The question is, how are the two floors stopped? While a little bit of the concrete is pulverized, most of it is still there along with the steel - what provides the force to stop that mass from moving? (or move it outside of the footprint of the building)
Um, the intact rest of the building. What part of this don't you understand?
after which both floors
as rubble,
So the collision is powerful enough to turn two floors into 'rubble' which magically allows all of that mass to 'flow' to the side? Are you really that ignorant of physics or do you just refuse to admit the truth because you know your theories are rationally indefensible?
You say the collision "isn't powerful enough" to turn the two colliding floors into rubble, but it
is powerful enough to generate a complete collapse of the rest of the intact building. WTF. This is your "physics"? Sorry, this is a completely asinine statement to make.
Furthermore, we have not even begun to discuss the rubble ejecting from the sides, so why are you bringing this up now? To deflect the argument? I was following the sequence of events YOU provided, and we are not yet discussing the loss of mass.
Since they are still moving, this puts strain on the columns below
No, because rubble can't really do much to the columns.
What you're saying is that the columns can't do much to stop the rubble (a large, moving mass of concrete and steel) from continuing downward and shredding the building as it goes.
Yes, the rubble is "shredding" the building. LOL.
to dissipate the energy and stop the impacted floors
rubble, you mean,
You apparently don't understand that rubble is worse than an intact floor - the building is not designed to exert force on rubble...
Please explain how rubble is "worse" than an intact floor. And, if the building can exert force on an intact block, how can it not be exerting force on rubble? I don't really believe you have no clue what you're talking about, but you do present that way.
Since the rubble are is now moving slower than the rest of the upper block, strain is also placed on the columns above the impact.
As it has been doing from the beginning.
There is no strain on the columns of the upper block while it is in free-fall.
Please explain how the upper block "free falls" through the 85% remaining columns in the impacted floors.
the lower block stopped being able to exert sufficient force on the upper block - that's what the initiating event was.
Wow. How did it stop being able to exert sufficient force, Mr. Fantasy Unicorn Land?
And basic physics tells me that the stress on the lower columns will be greater than the stress on the upper columns. .
Please explain how this would be true and be in accord with Newton's Third Law. This is basic physics.
and the columns above fail later (crush up).
Wrong, both in theory and in reality. Crush up clearly occurs before any crush down could have begun.
I assume your highly trained physical intuition tells you this...
No, the photos tell us this, for those of us interested in looking at what actually happened, instead of what we wish happened.
Please indicate where the upper block is seen through the collapse progression.
1.36 gigjoules of energy being opposed by the larger, stronger, more intact lower floors, yes. When a force is applied, that force is met by an equal and opposite force. In this case, not even equal, as the lower block is in much better position to withstand anything the smaller, weaker, lighter, burnt-up upper block could deliver.
So you don't think there is a difference between a heavyweight boxer putting his glove against your chest and pushing as hard as he can versus him pulling his arm back and punching you? The building wasn't designed to exert force against a moving upper block - no building is.
No building is designed to exert force against a moving upper block?? In fact, most highrises are. Most natural collapses are partial. There was also no "drop" of any upper block. If you disagree with this, show us the visual evidence.
The upper block wants to keep moving down (maybe you've heard that an object in motion tends to stay in motion)
yes, unless acted on by another force. Did you forget that part?
and the lower block is less able to do anything about it.
The lower block is "less able"? to "do anything about it"? According to what physical law? This is getting too stupid to comment to.
(plus damage due to the jet impact).
Um, that's what was crushed through in the beginning. Remember?
I'm saying that the floor trying to 'catch' the collapse was not an intact floor, but one that had already been damaged by the jet impact. The impact damage spanned several floors, remember?
Both colliding floors were damaged.
Both upper and lower structures would suffer damage in that impact zone. The lower ones would most certainly not fail first. For one thing, the columns in the lower sections of the building were thicker, but even if we assume they are equal in the upper portion of the building where collapse began, why would you guess they would fail first? With what do you support this claim?
With physics and math.
No, you haven't. You regurgitate Bazant, whose math has already been show to be incorrect. You make no attempt to support your assertions or describe how they would be supported by accepted physical principles.
The lower block is the larger, heavier, more intact structure. So no, in this case, the upper block is never "too big" for it.
Conservation of energy says otherwise.
Wow. Please explain to us how conservation of energy says otherwise.
It is patently obvious that if the first floor can't arrest the collapse, then no floor will be able to.
Neither of our first floors in either the upper or lower blocks survived, according to Newton's Third Law. Remember?
To restate (since you seem to reach for semantic arguments when you're grasping at straws..), if the collapse isn't arrested after the first impact then it will never be arrested because the subsequent impacts are even less favorable to building survival than the first.
Merely repeating this doesn't make it true. This is Bazant's "inevitability" argument. It is not true in real life, nor is it true in theory. Moreover, you brush over the fact that both colliding floors are now crushed or severely damaged.
Impact is absorbed both ways. What part of this don't you understand?
The highest intact floor must absorb the kinetic energy and transmit it to the structure below in order for the building to survive - the amount of energy that it is being asked to conduct is well above the amount of energy the columns are able to handle.
In both upper and lower blocks.
Because the floors are moving at different speeds after impact, more stress will be placed on the columns of the lower block.
How are the two crushed floors moving at different speeds? They're both crushed between the supposed upper block and the lower block. Gravity is acting on them, pulling them against the intact lower block. HOW are the two crushed floors moving at different speeds? This is *********** idiotic.
Arguing with idiots is a waste of time. What we need to do is get "debunkers" up in a public arena, explaining their idiotic theories to mainstream America. Don't discuss thermite. Don't discuss CD. Discuss the official collapse theory. THEN we will begin to see the general inertia of ignorance changing. The only reason this explanation has lasted as long as it has is because most people don't understand what exactly is being proposed, and they don't have the time to care. Most people's understandings, I would guess, are still based on notions of pancaking.
Yes, according to Newton's Third Law.
How exactly are you applying Newton's third law? Because it sounds like you are trying to use a buzzword to make your argument sound somehow reasonable and instead betraying an ever-increasing ignorance of physics.
If you understood Newton's Third Law, you would understand that the two colliding floors would be exerting the same force on each other. But you don't, so that's why you had to ask this question.
It is possible to estimate the yield strength of the lower block columns - calculate it and tell me how those columns can possibly absorb and transmit 1.36 gigaJoules.
As noted above, being larger, stronger, and being able to transmit that energy right back into the upper block, as per Newton's....you get the idea.
Whatever the upper block is able to deliver, the lower block can transmit back, because they are both of the same material and construction, with, actually, the lower block being stronger as you progress lower.
king moon dropped from 12 feet up would crush the towers, so....yeah.
