Yes or no? The fact that you are dancing around this is quite telling. You seem to want to answer other questions when you think you have the answers, but the minute someone stumps you, all of a sudden you "don't want to spoon feed people the answers". What a joke. Just admit you're afraid to type simple yer or no answer because you don't want to make yourself look silly.
Can you extrapolate data? given that the factor of 64% of the acceleration of gravity yields 36% weight impressed upon what is below and 100% of the acceleration of gravity yields 0% impressed upon whatever is under it. therefore, you have all the INFORMATION you need, what you are attempting to do is run the discussion in circles rather than address the issue at hand and that is if the 64% of the acceleration of gravity can be demonstrated, and it truly can, this then proves beyond any doubt that there was only 36% of the weight of the upper bit impressed upon what was below it. and with that, how could anyone expect that 36% of the weight of the upper block be responsible for the total destruction of the structure below? including pulverizing tons of building materials.
Yet another lengthy verbal dodge instead of just answering the question with a yes or no. What are you afraid of? One has to wonder...
Wow, so you think that only 36% of the weight was present which would be irrelevant when it is force that is important? OK, let's try it with a train again. Lay on the ground and I will drop a train on you. Since it would be 100% weightless, according to you, what would happen?
And this is where you fail. If I have a 100 lb object falling a freefall and it IMPACTS (whether the impacted object resists or fails) something below it, is the force of that descending object impacting said object going to be less than, greater than, or equal to 100 lbs?
That's what I'm trying to do genericBob! Use your data you have given me and apply it to other scenarios. I am trying to make sure I understand what you are trying to describe, but you continually dodge the question. So I asked you the question below. Using your 64% of g and 34% weight explanation, I extrapolated that data to two other scenarios. So, am I understanding you correctly or not? Why are you making such a fuss over a yes or no question? One has to wonder...
Your sentence "impressed upon what is below" implies that there is contact or collision between two entities. If you think for one moment that in order to understand what forces are being exerted by a descending object upon another is as easy as taking the inverse percentage of the percentage of acceleration of g as the percentage of the descending objects total weight, you are SADLY mistaken.
Let me make yet another attempt to explain the phenomenon...... Imagine a large vat of mush, a very deep one, and you drop the bowling ball into the mush, and it descends, lets say, just for the sake of argument that its accelerating at 50% of the acceleration of gravity so it is impressing half of its weight upon the mush, in order to keep descending, and at such time as it is abruptly stopped, then it expresses its energy fully. You are making the same mistake that Chris Mohr has made in a youtube video where he drops a heavy weight onto a scale and breaks the scale and then proclaims that the WTC would have had to have done the same thing while descending but note, while the weight is falling, its not crushing or bending anything, and at the very moment that it actually does crush & break the scale it STOPS. So, with the WTC towers, were is the indication that the upper mass is expressing its energy? slow down or stop or have a jolt, or what?
No, YOU'RE making the mistake. You are implying that there was a CONSTANT and CONSISTENT resistance applied to the descending upper section in order to maintain your CONSTANT and CONSISTENT acceleration of 34% of g (6.3 m/s[SUP]2[/SUP]). You even give "mush" as your medium below the bowling ball which is ALWAYS the same CONSISTENCY and the bowling ball is a solid. Do you understand this? Now here is where you are making a HUGE mistake. The upper section is NOT a solid bowling ball, but consists of thousands of individual connections which have their own individual stress limits.The lower section is described as the same thing. When the upper section and lower section were together, ALL the connections worked as a single unit to support loads within their design limits AS A WHOLE. When you start to fail/weaken individual components, the structure as a WHOLE weakens. When localized loads are applied to certain structural components in an area, those components will try a redistribute the load to the rest of the structure, but if the load is to great for those local components, they fail. That is a fact. Example. If I punch a section of drywall, the localized load of my punch is to great for the drywall to try and distribute that load to the stronger wall studs, and thus "shears" or fails to make a hole. What if a gently put my fist on the drywall and lean at a 45 degree angle, supporting my weight on just my fist. It holds right? What;s the difference between the two examples. Let's make this granular now. When the supports below the upper section failed and that section tilted and descended, what do you visualize happening? Did the "corner" columns impact the first floor in a localized manner? What happened? Using the drywall example above, do you think the 4" thick concrete floor would have enough strength to resist the weight of that upper section concentrated to the point of a column? What about that weight concentrated to 20 columns? Do you know why a knife works? Now once the collisions start happening, both the upper and lower sections start to shear apart at the point of impacts, creating a mass of disconnected debris, which will act just like dropping a pile of gravel (many parts falling together). That debris pile/upper section (or debris front) descends at g until it impacts the next structural component below. IMPACT. At this point, you don't have just one object. You have thousands of individual components, be it beams, columns, sections of columns, elevator motors, chunks of concrete, etc. descending at g, then impacting, then shearing things locally, then descending at g, then impacting, etc. So how can you sit there and tell me that there was a CONSTANT acceleration throughout the whole event when there was no consistent resistance below? Do you see your mistake yet? You are in a circle of contradictions. 64% of g means RESISTANCE of some sort because all the debris is TRYING to accelerate to g, but cannot. Explosives used to sever connections = freefall = no resistance.
