9/11

[Figleaf]

The path of least resistance is straight down through the building. Once the mass starts to move down the structure below it is like tinfoil and collapses immediately. Tipping requires a pivot point that can exert a huge force on the building - with no pivot point the building must fall straight down.

1. Even tinfoil provides more resistance than air.

2. The pivot point(s) are at the P's in this diagram:

Key-

t: top

f: floor

g: ground

W: surviving perimeter support

Ptttttttttttt

W

W

W

Pffffffffffff

W

W

W

Pffffffffffff

W

W

W

gggggggg

[Riverwind]

1. Even tinfoil provides more resistance than air.

Not if a mass has to move sideways to go through the air. Gravity wants to pull the structure straight down. It takes a lot of energy to get the structure to move/rotate sideways. You need something that can extert a lot of force on the building other than gravity.

2. The pivot point(s) are at the P's in this diagram:

You are assuming the pivot points can support the weight of the building while rotation accelerates. If they cannot then you will not see any significant rotation. You might see a slight rotation because it takes time for the pivots to collapse but once they are gone the downward momentum will soon exceed any rotational momentum.

[GostHacked]

The entire load shifts to leg #4 as soon as #2 & #3 collapse. This will cause 4 to collapse immediately

If 2 and 3 become pivitol focal points, then the stress on leg 4 would be a negative. And since leg 1 was not there to take up the slack, #4 can easily be lift off the ground by applying some downward force on the table where leg 1 used to be.

So anyways, 2, 3 become focal points. The top portion of the building would tip to where there was the least support. 4 on WTC 2 would have had a streching effect

[Riverwind]

If 2 and 3 become pivitol focal points, then the stress on leg 4 would be a negative. And since leg 1 was not there to take up the slack, #4 can easily be lift off the ground by applying some downward force on the table where leg 1 used to be

Not if #4 is attached to the ground. In that situation there would be some complex forces that would cause #4 to bend but the entire weight would have to shift to leg #4 first.

Think about it: it is a ridgid structure attached to the ground. The _only_ way it could rotate is if the connection between the ground and the leg or between the leg and the top broke. This could happen with some structures but before any breaking occurred the structure would be at rest. This means the normal force exterted on #4 _must_ be equal to the weight of the load. With this structure supporting the entire load means leg #4 would collapse _before_ the one of the connections could be broken which, in turn, this means the table top would fall _straight_ down.

[PolyNewbie]

Riverwind:Once the mass starts to move down the structure below it is like tinfoil and collapses immediately.

Once the mass starts moving the rest of the building is still like structural steel not tinfoil. You have not made a single correct scientific statement on any of these 911 threads except for the fact that you got the solution right to that equation I gave you. Everything else scientific that you have stated has been all wrong. Every explantion about the behaviour of structures has been completely wrong from start to finish - every single aspect. A person cannot be wrong this often without trying to be.

You are doing this purposefully to ruin the thread and prevent anyone from seeing the actual proof in terms of structural engineers, mathemeticians and scientists that think 911 was an inside job or the fact that anyone who comes out publically and makes this statement loses their job.

911 Patriots

Riverwind:In that situation there would be some complex forces that would cause #4 to bend but the entire weight would have to shift to leg #4 first.

No (again). The table would start to move. Leg #4 would not initially prevent the table from moving at first and then change its mind and allow the table to move because leg #4 doesn't have a mind.

[Riverwind]

Once the mass starts moving the rest of the building is still like structural steel not tinfoil.

Structural steel that would fall apart like tin foil when the mass of the top of the building collides with it.

You are doing this purposefully to ruin the thread and prevent anyone from seeing the actual proof in terms of structural engineers, mathematicians and scientists that think 911 was an inside job or the fact that anyone who comes out publicly and makes this statement loses their job.

I am trying to inject some sanity into this discussion. Every claim that you make is an unsubstantiated assumption and/or wishful thinking - but you insist on calling these claims 'proofs'.

Incidently, GostHacked and Figleaf don't claim to be engineers yet they have demonstrated that they understand science better than you by providing substantive technical counter arguments. I don't agree with their arguments but I appreciate the fact they are addressing the argument and not the person.

