Tower Collapse Questions for Critical Thinkers

[jaydeehess]

.
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

I used the term "Starwman" ? (now a David Bowie song will be stuck in my head for hours)

Yes, had you done the same others would have jumped on it and you would have balked at such a strawman attack. My bad, I recalled impact at around the 95th floor, slightly off and wrong building. My bad


Despite the fact that I said I was not going to rewrite, the final point I made was that all that was required was for there to be enough loading on the floors of the lower structure to fail them and thus tear away, violently it should be noted, the lateral support system for the columns. After that the structure will collapse, completely. Now we have people telling us that the distribution of debris should be less omnidirectional beacuse a small percentage of the structure was not over the lower portion of the building..

Short answer is that gravity works, it always works, and it always works in a vector aimed at the center of the planet.

Now,,,, if only this post will go through. I've lost two today.
ETA: this one took two tries. Luckily I copied it to notepad

 

[kylebisme]

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?

Ah, yeah, they were mentioned to me in a PM by another member erlier as "the French demos", I simply wasn't familiar with the term "verinage". Anyway, the videos you posted do show an unsual form of controlled demolition, using cables to pull out supporting structure rather than explosives to blast it out. Furthermore, note how the velocity of the upper mass decreases after coming into contact with the lower mass, demonstrating the resistance provided by that lower mass. Also consider how much more the deceleration would have been had that lower structure been not simply concrete but rather also framed with steel.

 

[dudalb]

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.

I see the OP had problems with English as well as Physics.

 

[alienentity]

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.

I think that distinction has eluded him...or it is alluded?

 

[alienentity]

Ah, yeah, they were mentioned to me in a PM by another member erlier as "the French demos", I simply wasn't familiar with the term "verinage". Anyway, the videos you posted do show an unsual form of controlled demolition, using cables to pull out supporting structure rather than explosives to blast it out. Furthermore, note how the velocity of the upper mass decreases after coming into contact with the lower mass, demonstrating the resistance provided by that lower mass. Also consider how much more the deceleration would have been had that lower structure been not simply concrete but rather also framed with steel.

Yes, it is noteworthy that the WTC collapses don't look like controlled demolitions. You are correct.

Again you correctly note that the verinage videos show a nice, neat collision between well-aligned blocks, once again unlike the messy, tube-in-tube WTC tower collisions. This is what Ryan was pointing out to you, vis-a-vis the famous 'missing jolt' of T. Szamboti.

Funny, the more you compare the WTC collapses with real controlled demolition, the less like CD they look. Doesn't bother me in the slightest. But it's driving truthers absolutely bonkers. They've been claiming for years that an upper block simply crush down a lower block as shown by Bazant et al.
Turns out they were wrong again. As they say in France, 'Quelle Surprise!'

Edit: Correction, a truther is never 'wrong' per se. So long as they can quickly move on to the next conspiracy talking point, they see success and validation.

Often (and increasingly) they find comfort in the paradigm of Wolfgang Pauli, as in 'That's not right. It's not even wrong'.

 

[~enigma~]

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.

It isn't a law so unless you claim it is, you are not wrong.

 

[~enigma~]

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.

It isn't a law. As you correctly say here it is a principle but principles (or rules of thumb) are often found to be wrong (in some cases). Unfortunately for the idiot TM, they refuse to recognize that it doesn't apply.

 

[kylebisme]

Yes, it is noteworthy that the WTC collapses don't look like controlled demolitions.

Rather, the WTC collapses don't look like the controlled demolitions you've shown, or any other I've ever seen. Are you unwilling to discuss the points I noted on differences between the WTC collapses and those in the videos you linked?

It isn't a law so unless you claim it is, you are not wrong.

Again, the path of lease resistance is a law in the physics of electricity, Ohm's law.

As you correctly say here it is a principle but principles (or rules of thumb) are often found to be wrong (in some cases).

You are wrong in saying that a principle of physics is a rule of thumb, or that any are ever found wrong. The path of least resistance, in regard to matter, is directly related to Newton's third law. The difference between the law and the principle here is; an object in motion will always stay in motion unless acted upon by an outside force, while an mass will only follow the path of least resistance unless it exerts work to do otherwise. For instance, find yourself a nice grassy hill, lay down, and let yourself roll down it. Doing so, you will follow the path of least resistance, but of course you can walk right back up that hill against resistance if you care to put the work into it.

 

[~enigma~]

Again, the path of lease resistance is a law in the physics of electricity, Ohm's law.

Do you even read what you write? The law is Ohm's law. There is no law called "The Path Of Least Resistance." Only retards and the TM think it is a law.

 

[WildCat]

For instance, find yourself a nice grassy hill, lay down, and let yourself roll down it. Doing so, you will follow the path of least resistance, but of course you can walk right back up that hill against resistance if you care to put the work into it.

And likewise the top 20 floors of the WTC crashed right through the floor below it, then those 21 floors crashed right through the next floor, then those 22 floors crashed right through the next floor, and so on and so on. No explosives, therm*te, space beams, mini-nukes, hush-a-booms, Mothra, etc etc needed.

Why is this so difficult for you to understand Mr. Physics?

 

[DGM]

Rather, the WTC collapses don't look like the controlled demolitions you've shown, or any other I've ever seen. Are you unwilling to discuss the points I noted on differences between the WTC collapses and those in the videos you linked?


Again, the path of lease resistance is a law in the physics of electricity, Ohm's law.


