Re: Goodbye, Mr Roberts
Well you're right, he made no mention whatsoever of energy. He did, however, rule that the force involved as insufficient to cause what was witnessed, based on the analysis of the paper. He has insufficient basis to rule out anything based on his analysis.
Using his analysis, an acceleration of -9.81 m/s2 would mean zero force was applied to a structure and an acceleration of 0.00 m/s2 would mean that 100% of the normal force is applied to the structure. Additionally, an acceleration of some positive number (falling upwards) is the only possible way to achieve a greater-than-Normal force on the structure. Since the "force exerted by the falling mass could not have caused the violent destruction," that obviously means the only way for the building to suffer any damage would be if it flew up into the lower section as they impacted. That's Chandler's view.
Just think logically and try to piece the things together; so long as the acceleration is less than gravity of a collapsing building, it is completely impossible that it is suffering a collapse unless there's a controlled demolition according to this puerile analysis. Any acceleration less than gravity would mean a less-than-Normal force applied upon impact, according to this puerile analysis.
Or think of it another way: the only way for Chandler to conclude that the force was sufficient to cause failure under a no-safety-factor condition would be if the acceleration was zero meaning no collapse, and the only way to account for the safety factor would be if the destruction occurred accelerating in the reverse direction of gravity by n-1 times the acceleration of gravity, where n is the safety factor, as that's the only way to achieve a force greater than the normal force applied to the lower section using this absolutely asinine approach.
Just face reality, ffs. For someone supposedly seeking "Truth" you sure seem to vehemently deny the existence of physical truths (i.e. energy, material properties, etc.). Maybe Isaac Newton was CIA?
Originally posted by ThePythonicCow
View Post
Originally posted by Summary of Chandler's 'analysis'
Just think logically and try to piece the things together; so long as the acceleration is less than gravity of a collapsing building, it is completely impossible that it is suffering a collapse unless there's a controlled demolition according to this puerile analysis. Any acceleration less than gravity would mean a less-than-Normal force applied upon impact, according to this puerile analysis.
Or think of it another way: the only way for Chandler to conclude that the force was sufficient to cause failure under a no-safety-factor condition would be if the acceleration was zero meaning no collapse, and the only way to account for the safety factor would be if the destruction occurred accelerating in the reverse direction of gravity by n-1 times the acceleration of gravity, where n is the safety factor, as that's the only way to achieve a force greater than the normal force applied to the lower section using this absolutely asinine approach.
Just face reality, ffs. For someone supposedly seeking "Truth" you sure seem to vehemently deny the existence of physical truths (i.e. energy, material properties, etc.). Maybe Isaac Newton was CIA?
Comment