| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
James C
Major Poster
Joined: 26 Jan 2006
Posts: 1046
|
 Posted: Sat Nov 17, 2007 12:44 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Bushwacker wrote: | | James C wrote: | | Bushwacker wrote: | | James C wrote: | Bushwacker,
Make up your mind. One minute you appear to deny all knowledge of a fulcrum and the next you are stealing my concept. Why on earth did you ask me about why the upper section stopped rotating if you accept exactly what I said in my first post on this subject that it was due to the loss of the fulcrum. Hell, I was discussing this with you last year but obviously you can't remember!
Tell me, why would the fulcrum give way if the main weight of the upper section was no longer directly above it? What was it you were saying again about the conservation of angular momentum? A few posts ago you were talking about dynamic load. So where was the dynamic load on the fulcrum to cause it to be crushed all of a sudden if in fact, and you agree this yourself, the upper section was still attached to the lower building at this point?
As for asymmetrical explosives, have I said where the explosives were positioned in this thread? I hope you are not implying that I am saying they were positioned directly below the upper section on the facade? I have never said that if you are. Why put explosives in the facade when placing them in the core would have been more than adequate. |
Let me make it clear for you James, you do not own the concept of fulcrums. The top section of the tower must have rotated around a fulcrum, otherwise it would not have started to lean.
What I said was that there was no fulcrum present when, according to you, the lower section had fallen away as a result of explosives, "....which left, for a very brief moment, the top section with nothing below it at all. " If you believe that there was a fulcrum present, please state what it was. If you accept, as you surely must, that there would be no fulcrum, then explain how a torque effect could be produced by gravity, since it would exert only a downwards force acting through the centre of gravity of the top section. |
Bushwacker,
The fact that it has taken you two days to concoct such a lame answer is proof that you are finding it very hard to deal with your own understanding of this matter never mind anyone else's.
I have made my position perfectly clear regarding torque, gravity and what happened to the fulcrum and I would suggest that you read back through this thread to find out what I have said.
Stop doing the usual critics thing of arguing about the wording of posts when your own concepts begin to fail you. |
James, it has not taken me two days, I do have other things in my life than trying to understand your strange notion of what happened.
Please state clearly your position on the situation, after the fulcrum has been blown apart, according to you. You say that for a brief moment the top section had nothing below it at all, and gravity acted upon it in such a way that it stopped rotating because, you say, the bottom was heavier than the top. Just explain how that happened without a fulcrum. |
As I said before, I have explained this. Go read what I said.
But here's a clue for you. If you drop a full bottle of water neck first in the sea, a lake or river, and watch it sink, what happens? I think you'll find it will rotate, due to gravity, so that the heavier bottom end falls first instead of the lighter neck end. Where's the fulcrum in this case for gravity to apply its torque?
Last edited by James C on Sat Nov 17, 2007 1:51 pm; edited 3 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
James C
Major Poster
Joined: 26 Jan 2006
Posts: 1046
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 17, 2007 1:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Bushwacker wrote: | | James C wrote: | | Alex_V wrote: | | James C wrote: | Alex_V,
Have you made any attempt to understand how the twin towers were constructed and then cross referenced your findings with Greenings calculations? If you had, and so far it looks like you haven't bothered, then you'd find that what he is saying is purely hypothetical because the floors of the towers could not have possibly pancaked. So it looks like the side of the debate you so dearly cling onto is based upon nothing more than bad assumptions clad in a wonderful array of pointless mathematical analysis just to disguise how truley awful the assertions really are.
So far you have added nothing to the debate other than to suggest that the towers could have come down due to fire and damage alone. Well whopppee - so what!
Guess what? Nothing you have said has changed my mind either. |
Again, a heap of conclusions based on the vague assertion that the floors of the tower could not have collapsed. And you ask me to try and verify the vague accusations that YOU put forward without evidence?
Explain HOW they could not have collapsed (in principle) and I will take your allegations seriously. I understand that you think it is something to do with the way that the building was constructed - in what regard?
I'd like to know who else in the truth movement agrees with your assertions as well - does this allegation come from you alone or from others as well? There may be a paper that I can read that will explain the points you are referring to?
Heck, I may even put your points to Greening himself as he is easily contacted, and it's his credentials you seem to be attacking. |
Now who's making silly allegations.
Of course the floors could have collapsed. But they wouldn't have brought down all of the building because the core and facade were both structural elements in their own right. The floors spanned between these elements held on small welded plates which were designed to move during wind loading and if any floor had failed and caused a progressive collapse the core and facade would have remained standing. The floors would therefore have fallen between the core and the outer walls although collapse would have been asymmetric because the floor constructions were not uniform nor did they span the same distances being there was a short span and a long span in each plan. |
Do you understand that NIST does accept that most of those plates remained attached, and beleives that collapse was initiated by the sagging floor trusses pulling in the perimeter columns of the building? A theory supported by photographic evidence showing the perimeter columns distorted inwards prior to collapse. |
Indeed, the outer walls were distorted and maybe some of the facade was being pulled in by the floor trusses at that point. But weight for weight, the trusses were considerably lighter than the core structure and therefore would have sheared off at the plates rather than pulling the core apart. Are you telling me that those tiny (in comparison to the core connections) truss connections would have remained intact under the heat and yet the massive core columns would have fallen to pieces?
But observations show that the outer walls weren't suddenly pulled inwards in either WTC1 or 2 before falling. Since the facade was a fraction of the structure of the core, being much lighter and very slender in comparison, I would have assumed it, using NIST's claim, would have failed first. But the facade was only being pulled in fractionally, despite the accusations NIST make about the sagging floors, so I would suggest that the core wasn't being pulled in at all being that it was so massive. Besides, the core didn't require that the floors and facade remain intact to stay standing. So if, and it's a big if, the floors giving way had initiated full collapse I would have expected to see, in the film evidence, signs of the facade being pulled inwards (assuming NIST is correct about the plates) and the floors dropping to expose the core (just like at Ronan Point). But as I've said, this is not what is observed - no failure of the facade first, no falling floors and no progressive exposure of the core (not until the end of collapse anyway). Instead the top sections of each tower dropped as if the structures they once sat on suddenly weren't there and then fell symmetrically through each tower with worrying ease (worrying for any structural engineer). In the case of WTC2, the distortion of the facade was only on one side, so where is the evidence that the floors were sagging on all four sides to have made such symmetry in failure possible? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 17, 2007 3:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| James C wrote: | | Bushwacker wrote: | | James C wrote: | | Bushwacker wrote: | | James C wrote: | Bushwacker,
Make up your mind. One minute you appear to deny all knowledge of a fulcrum and the next you are stealing my concept. Why on earth did you ask me about why the upper section stopped rotating if you accept exactly what I said in my first post on this subject that it was due to the loss of the fulcrum. Hell, I was discussing this with you last year but obviously you can't remember!
Tell me, why would the fulcrum give way if the main weight of the upper section was no longer directly above it? What was it you were saying again about the conservation of angular momentum? A few posts ago you were talking about dynamic load. So where was the dynamic load on the fulcrum to cause it to be crushed all of a sudden if in fact, and you agree this yourself, the upper section was still attached to the lower building at this point?
As for asymmetrical explosives, have I said where the explosives were positioned in this thread? I hope you are not implying that I am saying they were positioned directly below the upper section on the facade? I have never said that if you are. Why put explosives in the facade when placing them in the core would have been more than adequate. |
Let me make it clear for you James, you do not own the concept of fulcrums. The top section of the tower must have rotated around a fulcrum, otherwise it would not have started to lean.
