Yet I never said anything to suggest the path of least resistance is a law of physics. That said, it is wrong to claim otherwise in such general terms. As Arus mentioned, the path of least resistance is a law of the physics of electricity, commonly known as Ohm's Law. Of course we are not talking about electricity, here but rather mass, and in the case of mass the path of least resistance is a principle of physics.
Oh, my aching head.
As you've already been shown, Ohm's Law is not the "path of least resistance." There is an analogy between electrical impedance and coupled spring response, but really, there is nothing even faintly applicable to the collapses here.
Ohm's Law is also
not "The Path of Least Resistance." Furthermore, "The Path of Least Resistance" is not a physical law or even a physical principle. It is a
consequence of certain situations -- ones which are not found at the World Trade Center. I
wrote up an explanation just last month for people like you.
Right, he also divided that by 3.
I never suggested he did, but rather am taking issue with the conceptualization he used to derive his equation. Again, the potential energy of the system in question is not relative to the whole of the mass of the tower suspended at the maximum height of the tower. Dividing that value by 3 does nothing to change that.
In my last reply, somewhat in jest, I referred you to the "integral sign" in my derivation. Apparently you really don't know what that means. The division by 3 is not at all arbitrary; it is, in fact, a pretty good representation of the actual Tower. Anyway, what we learn from this is that you cannot follow even a simple potential energy calculation, even when all the work is shown for you and dumbed down to a high school sophomore level.
In simple terms, newtons. Of course the structural integrity of a mass is dependent on where it interacts with another mass in a particular situation, and for an interconnected system of masses deriving such values becomes exceedingly complicated. That said, a quick Google search brought up
a decent overview of this problem which might help clarify the matter.
No. A Newton is a unit of force. Structural integrity is not equivalent to a force. As I said, the structural integrity
is not a well defined quantity. How well a structure will perform under load is not an intrinsic property of the structure. You have to specify the conditions in much more detail. For instance, two forces that arrive at different angles may have dramatically different effects on the structure.
This is why my calculation does not attempt to gauge "structural integrity." Can't be done. Instead, I looked at energy absorption. And that, again, is what you asked for, even though you've run far away from that discussion ever since.
The inertia of the parts of the system are elements of its structural strength, and you are arguing the tower fell as quick as it did because it couldn't provide any more structural integrity than provided by the inertia you attempted to calculate it did.
I cannot emphasize enough how nonsensical the above is.
"Interia" is not "elements of structural strength." Inertia is, depending on how you're looking at it, either mass or momentum. It has units of kilograms or Newton seconds, respectively. The WTC Towers have the same inertia before and after the collapse, although clearly the structural integrity before versus after is radically changed.
The point which you keep missing, for reasons that are now only too obvious, is that the timing of the "crush-down" style collapse is primarily governed by the mass of the structure and its contents. It is momentum transfer that slows the descent. The strength of the lower block also slows the descent, but not much, practically a round-off error. You could double the strength of the WTC Towers without changing the mass and hardly notice the difference.
That is what BLBG shows, and that is why your fantasies about explosives are singularly idiotic. The structure was coming down. If you want to speed up the collapse, the only way you can do it is by literally rocketing the lower structure to the ground in advance of the descending upper block, or else to ripple-fire the different floors so that there are no collisions at any time. I trust even you will agree that this is ludicrous.
I'm not familiar with the videos you allude to, but since you have just suggested the collapse of the towers happening so fast is comparable to some form of demolition, it seems we have come to an agreement here.
The videos with which you are not familiar describe a particular type of demolition, in which a single floor's worth of supports is suddenly destroyed through cables and hydraulics. This leaves an upper section to fall upon the lower portion, which is frequently much larger than the upper part. The entire structure is destroyed, despite no weakening at all being applied to the lower portion.
This is a pretty good model for a WTC Tower collapse that plays exactly like NIST, Dr. Bazant, and Dr. Seffen all say it did. It has no explosives anywhere, nor any needed. It proves the theory that I've presented and that you cannot grasp, by experiment. At this point, the game is over, and it's time for you to go home.
As I said, it is now extremely clear where your mistakes are coming from. You know absolutely nothing about science, yet you act as though you do. You don't even know what inertia is, for crying out loud! Therefore, regarding your Truth Movement proclamations, there is no reason for anyone to listen to you.
I'm done with you unless you want to learn. In that case, we can help.
