WTC Collapse Simulator - DEMOLITION PROOF.....

[UNLoVedRebel]

Says the title of these videos that claim to debunk Dr. Greening.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LI540LMFj2M
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rt0G4iOPkC8

(Embedding is a pain in the #@$.)

These videos were hot among the YouTube Truthers, (YouTruthers) for a while, until the videos' author got suspended. She (yes it is a she) had her fellow YouTruthers upload her videos, and is currently available on different channels. The original author is back, posting under a sock puppet.

I am not trained in energetics, so I don't know exactly what she is trying to say (besides, of course, "proof" of explosives.) One of the now defunct videos was titled "Proof of no resistance" and yet you could clearly see the debris outpacing the rest of the structure.

If someone can explain how she has "debunked" Dr. Greening, it would be greatly appreciated. She posted her calculations here.

Quote:

I am also about to release a paper detailing specifically why the paper released by Greening is a total distortion of the truth. The simulator allows the usage of values calculated by Greening, but rather than state a value, and then NOT use it, as Greening does, the simulator includes ALL the identified energy sinks.

The paper will include a full rebuttal and a calculation of the true values involved. To illustrate, here are a few values which will be addressed:

“As we have noted before, the energy required to crush all of the concrete in one tower to 60 (pm) particles = 3.2 * 10^11 J which is only slightly less than the 5 * 10^11 J of kinetic energy available”

PE (FEMA) = 4 * 10^11 = 400000000000
PE (greening) = 5 * 10^11 = 500000000000

PE (greening) = 10 ^ 12 = 1000000000000 (HE STATES THE AVAILABLE IN THE QUOTE ABOVE, THEN DOUBLES IT !!!)

Energy to break supports (greening) = 6.29 * 10 ^ 8 * 94 = 59126000000 (ignoring stage 2)
Energy to break supports (greening) = 1 * 10 ^ 11 = 100000000000

Energy to crush concrete (greening 60) = 2.9 * 1000000000 * 110 = 319000000000
Energy to crush concrete (greening 60) = 3.2 * 10^11 = 320000000000
Energy to crush concrete (greening 100) = 1.9 * 10^11 = 190000000000

These values are pointer for reference, but the value I want to highlight specifically here is this, from quoted values in the paper:

Greening states the AVAILABLE energy to crush concrete on first floor impact = 2.4 * 10^9

In subsequent statements he IGNORES the FACT that the 2.4 is the INITIAL value and decreases on each floor, even though he shows a calculation showing the decreased value for the next floor impact. (2.3)

Simply multiplying the value 2.4 for each floor = 2.4 * 10^9 * 94 = 225600000000

Assuming proportional reduction (1st floor = 2.4, 2nd floor = 2.3, we have…factor 0.958333… per floor) These are not the exact values, but I’m simply highlighting the fact that the available energy decreases and that it is not constant…the sim and paper include full and precise values, but are computationally expensive to show here in isolation.

94 2.4, 93 2.3, 92 2.2, 91 2.1, 90 2.0, 89 1.9, 88 1.86, 87 1.78, 86 1.71, 85 1.64, 84 1.57, 83 …., 80 1.21, 70 0.79, 60 0.52, 50 0.34, 40 0.22, 30 0.14, 20 0.095, 10 0.062, 5 0.05, 4 0.048, 3 0.046, 2 0.044, 1 0.042

total = 56.6 * 10^9 = 56600000000 J

To summarise:

320000000000 J (Energy used to crush concrete)
225600000000 J (Energy available if we IGNORE the FACT that the available energy decreases)
56600000000 J (Energy available by the method above)

By EITHER method, the energy required to crush the concrete is more than the available energy.

An over simplification, but I don’t want to spam this comment section. I’ll ensure the paper is made available to you when I complete it.

Look at Greenings paper in the meantime, and note the assumptions made, and also that values which have already been quantified are then not included in subsequent calculations.

Quote:

Greenings Paper on WTC Energetics

Page 15

* The value E1 stated is Greenings calculation for the energy required to break the support structures, per floor = 0.6GJ

* The value stated for the energy to crush concrete to 60micron avg. per floor = 2.9GJ

* Elsewhere in the paper Greening cites a value for crushing concrete to a lesser extent, 100micron avg. per floor = 1.9GJ

Page 16

Greening shows a graph of Collapse Time against the value of E1, but IGNORES the value cited for crushing concrete, which OBVIOUSLY should be included.

