about that WTC tower "collapse"

Discussion in '9/11' started by genericBob, Jul 13, 2014.

  1. genericBob

    genericBob New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2014
    Messages:
    2,831
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Think about this please
    in the case of a land-slide, the dirt rolling down-hill
    doesn't unconditionally destroy everything in its path
    it goes around some bits like boulders, large trees,
    (etc..... ) and so with the case of the skyscrapers
    "collapsing" the falling stuff would find the path of least
    resistance and take it.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Think about this please
    in the case of a land-slide, the dirt rolling down-hill
    doesn't unconditionally destroy everything in its path
    it goes around some bits like boulders, large trees,
    (etc..... ) and so with the case of the skyscrapers
    "collapsing" the falling stuff would find the path of least
    resistance and take it.
     
  2. LoneStrSt8

    LoneStrSt8 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2011
    Messages:
    9,012
    Likes Received:
    33
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Spurious analogy,Bob,and not just because I say so.
     
  3. genericBob

    genericBob New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2014
    Messages:
    2,831
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    OK, please elaborate as to exactly why YOU believe the analogy is "spurious"?
     
  4. LoneStrSt8

    LoneStrSt8 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2011
    Messages:
    9,012
    Likes Received:
    33
    Trophy Points:
    0
    because landslides act like almost like a fluid when they happen,and still they generally push everything down in their path,trees and boulders included
     
  5. genericBob

    genericBob New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2014
    Messages:
    2,831
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    So you believe that dirt in a landslide doesn't follow the path of least resistance?
     
  6. LoneStrSt8

    LoneStrSt8 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2011
    Messages:
    9,012
    Likes Received:
    33
    Trophy Points:
    0
    wherever gravity pulls it....
     
  7. Gamolon

    Gamolon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,385
    Likes Received:
    88
    Trophy Points:
    48
    I'l make this real simple for YOU.

    If I have a 100lb object accelerating at 6.3 m/s[SUP]2[/SUP] (64% of g), what is the impact force expressed on an object below after being released and falling:

    1. 15m?
    2. 50m?
    3. 100m?

    Are you trying to tell us that the object's expressed force upon impacting an object for each distance fallen would always be 36lbs?
     
  8. Gamolon

    Gamolon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,385
    Likes Received:
    88
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Think about this.

    If I have a tree trunk and a 4' wide by 8' tall wooden board standing by each other and applied a 50 MPH wind against both objects, which one would experience more force from the wind and why?
     
  9. psikeyhackr

    psikeyhackr Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2009
    Messages:
    1,081
    Likes Received:
    40
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Insufficient data on the tree trunk. LOL

    This is the kind of LOGIC we get in this endless debate. ROFL

    How does bark affect wind resistance? What kind of tree? Some have rather smooth bark.

    psik
     
  10. Gamolon

    Gamolon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,385
    Likes Received:
    88
    Trophy Points:
    48
    :roll:

    I can't believe I have to explain this to you.

    It's the shape of the object. A vertical cylinder will create less resistance against something flowing against it than a vertical flat surface. In the case of a tree trunk, the land slide material will flow AROUND the tree trunk (cylinder) more easier than it would if that same land slide material hit against the flat surface of the object.
     
  11. Gamolon

    Gamolon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,385
    Likes Received:
    88
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Let's do some math to see if you fully understand.

    If I wanted to determine if a 6' x 6' x 1/2" plywood board secured on all four sides by wooden posts would resist a 16 lb. bowling ball dropped from 50 feet in the air, what formulas or math would you suggest I use to determine this?

    What is the path of least resistance in this case? Through the board or impacting the board and rolling off one of the sides?
     
  12. LoneStrSt8

    LoneStrSt8 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2011
    Messages:
    9,012
    Likes Received:
    33
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I smell a stinky red fish.......
     
  13. genericBob

    genericBob New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2014
    Messages:
    2,831
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    "Stopping public awareness of Ebola is far more important than stopping Ebola"

    about par for the course for these forum bits.....

    oh well ..... would be nice to actually have a Consciousness raising for all the sheeple in Amerika who still think that Arab fanatics did it....

    one could hope .... oh well .....
     
