Goodbye, Mr Roberts

[skyson]

Re: Goodbye, Mr Roberts

Physics doesn't work the way you want it to work, so you ignore things such as the law of the conservation of energy and mass in favor of of your inane "law of smaller objects can't destroy larger objects."

Let's say physics works like you think it works. Let's pretend dynamic loading is identical to static loading for the purpose of humoring you. Alright then. On your theory, the 15 or 25 floors dropped onto the rest of the building could not possibly have destroyed the rest of the building, and would have been arrested. Does this hold true if those same upper sections were raised 100 feet above the lower ones and dropped onto them? How about 1000 feet? What if a meteor of equal density and mass at the time of impact hit the building at Mach 30? According to your law of smaller objects never destroying larger objects, none of this would be a problem. The building would never be able to collapse. Is this your theory of how physics work?

Any laws have their constraints. Otherwise, why do we need Einstein to figure out the Law of Relativity?

E = m(v)square.

From the formula alone, we know that the higher the speed, the less important of the mass's contribution to the total kinetic energy.

However, we are talking about the upper building blocks were simply falling 3 meters at initiation of collapse. The speed would be around 5.4 meter/second when upper floors impacted lower floors in our scenario.

Simple high school physics, namely The Third Newton Law would solve the problem here.

[skyson]

Re: Goodbye, Mr Roberts

TPC,

I fear the threads you posted were not convincing to me in any way.

I went through each of your arguments in turn and showed that there was a credible other explanation.

Every example you've put up, I looked at.

Ultimately it boiled down to:

You believe some aggregations of aluminum and iron oxide can only have been created by man, and in turn explains the rapid collapse of the WTC towers.

I believe that 100,000+ tons of weight falling even 1 inch is more than enough to cause a structural failure - and that the 767 impact plus subsequent jet fuel fire could very much have caused the initial structural break at/near the impact point.

Your evidence failed to disprove my thesis much as your thesis is equally un-disprovable - doubly so as you stipulate all evidence has been suppressed by the gubbamint.

I only ask you the simple question again, which you repeatly failed to answer:

What happen when you drop a 100,000 tons 95% air-filled glass ball on to a 800,000 tons 95% air-filled glass ball, from a height of 3 meters?

[Ghent12]

Re: Goodbye, Mr Roberts

Simple high school physics, namely The Third Newton Law would solve the problem here.

The next step is where your flawed physical pseudo-reality fails to predict actual outcomes. The next step is what happens after impact. This is the part where you say your nonsensical pseudo-physics, and where you are completely wrong. The real answer is that the kinetic energy overpowers the structure's ability to support that force, causing a nearly instantaneous failure, and then the mass of the upper section plus the new addition of a part of the lower section falls unto the next layer of support. However, this time they have a new starting velocity that is greater than zero because the initial impact did not reset the fall velocity to zero.

[c1ue]

Re: Goodbye, Mr Roberts

But fear not. Unsettling or not, I'm not moving in my convictions on 9/11. This analogy with Creationism (in which you take the side in the 9/11 Demolition debate analogous to the side I take in the Creation of life debate) does have one modest use however. I can see that you're quite unlike to be moving in your convictions on 9/11 either, unless you are presented with incontrovertible evidence that in your intuition must be man made (like bomb detonators or some such)

It is not intuition, it is an understanding of the massive forces involved.

To further your analogy - there are some who cannot believe that huge spans of time and chance can combine to create the diversity known as evolution. But as one who is well versed in statistics, probability, and the perversity of Murphy, evolution is quite consistent with both my understanding and experience.

Again, I don't say the nano-thermite theory is impossible, but equally I have yet to see anything which is either provable or disprovable.

Unfortunately the counterarguments to the standard explanation are equally unconvincing. Perhaps the only test is to crash another plane into a skyscraper.

From the formula alone, we know that the higher the speed, the less important of the mass's contribution to the total kinetic energy.

However, we are talking about the upper building blocks were simply falling 3 meters at initiation of collapse. The speed would be around 5.4 meter/second when upper floors impacted lower floors in our scenario.

