Place a wine glass on the center of a table. Now smash it with your face.
Glad you finally agree.
Oh wait…you mean you don’t/can’t understand the actual mechanics of the situation, don’t you?
I used to do a demo in schools.
I had a hard plastic square a little over 14" square. I would place it on top of 9 evenly spaced wax paper cups.
Then I would have a kid stand on the square. He could move around, bounce on his feet. The cups had no problem supporting him.
Then I would remove all but four of the cups. The kid would be standing still and still the cups would support him.
Then I would have him bounce up on the balls of his feet. Sometimes failure would happen when the kids weight shifted to the balls of his feet, sometimes when the back of the feet came down.
Either way, instant structural failure by the paper cups.
They do not contradict physics - you just don’t understand it. That does mean they are contradicting physics. *All it means is that you do not understand it. *
For the record, quite a few lessons were learned from the World Trade Center. Most engineers knew what the problem was even before NIST was asked to examine the collapse.
Take a look at the Comcast Center in Philadelphia. Plans were laid down in 2004, and building started in 2005. It is now the tallest building in Philadelphia.
Why make a note of it? Well it seems that the architects and engineers learned a lesson from the towers and they built the Comcast center with a concrete center so that what happened to the WTC would not happen to it - or at least would be strongly mitigated. This was all planned and done before NIST had finished their report. They could have made a design that didn’t use concrete, but they were worried about repeating history. Of course while the building was being constructed concrete supplies in the area were hard to come by.
They had no problem accepting the answer even before NIST put out an answer. So the fact that you “don’t buy it” means nothing.
This is one of the more ridiculous claims by the 9/11 Truther crowd. I mean, seriously? If there was some sort of fundamental contradiction in physics that happened, do they REALLY think that only they (most of them, clueless about physics) would be the only ones to catch it? Really? :dubious:…:smack:…
Again, Occam’s Razor…is the simplest explanation that there is some fundamental contradiction in physics that has either escaped the notice of real physicists and engineers (or that they are in the pay of this global cabal), or that the misunderstanding is actually with the Truthers who claim there is a contradiction based on their innate knowledge of physics and brand specific condiment theory???
Perhaps Psikey has unwittingly stumbled upon a local application of the “missing mass” problem, one that is usually viewed through cosmological scales. Let’s see the attributes:
… This particle or whatever exhibits no force other than gravitational pull. So we’re talking a dark matter candidate.
… However, their gravitational pull only works at a downward motion relative to the Earth’s surface. How do we know this? Well, the towers definitely didn’t fall up, correct?
… This new particle’s gravitational force is strong enough to pull the towers down in a speed equivalent with “free fall”. Or something. Regardless, it’s pretty damned strong.
… It’s also short lived. Evidence of this missing mass and obscenely strong gravitational pull has either disappeared immediately after the towers fell, or has been withheld from us by the very (US) government that caused the attacks.
My best guess? By sheer coincidence, two stories below where the planes hit on each tower, independent quantum black holes were being generated by the CIA, one in each tower. Because of the havoc caused by the planes, the guys in charge of the machines forgot to turn them off, causing a mini black hole, slightly larger than Planck levels, to form. This BH was twisted in such a way that it only pulled on things above and below it, but not to the right/left/diagonal/etc.
Add the weight of the black hole (which disappeared via quantum fluctuations within 4 seconds) to the weight of the “tops”, and you got it. Mystery solved. No need to resort to steel tests or postulate the existence of planes or calculate fuel loads or anything like that. It’s just a very localized Tunguska event.
There is no missing concrete. It’s a black hole generated by the CIA. Or, better, a new form of dark matter, the Crapion.
Forget about the timing, what is this “straight down” of which you speak? What did all the damage to 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, Deutche Bank, and squashed that Greek Orthodox church? The Stay Puft Marshmallow Man?
Care to explain how the lower cores remained standing for so long if they were so weak?
You guys must have missed** psikey’s** paper loops.
From this thread. Starts with post 178. (quoted)
And, of course, if it pancaked the way Psikey is describing, it’s not “13% all the way down”, it’s more like
13%, then
13.9%, then
14.8%, then
15.7%, then
16.6%, then
and so on, all the way down, as each floor gives way to the floors landing on top of it, adding its mass to the overall problem. By the time you reach the first floor, you have 99.1% of the building landing on your ass.
So, yes, I can believe the towers fell the way they did because 13% of their weight (and whatever % of it’s support structure) fell straight down.
Welp. I don’t know what the rest of your guys’ problem is, but damn! This convinced me! I’m off to dig up old Kozmik threads and see if they make more sense now.
Is it just me, or does that video remind anyone else of a toilet paper tube?
Are you a structural engineer by training or profession? No? Neither am I. That’s why I defer to the experts on the subject instead of simply digging in my heals and shouting dissent without evidence for my unsupported claims.
Wishing harm on another poster is bad. Warning issued. Don’t do it again.
Experts, bah! I have a Master’s from Google U and a Doctorate from YouTube Tech!
Now if you excuse me I have to watch two more videos before performing a coronary artery bypass this evening.
Nobody steps on a church in my town!
Nothing in the collapse of the WTC towers violates the laws of physics. Nothing.
It may violate your pitiful failure to understand physics, but it does not violate the actual laws of physics.
I will once more make a point that has already been explained to you in other threads.
Your claim that “13% of the building” could not fall straight down and destroy the rest in less than 26 seconds is silly. You are pretending that the 87% of the building had to stand up against the 13% for some undetermined period of time.
In reality, (not in psykeyhackerworld), the “13%” only had to destroy 0.9% of the building in a few milliseconds. Then, that 13.9% of the building had a few more milliseconds to destroy the next 0.9% of the building. Following that, the accumulated 14.8% of the building could operate on the next 0.9% of the building and so forth.
That you are not capable, (or are simply unwilling), to recognize that fact is not our problem. That you persist in making silly claims that you fail to support and nonsense demands that you cannot justify is our problem, but only in the sense that a site dedicated to fighting ignorance finds intransigent ignorance to be an issue.
Yeah, but what did HE know? He was a science-FICTION writer.
I have the cause of the buildings collapsing! Dig: The planes crashed and started fires. Panicking people crowded the sides of the burning floors away from the fires, upsetting the building’s balance, and the building collapsed. It’s just like the capsizing of the SS Eastland!
Shit, that’s it!
Where was the Edmund Fitzgerald that day?