Creative Speculation

AZCat

(8,347 posts)

23. I don't think I agree with your assessment.

Sun Nov 16, 2014, 07:18 PM

Nov 2014

The assumption about the top piece and the bottom piece instantaneously impacting is in favor of collapse arrest, in my opinion, because it increases the bottom portion's ability to resist the force as that force is spread across the entire impact face. A non-simultaneous impact would result in force being applied to individual members in the bottom part in succession rather than concert, and therefore would increase the chances of failure and collapse continuation because it is much easier to overload a single structural member than it is to overload several.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

61 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

9/11 Physics: "You Can't Use Common Sense" [View all] wildbilln864 Nov 2014 OP

The mysterious, magical world of Bushonian Science gyroscope Nov 2014 #1

I know! It's fucking hilarious the shit they try to peddle as physics! wildbilln864 Nov 2014 #2

He was using the Beatle's Magical Mystery tour bus gyroscope Nov 2014 #3

Lol don't forget the building that nothing hit (prewired for demolition) newfie11 Nov 2014 #5

"I'm about to give some of these 9/11 truther dumb-asses a little bit of a lesson" William Seger Nov 2014 #4

The guy is being sarcastic gyroscope Nov 2014 #6

Yup, he's trying to be sacastic William Seger Nov 2014 #7

It's a valid comparison. gyroscope Nov 2014 #8

The comparison is ludicrous William Seger Nov 2014 #9

Bad example gyroscope Nov 2014 #10

LOL, what about Gyro's Law? William Seger Nov 2014 #12

Explosives, hydraulics, whatever gyroscope Nov 2014 #14

"symmetrically" lol .... tell me, why would there be an asymmetry .... rewinn Dec 2014 #41

" because walls are not built strong enough to bear the buildings above them at a crazy wrong angle" wildbilln864 Jan 2015 #42

This message was self-deleted by its author rewinn Jan 2015 #51

Exactly: the idea that WTC should topple over in one piece like a 2x4 is silly but .... rewinn Jan 2015 #52

don't know where you get that 2x4 strawman from but... wildbilln864 Jan 2015 #53

Or less than .01 of architects and engineers disagree with him. zappaman Jan 2015 #54

Got proof? OBenario Nov 2015 #59

William, do you also believe..... wildbilln864 Nov 2014 #11

I believe Bazant's conclusion William Seger Nov 2014 #13

Haha Bazant is an idiot gyroscope Nov 2014 #15

Bazant is one of the world's foremost experts in structural mechanics William Seger Nov 2014 #17

"Bazant is one of the world's foremost experts in structural mechanics" OBenario Nov 2015 #57

Bullshit William Seger Nov 2015 #60

thhe crackpot probably wrote that shit himself or... wildbilln864 Nov 2015 #61

then you believe in nonsense and not science! wildbilln864 Nov 2014 #16

Failed demolitions are caused by... William Seger Nov 2014 #18

Bazant has no argument that needs refuting. eomer Nov 2014 #19

Bullshit William Seger Nov 2014 #20

No, as that paper explains repeatedly, calculations of the real life physical process were not done. eomer Nov 2014 #21

I don't think I agree with your assessment. AZCat Nov 2014 #23

You have never understood Bazant's argument William Seger Nov 2014 #24

Or else you have never understood it. eomer Nov 2014 #25

That makes no sense cpwm17 Nov 2014 #26

That was an intentionally extreme hypothetical for only a very narrow purpose. eomer Nov 2014 #29

" But to demonstrate through engineering principles..." William Seger Nov 2014 #37

Bazant didn't "demonstrate" that the ENTIRE top block was falling? William Seger Nov 2014 #27

I showed you what was (or should have been) obvious... eomer Nov 2014 #28

I made no such claim William Seger Nov 2014 #30

Bazant and Zhou's elastic dynamic analysis William Seger Nov 2014 #31

collapse was inevitable!? wildbilln864 Nov 2014 #32

Great response. zappaman Nov 2014 #33

Hard to argue with a baffoon gyroscope Nov 2014 #35

That's exactly how the professional building community feels about the "truthers". AZCat Nov 2014 #36

Ha!!! GGJohn Jan 2015 #44

Yes, if even one floor collapsed, total collapse was inevitable William Seger Nov 2014 #34

your every post is nonsense lately! wildbilln864 Nov 2014 #38

Pro tip: When you accuse someone of "nonsense" ... William Seger Nov 2014 #39

Ha!! Good catch. GGJohn Jan 2015 #45

"Yes, if even one floor collapsed, total collapse was inevitable" wildbilln864 Jan 2015 #47

Wow, what a well thought out, educated response. GGJohn Jan 2015 #43

it's just as educated as "collapse was inevitable"! wildbilln864 Jan 2015 #46

Nope, that proves what happens with bad guesses William Seger Jan 2015 #49

more sophistry! wildbilln864 Jan 2015 #50

Wow, I didn't realize this guy was using Anders Bjorkman as a reference. AZCat Nov 2014 #22

This is what i call "Hillbilly Physics." n/t RoccoR5955 Dec 2014 #40

That's a great name for a band! n/t zappaman Jan 2015 #48

and a kick! n/t wildbilln864 Mar 2015 #55

and remember that as the collapses proceeded down the structure wildbilln864 May 2015 #56

Great video! Thanks n/t OBenario Nov 2015 #58