The "Path of most resistance"

[nicepants]

It seems to be a common claim among truthers that the collapses of WTC 1 & 2 "followed the path of greatest resistance", and this board is no exception.

Example:
The path of least resistance is to fall off the building, fall away and to the sides.

The path of greatest resistance is to fall straight down through those many many thousands of tons of steel and concrete.

My request for an explanation was ignored.

I think perhaps the truthers are having trouble understanding the physics principle that objects within a system will follow the path of least resistance.

The following questions are for anyone here who claims or believes that the collapses of wtc 1 & 2 followed the "path of greatest resistance":

Resistance to what?
In what units is this resistance measured?

[~enigma~]

It seems to be a common claim among truthers that the collapses of WTC 1 & 2 "followed the path of greatest resistance", and this board is no exception.

Example:


My request for an explanation was ignored.

I think perhaps the truthers are having trouble understanding the physics principle that objects within a system will follow the path of least resistance.

The following questions are for anyone here who claims or believes that the collapses of wtc 1 & 2 followed the "path of greatest resistance":

Resistance to what?
In what units is this resistance measured?
TM ohms.....now does TM mean truth movement or transcendental meditation or are the two equivalent?

[ElMondoHummus]

Blanchard answered this years ago (http://www.jod911.com/WTC%20COLLAPSE%20STUDY%20BBlanchard%208-8-06.pdf), but did any conspiracy addict bother to pay attention? Gee, I wonder... :rolleyes:

[~enigma~]

In other news the treasonous cretins known as the TM are comparing a building that was blown up in Zhongshan China to the WTC.

GVQaVgJne6c

[Macgyver1968]

I've always wondered where that "path of most resistance" thing came from in the TM. That's a term used in reference to flow..either of electricity or water. I've never heard it used in relation to falling things.

It doesn't make any sense to me. Falling things don't follow the path of least resistance..they go where gravity pulls them...down! For an object to follow the path of least resistance means it would have to have some lateral movement to move to that path of least resistance..and there is no force to move it laterally.

If you hold a bowling ball over a table...the path of least resistance to the ground would be around the table...but does the bowling ball move around the table when you drop it?...of course not..it follows gravity...down, and smashes the table. (Don't try this experiment or you wife will be pissed!)

[Brainster]

Path of most resistance=down. Truthers think the WTC should have fallen up.

[Pardalis]

Path of most resistance=down. Truthers think the WTC should have fallen up.

But then they would have found resistance in the Van Allen belt, and the towers would have had to come down, but then since they can't fall down, they would have had to come up again, up and down this way indefinitely like a slinky.

[DavidJames]

We have to realize we're dealing with pretty ignorant people. It seems they feel the top part would have dropped, hit the bottom part and fell off to the side. Using the bowling ball example, the ball hit's the table (and using Heiwa's whacky explanation), the table would not collapse and the ball would roll off.

[beachnut]

It seems to be a common claim among truthers that the collapses of WTC 1 & 2 "followed the path of greatest resistance", and this board is no exception. ...

Where is the truther cult meter for finding the lowest ohm reading for falling objects? Why do they use an electrical term for falling objects in the z-plane. Where do they think an object is going when it falls?

The path of least or greatest resistance is the sign of stupid when used with 911 issues. The person is completely ignorant on the physics of falling objects.

When an object falls I am safe the object will not hurt me, it will slide off. Why do bullets not obey the truther dolt law for path of greatest/least resistance? All bullets would seek the clear air instead of my body.

[nicepants]

I've always wondered where that "path of most resistance" thing came from in the TM. That's a term used in reference to flow..either of electricity or water. I've never heard it used in relation to falling things.

It doesn't make any sense to me. Falling things don't follow the path of least resistance..they go where gravity pulls them...down! For an object to follow the path of least resistance means it would have to have some lateral movement to move to that path of least resistance..and there is no force to move it laterally.

I think in a way it does follow the path of least resistance...there's a lot of inertial resistance to move an object laterally, therefore it will fall straight down and not to the side.

There is resistance to movement in all directions equally based on inertia, however in the case of the WTC gravity was able to overcome the building's resistance to downward movement. Perhaps if earth's gravity was pulling it due east the truthers would have a point.

