|
Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today. |
5th June 2016, 03:31 PM | #441 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 1,557
|
Quote:
|
5th June 2016, 04:02 PM | #442 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: nyc
Posts: 3,232
|
The collapsing floor... growing in mass as it fell down onto each floor DID NOT INVOLVE THE STONE COLD COLUMNS. It bypassed them. It did not and could not over load them.
When the floor collapse had reach the ground there were a lot of core columns remaining. The facade had peeled away... not over loaded and crush... but robbed of the lateral support the floor slabs/trusses provided. A fair number of core columns were jostled by the collapse floor mass and the column to column connections failed and those top column(s) dropped with the mass. At the end the remaining by passed columns stood too tall and too thin to stand without bracing... the bracing that was part of the floor system and destroyed in the floor collapsed. Too thin columns will self buckle as per Euler's formula for slenderness. Different materials behave differntly. The steel at the WTC could not self support at the lengths/slenderness left behind by the floor collapse... they buckled and mostly broke at their column to column connection and dropped. |
6th June 2016, 06:46 AM | #443 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,849
|
The ONLY way for that to occur would be to take out EVER SINGLE COLUMN ON EVERY SINGLE FLOOR below the initial collapse, at the same time as collapse initiated. Since that was demonstrably NOT what occurred, you have once again illustrated that you know nothing about physics.
Quote:
Quote:
|
6th June 2016, 06:48 AM | #444 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,849
|
|
6th June 2016, 01:18 PM | #445 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 47,040
|
Apparent weight?
Is that a physics term? Is it like Ted Holdens 'Felt Weight of Gravity' |
6th June 2016, 02:05 PM | #446 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,849
|
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apparent_weight
Quote:
FF ignores the later. Then one must also consider what the forces generated are acting upon. In the case of the pristine as built structure, all forces are transferred to the columns. If you have a full file cabinet of the 95th floor, its weight rests on the floor pan, the floor pan transfers that force, via the trusses, truss seats and other connecting structures, to the columns. One could keep loading a floor with filing cabinets filled with lead weights. Eventually one would see the floor bending under a load it, (the floor), was never designed to hold in normal operation. after that, eventually the floor trusses will tear away from or otherwise fail the connecting structures to the columns and all that mass will now fall down to.... the next floor. So now a mass that the original floor failed under is on a similarily designed floor below. Just what expectation do we have that this second floor will be able to hold a mass that the original couldn't? No expectation that it could. In addition though, this mass is moving and when it hits the next floor it will be subject to a negative acceleration, a force that is in addition to the static force mg. So the expectation is actually that the second floor will fail BEFORE the falling mass has all come to a halt(whereas Judy Wood assumed that each fall would see exactly that occur, all mass come to a halt, generating just enough force to break the floor, a special case of this that she never bothered to back up as reality) What's the expectation on hitting a third floor,,, does it really have to be described? Notice that none of this really affects the columns at all. Sure the forces do get transmitted to columns up until the connections fail, after which the columns are out of the picture entirely. The columns do however rely on the floor trusses to supply a lateral bracing that allows a long column to remain stable. But in the above we have already removed two floor's worth of those trusses with no expectation that the internal failure of floors will halt. Now the columns buckle under load due to loss of lateral bracing. |
6th June 2016, 06:44 PM | #447 |
Banned
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 2,706
|
|
6th June 2016, 06:51 PM | #448 |
Banned
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 2,706
|
Please post the exact text where I ignore what you claim.
Now, let's use your words to formulate a question. You claim, "it also generates an impulse force (mass times the change in velocity divided by the time of contact or time to reduce velocity to zero, whichever is less)". What do you call it when velocity changes from non-zero to zero, or when it is reduced? *Raises hand* Oh, pick me, pick me! I know. So does everyone with the ability to think. We call it deceleration. If something decelerates, shouldn't we be able to observe it (within reason, especially at a large scale)? *Raises hand* Oh, pick me, pick me! I know. Yes, we should be able to observe it. Now, if we should be able to observe this deceleration that causes the impulse force, where is it (or where are they) during the collapse of WTC 1 and 2? Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm? Oh, wait...I can't be right because skeptics claim I know nothing about physics. Here's one more question. If skeptics keep committing fraud, do their claims about how I know nothing about physics have any credibility? *Raises hand* Oh, pick me, pick me! I know. |
6th June 2016, 07:40 PM | #449 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,849
|
It freakin physics man. If two objects are falling at the same rate and never impact each other then they had to start moving at the same time too.
You want the math?
Quote:
|
6th June 2016, 07:45 PM | #450 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,849
|
"Deceleration " is an ambiguous term. Some make it a negative acceleration, others make it a lesser magnitude acceleration but not necessarily opposite sign vector.