Simple high school physics, namely The Third Newton Law would solve the problem here.

I only ask you the simple question again, which you repeatly failed to answer:

What happen when you drop a 100,000 tons 95% air-filled glass ball on to a 800,000 tons 95% air-filled glass ball, from a height of 3 meters?

Since your simple mind still cannot understand, I will restate yet again:

Assuming the above masses represent the actual weight as opposed to volume, the energy represented is not mv-squared, it is mgh.

The potential energy of an object falling is different than the kinetic energy of a moving object. The WTC building pieces were NOT moving until the collapse started, thus the energy imparted is from the conversion of gravitic potential energy.

100,000 tons = 907 kg * 100,000 = 90.7M
g = 9.8 m/s-squared
h = 3

Thus total energy gained by the 100,000 ton mass is 2.67B Newtons.

Were the WTC buildings designed for instantaneous impact resistance to 2.67B Newtons? No. No buildings are designed for this.

Once a failure occurred anywhere along the remaining structure, the energy available to further collapse the standing remnants is then greatly increased: h=3 becomes h=6 or 21, then 100, then 500 while M increases as well. Thus the energy available to cause further collapses increases. Any subsequent collapse is then easily understood to have been instantaneous since the energy of the mass falling on it was so very high.

[skyson]

Re: Goodbye, Mr Roberts

The next step is where your flawed physical pseudo-reality fails to predict actual outcomes. The next step is what happens after impact. This is the part where you say your nonsensical pseudo-physics, and where you are completely wrong. The real answer is that the kinetic energy overpowers the structure's ability to support that force, causing a nearly instantaneous failure, and then the mass of the upper section plus the new addition of a part of the lower section falls unto the next layer of support. However, this time they have a new starting velocity that is greater than zero because the initial impact did not reset the fall velocity to zero.

Again, you failed to understand the Third Newton Law.

The reverse is also true: kinetic energy overpowers the UPPER FLOOR structure's ability to support that force. So the UPPER FLOOR structure is being destroyed at the mean time when it is destroying the lower section! During a collision, you cannot ONLY focus the effects on the collided object, you have to consider the effects on the colliding object too!

I am not arguing if the upper structure could collapse part of lower structure, I am arguing that the upper floor structure is subjected to the same force, therefore it will disintegrate in the process. At the end the upper floor structure will exhaust before it totally destroy the lower floor section, because it is 5 times smaller than the lower section!

Hence, NO TOTAL COLLAPSE!

Simply put: your car cannot totally destroy a trailer truck in a normal collision! Not even when you drop your car onto the truck from the top of WTC1!;)

[skyson]

Re: Goodbye, Mr Roberts

Since your simple mind still cannot understand, I will restate yet again:

Assuming the above masses represent the actual weight as opposed to volume, the energy represented is not mv-squared, it is mgh.

The potential energy of an object falling is different than the kinetic energy of a moving object. The WTC building pieces were NOT moving until the collapse started, thus the energy imparted is from the conversion of gravitic potential energy.

100,000 tons = 907 kg * 100,000 = 90.7M
g = 9.8 m/s-squared
h = 3

Thus total energy gained by the 100,000 ton mass is 2.67B Newtons.

Were the WTC buildings designed for instantaneous impact resistance to 2.67B Newtons? No. No buildings are designed for this.

Once a failure occurred anywhere along the remaining structure, the energy available to further collapse the standing remnants is then greatly increased: h=3 becomes h=6 or 21, then 100, then 500 while M increases as well. Thus the energy available to cause further collapses increases. Any subsequent collapse is then easily understood to have been instantaneous since the energy of the mass falling on it was so very high.

Your "great" mind simply cannot understand your opponent's point of view.

Your upper floor section DID NOT remain intact all through the process. It was falling APART when it was falling! So your calculation is meaningless.

See my answer to Ghent12 in previous post.

[ThePythonicCow]

Re: Goodbye, Mr Roberts

It is not intuition, it is an understanding of the massive forces involved.

Oh, I'm sure the forces are sufficient, for some possible model of such a mass to fall somehow.

