> > So, stack 10 or so cans on top of each other, stand on it, 
> and tap one.
> > What will happen?  The tapped one will get crushed, but 
> what of the rest?
> > Will they pancake, or did the one that failed absorb enough 
> energy to 
> > prevent more damage?  It's hard enough to model that, let alone 
> > anything bigger.
> >
> >   
> Or when the stack collapses will it not crush in the 
> strongest possible way IE straight down, will it instead tip 
> over just a little removing the structural integrity of the 
> stack and the top can will hit the ground just a little after 
> it would have if you dropped it?
> Sound possible?
> Rather than the whole unsupported stack magically maintaining 
> all the heavy bits balancing on the bits below.


Sure it's possible.  A building, like the stack of cans, is mostly empty
space.  However, if you watch the videos, especially WTC1 & 2, you can see
debris falling off the towers and going down faster than the tower itself.
That's freefall, not the towers did.  I must admit I haven't gone back to
look at similar stuff in WTC7, but it's probably there too.

The first fault in the stack of cans is that it's not stable, so use 3 or
more columns.  Next is there is no weight (floors) between the cans.  So add
some steel plates.  And so on.  It's just an analogy, and like all analogies
is breaks down pretty quickly.

Unless someone who has a degree in "Big stuff falling down" chimes in (with
their peer reviewed paper), the opinions expressed in this thread are just
that - opinions, and thereby worthless.

My point with the cans is I can get that 'model' to fail any way I want, and
thus support any theory.  It's worthless.  Fun to do though.

Tony


-- 
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist