Don't blame me because you can't understand elementary physics. Jonathan Cole does a fine job explaining it. If he can't teach you, then there is no way I can.
You were comparing the WTC to a hammer crushing tin cans. Nice attempt at a dodge, though. How about just answering the question?
I beg to differ. You don't even comprehend what you write. The third bolded instance in the quote above poses the question "how did it happen", with "it" being the key word here. You are asking how the upper section CRUSHED the lower section and say that it couldn't have happened because of Newton's Third Law. That the only way to do this was explosives. For the umpteenth time, your application of Newton's Third Law to the collapse of the towers is WRONG. The reason that it is WRONG is because the towers were a complex structure. Within those complex structure were CONNECTIONS. Those CONNECTIONS were not designed to withstand the force/load of the falling upper section, hence they failed and were torn/sheared apart. That is why I asked you to apply Newton's Third Law to the front door of a house. Using your logic, nobody should EVER be able to break down the front door of a house because someone's body is much SMALLER then the structure the door is attached to. You ran away from that example because you know where it leads. It all comes down to local failures and how much force they are designed to withstand.
Tell you what BJ. Let's see how much you really know about this subject as you keep spewing garbage. I asked you a couple of posts above, but I'll ask in a more precise manner. Explain how the load/force of the descending upper section of either WTC1 or WTC2 propagated through the lower section upon collision. I bet you walk away from this question.
You should take a physics class and a reading class. Newton's third law of motion applies to your door but you can't figure out how. I understand it but I am not going to try to explain it to someone who displays such a lack of elementary knowledge. - - - Updated - - - I would be happy to discuss it with someone who displays an understanding of Newton's third law of motion.
I understand it perfectly well. The door breaks/shears at the hinges or door jamb because they cant handle the force. Maybe the door itself splinters. The point being that in the case of a complex structure, you can't simply use Newton's Third Law to explain what should or shouldn't happen. I also love how you avoided admitting that you did in fact think that the upper section of the tower CRUSHED the lower section.
So teach me BJ? I'm open to learning. Back to the discussion... So you think the connections holding the columns, floor trusses, etc. together should have resisted the downward force of the descending upper section? This constant dodging of the questions or your unwillingness to discuss the topic at hand is quite telling.
I do not believe that is what happened. Your reading skills are too poor for me to discuss this with you. I believe that the upper section was exploded in controlled demolition. I've said that many times. If it hadn't been exploded, then according to Newton's law of motion the lower portion of the building would have decelerated the collapse. Just like professional engineer Jonathan Cole demonstrates with his scientific experiments.
Sorry, but according to you and your "understanding" of Newton's Third Law and how it applies to complex structures, the load applied to the door should be resisted by the entire structure BEHIND and ATTACHED to said door. Here is what you said: Just substitute the front door for the "smaller upper portion" and the house structure attached and behind the front door for the "larger lower portion".
?!?!? If you don't believe that is what happened then why are you asking how the upper portion crushed the lower portion? That is what the bolded section of your quote above is asking right BJ?
Answer the question BJ. Do you think the connections of the towers were designed to resist the descending load/force of the upper section upon impact? Or do you think that the load would have propagated THROUGH those connections without a problem? Remember the front door example BJ...
No, the descending mass could not have broken all the connections all the way to ground zero at anywhere near freefall. That is what professional engineer Jonathan Cole is proving with his scientific experiments. That's why they had to explode it. I am completely amazed that you can't understand elementary natural laws of physics even after it is demonstrated to you. In your silly door example you only have one connection. Your example is irrelevant to the discussion at hand.
I showed you a photo that proved the towers were not falling anywhere near free fall speeds. You hand waved that away as well claiming you could not understand the question the image raised to your theory
Do you have any idea how much of a load the floors were designed to hold up BJ? Do you have any idea what the force of the load of the upper portion was at the time it would impacted the first floor below? Are you saying that first floor should have resisted? You do understand the magnitude in difference between what each individual floor was designed to hold up and what the load of the descending upper portion was don't you? Based on what you're blathering on about, you don't.
NEAR freefall? You mean they didn't collapse at freefall? What was the timeframe you are using for WTC1 and WTC2 to have totally collapsed?
Your definition of "anywhere near" and mine are not the same. If a 1000' high rise falls in 9 seconds or 15 seconds, in my world 15 seconds is almost as near freefall as 9 seconds. An hour is not. - - - Updated - - - The official time from NIST's Shyam Sunder was 9/11. 9 seconds and 11 seconds. 9 11 ... 911 ... 9/11.
So roughly TWICE the amount of time as freefall. Fine, I'll accept that. The buildings collapsed at nearly half freefall acceleration. From your admission. - - - Updated - - - You keep repeating that lie, 'truther'.
Can you show me where, in the thermite demonstration video within the link you provided earlier, there are any EXPLOSIONS? Is that why they suggest INCENDIARIES where used because, according to that video... "(shhhh...it's all about keeping things quiet)" Why do they contradict your "exploded" claim?
No the actual numbers are WTC 1 = 11.7 and WTC 2 12.8 Freefall would have been about 9.2 Tower 1 fell about 21% slower than free fall Tower 2 fell 29% slower than free fall Thats conservation of momentum at work right there
According to this diagram the connections break, the floor collapses and the building fails at slower than freefall acceleration. Exactly what we witness from the videos of the WTC collapse. Your first diagram misrepresents the math shown by Gamolon, etc. on this board.
And he was wrong. There is video evidence AND an explanation from NIST as to the approximate times the total collapses took. From collapse initation to "nothing left standing was not 9 and 11 seconds. The times you quoted, 9 seconds and 11 seconds were the calculated times that the first exterior panels reached the ground, NOT the total collapse event time.