Q: What is the collapse time from Greenings graph, if even the lower value for crushing concrete is included, as it should be ?

This means adding the concrete sink to E1…

E1 = 0.6 + 1.9 = 2.5

A: The value is off the scale of the graph.

The graph only goes up to 2.4 for very good reason.
If the value is 2.5, then by Greenings own calculation methods, collapse would fail at initiation due to insufficient energy being available.

Now I wonder WHY Greening decided to IGNORE the concrete crush energy sink in the value used to plot the graph ?

Make up your own mind.

You can find the rest of her arguments here.

[jhunter1163]

Damn that pesky gravity, adding energy all the time...

[ellindsey]

Is she assuming that all of the concrete on every floor had to be crushed in order for the collapse to continue? That seems clearly wrong, as the concrete wasn't doing much if anything to hold the building together - it was just there to give a flat floor surface for the building contents.

[R.Mackey]

Bingo. Even Steven Jones has argued against this, for well over a year. This is a very old, very well debunked strawman.

Will the last one to leave the Truth Movement, please turn off the bubble machine? Thank you.

[mrbaracuda]

Originally Posted by UNLoVedRebel

(Embedding is a pain in the #@$.)

No it's not!

[Travis]

So, by analogy, if my house is to collapse every single piece of lumber needs to be reduced to sawdust?

Somehow I don't think my house is that resilient.

[Heiwa]

Quite interesting - assuming of course that the upper, red part, with its superstrong bottom floor is rigid and undestructible all the time and that perfect alignment between upper part and lower structure columns is maintained at every impact and that upper part lands on rubble (not included) afterwards.

Of course on videos of the real event we see complete sections of wall columns/spandrels being ejected sideways for which you require energy applied horizontally. But gravity is a vertical force.

And the upper part bottom floor is not superstrong. It fails to destroy the 'spire' of core columns that is seen.

In my world the upper part should just bounce once against the lower structure while local parts in contact fail and the the upper part would then get stuck up top.

[mrbaracuda]

Originally Posted by Heiwa

In my world

Well, fortuneately we aren't in yours.

[Travis]

Originally Posted by Heiwa

In my world the upper part should just bounce once against the lower structure while local parts in contact fail and the the upper part would then get stuck up top.

I suggest you start charging admission to "your" world because it sounds most entertaining in comparison to the "real" world.

[GlennB]

Originally Posted by Heiwa

Of course on videos of the real event we see complete sections of wall columns/spandrels being ejected sideways for which you require energy applied horizontally. But gravity is a vertical force.

Drop a pencil - inclined at some angle to the horizontal - onto the edge of your kitchen table. It will be "ejected sideways" with absolutely no energy being "applied horizontally" in any active sense.

A snowplough pushing snow off the road whilst driving straight along the road would be another example.

I think the concept is known as "vectors".

[gumboot]

Originally Posted by Heiwa

Of course on videos of the real event we see complete sections of wall columns/spandrels being ejected sideways for which you require energy applied horizontally. But gravity is a vertical force.

The first ever physics class I had, at the tender age of 10, was on levers. I guess you missed that basic class.

[Heiwa]

Originally Posted by Travis

I suggest you start charging admission to "your" world because it sounds most entertaining in comparison to the "real" world.

Well in fantasy world three strong steel structures (office towers) suddenly collapsed due to gravity only after being initiated by fire, which has never happened before and will never happen again. Luckily. So welcome to the real world. Admission is free. Tough times are comig up fast though, so be prepared. Soon many office towers will be empty as companies cannot afford to rent offices there and there will be no power to run the elevators and nobody wants to scale 50 floors in a stair case to go to the office. So what to do? Just start a fire up top and the whole tower collapses? Sorry, it does not work. But you can always try.

[Heiwa]

Originally Posted by GlennB

Drop a pencil - inclined at some angle to the horizontal - onto the edge of your kitchen table. It will be "ejected sideways" with absolutely no energy being "applied horizontally" in any active sense.

A snowplough pushing snow off the road whilst driving straight along the road would be another example.

I think the concept is known as "vectors".

Yes, yes - that's the real world (the pencil bounces off the kitchen table! If the kitchen table is horizontal is remains on the table).


In fantasy world the pencil either destroys the kitchen table or punches a hole in it due to gravity only.

[Toke]

Heiwa, boil some almonds and then squese them between your fingers.

Report back on wether they fly acros the room.

[PixyMisa]

Originally Posted by Heiwa

Yes, yes - that's the real world (the pencil bounces off the kitchen table! If the kitchen table is horizontal is remains on the table).

