I said Mass never changes, but RG seems to think that things get more dense as they fall....Are you saying if you throw a rock from a building its velocity never changes on the way down?
You said this:
Why not? Once things start falling, they fall. If anything below it is made to collapse, it falls too and is added to that initial mass -- making more mass falling on less intact building.So since the top floors collapsing never encounter resistance the velocity should never exceed 12 m/sec....
Are you really accounting for all of that in time?
As more floors collapse, wouldn't there be more mass falling?
...because the part still standing is an opposing force - it pushes upward as opposed to the part that is falling which pushes down...Why not? Once things start falling, they fall. If anything below it is made to collapse, it falls too and is added to that initial mass -- making more mass falling on less intact building.
Are you really accounting for all of that in time?
but it doesn't remain constant because its mass is being reduced as the falling mass increases.
Depends on whether you still believe in the long-debunked pancake theory, none-the-less my point is to prove that given that the force pushing upward exceeded the force pushing downward, the collapse of the towers should have taken much more than 12, , much more than 20 seconds...
No, actually I believe the building falling down theory. As the building collapsed, there was through the time of collapse an increasing mass falling on an decreasing mass.
Please tell me how this is not true.
Your assuming that all of the mass fell on the part which was still standing, and you can see for yourself that much of the mass fell off to either side....besides since I didn't factor in a safety margin, this should more than make up for any added mass you might think, but can't prove, was added to the collapsing part of the building...
How much? If you are going to claim some kind of difinitive formula, you have to give actual numbers.There you go again with the safety margin. If you don't know that, how can you make any formula involving the upwards force of each building? You simply can't. You are just making stuff up....besides since I didn't factor in a safety margin, this should more than make up for any added mass you might think, but can't prove, was added to the collapsing part of the building...
How is the mass increasing? the part of the building that is falling is crumbling the part still standing....as would happen with opposing forces...As the building collapsed, there was an ever-increasing mass falling on an ever-decreasing mass.
I have given definitive numbers, much more so than RG...How much? If you are going to claim some kind of difinitive formula, you have to give actual numbers.
More likely you don't understand physics..There you go again with the safety margin. If you don't know that, how can you make any formula involving the upwards force of each building? You simply can't. You are just making stuff up.
How is it not? What happens to the the parts of the building that aren't attached to the standing buillding anymore? Do they disappear? Do they float away into space?Is the part that is still standing staying the same size as the building collapses? Yes or no.the part of the building that is falling is crumbling the part still standing....as would happen with opposing forces...
You just admitted you don't know two variables that are critical to and would greatly influence any real equation that would describe the collapse of the WTC buildings, and this is the best you can come up with?
Is a building stronger on the top floors or on the bottom floors? As the building falls it looses acceleration because it meets resistance...but in order for the buildings to fall in 10-12 seconds the building gains acceleration which makes no sense...How is it not? What happens to the the parts of the building that aren't attached to the standing buillding anymore? Do they disappear? Do they float away into space?
Hey, there's another variable you left out!How much? It certainly didn't stop, so it's not like it had to start over from zero every time it met a floor.As the building falls it looses acceleration because it meets resistance.Does the falling mass increase as the building collapses? Yes or no...but in order for the buildings to fall in 10-12 seconds the building gains acceleration which makes no sense...
...in order for the building to fall 361 meters in 14 secomds it would have to fall at ~25 m/sec, but how can this be if at it's top velocity, when it encountered no resistance at all, it was only falling at ~9 m/sec.....
Because your equations are hopelessly simplistic. You can't account for several variables that would definitely affect the outcome.
A variable that works against you Chumpy...Hey, there's another variable you left out!
Well then Newton's second law of motion is over-simplistic to you too....
Exactly -- you don't even know the things that would support you! Since you already have an incredible bias to see what you want to see, you ignore everything else once you think you've figured it out. You are blinded by your need to be right.
You can try to be condescending if you please, but you refuse to answer a simple yes or no question. You are in denial.
I'm using mathematics which has no bias....the way I see it, someone has a bias here, but it's not me...prove that my math is wrong....
Oh, it's you.I already did -- I've shown several factors that you have left out. Your job is to account for those now...prove that my math is wrong....
Good luck.
If anything I have factored in errors on the side of conservatism to deflate your argument that my numbers are wrong...so I have nothing to prove...
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