What I said was that there was no fulcrum present when, according to you, the lower section had fallen away as a result of explosives, "....which left, for a very brief moment, the top section with nothing below it at all. " If you believe that there was a fulcrum present, please state what it was. If you accept, as you surely must, that there would be no fulcrum, then explain how a torque effect could be produced by gravity, since it would exert only a downwards force acting through the centre of gravity of the top section. |
Bushwacker,
The fact that it has taken you two days to concoct such a lame answer is proof that you are finding it very hard to deal with your own understanding of this matter never mind anyone else's.
I have made my position perfectly clear regarding torque, gravity and what happened to the fulcrum and I would suggest that you read back through this thread to find out what I have said.
Stop doing the usual critics thing of arguing about the wording of posts when your own concepts begin to fail you. |
James, it has not taken me two days, I do have other things in my life than trying to understand your strange notion of what happened.
Please state clearly your position on the situation, after the fulcrum has been blown apart, according to you. You say that for a brief moment the top section had nothing below it at all, and gravity acted upon it in such a way that it stopped rotating because, you say, the bottom was heavier than the top. Just explain how that happened without a fulcrum. |
As I said before, I have explained this. Go read what I said.
But here's a clue for you. If you drop a full bottle of water neck first in the sea, a lake or river, and watch it sink, what happens? I think you'll find it will rotate, due to gravity, so that the heavier bottom end falls first instead of the lighter neck end. Where's the fulcrum in this case for gravity to apply its torque? |
The fulcrum in your example is provided by the water resistance, which is high, and higher comparatively at the lighter end of the bottle. The air resistance in the case of the top section of WTC2 falling would be quite negligable. You are going to have to do better than that to explain why the heavier end of the section, if indeed it was heavier, should fall faster. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 17, 2007 3:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| James C wrote: | | Bushwacker wrote: | | James C wrote: | | Alex_V wrote: | | James C wrote: | Alex_V,
Have you made any attempt to understand how the twin towers were constructed and then cross referenced your findings with Greenings calculations? If you had, and so far it looks like you haven't bothered, then you'd find that what he is saying is purely hypothetical because the floors of the towers could not have possibly pancaked. So it looks like the side of the debate you so dearly cling onto is based upon nothing more than bad assumptions clad in a wonderful array of pointless mathematical analysis just to disguise how truley awful the assertions really are.
So far you have added nothing to the debate other than to suggest that the towers could have come down due to fire and damage alone. Well whopppee - so what!
Guess what? Nothing you have said has changed my mind either. |
Again, a heap of conclusions based on the vague assertion that the floors of the tower could not have collapsed. And you ask me to try and verify the vague accusations that YOU put forward without evidence?
Explain HOW they could not have collapsed (in principle) and I will take your allegations seriously. I understand that you think it is something to do with the way that the building was constructed - in what regard?
I'd like to know who else in the truth movement agrees with your assertions as well - does this allegation come from you alone or from others as well? There may be a paper that I can read that will explain the points you are referring to?
Heck, I may even put your points to Greening himself as he is easily contacted, and it's his credentials you seem to be attacking. |
Now who's making silly allegations.
Of course the floors could have collapsed. But they wouldn't have brought down all of the building because the core and facade were both structural elements in their own right. The floors spanned between these elements held on small welded plates which were designed to move during wind loading and if any floor had failed and caused a progressive collapse the core and facade would have remained standing. The floors would therefore have fallen between the core and the outer walls although collapse would have been asymmetric because the floor constructions were not uniform nor did they span the same distances being there was a short span and a long span in each plan. |
Do you understand that NIST does accept that most of those plates remained attached, and beleives that collapse was initiated by the sagging floor trusses pulling in the perimeter columns of the building? A theory supported by photographic evidence showing the perimeter columns distorted inwards prior to collapse. |
Indeed, the outer walls were distorted and maybe some of the facade was being pulled in by the floor trusses at that point. But weight for weight, the trusses were considerably lighter than the core structure and therefore would have sheared off at the plates rather than pulling the core apart. Are you telling me that those tiny (in comparison to the core connections) truss connections would have remained intact under the heat and yet the massive core columns would have fallen to pieces?
But observations show that the outer walls weren't suddenly pulled inwards in either WTC1 or 2 before falling. Since the facade was a fraction of the structure of the core, being much lighter and very slender in comparison, I would have assumed it, using NIST's claim, would have failed first. But the facade was only being pulled in fractionally, despite the accusations NIST make about the sagging floors, so I would suggest that the core wasn't being pulled in at all being that it was so massive. Besides, the core didn't require that the floors and facade remain intact to stay standing. So if, and it's a big if, the floors giving way had initiated full collapse I would have expected to see, in the film evidence, signs of the facade being pulled inwards (assuming NIST is correct about the plates) and the floors dropping to expose the core (just like at Ronan Point). But as I've said, this is not what is observed - no failure of the facade first, no falling floors and no progressive exposure of the core (not until the end of collapse anyway). Instead the top sections of each tower dropped as if the structures they once sat on suddenly weren't there and then fell symmetrically through each tower with worrying ease (worrying for any structural engineer). In the case of WTC2, the distortion of the facade was only on one side, so where is the evidence that the floors were sagging on all four sides to have made such symmetry in failure possible? |
I think you are overlooking that the core columns decreased considerably in size and strength up the height of the towers. From massive box sections at the bottom to no more than I-beams at the level of the plane impacts. Additionally, the core columns were of course in the centre of the fires and received the maximum heat, whereas the perimeter columns were at the edge. I suggest that the core columns were pulled outwards by the sagging trusses, just as the perimeter columns were pulled inwards. The whole top section would then drop, as we observe, not just the perimeter columns and the floors, leaving the core as a spike, stripped bare of the rest of the structure. Once the whole of the top section was falling, including the core, it simply crushed the whole of the lower section complete. Part of the core at the lowest level was indeed so massive that it remained standing momentarily before succumbing.
You mention that the distortion of the facade of WTC2 was on one side only, but that is indeed why the initial collapse was not symmetrical and the top started to lean, the perimeter columns gave way on one side only, and the top section hinged on the opposite side. Once it hit the intact bottom section, it stopped rotating but the load was sufficient to crush the bottom section which then collapsed symmetrically in a similar way to WTC1. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
James C
Major Poster
Joined: 26 Jan 2006
Posts: 1046
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 17, 2007 4:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Bushwacker wrote: | | The fulcrum in your example is provided by the water resistance, which is high, and higher comparatively at the lighter end of the bottle. The air resistance in the case of the top section of WTC2 falling would be quite negligable. You are going to have to do better than that to explain why the heavier end of the section, if indeed it was heavier, should fall faster. |
But the neck of a bottle can cut through the water faster than the blunt end of the base so your analysis is utterly nonsense! Sad that you have to lie about me saying the top section of WTC2 fell faster at the bottom than the top. I suggest you re-read what I did say.
| Bushwacker wrote: | | I think you are overlooking that the core columns decreased considerably in size and strength up the height of the tow |
So did the facade and yet it didn't bow in considerably nor did it fall inwards as it collapsed. In fact the film clips clearly show it blowing outwards in a symetrical wave in both towers.
| Bushwacker wrote: | | Additionally, the core columns were of course in the centre of the fires and received the maximum heat, whereas the perimeter columns were at the edge. |
But NIST was unable to replicate the removal of the fireproof cladding in its tests which was so necessary for its theory to work. Additionally, there is no proof that the fires raged at the temperatures necessary to reduce the structural capacity of the steel. Finally, if the fire had been much stronger in the core area, then the trusses and their lightweight connections would have broken away from the core long before the comparitively massive core columns could have failed under the same conditions and therefore the floors would have had no further influence on the core columns, pulling instead on the facade only.