From wikipedia: The path of least resistance applies on a local, not global, reference. For example, water always flows downhill, regardless of whether briefly flowing uphill will help it gain a lower final altitude.

[jaydeehess]

An object will continue at the same velocity until an outside force is applied which will accellerate that object in the direction the force is acting..

The outside force was gravity. Gravity was acting downward.
The building fell ,,,, down.

[sylvan8798]

Where is the truther cult meter for finding the lowest ohm reading for falling objects? Why do they use an electrical term for falling objects in the z-plane. Where do they think an object is going when it falls?

The path of least or greatest resistance is the sign of stupid when used with 911 issues. The person is completely ignorant on the physics of falling objects.

When an object falls I am safe the object will not hurt me, it will slide off. Why do bullets not obey the truther dolt law for path of greatest/least resistance? All bullets would seek the clear air instead of my body.

Perhaps truth itself is one of those things that follows the path of least resistance, therefore explaining why the truth takes the path of clear air AROUND the truther brain...:rolleyes:

[Newtons Bit]

An object will continue at the same velocity until an outside force is applied which will accellerate that object in the direction the force is acting..

The outside force was gravity. Gravity was acting downward.
The building fell ,,,, down.

And the lower block applied a force UP thereby reducing the acceleration of the collapse from 32.2ft/s^2 to something slower.

[R.Mackey]

Yes, we're back to the "Path of Least Resistance."

Things tend to follow such a path in one of two situations: (1) If it's being actively directed by intelligence, like a mouse running a maze; or (2) if the object is under the influence of a conservative field. The former case is certainly not relevant, but the latter is partly relevant here.

A conservative field is one in which there is a valid potential function. One example is gravity. At any point relative to the Earth, you can compute how much gravitational potential energy a given object has. That number is unique. All you need to know is its position. You don't need to know how fast it's moving or how it got there.

You can think of the potential function graphically. In the space business, we sometimes talk about "gravity wells," because that's how the gravitational potential energy looks -- around a massive object, it's like a sink, with typically circular contours that go around the object. The closer to the object you get, the lower your potential energy.

The potential energy also gives rise to the force. Force is the gradient of the potential, i.e. the "slope." This slope also has direction, however. Think of a hill, and where you are on that hill dictates what direction you'll roll down, and how fast.

Now, in the case of the World Trade Center, that force gradient is one direction only: Straight down. That is the "path of least resistance." There should be no surprise at all that the structures fell, to gross order, straight down.

However, there are other forces in the problem, i.e. contact forces with surviving structure. These, unfortunately, are not conservative forces. Energy and momentum are always conserved, of course, but these forces do not have a single-valued potential function. The force you experience depends on how fast you're going and how you got there. If you're falling very slowly, and the structure relaxes but stays intact, you feel one force. If you fall very quickly, then the structure will snap and you feel a different force. So here, there is no well-defined "path of least resistance."

In order for anything to fall sideways, the structure has to generate a large lateral force. This can happen through, for instance, the mechanism of an inclined plane. But for an inclined plane to deliver this force, the plane has to not collapse. Its force is a response of the contact force coming from above. As we've calculated, the lower structure can't generate such a large force -- even if it's intact, rather than having floors and bracing smashed away.

So there's no reason at all to expect it to go sideways. Straight down is the only way it can fall.

[WUBRINY63]

Yes, we're back to the "Path of Least Resistance."

Things tend to follow such a path in one of two situations: (1) If it's being actively directed by intelligence, like a mouse running a maze; or (2) if the object is under the influence of a conservative field. The former case is certainly not relevant, but the latter is partly relevant here.

A conservative field is one in which there is a valid potential function. One example is gravity. At any point relative to the Earth, you can compute how much gravitational potential energy a given object has. That number is unique. All you need to know is its position. You don't need to know how fast it's moving or how it got there.

You can think of the potential function graphically. In the space business, we sometimes talk about "gravity wells," because that's how the gravitational potential energy looks -- around a massive object, it's like a sink, with typically circular contours that go around the object. The closer to the object you get, the lower your potential energy.