No (again). The table would start to move. Leg #4 would not initially prevent the table from moving at first and then change its mind and allow the table to move because leg #4 doesn't have a mind.

Leg 4 is attached to the ground and attached to the table top. The table top cannot move unless it breaks one of those attachments. Until something breaks there is no motion which means Leg 4 _must_ support the entire weight of the table.

[PolyNewbie]

Riverwind:Until something breaks there is no motion which means Leg 4 _must_ support the entire weight of the table.

You didn't study this in school - or if you did you didn't pass. The table starts to move as soon as the other three legs are broken - it starts to move slowly and accelerates but this happens immediately. There is a period of time required for it to build up enough speed before you notice - it does not momentarily stay still and then decide to move.

[kuzadd]

Well, it's more like if there was a shooting broadcast on live television. Afterward, a group of people claimed that the bullets really didn't kill the person. Instead they claimed that he was killed by an unseen government killer who injected him with poison that couldn't be detected after death. They called their version of the event the "truth."

In any event, that's it. I know I've said it before, but I'm finished with this nonsense. The "cult of the 9/11 truth" can have the forum.

stignasty: again what a nonsensical analogy.

is what we see on t.v a realistic eyewitnessing of an event as opposed to people who were physically present??

I cannot believe you, I really can't!

So hundreds of witnesses, and our minute snaps of t.v viewing supercede that, OMG.

I simply cannot believe you, nor your thought process, that you would even say that.? Or think that is realistic?

What we saw on t.v. was filtered, cut, editted for time, we couldn't possibly hear anything , feel anything, etc.,

But the combination of hundreds of eye/ear witnesses give us a much better picture of the reality.

Here, I will present your assumption in another manner.

Let's use your accounting, of witnessing a shooting on t.v.

You see only what the camera shows you. That's all you see.

Someone present, physically present, see's the murder, the background, the lead-up, the setting, the surroundings, the before, the after, the smells, the sounds, etc., etc.,You would be privy to none of that.

You see,only what the camera sees.

But I guess, in your logic, that makes you, the superior witness to this crime and by extension 9/11.

flawed, flawed thinking.

[Charles Anthony]

You know, RiverWind, I just want to say thank you again. I really am torn between whether this is feeding or trolling and where it belongs vis a vis this whole forum. I follow some of these threads in a wrestlemania sort of way -- ultimately, it never ends until one of the producers of the show gives a cue to end it.

As much as I WANT to believe that the towers were rigged, it becomes simpler and simpler for me visualize the physics behind them falling down solely as a result of the two planes.

The first thing that did it for me was recognizing that the buildings started to collapse at the points of impact. That really was sufficient.

However, now there is this:

Not if #4 is attached to the ground. In that situation there would be some complex forces that would cause #4 to bend but the entire weight would have to shift to leg #4 first.

Think about it: it is a ridgid structure attached to the ground. The _only_ way it could rotate is if the connection between the ground and the leg or between the leg and the top broke.

which pulverizes (permit the pun) any doubt in my mind of the possibility.

I am trying to inject some sanity into this discussion. Every claim that you make is an unsubstantiated assumption and/or wishful thinking - but you insist on calling these claims 'proofs'.

Maybe try a different line of attack.

I do not have any link or reference but I remember a long time ago seeing a scientific examination of why it was physiologically impossible to have a giant the size of Gulliver if the Lilliputians were normal-sized humans. Our bones could not withstand gravity and be able to move at the same time.

[PolyNewbie]

Riverwind:I don't agree with their arguments but I appreciate the fact they are addressing the argument and not the person.

Science is not about opinions and don't care what yours is on any matter. People should save their opinions for political science, english literature and philosophy. Opinions do not matter in physics & math.

Their arguements are essentially correct but not stated in the normal terms. Your arguemnts are just completely wrong. You have less than zero knowledge because you are always completely 100 % wrong yet always pass yourself off as some kind of authority that should not be questioned.

[Riverwind]

The table starts to move as soon as the other three legs are broken - it starts to move slowly and accelerates but this happens immediately.

