The Progressive Collapse Challenge!

[Drudgewire]

I just tried the pancake challenge, and they collapsed at near-freefall speed... well, as long as you don't count the pat of butter on top.

 

[TellyKNeasuss]

I just tried the pancake challenge, and they collapsed at near-freefall speed... well, as long as you don't count the pat of butter on top.

Did any of the syrup end up outside of the pancakes' footprint? Did you check to see if any of the pancakes at the bottom were cut before the stack collapsed?

 

[Drudgewire]

Did any of the syrup end up outside of the pancakes' footprint? Did you check to see if any of the pancakes at the bottom were cut before the stack collapsed?

Oops! The experiment's fatal flaw.

BACK TO THE KITCHEN!!

 

[Anti-sophist]

#1 and #2 have already been done. See youtube for 'house of cards collapse' or 'jenga collapse'

#3 is a strawman, therefore #5 is a strawman.

#4 is too expensive (May as well challenge me to rebuild the WTC and crash a plane into it). Consequently, same with 5.


Case closed, as far as I can tell.

 

[pomeroo]

Larry Silverstein said that the maple syrup was so thick that the lid for the bottle was stuck on, so he told the waitress to "pull it".

An NWO associate was complaining to Silverstein that his secretive ways and nerdy appearance was preventing him from getting dates. Larry responded thoughtfully that maybe it was time to just pull it.

 

[PhantomWolf]

CHALLENGE #3:

Build a structure as required by CHALLENGE #2 which, in the process of collapsing, will throw pieces outward in all directions such that at least 80% of the mass of the materials ends up lying outside of the footprint, but their center of mass lies inside the footprint.

Firstly 80% pf the WTC tower material did not land outside of the towers footprint, only about 40% did, the main mass was concetrated in a compacted pile of concrete and mangeled trusses that filled the basements and then piled up about another 7 stories. Secondly according to the laws of physics, the CoM of a closed system must remain in a constant state. Basically what they tells us is that the CoM of the World Trade Towers much remain in the same place unless an outside force is applied to it. Since the only outside force applied was Gravity, which results in the CoM moving directly down, the laws of physics tell us that the CoM of the Towers MUST remain in the footprint. In fact it would have been a violation of the laws of physics for it to have not done so. Thus not only is the Challenge incorrect when compared to the WTC, it is absurd when compared to the laws of physics as written by Newton over 200 years ago.

 

[damien pastaume]

Firstly 80% pf the WTC tower material did not land outside of the towers footprint, only about 40% did, the main mass was concetrated in a compacted pile of concrete and mangeled trusses that filled the basements and then piled up about another 7 stories. Secondly according to the laws of physics, the CoM of a closed system must remain in a constant state. Basically what they tells us is that the CoM of the World Trade Towers much remain in the same place unless an outside force is applied to it. Since the only outside force applied was Gravity, which results in the CoM moving directly down, the laws of physics tell us that the CoM of the Towers MUST remain in the footprint. In fact it would have been a violation of the laws of physics for it to have not done so. Thus not only is the Challenge incorrect when compared to the WTC, it is absurd when compared to the laws of physics as written by Newton over 200 years ago.

Well, well. After two pages of smugness, weak jokes and backslapping - a reply that actually addresses the original post.
Is this the usual level of debate here at the jref forum?

 

[maxpower1227]

Well, well. After two pages of smugness, weak jokes and backslapping - a reply that actually addresses the original post.
Is this the usual level of debate here at the jref forum?

Given the sheer ridiculousness of the original post, what other type of response could there be? Spare us your righteous indignation. If you can't realize that the original post was completely and utterly idiotic, then I don't expect you to be making any positive contributions to the level of debate here.



...honestly... "Your structure can be made out of anything: straws, toothpicks, cards, dominoes, mud, vegetables, pancakes, etc." If that doesn't scream "I know absolutely NOTHING about physics", I don't know what does.

 

[bje]

I just tried the pancake challenge, and they collapsed at near-freefall speed... well, as long as you don't count the pat of butter on top.

No doubt you were using Canadian Maple Syrup.

 

[PhantomWolf]

Well, well. After two pages of smugness, weak jokes and backslapping - a reply that actually addresses the original post.
Is this the usual level of debate here at the jref forum?

Well to be blunt, Hoffman is an idiot and the challenge has been around for the last 4 years or longer and has been debunked almost as long. Riducle is likely the best response to those that continue to dig up trash from the past. I responded as I did because thereis a possiblity that some may not have seen it previously and might not realise how dumb it really is.