No.

[HENTAI DOUKYUSEI JP]

Originally Posted by Toke

Heiwa, boil some almonds and then squese them between your fingers.

Report back on wether they fly acros the room.

Or better yet, do a pizza box "experiment".

[Heiwa]

Originally Posted by Toke

Heiwa, boil some almonds and then squese them between your fingers.

Report back on wether they fly acros the room.

I didn't boil the almonds but applied a horizontal force on them as instructed and they moved (actually accelerated) sideways and I haven't seen them since. Yes, windows were open and there they went. Gravity could not do that. Boil the almonds, etc.

[Heiwa]

Originally Posted by HENTAI DOUKYUSEI JP

Or better yet, do a pizza box "experiment".

Already done! Debunked Bazant & Greening 150%. But you remind me - time for lunch. No pizza today.

[PixyMisa]

Originally Posted by Heiwa

I didn't boil the almonds but applied a horizontal force on them as instructed and they moved (actually accelerated) sideways and I haven't seen them since. Yes, windows were open and there they went. Gravity could not do that. Boil the almonds, etc.

What were the force vectors involved?

Come on, you're an engineer or something, this should be child's play for you.

[Heiwa]

Originally Posted by PixyMisa

What were the force vectors involved?

Come on, you're an engineer or something, this should be child's play for you.

The resulting force vector was horizontal = no gravity. I (or something) applied the force. Controlled Force Application; CFA (similar to CD).

It is amazing that some 911-liers suggest that gravity force vector works horizontally and pushes the walls of WTC1 sideways outwards 100+ meters!!

That only happens in fantasy world. In the real world gravity acts only vertically. Even Bazant agrees with that, but his world is just 1-D - a line down - crush down - and up - crush up. Nothing is ejected sideways. Actually Bazant suggests that the upper part and the ground are suddenly rigid and that the WTC1 structure between is just squeeezed like an almond that does not slip away (not possible in 1-D) but is chrushed down. By gravity alone. And when this crush down is terminated, the rigid ground rubble heap crush up the rigid upper part - by gravity. We are back into fantasyland.

Or did the WTC1 walls bounce on something - a slooping kitchen table? - and was ejected sideways. Or was it another force pushing sideways?

BTW - my lunch was pretty good.

[Heiwa]

Originally Posted by GlennB

Drop a pencil - inclined at some angle to the horizontal - onto the edge of your kitchen table. It will be "ejected sideways" with absolutely no energy being "applied horizontally" in any active sense.

A snowplough pushing snow off the road whilst driving straight along the road would be another example.

I think the concept is known as "vectors".

Maybe I misunderstood your dropping an inlined pencil on a kitchen table edge. I thought the pen was parallell to the edge (one pencil end hitting the edge and a little later the rest of the pen contacting the edge) but maybe you meant it was perpendicular to it = one piece of the pen being outside the edge, the other inside on top of the table?

Well - certainly that part on the outside does not contact anything when it drops by the edge.

But some part of the pen will contact the edge - and if the pen is soft and the edge is strong (and friction is great), the pen breaks into two - it fractures! The upper pen part drops on the table and the lower pen part continues straight down.

No sideways ejection as far as I can see.

OK, let's assume that the pen is not so soft that it fractures but is elastic and just deforms like a spring at contact. Evidently the spring is compressed at contact and a little later decrompressed and bounces. As the spring is inclined the compression is both horizontal and vertical and the horizontal decompression pushes the pen outwards. Has nothing to do with gravity, though.

Any more questions about gravity?

[Lennart Hyland]

Originally Posted by Heiwa

Well in fantasy world three strong steel structures (office towers) suddenly collapsed due to gravity only after being initiated by fire, which has never happened before and will never happen again. Luckily. So welcome to the real world. Admission is free. Tough times are comig up fast though, so be prepared. Soon many office towers will be empty as companies cannot afford to rent offices there and there will be no power to run the elevators and nobody wants to scale 50 floors in a stair case to go to the office. So what to do? Just start a fire up top and the whole tower collapses? Sorry, it does not work. But you can always try.

Did you miss the plane?

And please dont start to compare different buildings with the WTC. NO other tower in the whole world was designed as WTC. NO other tower in the whole world has been struck by a Boeing 767 and exposed to extreme fire.

[rwguinn]

once again, the trolls reveal themselves to be one-trick ponies.
Goe awaie, lest the billy goats find thee!