| Bushwacker wrote: | | The whole top section would then drop, as we observe, not just the perimeter columns and the floors, leaving the core as a spike, stripped bare of the rest of the structure. Once the whole of the top section was falling, including the core, it simply crushed the whole of the lower section complete. Part of the core at the lowest level was indeed so massive that it remained standing momentarily before succumbing. |
But we've already agreed that the top section of the south tower started to rotate before falling so it must have been resting on something to do that. So why do you insist on saying the upper section fell onto the lower section when clearly the two were still attached, especially, and you still haven't answered my question on this from the other day, when the weight, due to the rotation, was no longer directly above the connecting elements which made up the fulcrum? Why didn't the upper section just continue to rotate and fall off? Where is your proof that the fulcrum would have suddenly suffered complete and symmetrical failure after rotation had started?
| Bushwacker wrote: | | Once it hit the intact bottom section, it stopped rotating but the load was sufficient to crush the bottom section which then collapsed symmetrically in a similar way to WTC1. |
But you said the lower section was structurally stronger than the top and yet somehow the top section was capable of staying intact as it fell (if indeed it did fall) onto the lower tower despite having the same forces applied to it - you know, Newton's 3rd law and all that. How can that possibly be? I mean, how anyone could assert that the relatively small top section of WTC1 was capable of smashing onto the tower below whilst remaining intact enough itself to cause total failure of the complete building, especially when the explosions can be seen going off so clearly on the facades below, is beyond me. How do you honestly explain this Bushwacker? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 18, 2007 10:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| James C wrote: | | Bushwacker wrote: | | The fulcrum in your example is provided by the water resistance, which is high, and higher comparatively at the lighter end of the bottle. The air resistance in the case of the top section of WTC2 falling would be quite negligable. You are going to have to do better than that to explain why the heavier end of the section, if indeed it was heavier, should fall faster. |
But the neck of a bottle can cut through the water faster than the blunt end of the base so your analysis is utterly nonsense! Sad that you have to lie about me saying the top section of WTC2 fell faster at the bottom than the top. I suggest you re-read what I did say.
| Bushwacker wrote: | | I think you are overlooking that the core columns decreased considerably in size and strength up the height of the tow |
So did the facade and yet it didn't bow in considerably nor did it fall inwards as it collapsed. In fact the film clips clearly show it blowing outwards in a symetrical wave in both towers.
| Bushwacker wrote: | | Additionally, the core columns were of course in the centre of the fires and received the maximum heat, whereas the perimeter columns were at the edge. |
But NIST was unable to replicate the removal of the fireproof cladding in its tests which was so necessary for its theory to work. Additionally, there is no proof that the fires raged at the temperatures necessary to reduce the structural capacity of the steel. Finally, if the fire had been much stronger in the core area, then the trusses and their lightweight connections would have broken away from the core long before the comparitively massive core columns could have failed under the same conditions and therefore the floors would have had no further influence on the core columns, pulling instead on the facade only.
| Bushwacker wrote: | | The whole top section would then drop, as we observe, not just the perimeter columns and the floors, leaving the core as a spike, stripped bare of the rest of the structure. Once the whole of the top section was falling, including the core, it simply crushed the whole of the lower section complete. Part of the core at the lowest level was indeed so massive that it remained standing momentarily before succumbing. |
But we've already agreed that the top section of the south tower started to rotate before falling so it must have been resting on something to do that. So why do you insist on saying the upper section fell onto the lower section when clearly the two were still attached, especially, and you still haven't answered my question on this from the other day, when the weight, due to the rotation, was no longer directly above the connecting elements which made up the fulcrum? Why didn't the upper section just continue to rotate and fall off? Where is your proof that the fulcrum would have suddenly suffered complete and symmetrical failure after rotation had started?
| Bushwacker wrote: | | Once it hit the intact bottom section, it stopped rotating but the load was sufficient to crush the bottom section which then collapsed symmetrically in a similar way to WTC1. |
But you said the lower section was structurally stronger than the top and yet somehow the top section was capable of staying intact as it fell (if indeed it did fall) onto the lower tower despite having the same forces applied to it - you know, Newton's 3rd law and all that. How can that possibly be? I mean, how anyone could assert that the relatively small top section of WTC1 was capable of smashing onto the tower below whilst remaining intact enough itself to cause total failure of the complete building, especially when the explosions can be seen going off so clearly on the facades below, is beyond me. How do you honestly explain this Bushwacker? |
Yet again you are completely wrong, if the neck of the bottle was detached from the bottom part, it would fall more slowly through the water, but this is a total distraction because the high drag of a body falling through water is quite different to a huge section of a building falling through air.
You constantly refer back to your earlier posts as though you had explained yourself adequately earlier, so let us see what you said that is relevant:
Newton's 1st law explains that a rotating body will continue to rotate unless acted upon by a force (torque). Clearly in this case that force came from the weight of the upper section itself which was heavier at the bottom than at the top (the steel structure was lighter at the top) and as it suddenly became free from the building directly below it, which was now falling away, that weight came into play to act in the counter direction.
and
You asked that I show you what torque could suddenly have been applied and I've answered it for you - gravity. If the upper section hadn't become detached so fast then the rotation would have continued but as the building was destroyed below it by explosives, thereby removing any support, the lower weight of the upper section was subject to acceleration due to gravity, just like the top part, and thus counteracted the motion taking place.
I took your second statement to mean that you thought the lower part of the detached section would naturally fall faster than the top and therefore counteracted the rotation and the section would have straightened itself to fall vertically like your bottle, given sufficient space. I am sorry if I misunderstood quite what you meant.
Please now explain clearly why you think gravity would act to stop the rotational movement, since gravity acts only in a vertical direction, and at that point no fulcrum would be present, so the vertical force could not apply a torque.
You appear to be conflating what happened at the initial collapse, and what happened thereafter. Initially, the perimeter columns were seen to be distorted inwards, and their collapse is assumed by NIST to have initiated collapse. Once that had happened and the upper section of the building had collapsed on to the lower, then you are right, some of the perimeter columns certainly fell outside the building.
NIST found that maintaining the sprayed-on fire insulation of the steel was a constant maintenance problem at the towers, and there are photographs of missing insulation. In addition, they found it was easily removed by impact, and in fact some of the enlarged photographs of the impact holes clearly show trusses on which the red paint is visible, so the fireproofing has come off. Ordinary office fires easily reach temperatures at which steel begins to weaken, so it can be assumed the widespread fires caused by the sprayed jet fuel reached those temperatures. Some core columns in the impact area were severed. In sum, the buildings were severely damaged by the impacts, and further weakened by the fires to the point at which they collapsed.
I cannot understand your difficulty with the concept that WTC2 gave way on one side initially, and the top section hinged on the opposite side, causing the tilt. The collapsed side would then fall on the lower section of the building, which stopped the rotation. I do not say that the upper section stayed intact, I imagine it destroyed itself falling on to the lower section at much the same rate as the lower section was destroyed. However, most of its mass remained, even though it was not intact, and was added to by the mass of debris. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Alex_V
Wrecker
Joined: 24 Sep 2007
Posts: 515
Location: London, England
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 12, 2007 2:58 pm Post subject: Re: Basic Physics and WTC Collapse |
|
|
More than a month after my initial post, there has yet to be a coherent argument presented here as to why a collapse of the twin towers would have violated the laws of physics.