I'm pretty very sure you missed the point of my last post, and I'm pretty sure there is nothing I can do about it.

[skyson]

Re: Goodbye, Mr Roberts

The next step is where your flawed physical pseudo-reality fails to predict actual outcomes. The next step is what happens after impact. This is the part where you say your nonsensical pseudo-physics, and where you are completely wrong. The real answer is that the kinetic energy overpowers the structure's ability to support that force, causing a nearly instantaneous failure, and then the mass of the upper section plus the new addition of a part of the lower section falls unto the next layer of support. However, this time they have a new starting velocity that is greater than zero because the initial impact did not reset the fall velocity to zero.

Since your simple mind still cannot understand, I will restate yet again:

Assuming the above masses represent the actual weight as opposed to volume, the energy represented is not mv-squared, it is mgh.

The potential energy of an object falling is different than the kinetic energy of a moving object. The WTC building pieces were NOT moving until the collapse started, thus the energy imparted is from the conversion of gravitic potential energy.

100,000 tons = 907 kg * 100,000 = 90.7M
g = 9.8 m/s-squared
h = 3

Thus total energy gained by the 100,000 ton mass is 2.67B Newtons.

Were the WTC buildings designed for instantaneous impact resistance to 2.67B Newtons? No. No buildings are designed for this.

Once a failure occurred anywhere along the remaining structure, the energy available to further collapse the standing remnants is then greatly increased: h=3 becomes h=6 or 21, then 100, then 500 while M increases as well. Thus the energy available to cause further collapses increases. Any subsequent collapse is then easily understood to have been instantaneous since the energy of the mass falling on it was so very high.

Since I have a bit of time this evening, so I am going to venture into the Alice-in-wonderland world exists in your great minds a bit, and experient that physical "reality" first hand.

In that world, a falling object posses magical features:
1. It is not subjected to any force, and certainly will not be broken when it impacts with anything.
2. During its fall, if it collides with another object, it will certainly break one layer of the collided object at initail impact(*the thickness of this layer does not really matter, be it one floor, two floor, 1/4 floor, or 1 cm, 2 cm, 0.01 cm. As long as one layer breaks, then the fantacy physics logic will necessary be valid).
3. After the initial impact, the kinetic energy of the falling object will only increase, because now the falling mass =mass of falling object + mass of part/whole broken layer, and the velocity will remain or increase.

With these features in mind, lets do a mental experiement:

A guy lives on the top floor of a 100 floors apartment. He likes to exercise. One of his favorite routine is to lift his 100 pound dumb bell. One day he accidentally drops the dumb bell onto the floor. Strange things happen:

1. Dumb bell hits the concrete floor, and breaks a 0.1 cm layer of concrete.
2. Because the concrete layer is so thin, it does not slow down the falling dumb bell(*if it doese slow down, we can chang the layer to 0.01 cm, or thinner, until the slow down effect could be minimized).
3. The mass of the falling object now = dumb bell + 0.1 cm layer of concrete.
4. Kinetic energy of the falling mass increases.
5. Falling mass breaks another 0.1 cm layer of concrete.
6. Steps 3-5 repeat, until the falling mass breaks through one total concrete floor(at 100th floor).
7. Now the falling mass = dumb bell + one total floor of concrete, and the speed is equal to or faster than the speed when the dum bell hits the floor.
8. Next, falling mass will certainly have enough kinetic energy to break the concrete floor at 99th floor. Now the falling mass = dumb bell + two floor concrete, and so kinetic energy increases even more. What is gonna to stop the mass breaking the concrete floor of 98th, 97th,....2nd, 1st floors?
9. Why stop there? Now the falling mass has such high speed and mass(dumb bell + 100 concrete floors), can it break 1 meter layer of earth, without losing kinetic energy, at the mean time acquiring more mass? Of course!
10. Oh, shit! Only now our poor fitness guy realizes the disaster he created by simply dropping his dumb bell. He is desparately praying to GOD to stop the stupid falling mass, at the mean time, continue to witness the falling mass rushes to the center of the earth, AND gaining mass and speed! Total disaster!
11. Only when the falling mass passes the center of the earth, it starts to slow down, because now the FALLING MASS becomes a RISING MASS. Gravity finally works to the advantage of our poor fitness guy.
12. The rising mass eventually stops when it punches a huge hole in the earth, and rise in another side of the earth, to the height of a 100 floor building.
13. Then, it converts to a falling mass again, back to the hole it created just minutes earlier.