[Thunder]

Originally Posted by Heiwa

Well in fantasy world three strong steel structures (office towers) suddenly collapsed due to gravity only after being initiated by fire, which has never happened before and will never happen again. .

i have a question for you and i would like an honest answer. why did you fail to mention the impact and damage caused by the plane? was it just a forgetful moment or are you actually trying to make it appear that only fire caused the towers to come down?

cant you argue your views without ignoring such incredibly important facts?

[Toke]

In heiwas world it makes no difference if the upper part of the towers drop 3.7m or two miles before hitting.
In that context the damage from the planes is insignificant

[Thunder]

do any truthers understand that if the top 40 floors fell, all together, 2 floors, that the floor that was impacted by the above floors was not built to handle such a load?

it was built to handle a static load....not 40 floors moving downwards. but we all know this.

[Grizzly Bear]

Originally Posted by Toke

In heiwas world it makes no difference if the upper part of the towers drop 3.7m or two miles before hitting.
In that context the damage from the planes is insignificant

Better yet if one floor could withstand the impact of 15-30 floors as Heiwa suggests, then how does Heiwa explain the planes plowing through them? Somehow Heiwa's claims remind me of the nutters that claim the planes should have bounced off the facade of the building on impact

[Thunder]

if one floor of the wtc can withstand the force of impact of 40 floors falling 2 levels...then i will become a no-planer. causes there is NO WAY the wtc would be hurt by a plane.

[Heiwa]

Originally Posted by parky76

i have a question for you and i would like an honest answer. why did you fail to mention the impact and damage caused by the plane? was it just a forgetful moment or are you actually trying to make it appear that only fire caused the towers to come down?

cant you argue your views without ignoring such incredibly important facts?

Evidently the WTC1 structure was also locally damaged when the fire started an hour earlier, but the structure did not collapse due to that. Later you could see two persons waving from the big hole in the wall, etc. You can see cut off wall columns, etc. All that is mentioned in my first paper at http://heiwaco.tripod.com/nist.htm . There were just local failures of some structural parts and due to redundancy they were not serious. Topic is what happened later.

We are then told that the fire (in severel locations up top) weakened the remaining columns and that suddenly they all failed, virtually simultaneously.

This we do not see on any videos, but if it happened, the upper part above would of course displace downwards and contact the lower structure.

What I see on all the videos is that the upper part is destroyed - it implodes - before anything happens to the lower structure. The upper part is 95% air, so there is plenty of empty space for the solid structure to implode into.

But assuming that the upper part did not implode but displaced downwards, the failed columns in the fire zone would act as an effective damper; they bend due to heat, then plastic hinges develop and finally fractures develop while the columns crumble in the fire zone. It is like when two cars (or ships) collide.

Of course potential energy is released (vertically - gravity you know) but in my view all that energy would be absorbed by the lower structure acting as a spring or mattress. The upper part would only bounce against the lower structure while the lower structure deforms like a mattress!! There would have been further local failures due to this bounce - weak parts would fail in both upper part and lower structure at the contact points - but the primary structure would not. So I would expect the upper part to remain up top after this short drop - if it took place. All due to gravity.

That the drop was going to initiate a global collapse of 95 floors below is actually nonsense. The Bazant paper proves it. Bazant assumes that the upper part is rigid, super solid, with a superstrong bottom floor that crushes the 95 floors below that are weak and flexible. The ground is also rigid, superstrong. But the upper part is neither rigid nor supersolid and it has no superstrong bottom. It is all fantasy. It was as weak and flexible as the lower structure. Like a bale of cotton, actually! And you do not collapse a bale of cotton by dropping another bale of cotton on it.

I have actually seen plenty structural damages due to more solid loads being dropped on or pushed into structures. Marble blocks dropping from cranes into ship holds, whole cranes dropping down, ships having collided, etc. No global collapses follow. Just local failures.

Of course ignorant people believe steel tower structures collapse when something is dropped on them, but luckily that is not the case. This is the message in my papers. An honest effort to clarify matters.

[Lennart Hyland]

Originally Posted by Heiwa

Evidently the WTC1 structure was also locally damaged when the fire started an hour earlier, but the structure did not collapse due to that. Later you could see two persons waving from the big hole in the wall, etc. You can see cut off wall columns, etc. All that is mentioned in my first paper at http://heiwaco.tripod.com/nist.htm . There were just local failures of some structural parts and due to redundancy they were not serious. Topic is what happened later.