Considering that this is supposed to be the crux of the argument of truthers who suggest CD, is this not a little embarrassing? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
James C
Major Poster
Joined: 26 Jan 2006
Posts: 1046
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 12, 2007 5:40 pm Post subject: Re: Basic Physics and WTC Collapse |
|
|
| Alex_V wrote: | More than a month after my initial post, there has yet to be a coherent argument presented here as to why a collapse of the twin towers would have violated the laws of physics.
Considering that this is supposed to be the crux of the argument of truthers who suggest CD, is this not a little embarrassing? |
Nope, the argument is presented quite clearly. Go read this thread through very carefully again then shut up with your pointless waffling. Perhaps you should be asking yourself why anyone would want to waste their time trying to counter the worthless hypothetical work of Greening et al. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 12, 2007 7:40 pm Post subject: Re: Basic Physics and WTC Collapse |
|
|
| Alex_V wrote: | More than a month after my initial post, there has yet to be a coherent argument presented here as to why a collapse of the twin towers would have violated the laws of physics.
Considering that this is supposed to be the crux of the argument of truthers who suggest CD, is this not a little embarrassing? |
I think that it demonstrates very clearly that the belief that the progressive collapse of the towers would have violated the laws of physics, is simply that, a belief pure and simple, which cannot actually be substantiated. We are dealing here with people who have a set of beliefs that they attempt to justify, not with people concerned with rational investigation. Steven Jones, in his previous work attempting to justify a belief that Jesus visited South America, is a very appropriate role model.
That James C can believe that gravity alone will stop the rotation of a massively heavy body falling freely through air, demonstrates what a desperately weak grasp of physics underpins this belief. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
KP50
Validated Poster
Joined: 23 Feb 2007
Posts: 526
Location: NZ
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 12, 2007 8:27 pm Post subject: Re: Basic Physics and WTC Collapse |
|
|
| Bushwacker wrote: | | We are dealing here with people who have a set of beliefs that they attempt to justify, not with people concerned with rational investigation. |
I agree - for example multiple people state that there were multiple explosions in the towers prior to collapse - but your belief in the honesty of the system means you parrot "things explode in fires". |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
James C
Major Poster
Joined: 26 Jan 2006
Posts: 1046
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 12, 2007 9:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Bushwacker wrote: | | That James C can believe that gravity alone will stop the rotation of a massively heavy body falling freely through air, demonstrates what a desperately weak grasp of physics underpins this belief. |
Oh what a shock, Bushwacker misrepresents what I said yet again.
Yawn.
And don't start talking about rational investigation, you critics don't know the meaning of the term. You prefer to employ pure subterfuge to further your own agenda and have been doing so ever since you came on this site. Rational investigation, give me a break. Your words in the quote above are a perfect example of how you have twisted what I said in order to achieve whatever credibility it is you yearn for but which I doubt you will ever find. Such a sad existence is that of a critic. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 12, 2007 11:39 pm Post subject: Re: Basic Physics and WTC Collapse |
|
|
| KP50 wrote: | | Bushwacker wrote: | | We are dealing here with people who have a set of beliefs that they attempt to justify, not with people concerned with rational investigation. |
I agree - for example multiple people state that there were multiple explosions in the towers prior to collapse - but your belief in the honesty of the system means you parrot "things explode in fires". |
I say things explode in fires because things do explode in fires. You prefer to ignore that known fact as inconvenient to your belief that there were exposives in the towers.
You also of course ignore that these explosions occurred throughout the period that the towers were burning without apparently affecting the structure in any way. This contrasts with actual demolition explosions which happen just before the structure collapses. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 12, 2007 11:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| James C wrote: | | Bushwacker wrote: | | That James C can believe that gravity alone will stop the rotation of a massively heavy body falling freely through air, demonstrates what a desperately weak grasp of physics underpins this belief. |
Oh what a shock, Bushwacker misrepresents what I said yet again.
Yawn.
And don't start talking about rational investigation, you critics don't know the meaning of the term. You prefer to employ pure subterfuge to further your own agenda and have been doing so ever since you came on this site. Rational investigation, give me a break. Your words in the quote above are a perfect example of how you have twisted what I said in order to achieve whatever credibility it is you yearn for but which I doubt you will ever find. Such a sad existence is that of a critic. |
Since you have spent pages refusing to explain yourself and referring everything back to your earlier ramblings, you have only yourself to blame if I have misrepresented you. I don't believe I have actually, you have realised what rubbish you wrote, which is accounts for your refusal to back it up, and weasel your way out of it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
KP50
Validated Poster
Joined: 23 Feb 2007
Posts: 526
Location: NZ
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 13, 2007 12:09 am Post subject: Re: Basic Physics and WTC Collapse |
|
|
| Bushwacker wrote: | | KP50 wrote: | | Bushwacker wrote: | | We are dealing here with people who have a set of beliefs that they attempt to justify, not with people concerned with rational investigation. |
I agree - for example multiple people state that there were multiple explosions in the towers prior to collapse - but your belief in the honesty of the system means you parrot "things explode in fires". |
I say things explode in fires because things do explode in fires. You prefer to ignore that known fact as inconvenient to your belief that there were exposives in the towers.
You also of course ignore that these explosions occurred throughout the period that the towers were burning without apparently affecting the structure in any way. This contrasts with actual demolition explosions which happen just before the structure collapses. |
What I am saying is that you have no proof that there weren't explosions in the towers - if you do have this proof, then please point to the interviews of witnesses so that their experiences can be used to work out if there were explosions, what sort of damage was caused by these explosions etc etc.
"Apparently affecting the structure" - how can you tell when the core strength of the building is on the inside?
Luckily you have your belief that there were no explosives planted .... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 13, 2007 12:20 am Post subject: Re: Basic Physics and WTC Collapse |
|
|
| KP50 wrote: | | Bushwacker wrote: | | KP50 wrote: | | Bushwacker wrote: | | We are dealing here with people who have a set of beliefs that they attempt to justify, not with people concerned with rational investigation. |
I agree - for example multiple people state that there were multiple explosions in the towers prior to collapse - but your belief in the honesty of the system means you parrot "things explode in fires". |
I say things explode in fires because things do explode in fires. You prefer to ignore that known fact as inconvenient to your belief that there were exposives in the towers.
You also of course ignore that these explosions occurred throughout the period that the towers were burning without apparently affecting the structure in any way. This contrasts with actual demolition explosions which happen just before the structure collapses. |
What I am saying is that you have no proof that there weren't explosions in the towers - if you do have this proof, then please point to the interviews of witnesses so that their experiences can be used to work out if there were explosions, what sort of damage was caused by these explosions etc etc.
"Apparently affecting the structure" - how can you tell when the core strength of the building is on the inside?
Luckily you have your belief that there were no explosives planted .... |
I do not doubt that there were explosions in the towers, that would be expected in a fire, was that not the point of your original comment? There is no evidence that these were demolition explosives, however, and no reason to set off demolition explosives prior to actually demolishing the towers. If they were demolition explosions they caused no damage to the structure, visible from outside the building. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Alex_V
Wrecker
Joined: 24 Sep 2007
Posts: 515
Location: London, England
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 13, 2007 12:49 am Post subject: Re: Basic Physics and WTC Collapse |
|
|
| James C wrote: | | Nope, the argument is presented quite clearly. Go read this thread through very carefully again then shut up with your pointless waffling. Perhaps you should be asking yourself why anyone would want to waste their time trying to counter the worthless hypothetical work of Greening et al. |
Attacking Greening does nothing to actually answer the basic question. How would a collapse of the twin towers have violated the laws of physics? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
James C
Major Poster
Joined: 26 Jan 2006
Posts: 1046
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 13, 2007 8:06 am Post subject: Re: Basic Physics and WTC Collapse |
|
|
| Alex_V wrote: | | James C wrote: | | Nope, the argument is presented quite clearly. Go read this thread through very carefully again then shut up with your pointless waffling. Perhaps you should be asking yourself why anyone would want to waste their time trying to counter the worthless hypothetical work of Greening et al. |
Attacking Greening does nothing to actually answer the basic question. How would a collapse of the twin towers have violated the laws of physics? |
No, but you used Greening to answer your basic question.
