I Made no claim that it was abitary, and I understand that it is a reasonable aporimxation of the disturbation of mass in the tower. I have never made a claim to the contrary here, and would aprecacte it if you would could resist your complusion to assume such nonsense on me, and stick to adressing the arguments I do make.
Oh, my god.
The factor of three comes from the
integral. It is
not an approximation of the distribution of mass, it is a consequence thereof. An "integral" is a mathematical concept you don't follow at all, just like "inertia."
Rather, I know better than to think a simple potential energy calculation has any relevance to a complex system of interconnected mass.
Absolutely 100% dead wrong. If you knew what an
integral was, you would know that potential energy is an aggregate calculation, and can therefore be applied to any arbitrarily large or complex assortment of objects.
Seriously, this is award-winning nonsense you are writing.
Structural integrity is how much force a given mass or system of mass can take in a given situation.
No, it is not. Because, again, that answer varies wildly depending on how that force is delivered. It is a mere figure of speech. It also does not have inertia as a component, as you claimed previously.
Not that I ever claimed it was. I simply pointed that the lack of being a well defined quality is no excuse to ignore a physical reality, as struclrial integrity is a physical reality.
Total babble.
Do you agree that Newton's third law of motion in
these collapses? If so, would you please be so kind as to describe what effect it has on such a collapse?
Newton's Third Law applies universally and at all times. In particular, it applies during the
verinage demolition technique -- those crafty Frenchmen have not developed a magical way to suddenly turn it off, because if they had, instead of making a decent living demolishing buildings they could rapidly become masters of Earth and space. So, what this proves is that
even though Newton's Third Law is in full effect, it is nonetheless possible for a small portion of structure to trigger a cascading failure and totally destroy an entire structure, including crushing a much larger lower portion.
There's a reason for this. Newton's Third Law says that
forces are equal and opposite, at any point in time. It does not imply that
damage is equal and opposite, particularly when totalled over a complex evolution. That's one of the little details that you and many other Truther ignorati simply cannot understand, having no practical scientific knowledge.
Like I said, I'm done with you. You go on my Ignore list, effective immediately. Unless you get the proper education, starting practically at zero, I don't see how I can discuss these topics with you without feeling like a bully, and that's really not what I'm trying to do here. I would try to educate you but I can't do that without your participation -- no one can. So, good luck to you, hope you get it someday. See
here if you have any further questions.