You are wrong in saying that a principle of physics is a rule of thumb, or that any are ever found wrong. The path of least resistance, in regard to matter, is directly related to Newton's third law. The difference between the law and the principle here is; an object in motion will always stay in motion unless acted upon by an outside force, while an mass will only follow the path of least resistance unless it exerts work to do otherwise. For instance, find yourself a nice grassy hill, lay down, and let yourself roll down it. Doing so, you will follow the path of least resistance, but of course you can walk right back up that hill against resistance if you care to put the work into it.

The force stopping you from falling a further (straight down) is the hill. Any more lame analogies?

 

[kylebisme]

And likewise the top 20 floors of the WTC crashed right through the floor below it, then those 21 floors crashed right through the next floor, then those 22 floors crashed right through the next floor, and so on and so on.

This is a wildly inaccurate recount of the observable phenomena.

The force stopping you from falling a further (straight down) is the hill.

Not that I suggested otherwise.

Any more lame analogies?

I can drop by a library and quote one out of a high school physics book if you insist, but it wouldn't say anything different than I did.

 

[WildCat]

This is a wildly inaccurate recount of the observable phenomena.

It's exactly that. What do you think that video shows?

 

[tsig]

Ohm's law:

E=IR is simply an equation that says "the voltage is equal to the current times the resistance". It does not mention paths or renting property.

 

[alienentity]

Rather, the WTC collapses don't look like the controlled demolitions you've shown, or any other I've ever seen. Are you unwilling to discuss the points I noted on differences between the WTC collapses and those in the videos you linked?


.

As noted elsewhere many times, the verinage demolitions are expected to produce a Bazant - theorized 'jolt', if the upper block drops neatly and squarely onto the structure below.

You then expect a sharp change in acceleration, perhaps even a deceleration.

I think in the case of the WTC towers, there was a noticeable decrease in the rate of acceleration, but it never crossed the line into deceleration. This was also perfectly in keeping with the nature of those collapses.

A number of very experienced, highly qualified engineers have studied this, there are peer-reviewed papers you can read if you wish.
I've been running Tracker software to look at the acceleration rates of various demolitions, and even WTC2. With WTC1, we already know it wasn't in freefall for the period that could be observed, I haven't been able to find pure freefall in WTC2 either.
Nor have I found it in any of the demolitions I've looked at to any significant degree. It seems they all fall at a rate slower than freefall acceleration.

That's to be expected, AFAIK.

The salient point seems to be that:

1) an upper block can indeed crush down a lower block completely, contrary to truther claims
2) explosives are not needed to produce this effect

This is perfectly in line with Bazant's math, the way I understand it. I see no contrary evidence. As I mentioned earlier, it doesn't bother me in the slightest, since I'm expecting gravity to do the job. So are the verinage companies.

If one's position is that there HAD to be explosives in the WTC buildings, then you have a big problem with all this evidence. The logical thing to do is to abandon the bad hypothesis, because it doesn't fit anything from the real world. You might as well be invoking Mothra, it's an equally realistic hypothesis to the painted nanothermite mania. And way cooler.

 

[Justin39640]

Ohm's law:

E=IR is simply an equation that says "the voltage is equal to the current times the resistance". It does not mention paths or renting property.

ohms law is about the relationship between volts, amps, and ohms (like you said)

"path of least resistance" is how you explain a simple circuit to a 5th grade science class or to techs who have no idea what the omega symbol on their multimeter represents (sigh )

 

[PixyMisa]

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.

No it isn't.

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

No it doesn't.

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.

Your analogy has failed. Time for you to get a new one.

 

[JimBenArm]

ohms law is about the relationship between volts, amps, and ohms (like you said)

"path of least resistance" is how you explain a simple circuit to a 5th grade science class or to techs who have no idea what the omega symbol on their multimeter represents (sigh )

I worked as an electrician for over 20 years. Can I do building demolition now?

 

[stateofgrace]

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.

.

Really?

Please carry on, us old hammers and spanners electricians love to hear all about new developments in our field. Do carry on and tell us all about it.

Resistance is what ? Exactly.

 

[kylebisme]

Ohm's law:

E=IR is simply an equation that says "the voltage is equal to the current times the resistance". It does not mention paths or renting property.

That means that voltage favors the path of least resistance. If you care to, you can find that and more explained here.

As noted elsewhere many times, the verinage demolitions are expected to produce a Bazant - theorized 'jolt', if the upper block drops neatly and squarely onto the structure below.

Sure, to shatter the concrete bellow. Again, how would you expect adding steel framing to the lower section of those verinage buildings would have effected this?

I think in the case of the WTC towers, there was a noticeable decrease in the rate of acceleration...

Can you find anything to substantiate this belief in any of the videos of the events?

This was also perfectly in keeping with the nature of those collapses.

Can you cite anything outside the fall of the towers to support this claim, or are you simply comparing the fall of the two towers to each other?

Nor have I found it in any of the demolitions I've looked at to any significant degree. It seems they all fall at a rate slower than freefall acceleration.

All the takes to achieve free fall is to eliminate the structural resistance under the falling mass. The verinage demolitions show a moment of this, as does the fall of building 7.

1) an upper block can indeed crush down a lower block completely, contrary to truther claims
2) explosives are not needed to produce this effect

1) I did not claim otherwise, and would appreciate if you could avoid conflating my comments with the claims of others.
2) Not necessarily, in the system in question, I've yet to find anyone reasonably establish that only gravity is.