The potential energy also gives rise to the force. Force is the gradient of the potential, i.e. the "slope." This slope also has direction, however. Think of a hill, and where you are on that hill dictates what direction you'll roll down, and how fast.

Now, in the case of the World Trade Center, that force gradient is one direction only: Straight down. That is the "path of least resistance." There should be no surprise at all that the structures fell, to gross order, straight down.

However, there are other forces in the problem, i.e. contact forces with surviving structure. These, unfortunately, are not conservative forces. Energy and momentum are always conserved, of course, but these forces do not have a single-valued potential function. The force you experience depends on how fast you're going and how you got there. If you're falling very slowly, and the structure relaxes but stays intact, you feel one force. If you fall very quickly, then the structure will snap and you feel a different force. So here, there is no well-defined "path of least resistance."

In order for anything to fall sideways, the structure has to generate a large lateral force. This can happen through, for instance, the mechanism of an inclined plane. But for an inclined plane to deliver this force, the plane has to not collapse. Its force is a response of the contact force coming from above. As we've calculated, the lower structure can't generate such a large force -- even if it's intact, rather than having floors and bracing smashed away.

So there's no reason at all to expect it to go sideways. Straight down is the only way it can fall.

No.

Because it didn't fall exactly straight down.

In fact from certain videos of the collapses you can see large portions of the towers falling over the sides. To the point where the term "falling block" or "pile driver" just becomes laughable.

BTW what time do you punch in down at NASA? You're not late are you?

[A W Smith]

No.

Because it didn't fall exactly straight down.

In fact from certain videos of the collapses you can see large portions of the towers falling over the sides. To the point where the term "falling block" or "pile driver" just becomes laughable.

BTW what time do you punch in down at NASA? You're not late are you?

Will you will be pointing out the videos showing large portions of the core falling over the sides for us?

[WUBRINY63]

Will you will be pointing out the videos showing large portions of the core falling over the sides for us?

I didn't say the core Mr. Revisionist. I said the so-called block. You can find that video on youtube and just about anywhere else. In fact I bet it's here somewhere. Ya think?

When debunkers claim a "falling block" or "pile driver" did they just mean the core?

Debunker?

[Grizzly Bear]

In order for anything to fall sideways, the structure has to generate a large lateral force. This can happen through, for instance, the mechanism of an inclined plane. But for an inclined plane to deliver this force, the plane has to not collapse. Its force is a response of the contact force coming from above. As we've calculated, the lower structure can't generate such a large force -- even if it's intact, rather than having floors and bracing smashed away.

So there's no reason at all to expect it to go sideways. Straight down is the only way it can fall.

Still images of the collapse (south tower) also help to clarify that the columns had no such strength to sustain the entire upper section of the collapse when it started to move. This is especially evident in close ups of the south tower where the moment it started moving, the columns completely deflected in response before they completely failed almost immediately following. I've used this a few times to show it visually, although others have done a better job showing it this way:

http://img245.imageshack.us/img245/4719/tilt.png

[ElMondoHummus]

No.

Because it didn't fall exactly straight down.

In fact from certain videos of the collapses you can see large portions of the towers falling over the sides. To the point where the term "falling block" or "pile driver" just becomes laughable.

Yes, exterior columns and elements did exactly this. And collisions with internal structural items could force other parts outwards too. Neither of those invalidates any bit of what Ryan said at all.

[Architect]

I'm going to cancel my car insurance and stop wearing a seatbelt on the basis that clearly I can never have a crash, what with my car wishing to follow "the path of least resistance" and thus clearly sliding over the top or around the side of the other vehicle.

And, of course, I can't be crushed because Heiwa says that isn't possible where something is made out of individual components.

[Darat]

Posts in breach of the Membership Agreement have been dumped to AAH. If you believe a Member is a "sock puppet" use the report feature or contact a member of the Mod Team via a PM.

[Seymour Butz]

When debunkers claim a "falling block" or "pile driver" did they just mean the core?




This reminds me another typically stupid truther saying.

Idiots claim that the "pile driver" should have stopped, since it was losing mass over the side, as evidenced by the rounded hill of debris. Pure stupid.

