Don’t watch it, it’s rubbish. You won’t like it.

Questioning simple answers to complex questions does not necessarily mean one believes in conspiracy. It might be driven by a desire to understand what happened.

It’s in store for £30. But maybe only some places

Nooooo! the Towers are NOT like Jenga.

The point was not to compare the Towers to Jenga, but to give you and example of a system which has no external lateral force, yet lateral displacement occurs.

Yet you think there should be (bulk) lateral movement. How can there be lateral movement with no lateral force?

Off centre mass would be a possibility. Think Jenga, no external lateral force, still results in bulk lateral movement

There’s nothing pulling it no…. but there is something pushing back against it….air resistance, which is why it decelerates horizontally, there is no force acting on it any more. Where as vertically gravity is still acting on it vertically.

This isn’t towers dropping in a vacuum!
air resistance acting in any significant way on a brick ejected laterally from the building?

Let’s try some probabilities

1)Probability that it would collapse ‘neatly’ given that it was a controlled explosion:

2)Probability that it was a controlled explosion, given that it collapsed neatly:

some estimates will do just to get started

I’ll say this bit again:

There are no external lateral forces. There is an external vertical force, gravity.

No need to say that again I haven’t proposed any external lateral forces

Take a single piece of rubble as an example, even if 100% of the downwards momentum were converted to 100% lateral, there is nothing pushing that bit of rubble sideways after it hit whatever it hit,

nothing pulling it back either. I can assure you it’s not the lack of understanding of the basic mechanics of this which makes it problematic. It is the complexity of the interactions which make it difficult to unpick

lots of stuff got ejected sideways, have you seen the videos.

There’s videos of the collapse????

Had we not established that mechanically at least, the aircraft impact was not relevant?

Not trolling, but where would you get that from?

Do they not collapse from the ground up?

the deflection forces get cancelled/minimised when they hit something else,

except at the edges, where they will tend to be in the same direction.
and only if collapse is uniform

Assuming every level was blown to get it to drop – would this look any different? All the concrete is gonna break up and be sent in all directions but will get normalised into the downward direction.

Not sure how it works, but by blowing it, isn’t bumping reduced because the thing it might bump into has gone?

forces are still orders of magnitude smaller

Except they are not. They are of the same magnitude, they may be smaller. Unless you reckon the angle of the ‘bump’ is very small. It would just be a factor of Cosine of the bump angle, wouldn’t it?

Sure, but it has never been a commonly held belief, even in antiquity.

The force is gravity, and the mass is mahooosive, any lateral reaction forces from bumping into stuff on the way down are many orders of magnitude smaller, consequently you cna pretty much disregard them, hence…

I can accept the difference in magnitude, but the chaotic nature of bumping into stuff, especially the building itself, lots and lots of times makes the straight down seem very unusual

The irony is that no one ever really believed the earth was flat. Yet despite evidence to that effect, folks still like to believe that they did!

It couldn’t really have collapsed any other way, that does NOT mean that the collapse was predictable or likely. Just the manner of collapse.

Yes, i did mean the manner of collapse. That if someone said a plane would explode in there and the subsequent fire would cause a collapse, you would reasonably say, Yeah, it will pretty much fall on itself

Unless you’re aware of some significant lateraa force that we’ve all missed?

Only ones i can imagine would be the unpredictable nature of one thing falling on another. tends not to be just vertical forces at play

There were huge lateral forces when the plane hit the building; shook the whole tower. Took the resultant fire to take it down though.

yes, i meant in the collapse

Not saying that all. It would be hard to replicate, because you’d need to do an awful lot of work to make it happen, this isn’t the same as meaning that the way it collapsed was unpredictable.

So… it was predictable? One would expect that given all possible collapse scenarios, the one that occurred was quite likely?

All we can say with any degree of certainty is that they did collapse in such a manner, and it was always going to be ‘downwards’.

I think we can all agree that downward is the direction of gravity and that we are all amused at how often this is repeated. The issue is that there appeared to be minimal lateral forces.

It’s hard, nobody has said otherwise. The fact that the Towers collapsed in the way they did doesn’t mean it would be easy to replicate, and it certainly wasn’t ‘controlled’ in terms of outcome compared to an actual controlled demolition.

So, in trying to understand this… The collapse would not be easy to replicate, so the towers in fact collapsed in quite an unpredictable way?

what were the chances of them collapsing like that? This is not rhetorical, can you make an estimate of the likelihood?

Not that i’m suggesting that because they collapsed in an unpredictable way it means that there was a controlled explosion.

But it would help with constructing the Bayesian equations

Also F depends on where you measure it..

Sure, it’s a problem there is some elasticity in the building, more the higher you are. But I think for now we could consider the force at the interface between the falling bit and the bit underneath. So we have the force crushing the floor below and at the same time slowing the mass above, or at least reducing its momentum.

YOU used to use your intelligence for things other than shit blatant trolling

Not trolling, just keeping the science on track and applying a slightly critical eye to some of the statements being made.

Also, “because they are big” is a bit of a crap answer really isn’t it?

Ok, so F=ma stops working, carry on.

IE the 22 floors have not stopped, and the mass of moving material has increased by the mass equal to 1 floor?

Has the momentum changed?

Is that a question? Or an answer? It doesn’t really explain anything.

– ie that thousands of government employees conducted massively destructed and invasive pre-demolition prep on the twin towers which would easily have taken 6 months to a year and no one noticed. No one questioned anything. None of the survivors recall seeing strange men drilling strange holes

Why would it have taken such a massive team? And so long?

that’s his 2nd law f=ma

Erm… Not really.

What you can get is some of those wall hanging scrolls. Some.are very new and tat, others have been aged and are a bot tat. Others are actually the originals and are not tat at all
Get the ones that look most like the originals

Waving cats are only for businesses. They are bad luck for domestic use.

Did you wear a Barbed Wire glove?

Have yo never brought food in for folks who have been in hospital for a long time. Folks who fancy a bit of home cooking?

you need to look at his in small sections. In the 1st case you have a single reduction in area. so if your volume flowrate is constant but your area is halved, then velocity is increased.

With the angled coil, a a whole load of assumptions come in for simplification. But we did a bundle of those earlier anyway.

For he angled coil, think of them as a series of bars. clearly if they were widely separated, you would have minimal contraction and so velocity would increase but not greatly. with small separation you have a similar effect, assuming ideal fluid, which is mathematically ok, but in real terms not.

in reality you would have all kind of flow conditions, boundary layers, vortex streets, laminar turbulent transitions, that the idea of velocity is a bit meaningless. it would vary throughout the region of interest.

Longsands Fishbar? Up that way you need to try Fish Kitchen and hope for a lobster burger.
Otherwise, try Riley’s this evening

Tell me more, bikebuoy

You seem to have one too!

Oh, sorry misread that

Yeah, but it’s available at £30

If I was so broke I had to buy clothes from Primark, I think I’d rather use charity shops.

Let’s all pray to Blue Peter that you never have to find out!

Then a one tail t-test