Therefore I use the unambiguous "negative acceleration". Your picking this out serves to underline that you are either incompetent in the realm of physics, or that you are grasping for nits to pick. |
6th June 2016, 07:51 PM | #451 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,849
|
Quote:
|
6th June 2016, 08:03 PM | #452 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,849
|
|
7th June 2016, 05:41 AM | #453 |
Banned
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Patriot Nation
Posts: 22,131
|
|
7th June 2016, 06:20 AM | #454 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,849
|
yes, its called impulse force. In fact that's how Newton saw it when he first wrote out his laws of motion
F=delta(P)/delta(t) Modern textbooks write it differently as F=ma
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
IOW, what the H are you talking about?
Quote:
Quote:
|
7th June 2016, 08:56 AM | #455 |
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 34,249
|
You know, there's something very Terry Pratchett about that suggestion. I remember one of the rules at Unseen University was that nobody could have a new pencil unless they could prove they'd used the previous one up entirely. So, as proof, they had to present the definitive absence of a pencil. It was a perfect way to avoid giving anyone another pencil, just as this is a perfect way to avoid admitting to either a stupid mistake or deliberate dishonesty.
Dave |
__________________
There is truth and there are lies. - President Joseph R. Biden, January 20th, 2021 |
|
7th June 2016, 05:04 PM | #456 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,617
|
One of my favourite fun examples used in training over many years. Scenario is "shaking petty bureaucrats out of their detailed nit picking and micro management modes". I used the hypothetical example of the junior clerk newly promoted to "Stationery Clerk"* and charged with improving economy of stationery usage. He implements a new rule: "No replacement pencils unless you provide the used stub of the old one AND all the shavings from sharpening it." * Yes you could rely on someone suggesting "Stationary Clerk" |
10th June 2016, 04:19 PM | #457 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 47,040
|
|
10th June 2016, 05:07 PM | #458 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,617
|
You can be 100% certain I've met the archetype - many times. I was talking civvy street BUT the "Stores Corporal" comes to mind in the green suited branch of the AU Military.
More important for my training scenario the model examples always communicated well with 90% or more of the class. They had all met the micro-managing means end confused bureaucrat across many of their diverse experiences. They all had their own example of someone the "cap would fit". ...and that was why I used the example - giving the group of participants something I was confident they would all be able to relate to. (And guess what types the 10% were who didn't want to relate.... ) (You got it in one!!! ) AND my statement should be readily adaptable to your remembered examples: "Scenario is "shaking Petty |
10th June 2016, 06:54 PM | #459 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 2,488
|
We can see the same effect in this video of the Verinage demolition method, which does not require the use of explosives. Notice the dust plumes and how compressed air laterally ejects debris away from the building. Verinage Demolition https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NwFHEoiUZ7o |
10th June 2016, 07:32 PM | #460 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,617
|
Comprehensive reasoned explanation became unfashionable on this forum (and most others) a few years back.
But if you are interested in the first stages of a reasoned explanation of why "Global Collapse Was Inevitable" for the WTC Twin Towers you might try this explanation of mine as posted on DebatePolitics. The original is on this forum but was somewhat more narrowly focused - I can dig up the link on this forum if you are interested. It was in response to one of those older style trolls* who occasionally asked sensible questions - and on even rarer occasions responded rationally to the answers. So a different class of troll to present incumbents. Despite the exponential growth in quantity of trolling the quality of trolling has been in rapid decline over the last 4-5 years. As I said - comprehensive explanation is now unfashionable with "Whack-a-Mole" feeding of responses to trolls being the current dominant and preferred activity. But the material at that link may help build your comprehension of the underlying WTC realities. If it is of no help - no problem simply ignore it. * For the older hands it was Clayton Moore. And - before you jump on me - note my "cop out" strategic use of "occasionally" and "even rarer" |
10th June 2016, 07:38 PM | #461 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 2,488
|
|
10th June 2016, 07:57 PM | #462 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,617
|
It should "hot link" if you click on it in my post. Or do you mean the local version? Give me a few minutes to see if I can find it.
EDIT: Try this for the "local version" - the "meaty reasoning" stuff is identical. "http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=9520930#post9520930" If not the URL is "http://www.debatepolitics.com/conspiracy-theories/174422-global-collapse-truly-inevitable.html" It is fairly comprehensive/lengthy but take your time and go for it. It is the "progression" stage of Twin towers collapse - what happend AFTER the Top Block started to fall. There is a more recent thread on this forum explaining Twin Towers "initiation" stage basic physics - i.e. why the Top Block did start to fall. The "progression" stage is easier to visualise. "initiation" is complicated 3D to properly visualise the load redistribution. Take a rain check on that one if you wish but this is the thread. |
10th June 2016, 08:01 PM | #463 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 2,488
|
|
Thread Tools | |
|
|