that most demolitions are designed to fall through the path of most resistance, because the resistance translates into a destruction of the building through the force of gravity. After a few floors and columns are forcibly removed, potential energy does the rest.
I don't think the "path of least/most resistance" talking point is very useful. The reality is much more complex than that. In the case of the South Tower, what is interesting there is how the conservation of angular momentum applies.
Mind you, I'm well aware of the acceleration/deceleration discussion and the application of Newton's laws of motion.
Also, one could say the BV building is "disintegrating in mid-air"....the point is that we're wondering if the upper block in the case of the Twin Towers, while traveling downwards, constantly changing in a morphology/structural integrity sense, accumulating and shedding mass, could sustain a 'pile driver' that could crush the entire tower down to the ground.
Mass accretion, mass shedding, mass participation.... Newton's third law... In this sense Bazant's characterization of the upper block is cartoonesque.
... that the twin towers and WTC 7 al fell through the path of most resistance. But in the absence of explosives or when demolitions go wrong, collapses occur through the path of least resistance. Insofar as there is a collapse.
Vesa, in the case of Balzac Vitry, there are no explosives involved: the columns over three floors are compromised by hydraulics and then the building falls onto itself.
Not "tipping" was also true for the partial collapse of the Dpt. of Civil Engineering building in Delft, the Netherlands.
I think we're talking past each other a little bit: what you mean is symmetry vs. asymmetry, I suspect.
It's not that a falling building 'chooses' the path of least resistance, i.e., shift over to the side in order to avoid impact with the lower structure. If the lower structure holds up long enough, significant quantities of upper block debris will be expelled laterally, but as the lower structure succumbs, it is primed for the next collapse iteration.
I think what AE911Truth is trying to convey is that collapses are bound to be asymmetrical in nature because local failures will/may cause asymmetric global failure. In the case of WTC 7, that means the East wing of the building succumbing first, or at east, a noticeable pivot or distortion of the facade. The link you just cited is an example of a structure arresting its own collapse, because it didn't follow the path of least resistance. Given all this obscurity and lack of clarity surrounding the term "path of most/least resistance", I prefer to avoid it. It's just more complicated than conveyed in soundbites.
Mind you, there are other criticisms of AE911Truth's talking points, e.g. by Tony Szamboti, who makes points in support of their overall strategy as well.
Euh? All it would need is a bit of office furniture to completely pulverise the thing and have it come down into a pyroclastic flow. They obviously did not read the 911 manual. LOL.
temperatures if there hasnt been a couple of isolated pockets of office fire that firemen say can be knocked out with a couple of lines
pity the chinese didnt know this with their recent highrise fire- they could have gotten way higher temperatures with isolated pockets
no technique or strategy whatsoever
they didnt have a pile- let alone pools of molten steel for weeks after- duh! such a wasted opportunity
imagine how much easier it would have been to clean up too- concrete turned to dust and steel sections cut the right length to go on a truck driven by tony soprano's boys or triad people
Strange
It fell along the path of least resistance, instead of completely disintegrating mid-air, as three other buildings did.
Hah!
That's funny! :D
Strange indeed.
Or collapsing straight down thru the path of most resistance.
You'll have to remember
that most demolitions are designed to fall through the path of most resistance, because the resistance translates into a destruction of the building through the force of gravity. After a few floors and columns are forcibly removed, potential energy does the rest.
I don't think the "path of least/most resistance" talking point is very useful. The reality is much more complex than that. In the case of the South Tower, what is interesting there is how the conservation of angular momentum applies.
Mind you, I'm well aware of the acceleration/deceleration discussion and the application of Newton's laws of motion.
Also, one could say the BV building is "disintegrating in mid-air"....the point is that we're wondering if the upper block in the case of the Twin Towers, while traveling downwards, constantly changing in a morphology/structural integrity sense, accumulating and shedding mass, could sustain a 'pile driver' that could crush the entire tower down to the ground.
Mass accretion, mass shedding, mass participation.... Newton's third law... In this sense Bazant's characterization of the upper block is cartoonesque.
I think the AEs point out precisely that...
... that the twin towers and WTC 7 al fell through the path of most resistance. But in the absence of explosives or when demolitions go wrong, collapses occur through the path of least resistance. Insofar as there is a collapse.
http://kemicityhall.blogspot.com/
Re: path of least/most resistance
Vesa, in the case of Balzac Vitry, there are no explosives involved: the columns over three floors are compromised by hydraulics and then the building falls onto itself.
Not "tipping" was also true for the partial collapse of the Dpt. of Civil Engineering building in Delft, the Netherlands.
I think we're talking past each other a little bit: what you mean is symmetry vs. asymmetry, I suspect.
It's not that a falling building 'chooses' the path of least resistance, i.e., shift over to the side in order to avoid impact with the lower structure. If the lower structure holds up long enough, significant quantities of upper block debris will be expelled laterally, but as the lower structure succumbs, it is primed for the next collapse iteration.
I think what AE911Truth is trying to convey is that collapses are bound to be asymmetrical in nature because local failures will/may cause asymmetric global failure. In the case of WTC 7, that means the East wing of the building succumbing first, or at east, a noticeable pivot or distortion of the facade. The link you just cited is an example of a structure arresting its own collapse, because it didn't follow the path of least resistance. Given all this obscurity and lack of clarity surrounding the term "path of most/least resistance", I prefer to avoid it. It's just more complicated than conveyed in soundbites.
Read, for example, this short comment by OneWhiteEye.
Mind you, there are other criticisms of AE911Truth's talking points, e.g. by Tony Szamboti, who makes points in support of their overall strategy as well.
Euh? All it would need is a
Euh? All it would need is a bit of office furniture to completely pulverise the thing and have it come down into a pyroclastic flow. They obviously did not read the 911 manual. LOL.
Yeah and everyone knows the pile will be way below steel foundry
temperatures if there hasnt been a couple of isolated pockets of office fire that firemen say can be knocked out with a couple of lines
pity the chinese didnt know this with their recent highrise fire- they could have gotten way higher temperatures with isolated pockets
no technique or strategy whatsoever
they didnt have a pile- let alone pools of molten steel for weeks after- duh! such a wasted opportunity
imagine how much easier it would have been to clean up too- concrete turned to dust and steel sections cut the right length to go on a truck driven by tony soprano's boys or triad people