Don't forget that the falling mass is increasing with every floor that gets crushed.
I'm not fogetting that theory, but rather am aware of the fact that such an accumulation of mass would have progressiivly broken though each floor quicker than the other, resulting in an incressing acceleration over the progression of the destruction rather than the the constant acceleration observable in the video evidence. Besides, had the mass mass accumulated on the way down as you suggest, It would have ended in a large mound of that mass at the footpirnt of the tower rather than with the vast majorty well outside of it.
Just checking: Is this 2009, or did I just dream the last three years...
It was only about thee years ago that I saw reason to doubt the official story. I had seen the towers come down that day and was at a loss to explain how it happened, but had no interest in ever seeing it again and figured others were better suited to explain it than I was. I had bought into the pancake theory then, not reasoning what a crackpot idea that was since I wasn't familiar with the evidence. It wasn't until I found out about the fall of building 7, and saw that achieved a period of freefall that I was compelled to look back at the towers. Put simply, in both cases the official explanations defy the laws of physics.
Dave Rogers explained this to you some pages ago. Tony Szamboti had it explained to him many times in the 'missing jolt' thread.
Except I never claimed there should have been any jolt that is missing, which is why I ingored that part of his reply, and will do the same with yours.
The collapse zones at WTC were tilted, eccentric.
Can you demonstrate any such tilt in the path of destruction as it progresses down the tower? I started this thread on the fact that the top was titled and hence if it crushed the rest down that path would reflect that tilt, and everyone denied anything of the sort. Now you are claiming tit, but can you provide evidence to support this claim?
It's an approximation to treat the collapse as a series of discrete shocks, but in the case of the Balzac-Vitry demolition it's not a bad one. This is not argued from a theoretical approximation, but from the actual data; the Balzac-Vitry demolition shows a decrease in downward acceleration at the initial impact, then a greater acceleration as it falls through the height of the supporting walls, then another decrease as it hits the next floor.
Again, I'd like to see the data you are referencing here. Can you present it?
Mass does not "gain force" through any means, as the two are dimensionally different. Mass increases close to the speed of light, but this is not "gain(ing) force".
So, does a given chuck of matter accelerating towards a velocity far less than the speed of light exert the same force as that same chuck of matter accelerating at that same rate while approaching a velocity very close to of the speed of light, or does the latter have more force? The answer to that question is what I was referring to in the comment you took issue with the semantics of.
Mass, however, exerts force through changes in its momentum; force may be defined as the rate of change of momentum with time, and therefore the momentum of a mass may be used as a measure of its ability to exert force.
Rather, not
the momentum alone, but the
the rate of change of momentum (AKA acceleration) can be used to measure the ability of a mass to exert force. This is the crucial distinction I have been referring to.
The lower blocks of the WTC towers needed to exert sufficient force to counteract the effects of gravity on the upper block - which they were capable of doing, of course - but at the same time they had to exert sufficient force to reduce the momentum of the upper block to zero before being compressed to the point of failure. This they were not capable of doing, even in their undamaged state - which they were very far from at thhe moment the collapses began.
I never suggested the should have been, and the comment you were replying to there was not even made in reference to the towers, as I had previously mentioned in the last line of the comment which you left out when you quoted me.
Because chaotic processes produce chaotic results.
Can you explain how such a chaotic process would produce such linear results in the orientation and rate at which the path of destruction traveled down the building?
NIST would have been unable to offer more than a general description of the collapse due to the complexity of modelling it, and this would have added precisely nothing to their understanding of why the collapse began.
Do you know if anyone has managed to produce a reasonable model to provide a general depiction of the rate and scale of the collapse?
...when NIST ... incorporated a collapse model into the WTC7 report. As might be expected, the model didn't match the detailed features of the collapse particularly accurately...
That is a gross understatement, as demonstrated in
this video comparing NIST's model to video of the actual collapse and note that NIST didn't even have enough faith in their model to release it, only videos of it. Had they released it someone could have made a reasonably accurate representation of reality with it, but not by way of the force of gravity alone. As I mentioned above, it is the collapse of building 7 which first clued me in to the fact that the official story just doesn't add up.
The acceleration of the brick decreases very slightly when it hits the egg, but is still downward. You will at no point see the downward velocity actually decrease (which is what is meant by the word "decelerate").
I do mean the velocity of the brick must decrease when acted upon by the outside force which is the egg. Can you provide a mathematical example to demonstrate your claim to the contary?
