Split Thread Was global collapse of WTC inevitable?

[excaza]

It's a 3 second calculation, ergo.

 

[ergo]

Good question, excaza. Each set requires a different formula, doesn't it? Since you can't treat loose material, or a fluid, the same way as a solid. Right?

 

[Quiproquo]

Yeah, a bunch of lunatics hijacked some planes and crashed them into buildings. Truly f##ed up.

At prima facie it is factually impossible to make such a conclusion.

 

[excaza]

Good question, excaza. Each set requires a different formula, doesn't it? Since you can't treat loose material, or a fluid, the same way as a solid. Right?

Enlighten us, ergo. Here's an example for you to work through for us. What is the useful work available from an intact object weighing 1kg suspended at a height of 10m above ground level, and what is the useful work available from 1kg of sand suspended at a height of 10m above ground level?

This may help: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Center_of_mass

 

[Grizzly Bear]

Fixed that for you.

And if the collective mass is slamming into you all at once without the bag...

 

[1337m4n]

Whereas a 500 lb. anvil would do what to you, Oystein?

Quipro, I wouldn't worry about it. They frequently use incorrect and inapplicable analogies like these. We've been through a number of them. They apparently see no difference in an object's ability to do work whether it's intact or fragmented.

So am I to understand that you have nothing to fear from 500 lbs of sand being dropped on your head?

Go ahead, ergo. Let's see it.

Do it.

 

[Architect]

Good question, excaza. Each set requires a different formula, doesn't it? Since you can't treat loose material, or a fluid, the same way as a solid. Right?

I think you'll find that we're wait for you over on the "Physics" thread.

 

[excaza]

I think you'll find that we're wait for you over on the "Physics" thread.

And you won't find him there, he's been avoiding this question for months.

 

[ElMondoHummus]

At prima facie it is factually impossible to make such a conclusion.

You really need to learn to learn the meanings of the terms you use. When you restrict yourself to the "at first view" viewpoint, then yes, all you see are airliners impacting the towers. However, this many years after the event, we have much, much evidence placing those lunatics in the jets and the jets in the Twin Towers. You should read up on it sometime:

• http://www.amazon.com/Perfect-Soldiers-Hijackers-They-Were/dp/0060584696
• http://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/linkstoterrorism,alqaedainfo
• http://911myths.com/html/hijackers.html
• http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=131225

So the prima facie evidence is indeed nothing but the images of jets ramming towers. Thankfully, we can rely on far more than limited initial information.

 

[Furcifer]

Since you can't treat loose material, or a fluid, the same way as a solid. Right?

Let's see.

1 kg of water traveling at 10 m/s has 50 kg*m²/s² of kinetic energy.

1 kg of lead travelling at 10 m/s has 50 kg*m²/s² of kinetic energy.

Hmmm...somethings wrong here ergo, it looks like we can treat a liquid like a solid.

What if we take the water and remove some of the thermal energy? We'll call this substance ice.

I wonder if water with less thermal energy has the same kinetic energy.

Common sense suggests if we remove some energy, it should have less energy. Let's see:

1 kg of ice traveling at 10 m/s has 50 kg*m²/s² of kinetic energy.

FTW? It must be that cloak of mathematics.

Perhaps you should run these calculations using bananas, surely bananas have to be treated different from solids or liquids, they're squishy.

1 kg of bananas traveling at 10 m/s has 50 kg*m²/s² of kinetic energy.

Now this is getting weird. Obviously 1 kg of water can't hurt me like a 1 kg bullet, can it? I'm confused, could you help me out here?

 

[Oystein]

Whereas a 500 lb. anvil would do what to you, Oystein?

Quipro, I wouldn't worry about it. They frequently use incorrect and inapplicable analogies like these. We've been through a number of them. They apparently see no difference in an object's ability to do work whether it's intact or fragmented.

The sand breaks my back, and the anvil breaks my back.

 

[twinstead]

We got a team of pros on our hands.

Frankly, you need to get used to it; this is pretty much the reaction you're going to get from just about ANY rational person outside your little truther cult in the real world.

It's what cults have to deal with all the time.

 

[Horatius]

Have you modeled this moonful of rubble yet, ex? Does it really require a moonful of rubble?

Good question, excaza. Each set requires a different formula, doesn't it? Since you can't treat loose material, or a fluid, the same way as a solid. Right?

Lucky for us, someone did create a scale model experiment!

 

[excaza]

Lucky for us, someone did create a scale model experiment!

obviously fake

 

[uke2se]

Lucky for us, someone did create a scale model experiment!

Oh noes! My incredulity!

 

[Alferd_Packer]

Fixed that for you.

Doh!

LOL what's the difference between the potential work from a bag of sand and sand?

Answer: none.

 

[Newtons Bit]

The sand breaks my back, and the anvil breaks my back.

Not necessarily. The loose sand and the anvil both have the same kinetic energy and momentum, but during an impact with a solid object the momentum from the sand will be transfered gradually while the momentum from the anvil will be applied instantaneously (minus any strain deflections or object rotations: i.e. rolling with a punch).

It's irrelevant, however. The floors of the building did not have enough capacity to resist the static load of the upper-block-turned-to-rubble. Debating over whether or not the dynamic forces would overcome it is moot. They're higher than the static forces, therefor the collapse is inevitable.

 

[Furcifer]

But don't let that stop you from installing a swimming pool on your roof ergo.

 

[tsig]

We got a team of pros on our hands.

Yes you do.

 

[Quiproquo]

You really need to learn to learn the meanings of the terms you use. When you restrict yourself to the "at first view" viewpoint, then yes, all you see are airliners impacting the towers. However, this many years after the event, we have much, much evidence placing those lunatics in the jets and the jets in the Twin Towers. You should read up on it sometime:

• http://www.amazon.com/Perfect-Soldiers-Hijackers-They-Were/dp/0060584696
• http://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/linkstoterrorism,alqaedainfo
• http://911myths.com/html/hijackers.html
• http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=131225

So the prima facie evidence is indeed nothing but the images of jets ramming towers. Thankfully, we can rely on far more than limited initial information.

This is all second-hand information written by Anti-truthers.

You can't dismiss second-hand information written by Truthers by arguing they are subject to bias and manipulation only to then claim your own second-hand own sources are true.