  14. Hannibal

    Hannibal New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    Messages:
    10,624
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    0
    If one had evidence to back up their speculative fantasies, one might have hope.
     
  15. psikeyhackr

    psikeyhackr Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2009
    Messages:
    1,081
    Likes Received:
    40
    Trophy Points:
    48
    I would say that you are delusional about mathematics and put the board into a calibrated press to determine what it would take to punch through the board. But you have not supplied sufficient data to determine if the bowling ball would go through or if it would break the connections loose around the edge. Or how many posts are around the edge and if they would bend in helping to absorb the energy.

    You try to believe things are too simple.

    psik
     
  16. LoneStrSt8

    LoneStrSt8 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2011
    Messages:
    9,012
    Likes Received:
    33
    Trophy Points:
    0
    And you over complicate things.....
     
  17. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    17,945
    Likes Received:
    980
    Trophy Points:
    113
    sure if you want to totally disregard viscosity
     
  18. genericBob

    genericBob New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2014
    Messages:
    2,831
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    May I attempt to simplify things here?
    The concept that total destruction can be the product of a "gravity driven collapse" is ludicrous. Think about this please, a controlled demolition depends on precision and if that precision doesn't happen just right, it results in the incomplete demolition of the building. Therefore logically the "gravity driven collapse" would have to cause ALL of the connections within the building to fail right on time as if to a schedule, or it would result in less than complete demolition of the tower.

    its logical Jim, completely logical ......
     
  19. LoneStrSt8

    LoneStrSt8 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2011
    Messages:
    9,012
    Likes Received:
    33
    Trophy Points:
    0
    No,It's NOT....the perimeter floor hangers were failing while the outside wall was peeling away as the building collapsed.....And the floors couldn't stand on the core columns by themselves
     
  20. genericBob

    genericBob New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2014
    Messages:
    2,831
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    So please think about this, if the perimeter wall was failing first and pealing away, leaving some floor trusses still connected to the core, would form a ramp and dump many tons of rubble over the side, depriving the "pile driver" of mass and therefore stopping the action.
    The problem here is that you can not justify the result of a precision operation being caused by chaotic forces.
     
  21. LoneStrSt8

    LoneStrSt8 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2011
    Messages:
    9,012
    Likes Received:
    33
    Trophy Points:
    0
    WHAT 'precision operation' are you blathering about?
     
  22. genericBob

    genericBob New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2014
    Messages:
    2,831
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Wow man
    do I gotta explain EVERYTHING?

    Its a precision operation to do a controlled demolition of a building,
    and since the buildings WTC1, 2 & 7 were exactly like controlled demolition, can chaotic damage from an alleged airliner crash produce the exact same result as a precision operation?
     
  23. Gamolon

    Gamolon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,385
    Likes Received:
    88
    Trophy Points:
    48
    :roflol:

    Nice try.

    If I held a 2' x 2' piece of plywood horizontally in one hand and another 2' x 2' piece of plywood vertically in the other, which hand would feel more "stress" if I quickly dumped 2 gallons of water from a bucket on each board?

    Your responses have been quite meaningless thus far.
     
  24. Gamolon

    Gamolon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,385
    Likes Received:
    88
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Exactly huh?

    Do controlled demolitions spew debris in a 600' radius?

    What's really funny is you say there was "chaotic" damage yet want to tag the towers with the "controlled" demolition moniker. Do you know the difference between "controlled" and "chaotic"?

    :roll:
     
  25. Gamolon

    Gamolon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,385
    Likes Received:
    88
    Trophy Points:
    48
    :clapping:

    Excellent psikeyhackr!

    Now show me any truther calculations that show that the floors in either WTC2 or WTC1 should have withstood the descending debris. Can you do that? No? Where are the FEAs from the truther side showing their beliefs? 13 years of you folks clamoring that the upper section should have been resisted and yet none of your engineers have provided anything to prove it. No numbers or papers.

    Zilch!

    Why haven't they come forward and proven the FEAs from the government wrong? Should be easy since you believe they are faked right?
     

Share This Page