Once there's enough mass falling to strip off floors, the mass accumulation can equal the mass lost "over the side" as the collapse continues, and it'll never stop, since except for the meachanical floors, the floor connections were identical.

It doesn't take ANY mass from the core to achieve this. The floors alone will strip off other floors.

[alienentity]

Yes, we're back to the "Path of Least Resistance."

<snip>
So there's no reason at all to expect it to go sideways. Straight down is the only way it can fall.

Ryan, are these concepts generally understood and taught in physics?

[sylvan8798]

Ryan, are these concepts generally understood and taught in physics?

You probably wouldn't find a physics or engineering text which uses the phrase "path of least resistance". Motion according to F=ma is covered extensively in first semester physics, as well as in the pre-engineering course(s) Statics and Dynamics, where things either sit still or move according to some relationship, respectively. Resistance is generally an electricity concept, covered and quantified there.

People often mention water, but fluids flow along gradients, which are just directions with the least pressure, and the effect is on an instantaneous basis. For example, you might have some water at the top of a hill that could, hypothetically, flow upward to the left for 1 foot and then freefall through space for 50 feet downward, or alternatively flow down a craggy ravine to the right with lots of rocks and plants for 50 feet (with more net resistance). It doesn't calculate the total net resistance in advance and choose to go left. Resistance shows up again in hydraulics, where friction forces, etc, can slow the flow of fluids in pipes and channels.

To suggest that the WTC towers should have fallen over sideways, or some such thing, would imply that they KNEW IN ADVANCE OF FALLING which way had "less resistance". Does that make sense to anyone but a truther?:boggled:

[Klimax]

What if one side of given floor got loose sooner and it became inclined plane,would mass then slide sideway and possibly not crush further?

[jaydeehess]

And the lower block applied a force UP thereby reducing the acceleration of the collapse from 32.2ft/s^2 to something slower.

Yes, depending on the time of colapse that one uses, anywhere from 10% to 50% less than 32.2ft/s^2

(except in the case where a Truter says they fell "faster than free fall" in which case they illustrate Mark Twain's "better to be thought a fool than open one's mouth and remove all doubt")

[jaydeehess]

What if one side of given floor got loose sooner and it became inclined plane,would mass then slide sideway and possibly not crush further?

Yes but this inclined plane consisting of the floor pan simply cannot support that mas and dynamic load it is subject to and thus quickly is no longer an inclined plane as either it buckles in the middle or the truss seats at the other end also snap.
Secondly this can only happen between core and perimeter and thus could only affect, at most, half of the building in one direction.

[BigAl]

What if one side of given floor got loose sooner and it became inclined plane,would mass then slide sideway and possibly not crush further?

Where is it going to go? It's all adding to the collapse initiation.

[R.Mackey]

Ryan, are these concepts generally understood and taught in physics?

Potential energy is brought up in elementary (high school or earlier) Physics.

Conservative fields are brought up in freshman Physics and Vector Calculus. Force as the gradient of a conservative field and the path thereby followed comes from Mechanics, say sophomore Physics.

So I'd say "yes." Nothing controversial at all about it.

[Travis]

Ah, this brings back memories of the "net force = zero" crowd. You have to love the tragic misunderstanding of forces and reactions to forces the Truth crowd demonstrates time and time again.

[Dave Rogers]

What if one side of given floor got loose sooner and it became inclined plane,would mass then slide sideway and possibly not crush further?

That would only work if the floor were supported only at the sides, and could be disconnected simultaneously across one side. In fact they were supported along all four sides and all around the core, so only if all the connections along three sides of the perimeter and all four sides of the core failed simultaneously could a floor hinge downwards to form an inclined plane. It would then run into problems from fouling on the core as it rotated, which would tend to break up the floor slab anyway. And finally, to make the upper mass slide sideways, the floor would still have to exert about the same force as would be required to stop the upper block dead in a purely vertical impact, which we know it isn't strong enough to do.

Short answer: No.

Dave

[Klimax]

Where is it going to go? It's all adding to the collapse initiation.

I just thought that part mass could fall beside of tower,so it could be arrested.

However it looks like it wouldn't happen anyway...