Remembering 9/11
- Thread starter Insidious Von
- Start date
Newton's theory applies if the entire floor falling weakened the entire floor below, like dropping a block on a block.
All that had to happen was a small percentage of the internal structure failing, which would have weakened it enough for collapse. This theory assumes the entire floor above crushed the floor below, not the entire floor weakening part of the ones below to collapse.
The conspiracy theory would be an immense undertaking, and would have to keep thousands of people from coming out, or feeling remorse.
I think the original theory has more believability than conspiracy.
All that had to happen was a small percentage of the internal structure failing, which would have weakened it enough for collapse. This theory assumes the entire floor above crushed the floor below, not the entire floor weakening part of the ones below to collapse.
The conspiracy theory would be an immense undertaking, and would have to keep thousands of people from coming out, or feeling remorse.
I think the original theory has more believability than conspiracy.
I don't think your statements are correct.
The towers did NOT encounter just air resistance because they had to "pan-cake" through lower floors.
The surrounding dust and debris that fell faster (close to true free fall) only encountered air resistance which is negligible.
http://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/newtlaws/Lesson-3/Free-Fall-and-Air-Resistance
I agree with what you're saying, except that an argument that somebody would've talked, means foreknowledge and being an accessory to murder or conspiracy to commit murder, which has no statute of limitations. So you keep your mouth shut unless you want to go to prison or fry in the electric chair, unless somebody else shuts you up 1st with extreme prejudice (I cite from my own study of the Kennedy assassination, although some people did drop hints, and some of them who talked died prematurely or violent deaths).
The combined weight (mass) of the top 19 floors fell on the intact structure below (not one floor, but the combined 91 floors)
If there had been resistance, we would of seen a noticeable deceleration.
Since there was no resistance upon impact, there was no supporting structure below to resist the initial drop.
Newton's laws of motion
Third law: When one body exerts a force on a second body, the second body simultaneously exerts a force equal in magnitude and opposite in direction on the first body.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton's_laws_of_motion
That's just ignorant misstatement of physics.
The building wasn't resistance for the falling mass to pass through like air. It was destroyed by the falling mass, and upon being destroyed, began falling itself.
You are totally failing to comprehend just how much force was involved. Twenty three floors worth of mass began falling, which is a tremendous weight. As it fell it picked up both more mass and more speed. After a few floors it was hitting the next surviving floor with astronomical force.
What makes you think the building below should havr slowed down the fall by more than it did?
Arguing that it must have slowed it down isn't the question. It did slow it down, but only by a trivial amount, which is right given the trivial amount is resistance the building offered versus the astronomical force it was hit with.
If Mount Everest fell on you, your spine wouldn't significantly slow it down either.
We would NOT have seen deceleration, that's wrong. What we actually saw was slowed acceleration.The combined weight (mass) of the top 19 floors fell on the intact structure below (not one floor, but the combined 91 floors)
If there had been resistance, we would of seen a noticeable deceleration.
Since there was no resistance upon impact, there was no supporting structure below to resist the initial drop.
Newton's laws of motion
Third law: When one body exerts a force on a second body, the second body simultaneously exerts a force equal in magnitude and opposite in direction on the first body.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton's_laws_of_motion
If I recall correctly, the floor joists were attached to the walls with a few bolts, but as as the walls were pried apart from the collapsing structure above, it came down like a house of cards as you said. (The stability of the entire structure relied on the exoskeleton remaining intact, but it was compromised).
What Eznutz's video above assumes is that the structure's stability is intact below the point of impact, to offer resistance. Like you said, it was NOT like a block falling on top of a block.
Eznutz: Conduct this experiment at home:
Make a house of cards, and drop a bowling ball on it.
Your prediction: the bowling ball will decelerate due to the resistance offered by collapsing card house.
Newton's prediction: the bowling ball will accelerate very nearly the speed of gravity, with the rate is acceleration slowed by an insignificant amount by the resistance.
Resistance will only cause deceleration if the resisting force is stronger than the force of gravity.
In this case the force of gravity acting on the falling mass was much, much, much stronger than the resistance offered by the building's structure, similar to a bowling ball falling on a house of cards.
Make a house of cards, and drop a bowling ball on it.
Your prediction: the bowling ball will decelerate due to the resistance offered by collapsing card house.
Newton's prediction: the bowling ball will accelerate very nearly the speed of gravity, with the rate is acceleration slowed by an insignificant amount by the resistance.
Resistance will only cause deceleration if the resisting force is stronger than the force of gravity.
In this case the force of gravity acting on the falling mass was much, much, much stronger than the resistance offered by the building's structure, similar to a bowling ball falling on a house of cards.
What everyone seems to be failing to account for is the additional mass each floor brings into the equation.
That is true.....and the initial failure was +/- 19 floors falling on one floor, which would not have destroyed the original +/- 19 floors, but a large portion of them would keep falling intact to continue knocking out the other floors.
This is where Newton's theory doesn't apply. 19 floors are forcing the collapse of one, then the next floor actually has 20 floors on it, then 21 etc.
When one body exerts a force on a second body, the second body simultaneously exerts a force equal in magnitude and opposite in direction on the first body.
This is assuming the weight of each body is equal. If you look at the cars in the video posted, the smaller (lighter) car is pushed back. It's like Fuji posting about dropping a bowling ball, it is heavier than the cards so the cards will fail.
In this case, 19 floors is heavier than one.......and the weight was accumulating as it was falling.
Huck, I was going to state the same observation with the two cars crashing into each other - the larger car slightly pushed the smaller car more so in its direction.
You use the term "weight", but I think a physicist would use the term "mass", but we know what you mean.
Your experiment made me think about something. In the case of the twin towers, it wasn't like a bowling ball fell on a house of playing cards, which is an exaggeration. I wish I could think of a better example.
Its close.....its the difference in weight and although the bowling ball is grossly different, it delivers the same result.
Figures, another corporate owned mainstream media outlet. Shocker that they'd dispute anything or anyone that questions what happened on 9/11.
Match your link with http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/gopm/
and let's not forget then, the RESISTANCE that's met upon impact as well.
The rate at which the top portion of the building tore down into the rest of the building is insanely fast, considering there were 70 floors below to go through.