However, the basic question should read, how did the twin towers and WTC7 collapse to defy the laws of physics, structure and construction, and re-write the history of building failures all in one day? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 13, 2007 9:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
| It is very clear that James C is quite unable to explain why the towers collapse defied the laws of physics. It is simply his belief. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
James C
Major Poster
Joined: 26 Jan 2006
Posts: 1046
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 13, 2007 6:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Bushwacker wrote: | | It is very clear that James C is quite unable to explain why the towers collapse defied the laws of physics. It is simply his belief. |
Is that the same belief which causes you to conclude that the enormous, dramatic and repeated ejections of dust and smoke which appeared on the facade of each tower well below the destruction wave were naturally caused? Just how do you explain those again and please don't start talking about pressure fluctuations or explosions due to fire?
Mind you, I was discussing the sudden halt in the rotation of the top of the South Tower due to the loss of the fulcrum over a year ago now and only in the last month have you made it your belief as well. Thank god you found it in yourself to understand what I'd been saying all along. Would you care that I explain anything else for you? I know you find it hard. Perhaps you'd care to tell me what force acted on the top of the south tower once the fulcrum was removed (due to explosives) and what affect would that force have had? Don't forget to include in your answer a proper reasoned argument (and not just your belief because that would be hypocritical) as to why the fulcrum suddenly vanished, especially as the rotation must have shifted the centre of gravity and therefore weight of the upper section so that it was no longer directly above that fulcrum. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 14, 2007 11:57 am Post subject: |
|
|
| James C wrote: | | Bushwacker wrote: | | It is very clear that James C is quite unable to explain why the towers collapse defied the laws of physics. It is simply his belief. |
Is that the same belief which causes you to conclude that the enormous, dramatic and repeated ejections of dust and smoke which appeared on the facade of each tower well below the destruction wave were naturally caused? Just how do you explain those again and please don't start talking about pressure fluctuations or explosions due to fire? |
Your attempt to change the subject is noted. If you seriously want to talk about the ejections of dust, start another thread. Meanwhile, you have avoided yet another opportunity to explain why the collapse of the towers defied the laws of physics. People may be beginning to notice that.
| Quote: | | Mind you, I was discussing the sudden halt in the rotation of the top of the South Tower due to the loss of the fulcrum over a year ago now and only in the last month have you made it your belief as well. |
Yes, you have a long term history of failure to understand conservation of momentum, and the idea that rotation would suddenly halt due to the loss of a fulcrum is ridiculous. It is certainly not my belief, as of course you know.
| Quote: | | Thank god you found it in yourself to understand what I'd been saying all along. Would you care that I explain anything else for you? I know you find it hard. |
No, I would simply like you to explain why you believe the loss of a fulcrum would make a massively heavy rotating mass suddenly halt its rotation, something I have repeatedly asked you to do, but a subject you always avoid.
| Quote: | | Perhaps you'd care to tell me what force acted on the top of the south tower once the fulcrum was removed (due to explosives) and what affect would that force have had? Don't forget to include in your answer a proper reasoned argument (and not just your belief because that would be hypocritical) as to why the fulcrum suddenly vanished, especially as the rotation must have shifted the centre of gravity and therefore weight of the upper section so that it was no longer directly above that fulcrum. |
But the fulcrum suddenly vanishing due to exposives is entirely your theory, formed without any evidence at all. I do not accept for a moment that anything suddenly vanished. If, according to your theory, the upper section was left in mid air, the fulcrum having vanished, the only force acting on it would be gravity, acting vertically. What you have always failed to do is explain why this would act to halt its angular rotation, "suddenly" according to you now. Are you now going to attempt an explanation (which should be good for a laugh!) or are you going to fall back on your usual response of saying you have previously explained? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
James C
Major Poster
Joined: 26 Jan 2006
Posts: 1046
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 14, 2007 12:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Bushwacker wrote: | | What you have always failed to do is explain why this would act to halt its angular rotation, "suddenly" according to you now. Are you now going to attempt an explanation (which should be good for a laugh!) or are you going to fall back on your usual response of saying you have previously explained? |
Bushwacker,
This is what I said on Tuesday 13th November at 12.16am.
| James C wrote: | I'll repeat, the upper section did not drop onto the lower section.
Secondly, Newton's 1st law explains that a rotating body will continue to rotate unless acted upon by a force (torque). Clearly in this case that force came from the weight of the upper section itself which was heavier at the bottom than at the top (the steel structure was lighter at the top) and as it suddenly became free from the building directly below it, which was now falling away, that weight came into play to act in the counter direction.
It's so simple and yet you cannot see it. |
I would say that this constitutes an explantion and if you'd care to check you'd confirm that it was posted when I said it was. Why do you continue to ignore this and which why do you continue to lie?
Perhaps you'd now care to tell me why the top of the tower stopped rotating and what caused the loss of fulcrum given that the weight of the upper section was shifting away from it? Stop your silly floundering and get on with it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ian neal
Angel - now passed away
Joined: 26 Jul 2005
Posts: 3140
Location: UK
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Alex_V
Wrecker
Joined: 24 Sep 2007
Posts: 515
Location: London, England
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 14, 2007 3:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I see that James Quintiere is one of the engineers mentioned - if I understand his position correctly he believes that fire alone was enough to make the twin towers collapse.
But one thing that I do concede - faced only with certain videos or websites, the case against the official story does seem strong. So there is no surprise that a number of people from all walks of life may support it. But what is frustrating for me and others is how weak this evidence actually is when looked at in detail - it is often either misleading or utterly untrue.
That is why I am questioning a central claim that has been made countless times by those in the so-called 'truth' movement. How would a collapse of the twin towers have violated the laws of physics? If there is no adequate answer to this question, then a huge proportion of the truth movement have been peddling a lie for years. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
James C
Major Poster
Joined: 26 Jan 2006
Posts: 1046
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 14, 2007 3:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Alex_V wrote: |
I see that James Quintiere is one of the engineers mentioned - if I understand his position correctly he believes that fire alone was enough to make the twin towers collapse.
But one thing that I do concede - faced only with certain videos or websites, the case against the official story does seem strong. So there is no surprise that a number of people from all walks of life may support it. But what is frustrating for me and others is how weak this evidence actually is when looked at in detail - it is often either misleading or utterly untrue.
That is why I am questioning a central claim that has been made countless times by those in the so-called 'truth' movement. How would a collapse of the twin towers have violated the laws of physics? If there is no adequate answer to this question, then a huge proportion of the truth movement have been peddling a lie for years. |
I'm getting a bit frustrated by what you mean when you say, 'the laws of physics'. I mean, the collapses of the WTC obviously obeyed the laws of physics however you look at them so what exactly are you trying to achieve with this statement? Surely we are talking more about principles here. The principles of structure, construction and the way high rise buildings behave when faced with mass fire and/or physical damage. These principles are as much based on historical precedent as they are through building research and yet you'd be hard pushed to find any precedent or research which would answer how all three buildings collapsed so swiftly and easily despite being damaged in different ways. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Alex_V
Wrecker
Joined: 24 Sep 2007
Posts: 515
Location: London, England
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| James C wrote: | | I'm getting a bit frustrated by what you mean when you say, 'the laws of physics'. I mean, the collapses of the WTC obviously obeyed the laws of physics however you look at them so what exactly are you trying to achieve with this statement? Surely we are talking more about principles here. The principles of structure, construction and the way high rise buildings behave when faced with mass fire and/or physical damage. These principles are as much based on historical precedent as they through building research yet you'd be hard pushed to find any precedent which would answer how all three buildings collapsed so swiftly and easily despite being damaged in different ways. |
For YEARS many in the truth movement have been saying that the collapses of the twin towers disobeyed simple laws of physics - lots of direct claims that a child who has taken physics at school would be able to realise such a thing.