I have just enough time to respond to this one bit Free-Fall acceleration = CD but not ALL CD events include Free-Fall Acceleration. & yes, the falling bit of the towers did indeed encounter 36% of its weight in resistance, however, is that figure sufficient to explain what happened?
you allege that free fall acceleration = use of explosives therefore not free fall acceleration = not use of explosives. FAULTY LOGIC! The 64% of g was a result of use of explosives. because if no explosives had been used, the building would not have achieved that 64% of g rate of descent. There is also the matter of the uniformity, the very fact that the entire building was destroyed is a factor of uniformity of destruction. How is it that 90+ floors of a steel framed high-rise structure all give-way in exactly the manner of having virtually all of the falling stuff focus on the floor below without any bias to one side or another leading to cascade failure on one side of the building before the other and thus tipping the whole thing to one side rather than a straight down total destruction of the tower?
You really don't get it do you? The fact is, that on the way down, even if ALL of the connections within the towers were perfect and all perfectly uniform in strength, the forces acting on the connections could not be depended upon to be uniform, and therefore some bit on one side of the tower would collapse before anything else at that level, causing the material to follow the slope and accumulate in the lower area, increasing the stress on that area and leading to more structural failure in a non-uniform manner. In order to achieve the result that was observed, the joints/welds & bolts ( whatever .... ) within the towers would all have to fail in sequence, on-time to produce the result, deviation from that in-sequence condition, would lead to progressive imbalance and a condition that would most certainly stop before completely destroying the building.
HE doesn't 'get it'?...the collapsing floors were obscured by a dust cloud! You wouldn't have been able to tell HOW each floor collapsed
How genericBob? Describe what you envision happening that caused the debris front to fall at 64% of g. Explain how explosives can be used to control the descent of falling debris in a structure composed of 4" thick concrete floors, 12' of air, 4" thick concrete floor, 12' air, etc. Gravity is trying to pull all the debirs down at 9.8 m/s[SUP]2[/SUP] and you want us to believe that explosives were used to keep that from happening. At a uniform acceleration rate to boot. What rate of descent is indicative of a "nonexplosives" collapse?
What special magic, kept the mass that was allegedly crushing the tower, what magic kept all that stuff centered & aligned over the as yet undamaged part of the tower? You see, if all the joints & connections in the towers didn't fail in sequence, right on time, then its a crap-shoot as to any of the bits giving way before others and in that condition, the mass of rubble would shift to the low side, and the low side would sink even lower because of the added weight, and eventually the whole thing would tip to one side dumping the upper mass, and stopping the action before the complete & total destruction of the tower(s). To address what rate of descent I would expect to see in a non-explosives initiated collapse, I would expect for the descent would NOT accelerate at all but if falling at all, maybe falling at a constant speed or possibly decelerating.
The fact that the upper mass stayed on top & not dumped out one side to street level, is proof that the "collapse" was caused by the uniform breakage of connections within the tower. Why do you expect uniform "collapse" from non-uniform damage & fire?
again we get that over-simplistic & utterly wrong "gravity" as an alleged answer. Given that there was significant energy available pushing material out of the towers that is the quantity of pulverized material ejected from the towers, What force moderated this process such that sufficient mass remained to keep not only crushing the tower structure, but accelerating while doing it. What sort of woo causes that?
You keep using this word 'alleged' bahb,I do not think it means what YOU think it means - - - Updated - - - But they didn't.