We are then told that the fire (in severel locations up top) weakened the remaining columns and that suddenly they all failed, virtually simultaneously.

This we do not see on any videos, but if it happened, the upper part above would of course displace downwards and contact the lower structure.

What I see on all the videos is that the upper part is destroyed - it implodes - before anything happens to the lower structure. The upper part is 95% air, so there is plenty of empty space for the solid structure to implode into.

But assuming that the upper part did not implode but displaced downwards, the failed columns in the fire zone would act as an effective damper; they bend due to heat, then plastic hinges develop and finally fractures develop while the columns crumble in the fire zone. It is like when two cars (or ships) collide.

Of course potential energy is released (vertically - gravity you know) but in my view all that energy would be absorbed by the lower structure acting as a spring or mattress. The upper part would only bounce against the lower structure while the lower structure deforms like a mattress!! There would have been further local failures due to this bounce - weak parts would fail in both upper part and lower structure at the contact points - but the primary structure would not. So I would expect the upper part to remain up top after this short drop - if it took place. All due to gravity.

That the drop was going to initiate a global collapse of 95 floors below is actually nonsense. The Bazant paper proves it. Bazant assumes that the upper part is rigid, super solid, with a superstrong bottom floor that crushes the 95 floors below that are weak and flexible. The ground is also rigid, superstrong. But the upper part is neither rigid nor supersolid and it has no superstrong bottom. It is all fantasy. It was as weak and flexible as the lower structure. Like a bale of cotton, actually! And you do not collapse a bale of cotton by dropping another bale of cotton on it.

I have actually seen plenty structural damages due to more solid loads being dropped on or pushed into structures. Marble blocks dropping from cranes into ship holds, whole cranes dropping down, ships having collided, etc. No global collapses follow. Just local failures.

Of course ignorant people believe steel tower structures collapse when something is dropped on them, but luckily that is not the case. This is the message in my papers. An honest effort to clarify matters.

You cant compare ships to a building like the WTC. To bad you will never understand this.

As I understand (I'm no engineer) when structural parts such as columns gets destroyed their load that they were carrying gets transformed over to other columns. Sometimes that can get some nasty results as the new load to the other columns arent always even spread out.

I dont understand your point about all columns virtually simultaneously fail. Why cant some columns fail making it alot harder for the other columns to bear the weight (as I explained)? That doenst happen simultaneously.

Show me one single video where the upper block implodes and destroys itself.

Show me your calculations for that assumption and your energy calculations too.

You claiming to be an engineer but since day one on this forum you havent showed us, not a single one, evidence that support your ideas. Calculations, photos or well documented experiments isnt your thing right?

Your opponents on the other hand has done great in documenting their expriments, photos and calculations proving their theory. Its called the NIST report.

[tanabear]

Originally Posted by Lennart Hyland

I dont understand your point about all columns virtually simultaneously fail. Why cant some columns fail making it alot harder for the other columns to bear the weight (as I explained)? That doenst happen simultaneously.

If the columns don't almost all fail simultaneously, then how can you get a 3.7 meter free-fall or near free fall of the upper block onto the lower block?

Quote:

Show me one single video where the upper block implodes and destroys itself.

Point to the upper block in this picture:

Quote:

Your opponents on the other hand has done great in documenting their expriments, photos and calculations proving their theory. Its called the NIST report.

NIST really hasn't proved anything in regards to the dynamics of the collapse. Their report is primarily a pre-collapse analysis. Please, show me the experiment NIST did that proved Bazant's "crush-down/crush-up" hypothesis.

[Lennart Hyland]

Originally Posted by tanabear

If the columns don't almost all fail simultaneously, then how can you get a 3.7 meter free-fall or near free fall of the upper block onto the lower block?

No idea. Sorry I'm no engineer.

EDIT: Oh near free-fall I forgot about that. Well then probably did the columns fail almost simultaneously.

Originally Posted by tanabear

Point to the upper block in this picture:

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting...fb64299d01.jpg

The point Heiwa makes is that the upper block destroys itself before making damage to the lower tower.

Which clearly isnt the case:
http://www.waarheid911.nl/wtc2collapse.jpg

Originally Posted by tanabear

NIST really hasn't proved anything in regards to the dynamics of the collapse. Their report is primarily a pre-collapse analysis. Please, show me the experiment NIST did that proved Bazant's "crush-down/crush-up" hypothesis.

Well you are certainly right on that. I just wanted to make clear that why the WTC collapses are well documented and proven in their report.

