Tower Collapse Questions for Critical Thinkers

[SpitfireIX]

Student Grade Report

Student: kylebisme

Calculus II: F
Physics I: F
Statics: F
Strength of Materials: F

 

[TruthersLie]

I'm still waiting for kylebisme to let us know the depth of his architectural knowledge. I wonder why he keeps ignoring my question...

OH he has stated he started architecture switched to physics, but didn't want to go in debt so didn't finish.

It does help to actually FINISH the coursework... things make soooooo much more sense.

 

[psikeyhackr]

[qimg]http://home.comcast.net/~jerry.jobe/WTC1.jpg[/qimg]

So, are you saying that :

1) As the floors of the blue block were being destroyed, that the right side of each floor should have been destroyed before the left side, but what actually happened was that the left, right and center of each floor was destroyed simultaneously?

2) The tilt of the red block should have pushed the rubble of the blue block to the left?

.
That is what might happen as a result of FIRE and GRAVITY.

But it is obvious from this video that that is not what happened.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9SSS0DDqfm0

It looks like the bottom of the upper broken portion moved horizontally about 20 feet. So what force could do that?

um

 

[GlennB]

.

It looks like the bottom of the upper broken portion moved horizontally about 20 feet. So what force could do that?

um

Well, neither explosives nor space-beams could do it. So it must have been MOTHRA.

 

[Mancman]

.
Jesus H. Christ!

The plane hit the south tower at the 81st floor. So it was more like 29 stories of 110.

29/110 = 26%
28/110 = 25%

15% would be only 16.5 stories. It was a lot more than that for the south tower.

It was about 13% for the north tower but it did not rotate.

psik

The top of the North Tower did rotate:

 

[R.Mackey]

I understand that 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, and I would hope everyone else can at least come to terms with that at some point too.

I have no idea where you're going with this. You still don't appear to have actually understood my Appendix B.

What would you call the resistance afforded by the structure of the system of mass being crushed, and what were you attempting to solve for in your equation "1 – a / g" if not that?

What units does "structural integrity" have?

What I computed, as you would know if you actually read Appendix B, is the fraction of gravitational energy absorbed by the structure during collapse. Most of that is through inelastic collisions -- overcoming inertia. Not overcoming structural strength.

Where can I find this alleged proof?

ASCE Journal of Engineering Mechanics, v. 134 (2008). A preprint is available here. Feel free to ask help with the equations.

Can you provide alternate examples?

Any of the verinage demolition videos should do nicely.

Sure, like if you stack 80 glass coffee tables on top of each other and then drop a bowling ball on that; once it starts, it's all over, eh? Assuming 10mm glass with a 1 kg/mm/mm tensile strength spaced 500mm apart, and a 10 kg ball with a 200mm diameter given say 100m over the top of the structure just for fun, how close to free fall would expect that ball to get after connecting with the first sheet of glass?

As others have noted, this is ignorant of scale. While your hypothetical construction would collapse quickly, it's not a very good model and won't tell us much about the real collapses. I provided a simplified lecture of scale on Hardfire some months ago: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZsDn6es7mtk

 

[beachnut]

Student Grade Report

Student: kylebisme

Calculus II: F
Physics I: F
Statics: F
Strength of Materials: F

And he is given the answers.

 

[Arus808]

I am suggesting NOTHING but did plainly state that "the path of least resistance" is not a law in physics.

I thought that "the path of least resistance" has to do with electricity flow through a circuit, or where a liquid, relies on another physical object to determine its path, by gravity. I also remember that it has to do with weather (storms) flowing from a high pressure area to a lower one.


Am I wrong? sorry, I haven't touched any science since I was in first year of college.

 

[VespaGuy]

OH he has stated he started architecture switched to physics, but didn't want to go in debt so didn't finish.

And keep in mind that he didn't even claim to have majored in architecture. He only claimed to have studied it, which could mean anything from taking a single "History of Architecture" course to completing a 5 year program.

I know what I'm leaning towards.

 

[Mr.Herbert]

Well, neither explosives nor space-beams could do it. So it must have been MOTHRA.

Although it is possible that Mothra played a hand it this, Mothra was typically an alli to the human race and often fought against the monsters that threatened us. This of course can all be dismissed once the NWO gets involved.

The "tilt" and collapse could have very well been casued by Rodan. Rodan's wingspan was a little shorter than Mothra's, but his weight is estimated to be that of almost 5,000 tons more than Mothra's.

Rodan:

Height 50-100 meters
Weight 15,000-30,000 tons
Wingspan 120-200 meters
Air speed Mach 1-15

Mothra:

Weight
Larval form
9,000-15,000tons
Adult form
15,000-25,000 tons
Wingspan75-250 metres

 

[TruthersLie]

See... the Mothra movement grows...

in fact it seems to be growing FASTER than the TM. IN 2 days, I have 2 more people converted...