The table top cannot move until the either connection between the ground and the leg or between the leg and the table top is broken. Breaking those connections takes time which means the table will be stationary and supported entirely by Leg 4. I don't see how you can deny this - it is pretty basic physics.

[PolyNewbie]

Charles Anthony:As much as I WANT to believe that the towers were rigged, it becomes simpler and simpler for me visualize the physics behind them falling down solely as a result of the two planes.

You cannot visualize science. It takes a half semester of hard work to understand this simple mechanics. It can be the most difficult aspect of an entire science degree. You should understand science before you decide rather than simply choose a side based on feelings or what your imagination is telling you. No one wants to believe the US government destroyed the buildings - not even you.

Riverwind is doing nothing but destroy a thread using absolute nonsense emanating from his own imagination. Personally I wish he would go away - I feel like I am playing the role of a janitor in a kids school bathroom on this thread.

[Charles Anthony]

You cannot visualize science.

I can. You can not.

[PolyNewbie]

Riverwind:I don't see how you can deny this - it is pretty basic physics.

If you have a table with the leg glued to the floor it is an entirely different situation than if it is not fixed. If the leg glued to the floor can support the weight of the table it will, if it cannot it will not and it will never bear the weight of the table. The table will start to move immediately due to the mass of the table. The leg will bend or the glue will fail (or whatever) will begin to happen immediately. there is no time lag.

That situation is much more complex that how you present it and your presentation and analysis is almost irrelevant.

My explantions assumed the leg was not glued to the floor. The wtc buildings are not rigid so its a bad analogy (not surprising).

[PolyNewbie]

Charles Anthony: I can. You can not.

What does a force look like in your imagination ?

[Charles Anthony]

What does a force look like in your imagination ?

Nothing.

I have no imagination.

[PolyNewbie]

What does a force look like when you visualize it then ?

[PolyNewbie]

Riverwind:Every claim that you make is an unsubstantiated assumption and/or wishful thinking - but you insist on calling these claims 'proofs'.

I don't call them proofs. The only thing I have proven is your incompetence and I have used your quotes to do it. Here they are again: (I show only 2 out of five to save space)

Riverwind: "The laws of Thermodynamics only apply to closed systems."

The laws of thermodynamics apply to all science everywhere and have for all time, long before humans or the idea of a "closed system" even evolved

Riverwind: "Themodynamics has nothing to do with building collapses."

Thermodynamics has everything to do with everything - even biological processes. If a scientific explanation breaks the laws of thermodynamics than that explanation has to be wrong.

Its hard to "prove" things so simple but what has been proven with the above statements is your total lack of scientific understanding as a whole and therefore your explanations are the ravings of a fool.

[PolyNewbie]

Charles Anthony:I do not have any link or reference but I remember a long time ago seeing a scientific examination of why it was physiologically impossible to have a giant the size of Gulliver if the Lilliputians were normal-sized humans. Our bones could not withstand gravity and be able to move at the same time.

Thats because mass is proportional to volume (a cube) and strength is proportional to area (a square). Its irrelevant here.

[Riverwind]

If the leg glued to the floor can support the weight of the table it will, if it cannot it will not and it will never bear the weight of the table.

It has too. The structure is physically constrained so it _cannot_ move until something breaks. If the structure is not in motion then the normal force from the leg must equal the weight of the table.

The leg will bend immediately. there is no time lag.

Every physical action requires a finite amount of time. There will be a time lag between legs 2 & 3 collapsing and the next event. This time lag may be very short but there will be a time lag. During this time one of three things could happen:

1) The connection between the top and the leg breaks;

2) The connection between the leg and the ground breaks;

3) The leg collapses.

What exactly happens depends on the phsycial properties of the table and the connections. In my example, the leg would collapse first which means the table would fall straight down.

My explantions assumed the leg was not glued to the floor.

Here is what I orginally wrote:

Consider a table with four legs that is supporting a 1000kg mass. Assume the following:

1) The gravitation constant is 10 (i.e. 1000kg requires a 10000N force to keep it stable)

2) Each leg can support 4000N - if the force exceeds this it will collapse.

