You and promo don't even understand basic physics.
A falling mass under gravity cannot pulverize the structure below without transferring energy to structure below, which means the top should have been losing energy all the way down. You guys seem to think Newton's 3rd law didn't apply that day.
The only way your theory works is if the solid mass lost zero energy and accumulated additional mass/energy on it's way down. Reality doesn't work that way.
Seems like you and promo should stop talking about stuff you clearly don't understand.
This is your post that makes me laugh the most.
You seem to not realize that the WTC's load bearing structure was in it's outside walls and in it's core. Each floor was pinned to the load-bearing structure and these pins were its achilles heel. There were no load-bearing columns in the office space.
I think it was Basketcase that first correctly mentioned the stored gravitational energy in the building. "Gravitational energy is the potential energy held by an object because of its high position compared to a lower position" (wiki).
1) The fire heated the steel floor structure to the point it started to sag. As it sagged it placed more stress on the pins. The pins themselves were weakened due to the heat of the fire.
2) Normally the outside load bearing structure is carrying the load straight down to the ground. As the floors sagged they pulled the outside load bearing structure (perimeter walls) towards the core a tiny amount. Initially the forces involved would have been to the equivalent of just the weight of the floor, but as the outside structure bowed-in, even a millimeter, the force vector would have changed towards the core in proportion to all the weight of all floors above it. The more it bowed, the more the force would have shifted from 100 perfect vertical to horizontal, which those columns were not meant to carry. It doesn't take much bowing to have a dramatic impact, we're talking the mass of 15+ stories bearing down on the columns. This is basic vector math and physics.
3) Eventually the sag, heat and weight caused the floor pins to shear and the floor collapsed. The combination of the damage to the structure, heat and inward load on the outside support columns resulted in the perimeter structure failing and upper floors collapsed with the first floor.
If you look at the collapse video, this is exactly how it looked. You see the 1st floor collapse, the outside walls immediate above the floor disintegrate and then the structure above it almost instantaneously (but not instantaneously, which is exactly what you would expect.) Observed = science.
Now, to your point:
4) Gravitational energy instantaneously changed to kinetic energy except the mass has now increased from 1 floor to many floors. The floors all started to accelerate at 9.8m/s2 and pancaked into the next lower floor.
5) We now have 100,000++ of joules of kinetic energy acting not directly on the inside or outside structure of the tower, but on the pins that hold the floor to the structure.
This is a key point, the very construction of the building encourage a pancake collapse in this scenario. From the physical evidence, it's proved that the planes themselves didn't collapse the tower (side note, if they had, the towers would have collapsed sideways on the side with the most damage). It was the resultant fires that weakened the floor joints/pins that caused the collapse. Further the super strong central core would guide the collapse straight down, just before the core itself fails.
You are correct, at the exact instant of the 1st floor colliding with the next lower floor, the lower floor will provide an equal and opposite
force. In essence the moving floor slightly slows (doesn't stop) for an microsecond in time. But you are wrong when you say the collapsing floors lose energy all the way down. You incorrectly assume that there is an energy transfer. The exact instant of the collision, all that kinetic energy partially converts to gravitational energy and still has kinetic energy. Due to the way the WTC was build, all that force is focused on the floor pins.
6) All that energy and mass is WAY beyond the strength of the pins and they fail. The floor collapses. The outside walls are pulled in and the strong core encourages a straight down motion. Yes, velocity has decreased a tiny fraction of a percent.
7) Total mass increases even more, the floor already has velocity and the floor accelerates at 9.8m/s2 and the process continues all the way to the ground.
Again, this is supported by the collapse video evidence. You can clearly see the progression of the collapse at each floor. The WTC does not independently below the actively collapsing floor. Most materials are kept within the footprint.
Your argument only seems to be focused on the difference between free-fall time and actual fall time and you argue the 3rd law physics says that there was ~90 discrete stoppages in the collapse and that should take a long time. Eznutz - how long should it take? Please show me the math. Fortunately several of your fellow conspirators (including yourself) provided links to experts who already did the math. The towers fell almost exactly within the time calculated/predicted.
Originally you conspirators argued that the building fell at freefall rate and that was proof that every floor was either weakened and/or support columns destroyed. However multiple independent sources of video showed it took longer than free-fall and you yahoos went on to the next theory.
