WTC collapses - Layman's terms again

[bill smith]

I like how the mass of the crunched floors disappears magically. Or is it gravity that stops working?

The top was a shattered wreck that could provide little coherent force on the lower and rock solid section. A rain of dust and pebbles does not have the impact of a solid block Oystein.

 

[Oystein]

The top was a shattered wreck that could provide little coherent force on the lower and rock solid section. A rain of dust and pebbles does not have the impact of a solid block Oystein.

I am too lazy to search it now, but a short while ago, someone showed a video of a car that gets wrecked by dumping a load of water on it.

The "solid block" was 95% air.
The "rain of dust and pebbles" was a lot less air and a lot more steel and concrete.

 

[bill smith]

I am too lazy to search it now, but a short while ago, someone showed a video of a car that gets wrecked by dumping a load of water on it.

The "solid block" was 95% air.
The "rain of dust and pebbles" was a lot less air and a lot more steel and concrete.

A solid mass of water Oystein. Not rain. Water is pretty heavy you know. But individual raindrops are neither here nor there.

 

[Oystein]

A solid mass of water Oystein. Not rain. Water is pretty heavy you know. But individual raindrops are neither here nor there.

The "solid block" was 95% air.
The "rain of dust and pebbles" was a lot less air and a lot more steel and concrete.

 

[bill smith]

The "solid block" was 95% air.
The "rain of dust and pebbles" was a lot less air and a lot more steel and concrete.

The upper block was even more than 95% air considering that the dimensions of the steel were somewhat less less than in the lower section.Even the steel was a jumbled mass raining down and providing little coherent force.

 

[Oystein]

The upper block was even more than 95% air considering that the dimensions of the steel were somewhat less less than in the lower section.Even the steel was a jumbled mass raining down and providing little coherent force.

Whatever - this makes your previous few posts even more wrong.

At 95% air, the "solid" building has a density that is about 1/6th that of water: 0.17kg/l

Heavy rain becomes violent rain at 50 liters per square meter per hour. It would fall at at least 2m/s, or 7200m/h. Soooo that's 50 liters of heavy rain spread over an area of 1m² and a length of 7200m has a density of 50kg/7200m³ = 0.0069kg/m³ or 0.0000069kg/l. Add that to average density of air which is 1.2kg/m³ = 0.0012kg/l, and we find that rain is a whopping 0.5% denser than pure air!

Water of course has a density of 1kg/l

Compressed office building floors would lose most of their air - let's say they are 50% by volume air, 50% solids. Then the density would jump to 1.7kg/l

Let us summarize the density of the four materials we looked at so far:

• Water in the form of rain: 0.0012069 kg/l
• "Solid" (undamaged) building: 0.17 kg/l
• Water in the form of just water: 1.0 kg/l
• Crushed buildiung: 1.7kg/l

It follows that that the "rain of dust and pebbles" is the most destructive mass, pure water comes close behind, the "solid block" of building only third with a considerable distance, and rain far far behind.

We learn: Bill's comparisons are totally off the mark.

 

[TheRedWorm]

No. The twin towers were not a block of wood. Think of it this way: Have you ever seen someone break a stack of boards? Ever notice how there is always a space between the boards? Why do you think that is?

Yo, bill!

 

[bill smith]

Whatever - this makes your previous few posts even more wrong.

At 95% air, the "solid" building has a density that is about 1/6th that of water: 0.17kg/l

Heavy rain becomes violent rain at 50 liters per square meter per hour. It would fall at at least 2m/s, or 7200m/h. Soooo that's 50 liters of heavy rain spread over an area of 1m² and a length of 7200m has a density of 50kg/7200m³ = 0.0069kg/m³ or 0.0000069kg/l. Add that to average density of air which is 1.2kg/m³ = 0.0012kg/l, and we find that rain is a whopping 0.5% denser than pure air!

Water of course has a density of 1kg/l

Compressed office building floors would lose most of their air - let's say they are 50% by volume air, 50% solids. Then the density would jump to 1.7kg/l

Let us summarize the density of the four materials we looked at so far:

• Water in the form of rain: 0.0012069 kg/l
• "Solid" (undamaged) building: 0.17 kg/l
• Water in the form of just water: 1.0 kg/l
• Crushed buildiung: 1.7kg/l

It follows that that the "rain of dust and pebbles" is the most destructive mass, pure water comes close behind, the "solid block" of building only third with a considerable distance, and rain far far behind.

We learn: Bill's comparisons are totally off the mark.

I'm sure some people will find that very interesting. I like to keep it simple and clear. Loose rubble will behave much like a liquid. It will tend to run over and around obstacles in it's path. For instance if you drop a bag of nails onto something it has one effect but if you pour the loose nails onto the same object it does not apply anything like the same coherent force in falling, and will run over and around obstacles and spill off the edges where possible as we saw in the case of the Towers.

 

[Animal]

The upper block was even more than 95% air considering that the dimensions of the steel were somewhat less less than in the lower section.Even the steel was a jumbled mass raining down and providing little coherent force.

Little coherent force? Try dumping a truck load of gravel on a 1/4" sheet of plywood that is supported at its fours corners and see what happens.

Gravity - a matter of science in which troofers remain willfully ignorant.