Oh, is this a wonderful model of perpatual machine?

What is wrong with this picture?

I have repeated many times in the other thread, that when analysing a collision of two objects, we need to treatment them equally:

You either treat the falling object and impacted object both as integrate single units, or each as a collection of components of an object.

You cannot treat the falling object as an integrate single unit, and yet consider the impacted object as a collection of components.

So when you look at the collapse of WTC1, you need to see the upper floor section and the lower floor section each as one integrate unit, or each as a collection of individual floors. In either of these cases, the upper floor section(16 floors) simply cannot TOTALLY destroy the lower floor section(94 floors), because the upper floor section is subjected to the force exerted by lower floors section and it is much small in size(1/6). This is very simple high school physics. It is the Third Newton Law.

You CANNOT see the falling upper floor section as one whole unit, yet consider the lower floors as a collection of individual floors. If you exercise this kind of physics, you COULD BREAK ANYTHING WITH ANYTHING!!!

This point, I have repeated multiple times in the other thread, and I sincerely hope that you (Ghent12/C1ue) consider it with care and respect.

Otherwise, I have no more to say.

P.S.
1. just to clarify that when the dumb bell hits the floor, the broken layer of concrete is in the shape of the dumb bell, and the huge hole it punches is in the shape of the dumb bell as well.
2. to further demonstrate the point, if the upper floor section works as some kind of "supper structure" when smashing through the lower floor section, then when it reaches the ground, what is gonna to stop the upper floor "super structure" punch a huge hole in the ground? If it breaks when impacted on the ground, then why does it not break when it impact the 94th floor of the lower section?

[ThePythonicCow]

Re: Goodbye, Mr Roberts

Oh, is this a wonderful model of perpatual machine?

Well, gosh darn.

Here I thought I was viewing a Rant & Rave thread about 9/11, but lo and behold, it turns out that skyson has solved the world's energy crisis.

Good work!

[c1ue]

Re: Goodbye, Mr Roberts

Your "great" mind simply cannot understand your opponent's point of view.

Your upper floor section DID NOT remain intact all through the process. It was falling APART when it was falling! So your calculation is meaningless.

See my answer to Ghent12 in previous post.

Your ignorance continues to amaze.

100,000 tons, whether in dust particles or a single metal block, still weighs 100,000 tons.

And that 100,000 tons will still exert the exact same amount of net force falling no matter what form it is in - unless it is so spread out that friction absorbs some of this energy (i.e. distributed evenly over a very wide area).

So whether the top levels of the WTC were one mass or several is irrelevant.

In fact it is very unlikely that these levels were in several pieces because then it assumes the failure was simultaneous at multiple levels/areas - a truly unlikely scenario.

Please stop embarrassing yourself.

So when you look at the collapse of WTC1, you need to see the upper floor section and the lower floor section each as one integrate unit, or each as a collection of individual floors. In either of these cases, the upper floor section(16 floors) simply cannot TOTALLY destroy the lower floor section(94 floors), because the upper floor section is subjected to the force exerted by lower floors section and it is much small in size(1/6). This is very simple high school physics. It is the Third Newton Law.

Again, your ignorance is truly awe-inspiring.

Even if the upper floors were in several pieces, the time between impacts is minimal.

The entire structure collapsed in less than 10 seconds.

The energy imparted by each impact is not 100% cumulative as steel has some recovery factor, but in a 1 or 3 second span is effectively cumulative.

So again, your fixation on smaller objects not being able to impart energy simply shows your ignorance of real life physics.

