficult to imagine that the top of a one-acre building can't shoot of to one side and slide down past the bottom...

Now that would have been suspicious...

ETA: I wish someone could do an animation of that.

 

[Oystein]

Well, we've ALL got that . I assume you mean an accelerating force of g in the same direction of the motion?
...

Of course

 

[dafydd]

Take 3 alphabet blocks.

Put 1 on top the other.

Put the 3rd one on top the other two.

Take a large glass of sand.

Pour sand over blocks.

Does sand go around blocks, or does sand go through blocks?

Sand must be at room temperature, not glowing from intense radiation.

Blocks are wooden solids.

You cannot be serious.

 

[dafydd]

I actually like the design, but it is subject to an apparently non-terminating cascade failure. If it had three or four high strength towers supporting the edges, or a couple of flying buttresses it couldn't hurt.

Better if it was totally underground.
That is why I like caves. Trolls live in caves, right?

I thought so. On ignore for you.

 

[tsig]

Take 3 alphabet blocks.

Put 1 on top the other.

Put the 3rd one on top the other two.

Take a large glass of sand.

Pour sand over blocks.

Does sand go around blocks, or does sand go through blocks?

Sand must be at room temperature, not glowing from intense radiation.

Blocks are wooden solids.

The buildings weren't.

 

[leftysergeant]

Sorry, what? What would cause more debris to be on the side that collapses quicker? What horizontal force is being applied?

Gravity, of course. Mostly, it would be pulling the debris downward in a straight line. But, because the lower floors were not getting out of the way at the same speed , the debris would pile up a bit, then start to move laterally. The perimeter columns, deprived of their lateral supports, would offer less resistance than the undamaged floors below, and would yield suddenly, allowing gravity to pull loose bebris off over the side of the pile, like the sand piling up on top of a solid block of wood.


Again, this would require a horizontal force.

If parts of the building collapse later than others they will be subject to long column type failures which will not favour one direction over others, except in the direction of the force on them, due to gravity.

Again, compparing the debris to sand poured onto a wooden block, if there is any object resting against the block so that the top of it rises above the edge of the block, less sand will be able to fall off that edge and will, instead, tend to run off the other edges. In the towers, the columns that failed at a lower level would allow more of the pile of debris to slide off in that direction, so that the surplus which was acting against the least damaged face, but not able to move downward agfainst the resistance of the lower floors, would tend to slump into the more damaged areas.

Although the collapse may be assymettric the debris is subject to very little horizontal force due to your 'incline'. This would be more significant if that 'incline' itself was not acellerating downward.

But the incline was accelerating downward at far less than g, while the debris could only accelerate at exactly g. Thus, it has to go somewhere other than straight down.

However we also have to take into account the core which itself lagged the perimeter in collapsing. This would separate the sides of the towers slowing any lateral movement of debris and, as I believe Oystein or Lefty pointed out, would then be a guide that would allow the sides to collapse largely independant of each other.

The core is a bit of a sticky wicket here. It did moderate the flow of loose debris so that it did not all move toward the more advanced front.

I can see how collapse would have arrested in a more conventionally-designed building.

But that is the fly in the oinment. It wasn't conventional.

 

[leftysergeant]

If two locomotive cars hit each other head on does one plow all the way through the other one?

Of course not, because most of its energy would be spent on impact bending up the front of the other train.

Now, put a locomotive of some sort behind one of those trains to push it at the same speed, and you might have the target train squished into a pile.

The Twin Towers were not damaged evenly. In fact, one tower was damaged toward one of its corners. Its collapse did not reflect this lack of uniformity however.

Balderdash. Watch the videos again.