Outside energy had to be introduced for the twin towers to collapse the way they did

Originally posted by Bob Sholtzyour analogies purposely ignore an important caveat, big thing versus small thing made of similar materials with similar durability. the twin towers also had equal surface area when the top impacted the bottom.

Do you not realize how silly you're being with your own analogies?

www.fallacyfiles.org...

"Some arguments from analogy are based on analogies that are so weak that the argument is too weak for the purpose to which it is put. How strong an argument needs to be depends upon the context in which it occurs, and the use that it is intended to serve."

If you're going to try to refute the possibility of the collapse of the WTC without explosives, you're going to have to do far better than weak analogies, thought experiments, and silly "big thing beats little thing" statements which would have you laughed out of any serious discussion with experts.

That's my reason for replying with a weak analogy of my own. Your analogies are just as lame as mine, because no analogy or thought experiment is going to be sufficient to tackle such a complex problem as the collapse of the towers. That's why structural engineers and physicists have written pages of formulas attempting to explain what happened on that day and how, which still fall way short of the mark because we are missing so much key information about the precise nature of the damage the building had taken at that very time. So many factors, "big thing beats little thing" doesn't cut it, I'm afraid.

reply to post by humphreysjim

big thing beats little thing

show me one example of this not being true, taking into account the few caveats i listed. its simple physics, and not understanding it would get YOU laughed out.

sports car to semi truck - semi truck wins
.50 cal rifle bullet vs tank armor - tank armor wins
brick thrown at brick wall - brick wall wins
18 stories of wtc 1 vs 91 stories - 91 loses

see the problem? it only works out of resistance was removed.

Originally posted by Bob Sholtz
reply to post by humphreysjim

 

big thing beats little thing

show me one example of this not being true, taking into account the few caveats i listed. its simple physics, and not understanding it would get YOU laughed out.

sports car to semi truck - semi truck wins
.50 cal rifle bullet vs tank armor - tank armor wins
brick thrown at brick wall - brick wall wins
18 stories of wtc 1 vs 91 stories - 91 loses

see the problem? it only works out of resistance was removed.

You haven't defined "big", for a start. Big in mass? Big in width? Height? Does shape matter?

Now, define "beats". Does piercing it count? Does squashing it count? Does melting it count?

Etc, etc.

Can one of the objects be previously weakened? On Fire? Have its structure damaged in some way as to make it less efficient than it was?

Now define "similar". How similar does one object have to be to another? You're happy to compare cars and trucks, but not hands to a face?

Originally posted by humphreysjim
big thing beats little thing

I forgot to post the link to this...

www.fearofphysics.com...

The big red truck test I posted a few pages ago proves that 'big thing beats little thing'.

Mass is the decider not velocity.

You should take a look, and learn something. I know it contradicts what you've read on 911myths, but physics sites have no reason to be lying to you. I am not twisting what it says, you can read it for your damn self. If you fail to understand it then I can't help you.

Here is more proof for you...

QUESTION:
Which car will suffer the most damage? A stationery vehicle, hit from the back or the vehicle that drove into the stationery vehicle? Given that both vehicle are of the same material strength.

ANSWER:
Because of Newton's third law (N3), each should experience the same force, the same impulse, the same damage, etc. For this case, N3 would state that if the moving car exerts a force on the stationary car, the stationary car exerts an equal and opposite force on the moving car. There is one catch, however, not really having to do with physics. The moving car has its radiator, engine, steering, etc. where the impact occurs and the stationary car just has the trunk, so the cost of repair will likely be bigger for the moving car.

Ask the Physicist

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by humphreysjim
big thing beats little thing

I forgot to post the link to this...

www.fearofphysics.com...

The big red truck test I posted a few pages ago proves that 'big thing beats little thing'.

I hope that's some kind of joke.

Originally posted by humphreysjim

I hope that's some kind of joke.

No you are some kind of joke.

This is physics that applies to ALL objects on planet earth and how they react with each other.

You are a troll, nothing more, nothing less.

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by humphreysjim

I hope that's some kind of joke.

No you are some kind of joke.

This is physics that applies to ALL objects on planet earth and how they react with each other.

You are a troll, nothing more, nothing less.

The first site you linked to was a joke.

The second statement I have not disagreed with at any point, but it is not the same as saying "big thing beats little thing". The collapse is absolutely nothing like a car collision, either.

Originally posted by humphreysjim

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by humphreysjim
big thing beats little thing

I forgot to post the link to this...

www.fearofphysics.com...

The big red truck test I posted a few pages ago proves that 'big thing beats little thing'.

I hope that's some kind of joke.

Well i know that the little car must be as solid as a rock, and have a hell of a momentum/speed to crush the truck

If you take a truck and place it vertical on the ground, and dropped a car from 10m on to the truck. The car would just bounce off making a small dent on the truck.

There is no way the car would crush/compress the truck so that it would be leveled with the ground.

Originally posted by spy66

Originally posted by humphreysjim

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by humphreysjim
big thing beats little thing

I forgot to post the link to this...

www.fearofphysics.com...

The big red truck test I posted a few pages ago proves that 'big thing beats little thing'.

I hope that's some kind of joke.

Well i know that the little car must be as solid as a rock, and have a hell of a momentum/speed to crush the truck

If you take a truck and place it vertical on the ground, and dropped a car from 10m on to the truck. The car would just bounce off making a small dent on the truck.

There is no way the car would crush/compress the truck so that it would be leveled with the ground.

There are simply too many factors involved in the collapse/damage to the towers, that you cannot apply such basic rules.

I know you truthers hate that because you're looking at it in such simplistic, basic terms, but that fact remains. The towers were not solid objects like cars and trucks, they had far more load bearing parts. For instance, a shelf can be built to hold an insane weight. You could drop a bowling ball from a huge height and it'd hold. However, loosen a bolt, and the thing can come crashing down with the minimal amount of pressure.