Hint: Both objects (WTC above collision and WTC below collision) are GIGANTIC

[skyson]

Re: Goodbye, Mr Roberts

Your ignorance continues to amaze.

100,000 tons, whether in dust particles or a single metal block, still weighs 100,000 tons.

And that 100,000 tons will still exert the exact same amount of net force falling no matter what form it is in - unless it is so spread out that friction absorbs some of this energy (i.e. distributed evenly over a very wide area).

So whether the top levels of the WTC were one mass or several is irrelevant.

In fact it is very unlikely that these levels were in several pieces because then it assumes the failure was simultaneous at multiple levels/areas - a truly unlikely scenario.

Please stop embarrassing yourself.



Again, your ignorance is truly awe-inspiring.

Even if the upper floors were in several pieces, the time between impacts is minimal.

The entire structure collapsed in less than 10 seconds.

The energy imparted by each impact is not 100% cumulative as steel has some recovery factor, but in a 1 or 3 second span is effectively cumulative.

So again, your fixation on smaller objects not being able to impart energy simply shows your ignorance of real life physics.

Hint: Both objects (WTC above collision and WTC below collision) are GIGANTIC

Your continuing ignorance is simply beyond comprehesion.

It is not about how big the upper section is, it is about how big it is comparing with the lower section.

You are telling the world that the the Newton Laws only apply to small objects, and once the objects reach the size of WTC, then they work differently.

You appear as winning a debating war in your own ignorant mind, yet you have just lost all respect from me, and possibly others viewing this thread.

Good bye.

[vinoveri]

Re: Goodbye, Mr Roberts

(I'm a long standing atheist

I'm sorry to understand this my friend, and would ask, with great respect, that you, an obviously thoughtful and deep-thinking individual, not close your mind to God. Perhaps I misinterpret your comment, but good-faith agnosticism is very different from atheism. One who seeks the truth, cannot, IMO, definitively place God's nonexistence in the truth column.

so may well not be presenting their case fairly) is that the Creationists are saying that the many varied life forms they see about us are too complicated to be the result of simple natural selection of random variants.

I am a "creationist" by definition b/c I believe in a Creator, but I do not take much interest in the "Creationist debate". There is little in the basic theory of evolution that I find objectionable. What is troubling is the apparent, and unwarranted inference by some of the atheist crown, that the validity of evolutionary theory somehow calls into question or raises doubts regarding God's existence, and sovereignty over the universe.

When I learned about the basic tenets of the theory of evolution in high school, long before I joined the theist camp in earnest, my first thought of concept of natural selection in conjunction with "random mutation" was that the random mutation could easily and justifiably viewed as the hand of God. Granted this may seem quite simplistic, but to this day I have not heard any satisfactory refutation of this view, save for materialistic dogma.


There are 2 kinds of men according to GK Chesterton; those with dogmas who know they have dogmas, and those with dogmas who think they are without dogmas (many atheist I run into fall into this second category).

[Serge_Tomiko]

Re: Goodbye, Mr Roberts

It would seem maybe a really rich person can perform an experiment where he

1) constructs a tower identical to one of the WTC towers

2) flies a 747 into one of them

3) observe results

I figure this would cost about $1.5B. Chump change for someone like Bill Gates. Maybe he would like to settle this for us?

[ThePythonicCow]

Re: Goodbye, Mr Roberts

I'm sorry to understand this my friend ...

I am as delighted with and confident of my understanding of such matters as I trust you are with yours. Fret not.

P.S. -- Understand however that I find the proclamations of most of the more public atheists of our time to be more objectionable than the proclamations of most religious leaders. What passes for atheism these days is regrettably anti-spiritual.

[radon]

Re: Goodbye, Mr Roberts

It would seem maybe a really rich person can perform an experiment where he

1) constructs a tower identical to one of the WTC towers

2) flies a 747 into one of them

3) observe results

I figure this would cost about $1.5B. Chump change for someone like Bill Gates. Maybe he would like to settle this for us?

Or maybe we could find many examples of modern steel and concrete skyscrapers falling down from fire damage alone, learn why it occurs so frequently, and alter new construction to prevent it.