[Mangoose]

Originally Posted by femr2 @ Youtube

He takes no account of the concrete in the core.

What concrete core?

[Toke]

Heiwas model of physics have friction and opposing force arrest a drop wether it is one floor or two miles.
I find that somewhat suspect.

[beachnut]

Originally Posted by Heiwa

Already done! Debunked Bazant & Greening 150%. But you remind me - time for lunch. No pizza today.

[truther math; caution-warning – using truther math can cause damage to equipment and personnel]
Debunked 150 percent. ???
[/truther math]

Got physics?

[UNLoVedRebel]

Originally Posted by tanabear

If the columns don't almost all fail simultaneously, then how can you get a 3.7 meter free-fall or near free fall of the upper block onto the lower block?

This has already been explained to you.

[PixyMisa]

Originally Posted by Heiwa

The resulting force vector was horizontal = no gravity. I (or something) applied the force.

What was the vector of the force you applied?

Quote:

It is amazing that some 911-liers suggest that gravity force vector works horizontally and pushes the walls of WTC1 sideways outwards 100+ meters!!

A vertical force vector can result in horizontal movement. Every person on the planet sees this in action ever day.

Except you.

Quote:

That only happens in fantasy world.

Try again.

What are the force vectors involved?

Quote:

In the real world gravity acts only vertically.

The force of gravity is vertical. A vertical force can and very often does result in horizontal motion.

Quote:

Even Bazant agrees with that, but his world is just 1-D - a line down - crush down - and up - crush up.

A lie.

Quote:

Nothing is ejected sideways. Actually Bazant suggests that the upper part and the ground are suddenly rigid and that the WTC1 structure between is just squeeezed like an almond that does not slip away (not possible in 1-D) but is chrushed down.

A lie.

Quote:

By gravity alone. And when this crush down is terminated, the rigid ground rubble heap crush up the rigid upper part - by gravity.

A lie.

Quote:

We are back into fantasyland.

One of us is, yes.

Quote:

Or did the WTC1 walls bounce on something - a slooping kitchen table?

Drop a pencil on a perfectly flat kitchen table. When it hits the table, it will move sideways. 100% of the time. It is not possible for you not to have observed this.

Quote:

and was ejected sideways. Or was it another force pushing sideways?

You tell me. You're an engineer or something. What are the force vectors involved?

[PixyMisa]

Originally Posted by Heiwa

Maybe I misunderstood your dropping an inlined pencil on a kitchen table edge. I thought the pen was parallell to the edge (one pencil end hitting the edge and a little later the rest of the pen contacting the edge) but maybe you meant it was perpendicular to it = one piece of the pen being outside the edge, the other inside on top of the table?

The latter is correct.

Quote:

Well - certainly that part on the outside does not contact anything when it drops by the edge.

Correct.

Quote:

But some part of the pen will contact the edge - and if the pen is soft and the edge is strong (and friction is great), the pen breaks into two - it fractures! The upper pen part drops on the table and the lower pen part continues straight down.

No, that won't happen.

Quote:

No sideways ejection as far as I can see.

You haven't tried it, have you?

Quote:

OK, let's assume that the pen is not so soft that it fractures but is elastic and just deforms like a spring at contact. Evidently the spring is compressed at contact and a little later decrompressed and bounces. As the spring is inclined the compression is both horizontal and vertical and the horizontal decompression pushes the pen outwards. Has nothing to do with gravity, though.

What are the force vectors involved, Heiwa?

Quote:

Any more questions about gravity?

Yes. Is there any on the world where you live?

[Zipster]

Did Heiwa just claim that if you drop a pencil on the edge of a desk that it will instantly shear apart when it hits?? Is he using candy pencils?

Wow, and it thought the whole bathroom scale fiasco was stupid...

[Heiwa]

Originally Posted by PixyMisa

The force of gravity is vertical. A vertical force can and very often does result in horizontal motion.


Drop a pencil on a perfectly flat kitchen table. When it hits the table, it will move sideways. 100% of the time. It is not possible for you not to have observed this.


You tell me. You're an engineer or something. What are the force vectors involved?

I have just dropped a pencil on a perfectly flat kitchen table. The pencil, also horizontal, every time, bounces straight up. And it is not due to gravity! Gravity is a force acting vertically down - all the time.

A vertical force F down always produces vertical motion down. If the motion is in another direction, up or sideways, it is due to another force.

So if you think that big chunks of WTC1 walls are ejected horizontally out by gravity, you are simply wrong.