3) Each leg is attached to the ground and the table top is rigid.

I was pretty clear - and you cut and pasted that text many times.

Does that mean you don't read arguments before you pronounce them 'wrong'?

[Riverwind]

The laws of thermodynamics apply to all science everywhere and have for all time, long before humans or the idea of a "closed system" even evolved

Here is the definition of the laws of thermodynamics from Wikipedia. It is the similar to what you would find in any textbook:

First law of thermodynamics, about the conservation of energy

The change in the internal energy of a closed thermodynamic system is equal to the sum of the amount of heat energy supplied to the system and the work done on the system.

Second law of thermodynamics, about entropy

The total entropy of any isolated thermodynamic system tends to increase over time, approaching a maximum value.

These definitions clearly indicate that the laws _only_ apply to closed/isolated systems.

Thermodynamics has everything to do with everything - even biological processes. If a scientific explanation breaks the laws of thermodynamics than that explanation has to be wrong.

Thermodynamics is a _analysis tool_ that helps us understand how some kinds of systems work. It is not a useful tool for analyzing building collapses because you do not have a closed system. Using thermodynamics to explain building collapses is like using a hammer to sink a screw.

[PolyNewbie]

Riverwind:These definitions clearly indicate that the laws _only_ apply to closed/isolated systems.

Thats because its wikipedia. Not exactly the best source - anyone can put whatever they want in there.

To do a thermodynamics analysis based on the first or second law one must have a defined system which is defined within a boundary. But systems have obeyed the laws of thermo before algegra was even invented. Boundraies can be drawn arbitrarily so do not form part of a definition.

Riverwind:It is not a useful tool for analyzing building collapses because you do not have a closed system. Using thermodynamics to explain building collapses is like using a hammer to sink a screw.

I have used thermodynamics to analyse electrical circuits since my first few assignments in circuit theory. Hoffman, Jones, etc must all be wrong when they talk about the laws of thermodynamics in the context of building collapses then.

You do not have to have a closed system - just a defined boundary.

[PolyNewbie]

Riverwind:Does that mean you don't read arguments before you pronounce them 'wrong'?

No, it means that I already know you are wrong when you introduce an unecessary and irrelevant variable such as time. Force diagrams never have time as one of the variables.

Buildings collapsing, etc are not discrete processes and it does not take "time" for something to "decide" that its going to fail.

You bringing time into it shows that you have no real understanding.

Riverwind:Every physical action requires a finite amount of time.

Yes, but systems do not wait a certain time before something begins to occur.

[GostHacked]

If 2 and 3 become pivitol focal points, then the stress on leg 4 would be a negative. And since leg 1 was not there to take up the slack, #4 can easily be lift off the ground by applying some downward force on the table where leg 1 used to be

Not if #4 is attached to the ground. In that situation there would be some complex forces that would cause #4 to bend but the entire weight would have to shift to leg #4 first.

Think about it: it is a ridgid structure attached to the ground. The _only_ way it could rotate is if the connection between the ground and the leg or between the leg and the top broke. This could happen with some structures but before any breaking occurred the structure would be at rest. This means the normal force exterted on #4 _must_ be equal to the weight of the load. With this structure supporting the entire load means leg #4 would collapse _before_ the one of the connections could be broken which, in turn, this means the table top would fall _straight_ down.

If 2 and 3 acted as pivot points, I cannot see this. There would be a negative stress on the 4th corner. If that was the case, then the top part of WTC 2 should have fallen first the other way, But we saw the building buckle and the top portion tipped towards the side of the building where there was the least support.

If you are pushing straight down in the middle of this square table, it makes sense to me you are putting more preassure on 2 and 3 to support the load.

The only way your analogy works (ok I am no physicit) is if the exoskeleton was made of rubber. #1 snapped, so the contraction would work on 4 to pull the building down towards 4. But again, it went the other way.

[PolyNewbie]

Riverwind:The _only_ way it could rotate is if the connection between the ground and the leg or between the leg and the top broke.

Nope (again). Steel bends and so does wood.