This question doesn't even make sense.
As I said before, your inability to recognize what was happening is not my fault.
Mass is not necessarily stacking up. Mass in the Twin Towers is being blown laterally with incredible force. If anything, mass is decreasing.
How about some calculations to back that up? How about some facts and figures, such as the tonnage of material from the towers that ebded up not within the footprint versus the amount that did.
Since we both understand Newton's Third,
well at least one of us does.
we know that the upper section is being destroyed in virtually the same way as the lower section of each tower.
Pretty much except for the hat truss and the creation of a debris zone between the two sections, which would allow the upper block to remain relatively intact for a bit longer.
There are other differences as well. The floor pans of the uppersection are being taken off their truss seats upward(wrt to the seats themselves)while the lower floors were being pushed downward and had to bend those seats over. Not sure how much effect that might have had.
There is also the effect of thousands of square feet of drywall being violently crushed creating a huge amount of lightweight dust that is very easily blown outwrad giving a greater appearance of ejected mass than is actually ocuring, at least for the first several floors.
Mass is essentially being blown outward; it isn't stacking up like pancakes.
Its exiting out the sides in much the same way that apile of gravel forms an inverted cone that widens as more get piled on. Except that in this case there is the constraint of the floor area and if something falls past it then its off into free air.
So there is AT LEAST a minimum mass of falling debris that is always within the walls AND its velocity is increasing AND thus the momentum of that mass is increasing. Furthermore it never comes to rest and would not have to pile up into that inverted cone shape.
It's being broken up and dispersed and its force decreasing as collapse progresses. The 10 stories of the North Tower's upper section could never have completely eliminated the 100 stories below it.
Is this the 'a pile of debris cannot exert the force of a solid object' strawman so favoured by 9/11 conspiracists?
The reason a loose collection of debris has not the dynamic force of a solid object is that it impacts another object over a longer period. This is why a front end loader operator will slowly empty the bucket into a truck rather than dump the whole thing as quickly as he could.(the truck driver/owner might punch his lights out). However its mass , of course, remains the same. Furthermore, in this case, by the time the material causing the collapse is primarily loose debris(mind you much of it being multi-ton steel column sections) the velocity of this debris was much greater so you now minimize the effect of a more drawn out time of impact on each floor pan. Greater velocity means shorter time to get the same impact force from a loose debris impact.
AND,,,,,, again,,,,,, the vast majority of this mass and impact force(dynamic load) is hitting the floor pans, NOT the axis of the columns. THEREFORE the floors fail. There may be some force due to pressurized air as well but I do not subscribe to that as having a significant effect.
No floors=no lateral support=column failure
See you actually have to look at the hard evidence, not just take a simple equation and run with it.
I have looked at the 'evidence' and have seen nothing to dissuade me from the senario I put forth. I have also not seen you employ any science whatsoever, instead choosing personal incredulity as your guide.
You bandy about terms like 'decelleration', 'resistance' and speak of Newtons third law of motion but have demonstrated time and again your lack of understanding of these and other things.
Lastly, my question still stands, and your attempt to deflect is noted, but let's break it down.
1) When the initial collapse occurs, what is happening to the columns at that level? In answering this question I do not care whether you are invoking explosives being used to sever the columns or if they bend and buckle due to heat and increased load due to other failed columns.
If in the pristine structure a column was a straight line through these floors what does that line look like at initial failure?
2) Given that the load on any floor was transfered to the columns via the truss seats, would you expect all floors to be essentially the same (aside from the handful of floors that used heavy beams rather than lightweight trusses)?
3) Do you know the principal of long slender column buckling and the need for lateral bracing? Are you aware that the floor trusses provided this lateral bracing between the core column system and the perimeter columns system?
What is the result of the removal of lateral bracing?
) that don't only knock out the beams (the beams which are already cut by the thermite, and that could be blasted with less intense eplosives like those used in other CD's where the columns are NOT ejected laterally) but actually EJECT them laterally at 65 mph landing 500 feet away!
