You say it did not have sufficient mass. This means you have the numbers somewhere. and since you have numbers, please provide them hear. Then provide the numbers that show the floor directly below the descending mass should have resisted. I'll bet you don't have them and are just guessing.
I don't think that it is disrespectful towards those that died at all. Rather, I'd say that it shows them the utmost respect by demanding the truth about what happened to them. To do any less, would be disrespectful.
In the truthers mind,insulting the families of the dead is seen as 'showing respect',when in fact it's sullying their memories to a high degree Example of this happened in Sandy Hook with the theft of a memorial sign
Please don't do that.... #1 the "truther" community is not a homogenous mass. #2 we were not discussing Sandy Hook, we have been discussing 9/11/2001
Same flawed perspective And I'll lump you any way I see fit,as far as I'm concerned, you all fly the same flag
Have you seen the pix broadcast from the space station? there are object floating around because they are weightless, in the case of a falling object near earth, if it is falling at the acceleration of gravity, it can be said to be weightless. in the case of something that is clocked as accelerating at 64% of the acceleration of gravity, its apparent weight is only 36% of what it would be if it were not falling. the ONLY way you can get the "dynamic load" that is so often spoken of, is to have the mass express its energy by either slowing down, or stopping. Therefore with only 36% of the weight of the upper block bearing down upon the lower structure of the WTC tower(s) how can there possibly be enough energy to pulverize tons of material, eject tons of material and also keep moving at 64% of the acceleration of gravity?
Please explain in detail, I believe I have NOT confused any bit of this. Break it down and show the proper application of the terms. - I'd like to know if any other reader of this forum may chime in and offer up their interpretation. Please feel free.
He makes a couple of mistakes. For one, inferring that the remaining building that dynamically reacts as a solid body and confusing weight, not with mass but with mass * acceleration = net force.
I'll rebut your explanation above with a few questions. When you answer them (IF you answer them), you will see just how wrong you are. According to you, in order to slow an object to 64% of g (6.3 m/s[SUP]2[/SUP]), you have to deal with the inverse of that percentage of the objects weight. So to slow an object to 50% of g, you have to deal with 50% of the object's weight. TO slow an object to 20% of g, you have to deal with 80% of the object's weight. That being said, if I was tasked with the job of slowing a 16 lb bowling ball dropped from a certain height to 64% of g (6.3 m/s[SUP]2[/SUP]), I would need to design something to resist 36% of the bowling ball's weight. That would be 5.8 lbs. To slow that bowling ball to 45% of g, I would have to design something to resist 55% of the bowling ball's weight. That would be 8.8 lbs. Now here's the big one. To totally stop that 16 lb bowling ball's descent (0% of g), I would have to design something to resist 100% of the bowling ball's weight. That would be 16 lbs. If I drop a 16 lb bowling ball onto a scale from 12 feet up, what is going to be the impact load registered by the scale? Will it be 16 lbs? In the case of the towers, when the upper section descended and IMPACTED THE FLOOR RIGHT BELOW, was the upper section's weight greater than, less than, or equal to its weight when it was not moving? See the problem yet? Next question. What caused the upper section to fall at less than the acceleration of g? Imps? Unicorns?
So exactly HOW is it that "F=M*A" applies to a body in constant acceleration? Gravity is driving the constant acceleration, and as long as the body is accelerating downward, is it expressing any of its potential energy? and if so, how much?
I'll make this even simpler for you. If I wanted to design something to completely stop a 16 lb bowling ball at ANY acceleration, will I only have to worry about 16lbs for my calculations?
It expresses it's energy upon IMPACT/CONTACT with another entity. I keep asking you folks this, but nobody will respond. If I drop a 16 lb bowling ball onto a scale, will it register 16 lbs or more when it impacts? What was the first ENTITY that the upper section impacted? The next floor below. Was the designed load capacity of the floor less than the force/load of the descending floor that impacted it?
Note that when you drop a bowling ball in a scale, what happens to the motion of the ball, its STOPS, did the mass descending at 64% of gravity ( in the case of the towers ) STOP? this is your answer, in order to express the energy that the falling object has, it must stop or at least slow down, if it is observed in motion and indeed accelerating, it has as yet not expressed that energy.
The point is, you do not just consider the inverse of the acceleration percentage as applied to a descending objects weight. It's not as simple as saying 36% of it's weight was being expressed as it impacted the floor below. If I designed a flat surface for 16 lbs (bowling ball) of STATIC weight only, will that same flat surface hold when I drop that same 16 lb bowling ball from 30 feet? What do you think will happen?
This would work, if the mass were expressing that energy, that is either slowing down or stopping, however, I submit to you that at constant acceleration ( under the influence of gravity ) an object is not expressing its energy. note the object in orbit, it is in free-fall, therefore "weightless" The mass descending ( in the case of the towers ) is in constant acceleration and therefore has not expressed that energy, the mass must at least slow down to express energy. Paging Don Herbert Paging Don Herbert
Ignoring Newton's second law of motion does not prove you know what you are talking about. The object is not in orbit, it's mass is accelerated by gravity producing a force much greater than if it were static and that force multiplies as it's speed increases which is much greater by magnitudes of the building design factor. As it destroys upper floors, that extra mass accelerating downward adds to the force. Stand in front of a train moving at 60mph and tell me how much you slowed the train down. Orbit - a path described by one body in its revolution about another (as by the earth about the sun or by an electron about an atomic nucleus); also : one complete revolution of a body describing such a path
It is slowing down!!! What are you not getting? If gravity is pulling something down at 9.8 m/s[SUP]2[/SUP] and on object is falling at 64% of that, SOMETHING IS CAUSING RESISTANCE to slow said object down to 64% of g instead of 9.8 m/s[SUP]2[/SUP]. I would like to now where you are getting this 64% of g figure anyways. What exactly were you measuring to get this figure?
- - - Updated - - - What about potential energy? If two objects in opposite orbits collide, are you suggesting that neither one will sustain damage because they were weightless?
So, you are making the comparison that is a human body being the mass of the tower below the falling mass and the falling mass compared to a train. The fact is that as long as the upper mass was in motion, ( that is and not decelerating ) the force applied to what is under it can not be more than what the body weighs in the firs place. The only time that "dynamic load" bit comes into play is when the mass is decelerating or stopping. Net result here is that the mass on top, can only be applying 36% of its weight against the as yet undamaged tower below.