 

[Animal]

I'm sure some people will find that very interesting. I like to keep it simple and clear. Loose rubble will behave much like a liquid. It will tend to run over and around obstacles in it's path. For instance if you drop a bag of nails onto something it has one effect but if you pour the loose nails onto the same object it does not apply anything like the same coherent force in falling, and will run over and around obstacles and spill of the edges where possible as we saw in the case of the Towers.

Which is nothing like a liquid.

Try learning something about gravity before trying to delve into fluid mechanics.

 

[bill smith]

Little coherent force? Try dumping a truck load of gravel on a 1/4" sheet of plywood that is supported at its fours corners and see what happens.

Gravity - a matter of science in which troofers remain willfully ignorant.

And what about the massive support that the plywood has over 60% of it's area in the middle ?

 

[Oystein]

I'm sure some people will find that very interesting. I like to keep it simple and clear. Loose rubble will behave much like a liquid. It will tend to run over and around obstacles in it's path.

Like I said, drop a large bucket (well, 500kg or so...) of water on a car, and you will crush it. And only then will it run around the car.

For instance if you drop a bag of nails onto something it has one effect but if you pour the loose nails onto the same object it does not apply anything like the same coherent force in falling, and will run over and around obstacles and spill off the edges where possible as we saw in the case of the Towers.

No. They will have the exact same mass, velocity, energy and momentum, and will transfer exactly the same amount of momentum and energy.

You are trying to appeal to what you believe is common sense, but the hard physics, and experiment, prove you wrong. The problem is, that common sense must fail us when evaluating such great masses and energies as were available in these huge buildings. No one has any personal experience with that.

 

[bill smith]

And what about the massive support that the plywood has over 60% of it's area in the middle ?

Thanks animal. Could be a great analogy this.

 

[Oystein]

And what about the massive support that the plywood has over 60% of it's area in the middle ?

That was designed for the "solid box" before its destruction, and totally and easily overwhelmed once the supported masses did no longer attack columns head on, but floors etc.

Core columns were not 60% of the area. Not close.

 

[bill smith]

Like I said, drop a large bucket (well, 500kg or so...) of water on a car, and you will crush it. And only then will it run around the car.



No. They will have the exact same mass, velocity, energy and momentum, and will transfer exactly the same amount of momentum and energy.

You are trying to appeal to what you believe is common sense, but the hard physics, and experiment, prove you wrong. The problem is, that common sense must fail us when evaluating such great masses and energies as were available in these huge buildings. No one has any personal experience with that.

Readers should ask themselves whether they would lprefer to have a sack of sand dropped on their head or whether it would be less painful to have the same sack of sand poured over their head.

This is an interesting comment Oystein,,

''No,They will have the exact same mass, velocity, energy and momentum, and will transfer exactly the same amount of momentum and energy.''

...The individual nails will..one by one..

I think I will rename you 'devious Oystein'.

 

[sheeplesnshills]

And what about the massive support that the plywood has over 60% of it's area in the middle ?

???? the floor trusses only had small support brackets at either end and they were only designed for 3X the static floor load. The core column strength would play little if any part once the top started moving down.

The core columns could have been infinitely strong and it would have done nothing to keep the floors from falling and the outer columns coming apart.

 

[sheeplesnshills]

Duplicate

 

[ElMondoHummus]

???? the floor trusses only had small support brackets at either end and they were only designed for 3X the static floor load. The core column strength would play little if any part once the top started moving down.

The core columns could have been infinitely strong and it would have done nothing to keep the floors from falling and the outer columns coming apart.

LOL... this was such an important point, it had to be said twice.

Of course, it's been said several hundred times to truthers already, yet they still insist on framing the issue incorrectly. The columns strength is not the factor to consider here; the floor truss to column connectors strengths are. And why truthers fail time after time to accept this basic fact is beyond me, but they do it. They go on and on about "path of least resistence", yet they don't actually look and see what that path is.

Ignoring the fact that the column's cross section is but a meager presentation to the falling upper mass vs. the overall floor area, the columns strength is the less important factor than the floor-to-column connectors ones. Without considering that, truthers aren't considering the real-world issues involved in the collapse. It's that simple.

 

[sheeplesnshills]

The top was a shattered wreck that could provide little coherent force on the lower and rock solid section. A rain of dust and pebbles does not have the impact of a solid block Oystein.

Debris would fall mostly into the gap between the inner and outer columns, which would acts a walls to keep the vast majority in and even if applied in a slow "drizzle" would still sooner or later cause the floor to fail and drop onto the floor below....once even one floor fails and falls onto the one below the process is unstoppable and happens with increasing rapidity so that after the first couple of floors the mass is moving so fast that the floor supports would simply bend or shear off instantly

The exterior columns are now no longer adequately braced and the joints between the section fail as the weight above buckles them and the mass of debris pushes out and inwards. The core does the best but it is too slender to stand on it own and many of its columns are damaged by falling debris and then they buckle or the joints fail and the core follows the rest down.

To an engineer (like me) this is simple to visualize and understand. Perhaps it is less so to the less gifted.........

 

[Animal]

And what about the massive support that the plywood has over 60% of it's area in the middle ?

No "massive support" in the center, one corner support would be representative of a core column connect.

Once again troofers cannot grasp even the simplest of concepts.