One thing I have noticed is that you see these claims less and less on some of the websites of the more organised sections of the truth movement, but they continue to be peddled by 9-11 truth enthusiasts. I don't think you can find these claims on ae911truth for example (although they do make the 'path of greatest resistance' claim which I think is utter nonsense as well). These 'collapse defied physics' claims used to often be the FIRST thing you see on virtually all the truther websites.
One of the big problems with the truth movement is that it creates 'facts' which are then discredited, and it then moves on to new 'facts'. But of course there is no mechanism in place for the movement, in general, to jettison the false accusations it has already created. Because nobody ever admits they were wrong, they just alter their websites and move on. So the whole movement ends up a mish-mash of half-truths.
I think if this thread proves anything, it proves that issues surrounding the collapse of the twin towers can not be proven one way or the other by claiming that the collapses disobey simple physics, or that 'you only have to look at the video to see it was a demolition'. To you or I that may be an obvious point to make, but clearly to a huge proportion of people on this site and generally in the truth movement, it is a realisation they have yet to make. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| James C wrote: | | Bushwacker wrote: | | What you have always failed to do is explain why this would act to halt its angular rotation, "suddenly" according to you now. Are you now going to attempt an explanation (which should be good for a laugh!) or are you going to fall back on your usual response of saying you have previously explained? |
Bushwacker,
This is what I said on Tuesday 13th November at 12.16am.
| James C wrote: | I'll repeat, the upper section did not drop onto the lower section.
Secondly, Newton's 1st law explains that a rotating body will continue to rotate unless acted upon by a force (torque). Clearly in this case that force came from the weight of the upper section itself which was heavier at the bottom than at the top (the steel structure was lighter at the top) and as it suddenly became free from the building directly below it, which was now falling away, that weight came into play to act in the counter direction.
It's so simple and yet you cannot see it. |
I would say that this constitutes an explantion and if you'd care to check you'd confirm that it was posted when I said it was. Why do you continue to ignore this and which why do you continue to lie? |
Of course this does not constitute an explanation because, as I said at the time, you have totally failed to explain how the torque necessary to stop the rotation came from gravity, acting only in a vertical direction, gravity being the only force acting on the upper section in your imaginary scenario of the upper section becoming free of the lower. I am not surprised you cannot answer this, because there is no answer, it could not happen. Your avoidance of this point through all your posts shows very clearly that you know that perfectly well, and your bluster cuts no ice at all.
| Quote: | | Perhaps you'd now care to tell me why the top of the tower stopped rotating and what caused the loss of fulcrum given that the weight of the upper section was shifting away from it? Stop your silly floundering and get on with it. |
It is very simple in the real world, rather than your imaginary one, and there was no loss of fulcrum. The tower gave way on one side of the fire floor, not on the other. The upper section pivoted on the intact side, which acted as a fulcrum, and thus started to rotate. It stopped rotating when it hit the lower section on the other side from the fulcrum. Faced with the massive overload of the top section dropping on it, the lower section started to collapse, as did the upper. It is very straightforward and follows the laws of physics, unlike your imaginary process. I have explained all that before, a shame you are too blinkered to grasp it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
James C
Major Poster
Joined: 26 Jan 2006
Posts: 1046
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Bushwacker wrote: | | James C wrote: | | Bushwacker wrote: | | What you have always failed to do is explain why this would act to halt its angular rotation, "suddenly" according to you now. Are you now going to attempt an explanation (which should be good for a laugh!) or are you going to fall back on your usual response of saying you have previously explained? |
Bushwacker,
This is what I said on Tuesday 13th November at 12.16am.
| James C wrote: | I'll repeat, the upper section did not drop onto the lower section.
Secondly, Newton's 1st law explains that a rotating body will continue to rotate unless acted upon by a force (torque). Clearly in this case that force came from the weight of the upper section itself which was heavier at the bottom than at the top (the steel structure was lighter at the top) and as it suddenly became free from the building directly below it, which was now falling away, that weight came into play to act in the counter direction.
It's so simple and yet you cannot see it. |
I would say that this constitutes an explantion and if you'd care to check you'd confirm that it was posted when I said it was. Why do you continue to ignore this and which why do you continue to lie? |
Of course this does not constitute an explanation because, as I said at the time, you have totally failed to explain how the torque necessary to stop the rotation came from gravity, acting only in a vertical direction, gravity being the only force acting on the upper section in your imaginary scenario of the upper section becoming free of the lower. I am not surprised you cannot answer this, because there is no answer, it could not happen. Your avoidance of this point through all your posts shows very clearly that you know that perfectly well, and your bluster cuts no ice at all.
| Quote: | | Perhaps you'd now care to tell me why the top of the tower stopped rotating and what caused the loss of fulcrum given that the weight of the upper section was shifting away from it? Stop your silly floundering and get on with it. |
It is very simple in the real world, rather than your imaginary one, and there was no loss of fulcrum. The tower gave way on one side of the fire floor, not on the other. The upper section pivoted on the intact side, which acted as a fulcrum, and thus started to rotate. It stopped rotating when it hit the lower section on the other side from the fulcrum. Faced with the massive overload of the top section dropping on it, the lower section started to collapse, as did the upper. It is very straightforward and follows the laws of physics, unlike your imaginary process. I have explained all that before, a shame you are too blinkered to grasp it. |
Oh dear, so gravity didn't act on the part of the tower which was released to fall freely after the fulcrum was lost? So if a fulcrum is pulled from any rotating body, say a see saw, you are saying that gravity does not act on the part of the see saw which once sat on that fulcrum and so doesn't cause a change in the rotation in anyway? Please don't tell me that is what you are saying.
What makes it worse is how you can claim the upper section of the south tower rested on a fulcrum, which clearly was the core, and yet when it rotated and fell onto the outer edges of the tower, the facade and floors were able to offer serious restance! Good god, that part of the structure must have been the strongest in history what with there only being a 14" steel lattice structure, i.e. the facade, to offer any resistance to dynamic vertical loading. So your claim that the outer edge of the south tower, which comprised only a thin facade and lots of horizontal floors of lightweight steel trusses and screed, was capable of stopping the rotation of what was such a massive body is laughable in the extreme. Was there some sort of supporting structure to the facade and floors which I am not aware of? Remember, the core took the weight of the building, the facade withstood the lateral loads (even if it was self-supporting and an independent structure) and the floors spanned between the two.
0/10 Try again. Stop making it up based on your beliefs and look again at how the building was actually constructed.
