Thanks, Gravy. I couldn't pass this one up.
Originally Posted by Mutton-Head
Very little, as you will see.
More accurately, a specific force causes an object to fall to earth. But ok, I'll let it slide.
You've got Newton's 2nd Law right, but then you don't use it correctly. You remind me of my students who memorize the facts without understanding the underlying basis for them.
I can't comment on this, as it doesn't make any sense at all to me. Use a force up? You might be thinking of energy.
Stop right there. The force you are talking about is the gravitational force between the earth and the object. This is given by G*m*M/R^2, where m and M are the masses of the object and the earth respectively, R is the distance between the center of the object and the center of the earth, and G is a constant. This force exists all the time, regardless of where the object is or whether it is moving. Sitting on the ground, it experiences this force. Up in orbit, it experiences this force. In the next galaxy, it experiences this force, although by then it is admittedly extremely small. But at no time is this force "used up".
Again, I think you are confusing force with energy. They are two different concepts. Simply put, a force is a push or a pull. Energy is the ability to do work.
Again, mistaking energy for force.
Much ado has been made lately that the steel beams broke into convenient 30-foot long sections, to be carried away by trucks. Assuming this is true (an assumption I'm not willing to admit to, but we'll stipulate for the moment) what is overlooked is that it those same beams were carried *in* by trucks when the building was constructed. If they have weak points, it would naturally be every 30 feet.
Structurally sound, perhaps, but certainly not designed to absorb the energy (energy, not force!) of the impact of the 30 or so stories above them.
All? You mean to say *no* chunks of concrete survived?
Energy, energy, energy.
Energy. And how do you know they don't have enough? Where's the math?
A few seconds more, and you discredit this? Many claim the towers fell in about 10 seconds. A few seconds more is 3-4. That's a margin of error of 30-40%!!! Heck, even opinion polls have margins of error of 1/10 of that, and that doesn't even deal with the exactness of the laws of physics.
I very much doubt you have performed the math necessary to make this statement honestly.
I take it you are a structural engineer, and are therefore qualified to make the above statement?
But a computer simulation can. Can anybody point us to one?
I would not agree, as I am not a structural engineer. However, those with the appropriate expertise have said otherwise, and I trust that.
And you've done the math? Would you please present it?
And here's the underlying problem. Since that's the only explanation you, as a layperson, can come up with, that's the one you're convinced is correct. And you are the sort of person that once convinced, it doesn't matter how much evidence to the contrary is presented. You are the sort that, had Galileo offered you a peek through his telescope, you would have refused and then claimed that of course the Earth is the center of the universe, because there's no evidence to show otherwise.
Perhaps you need to revisit the photographs of Manhattan. What about the debirs that hit WTC7, which you folks like to point out was several blocks away? What about the cloud that covered the lower half of the island? And if what you mean to say is that *most* of the debris fell straight down, well, where the h3ll else did you expect it to go? It would take a tremendous amount of...wait for it....FORCE...to topple a building sideways.
I don't know about this. But it's certainly a falsifiable claim. Can anyone out there provide just one circumstance where this *has* happened?
Dogs are furry with four legs, two ears, a wet nose and sharp teeth.
This animal exhibits all of those properties. Therefore it is a dog.
(I'm going to ignore the fact that it says "Meow".)
Alluding to alliteration is always amusing.