Originally posted by humphreysjim

Originally posted by spy66

Originally posted by humphreysjim

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by humphreysjim
big thing beats little thing

I forgot to post the link to this...

www.fearofphysics.com...

The big red truck test I posted a few pages ago proves that 'big thing beats little thing'.

I hope that's some kind of joke.

Well i know that the little car must be as solid as a rock, and have a hell of a momentum/speed to crush the truck

If you take a truck and place it vertical on the ground, and dropped a car from 10m on to the truck. The car would just bounce off making a small dent on the truck.

There is no way the car would crush/compress the truck so that it would be leveled with the ground.

There are simply too many factors involved in the collapse/damage to the towers, that you cannot apply such basic rules.

I know you truthers hate that because you're looking at it in such simplistic, basic terms, but that fact remains. The towers were not solid objects like cars and trucks, they had far more load bearing parts. For instance, a shelf can be built to hold an insane weight. You could drop a bowling ball from a huge height and it'd hold. However, loosen a bolt, and the thing can come crashing down with the minimal amount of pressure.

edit on 19-9-2011 by humphreysjim because: (no reason given)

Ok. Lets see what you have said here.

1. The structure was not a solid object.
2. They had far more load bearing parts.

Ok lets take a look at these two:

-Correct, it was not a solid mass structure. But the top section did not have more mass/bearing parts than the bottom section. The top section was not equal or greater in mass than the section under the crash point. That means that the top section must have been less solid than the bottom section?

It seams as you agree to this.

Than how can you think that the top section witch is less solid, have fewer load bearing parts, could ever crush the much more solid bottom section, which have much more load bearing parts?

Originally posted by Bob Sholtz
you implied that it was evidence of the towers collapsing as they did without resistance being removed. and yes, the brick would lose momentum equal to the amount the plate absorbed. drop the plate on the brick, and tell me if the brick shatters.

you're pretty good at twisting words, but anyone who knows a thing or two about logic sees through you.

It is not evidence, but the same physical principles of course also count for the WTC. I wonder what words I am twisting exactly.

Originally posted by ANOK
But the thing you keep missing is that the impact force is still the SAME for both objects, regardless of how far the falling object is dropped, or what it's velocity is, equal opposite reaction, forces always come in pairs.

I am not missing a thing. You just assume that. Mainly because you don't understand what I am saying.

So if the force is equal on both objects, regardless of velocity, it means MASS is what determines what is damaged not the velocity.

Right... so when someone shoots you in the head you walk away just fine. I mean, a bullet weights next to nothing.

This is why I posted the bug red truck and scooter example, and the bug hitting the windshield question, that you failed to understand contradicts what you are claiming.

You can post all the incorrect analogies you like.

reply to post by humphreysjim


lets say bigger mass, same surface area of collision, same material and density. i've already set up the experiment with bricks. video tape it and show us. cinder blocks would be ideal, as they aren't solid. drop 2 on to 9 at the distance of 1 cinder block. make sure the 9 on the bottom are cemented together, and the two you're dropping. then try it again, and drop the two from 4 cinder block spaces up.

you won't see a 9/11 esque collapse.

Originally posted by spy66
Than how can you think that the top section witch is less solid, have fewer load bearing parts, could ever crush the much more solid bottom section, which have much more load bearing parts?

I don't know the specific answer to that question, maybe a structural engineer or physicist could give you the answer.

I can envisage ways something like this may happen, though, that do not defy any laws of physics. If some load bearing columns failed very quickly on some lower floors, I can imagine for a period the entire mass of a lot of other floors above it, which are now acting as a solid object, could crush the floors below.

reply to post by -PLB-


the same physical principle, with completely different materials and weight ratios. put the plate on top of the brick, see the brick can hold the weight. now, drop the plate from 50 cm onto the brick. oh, the plate didn't survive?

while the principle you expressed is true, the way you expressed it is inaccurate as pertaining to the twin towers collapse.

you're trying to show people that the bottom gets destroyed while the top remains intact, which is what happened at the twin towers, BUT you're using a much greater weight and mass on the top, and a very small, very brittle bottom. the opposite was true at the wtc. a weak few top floors, crushing many times their mass.

Originally posted by Bob Sholtz
reply to post by humphreysjim

 

lets say bigger mass, same surface area of collision, same material and density. i've already set up the experiment with bricks. video tape it and show us. cinder blocks would be ideal, as they aren't solid. drop 2 on to 9 at the distance of 1 cinder block. make sure the 9 on the bottom are cemented together, and the two you're dropping. then try it again, and drop the two from 4 cinder block spaces up.

you won't see a 9/11 esque collapse.

Okay, but can they be non-solid structures, pieced together, with load bearing parts and the like?

Forget the bricks - false analogy, again.

reply to post by humphreysjim


exactly! so your admitting that the lower floors had to have been weakened by something for this collapse to work!

WE HAVE A CONVERT!

Originally posted by Bob Sholtz
reply to post by humphreysjim

 

exactly! so your admitting that the lower floors had to have been weakened by something for this collapse to work!

WE HAVE A CONVERT!

During the collapse, not before.

reply to post by humphreysjim


non solid? have you ever seen metal bolted together? its solid. i watched iron workers add to the metal frame at the power plant where i worked, and they used dozens of bolts as big as your wrist. if you say that isn't solid, i don't know what to tell you.

it actually doesn't matter, so long as the structure holds together solidly, and the top part falling on the bottom part is structured the same.

use cinder blocks. they're hollow and a perfect example of consistent parts and easily divisible into whatever scale you want to test at.

reply to post by humphreysjim


ok, then why do we not see the top floors slowing down and stopping as they collide with greater resistance?