Do you expect me to take such twaddle seriously? Is this the best you critics can offer, a terrible mish mash of an answer to justify why the laws of physics were obeyed without even applying the constructional and structural principles which those towers employed? If the south tower had collapsed due to fire and plane damage alone that day then the laws of physics would have ensured the facade crumbled completely under the weight of the rotating body falling onto it thus allowing the upper section to continue rotating until it fell off the remaining and very intact structure below it. But, as witnessed in the video clips, different physical laws came into play because the rotation actually stopped when the structure below the upper section was obliterated very rapidly all in one go allowing the upper section to act as a free falling mass whereby gravity, now acting on the whole of it due to the loss of the fulcrum, corrected its spin. In other words, the upper section didn't initate the collapse which was due to the explosives, but broke away only once the controlled demolition had been initiated, breaking away at the point of most damage due to the fire and impact.
Last edited by James C on Fri Dec 14, 2007 5:23 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 14, 2007 5:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| James C wrote: | | Bushwacker wrote: | | James C wrote: | | Bushwacker wrote: | | What you have always failed to do is explain why this would act to halt its angular rotation, "suddenly" according to you now. Are you now going to attempt an explanation (which should be good for a laugh!) or are you going to fall back on your usual response of saying you have previously explained? |
Bushwacker,
This is what I said on Tuesday 13th November at 12.16am.
| James C wrote: | I'll repeat, the upper section did not drop onto the lower section.
Secondly, Newton's 1st law explains that a rotating body will continue to rotate unless acted upon by a force (torque). Clearly in this case that force came from the weight of the upper section itself which was heavier at the bottom than at the top (the steel structure was lighter at the top) and as it suddenly became free from the building directly below it, which was now falling away, that weight came into play to act in the counter direction.
It's so simple and yet you cannot see it. |
I would say that this constitutes an explantion and if you'd care to check you'd confirm that it was posted when I said it was. Why do you continue to ignore this and which why do you continue to lie? |
Of course this does not constitute an explanation because, as I said at the time, you have totally failed to explain how the torque necessary to stop the rotation came from gravity, acting only in a vertical direction, gravity being the only force acting on the upper section in your imaginary scenario of the upper section becoming free of the lower. I am not surprised you cannot answer this, because there is no answer, it could not happen. Your avoidance of this point through all your posts shows very clearly that you know that perfectly well, and your bluster cuts no ice at all.
| Quote: | | Perhaps you'd now care to tell me why the top of the tower stopped rotating and what caused the loss of fulcrum given that the weight of the upper section was shifting away from it? Stop your silly floundering and get on with it. |
It is very simple in the real world, rather than your imaginary one, and there was no loss of fulcrum. The tower gave way on one side of the fire floor, not on the other. The upper section pivoted on the intact side, which acted as a fulcrum, and thus started to rotate. It stopped rotating when it hit the lower section on the other side from the fulcrum. Faced with the massive overload of the top section dropping on it, the lower section started to collapse, as did the upper. It is very straightforward and follows the laws of physics, unlike your imaginary process. I have explained all that before, a shame you are too blinkered to grasp it. |
Oh dear, so gravity doesn't act on the part of the tower which is released to fall freely after the fulcrum is lost? So if a fulcrum is pulled from any rotating body, say a see saw, you are saying that gravity does not act on the part of the see saw which once sat on that fulcrum and so doesn't cause a change in the rotation in anyway? Please don't tell me that is what you are saying.
What makes it worse is how you can claim the upper section of the south tower rested on a fulcrum, which clearly was the core, and yet when it rotated and fell onto the outer edges of the tower, the facade and floors were able to offer serious restance! Good god, that part of the structure must have been the strongest in history what with there only being a 14" steel lattice structure, i.e. the facade, to offer any resistance to vertical loading. So your claim that the outer edge of the south tower, which comprised only a thin facade and lots of horizontal floors of lightweight steel trusses and screed, was capable of stopping the rotation of what was such a massive body is laughable in the extreme. Was there some sort of supporting structure to the facade and floors which I am not aware of. Remember, the core took the weight of the building, the facade withstood lateral loads (even if it was self-supporting and an independent structure) and the floors spanned between the two.
0/10 Try again. Stop making it up based on your beliefs and look again at how the building was actually constructed. |
Oh dear, oh dear, you clearly do not even understand how the building worked! The perimeter columns, which you call the facade, shared the gravity load with the core columns. You see, the floors were supported on trusses which spanned between the core and the perimeter so their weight was shared between the two sets of columns, there would be no way the core could take all their weight unless they were cantilevered out from it, which they were not. Understand? You were never really an architect, were you?
Of course gravity acts on a rotating structure, if the fulcrum vanishes. It acts in a vertical direction through the centre of gravity. It does not act to create a torque to stop its rotation. If you really think it does, explain how the torque is created. You have been waffling and blustering about this for a month, it is more than time for you to explain how you imagine the torque is created.
I'll give you a start, "Gravity acts vertically through the centre of gravity of an object. We are considering the hypothetical case of the upper section of the WTC South tower becoming free in space, so the only forces acting on it are gravity and a miniscule amount of air resistance which we can ignore in the context of its huge mass. These upper stories were rotating, and we postulate that this rotation halted suddenly. This would require enormous torque, and the only force then acting on the upper section was gravity. Gravity, acting vertically, was tranformed into torque by.............................." All you have to do is fill in the dots. Go ahead! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
James C
Major Poster
Joined: 26 Jan 2006
Posts: 1046
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 14, 2007 5:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Bushwacker wrote: | | James C wrote: | | Bushwacker wrote: | | James C wrote: | | Bushwacker wrote: | | What you have always failed to do is explain why this would act to halt its angular rotation, "suddenly" according to you now. Are you now going to attempt an explanation (which should be good for a laugh!) or are you going to fall back on your usual response of saying you have previously explained? |
Bushwacker,
This is what I said on Tuesday 13th November at 12.16am.
| James C wrote: | I'll repeat, the upper section did not drop onto the lower section.
Secondly, Newton's 1st law explains that a rotating body will continue to rotate unless acted upon by a force (torque). Clearly in this case that force came from the weight of the upper section itself which was heavier at the bottom than at the top (the steel structure was lighter at the top) and as it suddenly became free from the building directly below it, which was now falling away, that weight came into play to act in the counter direction.
It's so simple and yet you cannot see it. |
I would say that this constitutes an explantion and if you'd care to check you'd confirm that it was posted when I said it was. Why do you continue to ignore this and which why do you continue to lie? |
Of course this does not constitute an explanation because, as I said at the time, you have totally failed to explain how the torque necessary to stop the rotation came from gravity, acting only in a vertical direction, gravity being the only force acting on the upper section in your imaginary scenario of the upper section becoming free of the lower. I am not surprised you cannot answer this, because there is no answer, it could not happen. Your avoidance of this point through all your posts shows very clearly that you know that perfectly well, and your bluster cuts no ice at all.
| Quote: | | Perhaps you'd now care to tell me why the top of the tower stopped rotating and what caused the loss of fulcrum given that the weight of the upper section was shifting away from it? Stop your silly floundering and get on with it. |
It is very simple in the real world, rather than your imaginary one, and there was no loss of fulcrum. The tower gave way on one side of the fire floor, not on the other. The upper section pivoted on the intact side, which acted as a fulcrum, and thus started to rotate. It stopped rotating when it hit the lower section on the other side from the fulcrum. Faced with the massive overload of the top section dropping on it, the lower section started to collapse, as did the upper. It is very straightforward and follows the laws of physics, unlike your imaginary process. I have explained all that before, a shame you are too blinkered to grasp it. |
Oh dear, so gravity doesn't act on the part of the tower which is released to fall freely after the fulcrum is lost? So if a fulcrum is pulled from any rotating body, say a see saw, you are saying that gravity does not act on the part of the see saw which once sat on that fulcrum and so doesn't cause a change in the rotation in anyway? Please don't tell me that is what you are saying.