 

[alienentity]

Mothra's presence explains the rocket-like behavior of David Chandler's bits and pieces:

As Mothra's wings flap, they create giant air gusts. Perhaps that's also why the buildings and rubble fell at faster than freefall speed (Chandler again).

Count me in. That's 3 of us. If we have a Mothra did 9/11 rally, we'll have almost as many as a typical truther rally. Someone should have a teeshirt made. I'll buy it.

 

[JohnG]

As Mothra's wings flap, they create giant air gusts. Perhaps that's also why the buildings and rubble fell at faster than freefall speed (Chandler again).

Gives new meaning to the term "Butterfly Effect".

 

[jaydeehess]

.
Jesus H. Christ!

The plane hit the south tower at the 81st floor. So it was more like 29 stories of 110.

29/110 = 26%
28/110 = 25%

15% would be only 16.5 stories. It was a lot more than that for the south tower.

It was about 13% for the north tower but it did not rotate.

psik

<<sighs>>

Will you be argueing over such strawmen continually?

OK then what portion of the 26% of the building which was rotating was no longer over the lower portion of the structure and therefore not falling directly the lower portion of the structure?

How different from an omnidirectional distribution was the debris of WTC 2?

How is this different than what you would expect and how does this point to something other than what the so called "official" history of the events.

 

[kylebisme]

I am suggesting NOTHING but did plainly state that "the path of least resistance" is not a law in physics.

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.

Now try it with 1mm glass. Oh, that made a difference, didn't it? Funny how scale matters.

Of course scale matters in many regards, but go ahead and change the thickness of the glass as you suggest, my point stands regardless.

Why can a cat happily jump down 2 or 3 times its body length, while an elephant trying the same trick would smash its bones and rupture its internal organs, leading to a speedy death?

I you would first be so kind as to either provide a better analogy than the one I presented, or renounce your criticism against it, I would be happy to reciprocate by answering your question.

If he'd calculated the potential energy of the whole mass of the tower suspended at the maximum height of the tower, the equation would have been U = M g H.

Right, he also divided that by 3.

The equation R.Mackey actually derived does contain factors of M and H, so in that sense the potential energy of the system is expressed "relative to" the whole mass of the tower and relative to the maximum height of the tower, but it is not equal to that value, or even close to it.

Which is why I said "relative to" rather than "equal to".

If R.Mackey made a mathematical error...

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.

What units does "structural integrity" have?

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.

What I computed .... is the fraction of gravitational energy absorbed by the structure during collapse. Most of that is through inelastic collisions -- overcoming inertia. Not overcoming structural strength.

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.

Any of the verinage demolition videos should do nicely.

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.

While your hypothetical construction would collapse quickly, it's not a very good model and won't tell us much about the real collapses.

If you think you can provide a better model, please share.

ETA
*Fixed "allude" for the sake of Johnny's sanity.

 

[johnny karate]

Not to be a nitpicker, but the word you're looking for is "allude". The fact that you keep using "elude" in its place is driving me crazy.

 

[alienentity]

'I'm not familiar with the videos you elude to, but since you have just suggested the collapse of the towers happening so fast is comparable to of some demolition, it seems we have come to an agreement here.'

The verinage technique employs hydraulics or cables to remove support, usually about halfway up a tower.
The lower floors, according to patent applications, are specifically not weakened, for safety reasons.

Verinage simply gets the upper block to fall at least one floor, and gravity does the rest. They don't even use nanothermite rockets. Who knew?

Verinage collapses:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EY3nj728WPY

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3GNhEpHfgfI

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=prwvj-npt5s

 

[rwguinn]

Not to be a nitpicker, but the word you're looking for is "allude". The fact that you keep using ""elude" in its place is driving me crazy.

But it's factual!
Actuality and reality ELUDE the truthers...

 

[psikeyhackr]

<<sighs>>

Will you be argueing over such strawmen continually?

OK then what portion of the 26% of the building which was rotating was no longer over the lower portion of the structure and therefore not falling directly the lower portion of the structure?

How different from an omnidirectional distribution was the debris of WTC 2?

How is this different than what you would expect and how does this point to something other than what the so called "official" history of the events.

.
I am not arguing about the percentage I was just telling you that your percentage was wrong. I have been thinking of it as 25% for years so as soon as I saw 15% I knew it was too high for the north tower and too low for the south. So it was odd that anyone who has been talking about this subject for a long time to be so far off.

It is funny how often people throw up the term "starwman" as though that accomplishes something. I am beginning to think of it a a signal that the person knows they are talking BS.

psik

 

[jaydeehess]

arrrgh, long post to reply to psikey went to bit heaven

I am too tired to rewrite it and others are having a go at it anyway.