For example. Scaling a material results in the properties of the material changing at different rates. For example, if you take a steel column, the values for resistance to elastic deformation and volume are not linear to each other and scale. This means that if we take a smaller beam that has been scaled in size, it is actually proportionally stronger in its resistance to elastic deformation than the larger one would be. To give it a proportional resistance, you have to make the beam smaller, which then reduces the mass of the beam. You could change this by using a different material that gives you both mass and resitance, but now you have other problems such as how the beam reacts to heat and so forth. When it comes to the engineering world, scaling really creates more problems that it solves. Once the scaling issues and absurd questions based on Hoffman's ignorance are removed, you basically have him asking for a structure like the WTC, and since there are numerous real peer reviewed papers discussing the reasons for the progressive failure, including one that one of the posters (Apollo 20) here collaborated on, whereas there is not one properly peer reviewed paper disputing a progressive collapse, there is little need for such a challenge to be answered.

 

[Reality Believer]

I just tried the pancake challenge, and they collapsed at near-freefall speed... well, as long as you don't count the pat of butter on top.

I hate to tell you, but Aunt Jemima and Uncle Ben already beat you to the pancake challenge, and have debunked your results. Video:

 

[R.Mackey]

Given the sheer ridiculousness of the original post, what other type of response could there be? Spare us your righteous indignation. If you can't realize that the original post was completely and utterly idiotic, then I don't expect you to be making any positive contributions to the level of debate here.

Yup.

This is really quite a strange challenge, and one that exposes the lack of knowledge on the part of the challenger (Jim Hoffman). Any ordinary structure of sufficient height will exhibit this behavior, if you destroy a floor somewhere in the middle. Any structure.

For a given structure, you will find that there is a "safe zone" for which, if you destroy floor quite near the top, only results in a local collapse. Exactly how high up this zone is depends on the structure. Virtually any structure will not experience a progressive collapse if you only destroy the top floor, for example. But virtually any structure will collapse if the upper block created is, say, 10 floors or more.

The standards to beat are Bazant and Zhou and the update BLBG papers. Anyone who can falsify these papers may be on to something, and will receive my prompt attention. Anyone who cannot, who instead attempts to reroute the conversation through meaningless and ignorant "challenges," is talking out of his hat.

P.S.: This is not valid criticism of Bazant and Zhou, for reasons that should be self-evident. If you can't find the mistakes yourself, consult a scientist.

 

[damien pastaume]

maxpower1227: "Given the sheer ridiculousness of the original post, what other type of response could there be? Spare us your righteous indignation. If you can't realize that the original post was completely and utterly idiotic, then I don't expect you to be making any positive contributions to the level of debate here."

Thank you for the kind welcome.

I had read several threads here and they seemed to follow much the same pattern.

I can only hope my future contributions are as 'positive' as yours.

 

[Minadin]

The lead pancake engineer said that pancakes were designed to withstand the impact of maple syrup. But that is under the assumption that the maple syrup would be poured gently by someone leisurely eating breakfast.

I, for one, would like to see a YouTube video of the syrup impacting the pancake tower(s) at about 500 mph.

KKTHX.

 

[Drudgewire]

Well, well. After two pages of smugness, weak jokes and backslapping - a reply that actually addresses the original post.
Is this the usual level of debate here at the jref forum?

No, usually we put on funny hats first.

 

[Minadin]

I hate to tell you, but Aunt Jemima and Uncle Ben already beat you to the pancake challenge, and have debunked your results. Video:

I have a really difficult time trying to figure out if that video is satire or serious. Does that say more about me or the conspiracy theorists?

 

[LordoftheLeftHand]

I have a really difficult time trying to figure out if that video is satire or serious. Does that say more about me or the conspiracy theorists?

That's a good point. I thought it was a satire until it was 2/3rds done...

LLH

 

[Reality Believer]

I have a really difficult time trying to figure out if that video is satire or serious. Does that say more about me or the conspiracy theorists?

It is the middle ground between light and shadow, between science and superstition, and it lies between the pit of man's fears and the summit of his knowledge. This is the dimension of imagination. It is an area which we call "The Twilight Zone".

 

[pomeroo]

maxpower1227: "Given the sheer ridiculousness of the original post, what other type of response could there be? Spare us your righteous indignation. If you can't realize that the original post was completely and utterly idiotic, then I don't expect you to be making any positive contributions to the level of debate here."

Thank you for the kind welcome.

I had read several threads here and they seemed to follow much the same pattern.

I can only hope my future contributions are as 'positive' as yours.

Damien, on the rare occasions when someone asks a question that hasn't been worn to rags, the discussion is polite and informative. When a notorious conspiracy liar recycles thoroughly debunked rubbish for the purpose of hearing himself talk, he deserves the derision he provokes.

 

[Pardalis]

I noticed he threw in 'mud' also.

A mud model tower.