65 of 65
65
Physics & Skyscrapers
Posted: 02 July 2017 10:29 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 961 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2751
Joined  2007-07-05
Write4U - 01 July 2017 05:46 PM

[quite]Take this example of the Tower of Pizza. It has gradually increased its lean over centuries, but how long do you think it will take the tower to fall when its limit of balance is reached.  I would guess less than 10 seconds.

The Leaning Tower of Pisa is 186 ft tall.  One of the Twin Tower was wider than that thing was tall.  The towers were almost SEVEN TIMES as tall as they were wide.

Even if the Tower of PISA fell over, it would be falling through mere air offering almost no resistance.

The whole point of what I have been saying is that the top of the north tower would be falling into the structure that held it up not essentially empty space.

People who BELIEVE things don’t ANALYZE things, or at least come up with analyses that are absurd.

psik

 Signature 

Physics is Phutile
Fiziks is Fundamental
Since 9/11 Physics has been History

Profile
 
 
Posted: 02 July 2017 10:43 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 962 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2751
Joined  2007-07-05
DougC - 02 July 2017 09:25 AM

There is no problem there, the thousands of tons of steel and metal in the floors above the impact and fire sites on the two towers were constantly under a 9.8 m/s^2 acceleration towards the Earth center, they weren’t in freefall.

You seem to have a semantic problem.  Force and acceleration are not the same thing.  A mass can fall at that acceleration only if Earth gravity is the ONLY NET FORCE APPLIED.

I brought up the Conservation of Momentum because I know that would be another factor.

So the north tower coming down in less than 30 seconds is still too fast, but what engineering school has explained that?

psik

 Signature 

Physics is Phutile
Fiziks is Fundamental
Since 9/11 Physics has been History

Profile
 
 
Posted: 02 July 2017 11:51 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 963 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  855
Joined  2016-01-24
psikeyhackr - 02 July 2017 10:43 AM
DougC - 02 July 2017 09:25 AM

There is no problem there, the thousands of tons of steel and metal in the floors above the impact and fire sites on the two towers were constantly under a 9.8 m/s^2 acceleration towards the Earth center, they weren’t in freefall.

You seem to have a semantic problem.  Force and acceleration are not the same thing.  A mass can fall at that acceleration only if Earth gravity is the ONLY NET FORCE APPLIED.

I brought up the Conservation of Momentum because I know that would be another factor.

So the north tower coming down in less than 30 seconds is still too fast, but what engineering school has explained that?

psik

I never said they were the same thing, the only problems with semantics here is on your end.

conservation of momentum states that that the momentum of a system will remain the same if there are no external forces acting on the system. In the case of the twin towers they were under constant acceleration towards the Earth’s center at 9.8 m/s^2 as is everything at the Earth’s surface. They needed very strong supports to remain upright and when those supports were removed they accelerated towards the ground at 9.8 m/s^2.

You have offered nothing to back up your claims that this acceleration was “still too fast”.

As you have nothing but your bias to present here this is done as far as I’m concerned, I’m not going to waste a second more trying to explain basic physics to someone who simply refuses to listen to anything but their own bias.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 02 July 2017 01:11 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 964 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4109
Joined  2014-06-20
psikeyhackr - 02 July 2017 10:29 AM
Write4U - 01 July 2017 05:46 PM

[quite]Take this example of the Tower of Pizza. It has gradually increased its lean over centuries, but how long do you think it will take the tower to fall when its limit of balance is reached.  I would guess less than 10 seconds.

The Leaning Tower of Pisa is 186 ft tall.  One of the Twin Tower was wider than that thing was tall.  The towers were almost SEVEN TIMES as tall as they were wide.

Even if the Tower of PISA fell over, it would be falling through mere air offering almost no resistance.

The whole point of what I have been saying is that the top of the north tower would be falling into the structure that held it up not essentially empty space.

People who BELIEVE things don’t ANALYZE things, or at least come up with analyses that are absurd.

psik

But YOUR analysis is perfectly correct, right?

 Signature 

[color=red“Nothing is so good as it seems beforehand.”
― George Eliot, Silas Marner[/color]

Profile
 
 
Posted: 02 July 2017 02:57 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 965 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  855
Joined  2016-01-24
psikeyhackr - 02 July 2017 10:29 AM
Write4U - 01 July 2017 05:46 PM

[quite]Take this example of the Tower of Pizza. It has gradually increased its lean over centuries, but how long do you think it will take the tower to fall when its limit of balance is reached.  I would guess less than 10 seconds.

The Leaning Tower of Pisa is 186 ft tall.  One of the Twin Tower was wider than that thing was tall.  The towers were almost SEVEN TIMES as tall as they were wide.

Even if the Tower of PISA fell over, it would be falling through mere air offering almost no resistance.

The whole point of what I have been saying is that the top of the north tower would be falling into the structure that held it up not essentially empty space.

People who BELIEVE things don’t ANALYZE things, or at least come up with analyses that are absurd.

psik

You’re the one who introduced the totally irrelevant point of how long the towers were standing before they failed, the Pisa tower analogy was introduced to show how irrelevant that was so don’t complain about what others are presenting to refute your endless conspiracy based BS.

So what if the Pisa tower was falling through mere air, it would only be about 1/3 of the mass of the top of towers that fell onto the structure below, which means that there was much more force being applied downward on the towers than the Pisa tower could ever apply. And the entire tower didn’t fail at once, it was a cascade effect as each section failed as the immense force of tens of thousands of tons of steel and stone impacted from above.

No, the whole point of everything you say here is you either don’t understand the physics or you don’t care and this is just trolling excitement for you, given your user name I’m guessing the second. What better way for a pesky hacker to get their jollies is playing mental games over one of the worst tragedies in American history.

You’re not analyzing anything, you make unsupported assumptions such as the towers fell faster than they should WITH NO EVIDENCE then inflate that into some deep conspiracy over how it had to be something else that brought the tower down.

You misrepresent the nature of the damage that would have initially been done, the massive airliners impacting the buildings would have acted like the biggest shotgun blast in history not fuel air bombs, then set up a chain of events that eventually brought the towers down.

Or in your scenario a mechanism not identified and almost certainly unprovable was responsible allowing you to spout your nonsense endlessly.

Pesky hacker says it all… and it’s us getting hacked here for your entertainment.

[ Edited: 02 July 2017 05:05 PM by DougC ]
Profile
 
 
   
65 of 65
65