9/11 Truth for Dummies: Why Near-Free Fall Speed Was Impossible Without Explosives

I don't rely on magic, which does not exist. I much prefer science and physics.

 

and given Science & Physics, how is it justified that the mass on top of the as yet undamaged part of the skyscraper stayed on top so as to keep the action going, that is the continuous destruction of the tower.
The South Tower already proved that total straight down "collapse" is not only possible, but probable and the question remains, how is it that the tipped part of the south tower cause the total destruction of the lower part of the tower?

 

Gravity. Momentum. Same as the last 13 times you asked.

 

Here's an excellent demonstration of potential energy vs kinetic energy. Note the foundation of the tower is constructed of Balsa wood.

[video=youtube_share;Bgucy_b5FKk]http://youtu.be/Bgucy_b5FKk[/video]

I should also note the the failure of one element of the foundation brought everything down in a fraction of a second.

 

And this is to be considered an analog of a 110 story skyscraper?

 

More digital, I would say.

 

This is not even close as an alleged representation of what happened with the towers, the kids put static load on their structure until it failed.
In the case of the alleged failure of the tower(s) the load was said to be dynamic from the very beginning.

I also mention here, that the upper 15% of the North Tower was most likely only about 5% of the weight of the tower ( if that..... ). The dynamic load condition at the beginning of the "collapse" sequence could not possibly have been as much as the application of the entire mass of the upper section as if dropped as a block upon the lower section. and in addition, the load-bearing strength of the lower structure is not exclusively in the floor, its the entire structure. The whole story is totally implausible in that the expectation is for the energy of the falling mass to be focused so as to cause pulverization of the decks + break all the critical connections so as to cause the destruction of the tower(s) without moving off-center and in the case of the North Tower, descending for 90 stories so as to cause the total destruction of the tower.

and you will probably label this an argument from incredulity.
However, say if you saw a "news" report about how a flying saucer landed on the White House lawn, you would be incredulous...... no?
this is in the same league, how can anybody buy it, that is believe the argument that in response to an alleged airliner crash, the WTC tower(s) "collapsed" down to ground level?

 

The video represents several of the principles at work at WTC.

Did you notice how the dynamic load broke the steel table beneath when dropped from around 15 inches? Physics!

 

The table top was made of particle board, the supports to the table may have been steel but the failure can most properly be defined as bending rather than breaking. also did you notice the chaotic nature of the scattering of the weights, when things of this nature happen, its not just a case of gravity pulling things straight down, there are all sorts of forces at work and in the case of the WTC tower(s) the mass above can NOT be expected to remain centered over the as yet undamaged part of the tower.

 

The weights came straight down onto the table. Why did they not slide to one side when the tower failed? (Answer: gravity and momentum.)

A bent steel girder offers as much support as a broken one. Weakened by heat, for instance.

 

so the steel below the 93rd floor of the North Tower had been weakened by heat? and in a totally uniform manner?

 

Once the collapse started,the steel didn't need to be heatedfor structural failure

 

Where did I give specifics of location or uniformity? Don't make things up.

Note the posted video: the failure of ONE element was enough for total collapse.

 

in the example that just happened to be made of toothpicks.
The fact is that the WTC towers were made of steel bolted & welded together.

Just for a thought experiment, what if there were 110 of these little toothpick structures stacked up vertically and the weights placed upon the very top, failure of one element could cause total failure, but in the result of said failure, would the tower come straight down? or?

 

They weren't toothpick: it was balsa wood. Stop making up your own facts.

You're missing the entire point, aren't you? Is that on purpose? or?

 

Balsa or toothpicks, still little wood bits, whatever .....
fact is that in the case of the towers, steel bends before it breaks
and therefore the analog is flawed.

My point in all of this is the fact that you can not expect the mass
of the alleged "pile driver" to remain centered over the as yet undamaged part of the tower, so as to uniformly destroy the tower all the way down to ground level.

 

And bent steel gives as much support as broken: Zero.

Why didn't the weights tip over and miss the table? Why did they fall straight down?

 

Thank U ever so much for that bit if wisdom.

 

Why is that wisdom lost on you?,and why didn't the weights tip over and miss the table instead of falling straight down?

 

This was the original bit that prompted my comment:

Steel bends before it breaks and takes time to do so.
This is critical to understanding the demolition of WTC1,2 & 7
was indeed a planned operation specifically designed to destroy
the buildings.

 

Steel fractures before it bends,and because of that,it often breaks before it bends also..

 

To address the little balsa wood model, in contrast to a steel framed skyscraper. Obviously what was going on with the model, was that the kids were loading the structure to ( and beyond ) its max static load,
Two things about this: 1, wood and steel will go into failure mode in different ways because they are very different materials .... and 2, no skyscraper ever built would have anything even near its max static load applied, ever. The allegation that the upper mass of the tower ( BTW: comprising < 5% of the total weight of the skyscraper ) "collapsed" down overwhelming the lower part in such a manner that the mass could accelerate on the way down, is positively ludicrous.

Just as one possible scenario, what if the mass from above didn't cause 100% destruction of the deck(s) below, but simply punched holes in the deck, and that would allow rubble to redistribute throughout several floors and reach equilibrium without total destruction of the tower.
This and other possibilities are at least ( if not more so ) as likely as any other outcome and most certainly more likely than the total destruction of the tower(s).

 

It did have it's max static load appliedby the upper portion collapsing..What's ludicrous is thinking with the amount of destruction going on in the towers,that it would have 'stopped' at any time.

 

This is working completely on incredulity. The fact is that because the "pile driver" was moving downward at acceleration, that clearly indicates that the load to the lower part of the tower was NOT max, but only a portion of the weight of the upper mass.

Given that there were opportunities for the redistribution of rubble,
that is the stuff could have packed up elevator shafts, stair wells, air ducts, whatever presented the space to dump material into, and that would change the characteristics of the "pile driver" in its alleged downward drive.
What caused the mass to accelerate, rather than get slower as it progressed downward?

What conditions made the collapse initiation even possible?
and why should "total collapse was inevitable ... after collapse initiation"
be taken seriously? WHY consider total collapse inevitable?

 

I'm glad you finally admit that everything you think about 9/11 is based in incredulity..

And elevators and stairs were part of the structure collapsing,no time to 'fill them up'

As for your questions,try thinking about it