What makes it worse is how you can claim the upper section of the south tower rested on a fulcrum, which clearly was the core, and yet when it rotated and fell onto the outer edges of the tower, the facade and floors were able to offer serious restance! Good god, that part of the structure must have been the strongest in history what with there only being a 14" steel lattice structure, i.e. the facade, to offer any resistance to vertical loading. So your claim that the outer edge of the south tower, which comprised only a thin facade and lots of horizontal floors of lightweight steel trusses and screed, was capable of stopping the rotation of what was such a massive body is laughable in the extreme. Was there some sort of supporting structure to the facade and floors which I am not aware of. Remember, the core took the weight of the building, the facade withstood lateral loads (even if it was self-supporting and an independent structure) and the floors spanned between the two.
0/10 Try again. Stop making it up based on your beliefs and look again at how the building was actually constructed. |
Oh dear, oh dear, you clearly do not even understand how the building worked! The perimeter columns, which you call the facade, shared the gravity load with the core columns. You see, the floors were supported on trusses which spanned between the core and the perimeter so their weight was shared between the two sets of columns, there would be no way the core could take all their weight unless they were cantilevered out from it, which they were not. Understand? You were never really an architect, were you?
Of course gravity acts on a rotating structure, if the fulcrum vanishes. It acts in a vertical direction through the centre of gravity. It does not act to create a torque to stop its rotation. If you really think it does, explain how the torque is created. You have been waffling and blustering about this for a month, it is more than time for you to explain how you imagine the torque is created.
I'll give you a start, "Gravity acts vertically through the centre of gravity of an object. We are considering the hypothetical case of the upper section of the WTC South tower becoming free in space, so the only forces acting on it are gravity and a miniscule amount of air resistance which we can ignore in the context of its huge mass. These upper stories were rotating, and we postulate that this rotation halted suddenly. This would require enormous torque, and the only force then acting on the upper section was gravity. Gravity, acting vertically, was tranformed into torque by.............................." All you have to do is fill in the dots. Go ahead! |
But the facade was only 14 inches thick and the floors were horizontal, non-loadbearing, elements with just air between them!!!!!
Are you saying the facade could support the core as well as half the floor load? And can you prove the facade would have been strong enough to cope with such momentum?
I never knew weekends could start with such a laugh.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 14, 2007 5:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| James C wrote: | | Bushwacker wrote: | | James C wrote: | | Bushwacker wrote: | | James C wrote: | | Bushwacker wrote: | | What you have always failed to do is explain why this would act to halt its angular rotation, "suddenly" according to you now. Are you now going to attempt an explanation (which should be good for a laugh!) or are you going to fall back on your usual response of saying you have previously explained? |
Bushwacker,
This is what I said on Tuesday 13th November at 12.16am.
| James C wrote: | I'll repeat, the upper section did not drop onto the lower section.
Secondly, Newton's 1st law explains that a rotating body will continue to rotate unless acted upon by a force (torque). Clearly in this case that force came from the weight of the upper section itself which was heavier at the bottom than at the top (the steel structure was lighter at the top) and as it suddenly became free from the building directly below it, which was now falling away, that weight came into play to act in the counter direction.
It's so simple and yet you cannot see it. |
I would say that this constitutes an explantion and if you'd care to check you'd confirm that it was posted when I said it was. Why do you continue to ignore this and which why do you continue to lie? |
Of course this does not constitute an explanation because, as I said at the time, you have totally failed to explain how the torque necessary to stop the rotation came from gravity, acting only in a vertical direction, gravity being the only force acting on the upper section in your imaginary scenario of the upper section becoming free of the lower. I am not surprised you cannot answer this, because there is no answer, it could not happen. Your avoidance of this point through all your posts shows very clearly that you know that perfectly well, and your bluster cuts no ice at all.
| Quote: | | Perhaps you'd now care to tell me why the top of the tower stopped rotating and what caused the loss of fulcrum given that the weight of the upper section was shifting away from it? Stop your silly floundering and get on with it. |
It is very simple in the real world, rather than your imaginary one, and there was no loss of fulcrum. The tower gave way on one side of the fire floor, not on the other. The upper section pivoted on the intact side, which acted as a fulcrum, and thus started to rotate. It stopped rotating when it hit the lower section on the other side from the fulcrum. Faced with the massive overload of the top section dropping on it, the lower section started to collapse, as did the upper. It is very straightforward and follows the laws of physics, unlike your imaginary process. I have explained all that before, a shame you are too blinkered to grasp it. |
Oh dear, so gravity doesn't act on the part of the tower which is released to fall freely after the fulcrum is lost? So if a fulcrum is pulled from any rotating body, say a see saw, you are saying that gravity does not act on the part of the see saw which once sat on that fulcrum and so doesn't cause a change in the rotation in anyway? Please don't tell me that is what you are saying.
What makes it worse is how you can claim the upper section of the south tower rested on a fulcrum, which clearly was the core, and yet when it rotated and fell onto the outer edges of the tower, the facade and floors were able to offer serious restance! Good god, that part of the structure must have been the strongest in history what with there only being a 14" steel lattice structure, i.e. the facade, to offer any resistance to vertical loading. So your claim that the outer edge of the south tower, which comprised only a thin facade and lots of horizontal floors of lightweight steel trusses and screed, was capable of stopping the rotation of what was such a massive body is laughable in the extreme. Was there some sort of supporting structure to the facade and floors which I am not aware of. Remember, the core took the weight of the building, the facade withstood lateral loads (even if it was self-supporting and an independent structure) and the floors spanned between the two.
0/10 Try again. Stop making it up based on your beliefs and look again at how the building was actually constructed. |
Oh dear, oh dear, you clearly do not even understand how the building worked! The perimeter columns, which you call the facade, shared the gravity load with the core columns. You see, the floors were supported on trusses which spanned between the core and the perimeter so their weight was shared between the two sets of columns, there would be no way the core could take all their weight unless they were cantilevered out from it, which they were not. Understand? You were never really an architect, were you?
Of course gravity acts on a rotating structure, if the fulcrum vanishes. It acts in a vertical direction through the centre of gravity. It does not act to create a torque to stop its rotation. If you really think it does, explain how the torque is created. You have been waffling and blustering about this for a month, it is more than time for you to explain how you imagine the torque is created.
I'll give you a start, "Gravity acts vertically through the centre of gravity of an object. We are considering the hypothetical case of the upper section of the WTC South tower becoming free in space, so the only forces acting on it are gravity and a miniscule amount of air resistance which we can ignore in the context of its huge mass. These upper stories were rotating, and we postulate that this rotation halted suddenly. This would require enormous torque, and the only force then acting on the upper section was gravity. Gravity, acting vertically, was tranformed into torque by.............................." All you have to do is fill in the dots. Go ahead! |
The facade was only 14 inches thick and the floors were horizontal elements with just air between them!!!!! Are you saying the facade could support the core as well?
Can you prove the facade would have been strong enough to cope with such momentum?
I never knew weekends could start with such a laugh.
|
Bluster away, if it makes you happy. It is clear that you are totally out of your depth, understanding neither physics nor building construction. You have a theory you cannot support, based on entirely imaginary physical principles that you cannot explain. Your only recourse is bluster, avoidance and misrepresentation - of course I did not say the perimeter could support the core. Is English comprehension really so difficult for you?
I'll make it very simple for you:
1. The perimeter columns shared the gravity load with the core, as any research will show. Your idea that the core took all the gravity load is quite wrong.
2. Gravity does not act to stop the spin of a rotating free-falling object. Your idea that it does is quite wrong. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Chat
Usergroups
Calendar
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
