Debunked: NIST's collapse theory contradicts Newton's Third Law of Motion

[Hama Neggs]

You would clearly be able to see a "jolt" from all the videos I have posted.

No, the images are not of high enough resolution, unless the "jolt" was on the order of at least 1/2 second or so long as the upper section hit the first floor below. After that, all hell breaks loose and chaos reigns. You are envisioning a FAR simpler event than actually took place. The "pancake" events could not have been perfectly symmetrical with a perfectly flat meeting of the floors. Only then could you even hope to see the sort of "jolt" you are talking about. The top of the building tilted, as shown by the antenna, so it met the next floor down at an angle. That gives it more of a shearing effect against the lower floor supports, rather that the flat "pancake" effect you seem to envision. That would spread the "jolt" out over some short, but undetermined length of time.

 

[WeedWhacker]

The top Antenna moves before anything else and then the walls collapse.

AND, this directly contradicts your earlier assertion that the antenna, being supported by the central column (the central column that YOU said was the "strongest part")....this clearly shows that the internal aspects of the buildings' structure were coming apart....and, the way it progressed is, they came apart at the places where EACH individual component connected to its neighboring component.

This is known as a "progressive collapse" that, once it initiates, is inevitable in the outcome.

 

[jaydeehess]

Moving away from the OP in which Chandler's treating the upper and lower portions as solid objects , or as having columns aligned at the moment of collapse initiation, is clearly in error

 

[WeedWhacker]

...Chandler's treating the upper and lower portions as solid objects...

Is this not reminiscent of Richard Gage's (infamous) video "demonstration" of some years ago?:



(For those who care not to watch a video, or lack the bandwidth/streaming plan: Mr. Gage's assertion, his "demonstration" involved cardboard boxes that he inferred to be "to scale" for one of the WTC Towers. EMPTY cardboard boxes. I mean, for an architect to use this as an "argument" is quite surreal, and easily dismissed as nonsense).

 

[Jazzy]

It's a pretty big thing to deny the obvious evidence you can see with your own eyes.

Nobody is doing that. I interpret what I see differently - in the light of some related experience.

but it's another thing altogether to try and brush aside Newton's laws of motion which have been in existence for over 300 years and are the basis for scientists and physicists understanding of the world.

Who is doing that? Apart from you?

Maybe I'm a bit naïve in posting about physics, I'm not a physicist but I'm pretty sure Mr Chandler knows exactly what he is talking about.

If you want to buy a bridge I'm sure you'll find someone to sell it to you.

Why would he possibly lie?

Why does he have to be lying? He could simply be mistaken. Talking about melting steel using aviation fuel, for instance, is not reasonable in the light of the knowledge that the buildings would have failed long before that. Also talking about cut ends, when straight (uncut) ends resulted from snapped fixings.

How can anybody claim that these buildings were not blown up?

By using their ears. By watching the buildings progressively sagging before their failures.

and watch the antenna move, now the antenna is on the core of the building which would have stayed up on it's own even if you had built nothing around it. It was the strongest part of the building.

The strongest part of the building was at its base. It didn't fail there. In fact the base was almost the last to fail.

So for a controlled demolition to happen you would have had to take out the centre of the building first which you as can see is what happens.

An intense fire burnt around them for an hour before the central columns failed. They failed when they were forced to receive the load released by the failing exterior columns.

What do you mean by rigid and deformed bodies? They apply to buildings.

Well, no. A building is a collection of such bodies which becomes a mechanism when it collapses.

If the top part of a building which is weaker that the bottom part collapses then there must be a "jolt"

Not in the case of buckling collapse there isn't. (Read it up). All the buildings buckled.

I'm saying I can observe the top of the building collapsing into dust. You don't need physics to explain this.

You see the top disappearing behind, not into, dust.

You would clearly be able to see a "jolt" from all the videos I have posted.

On the contrary. Buckling initiates itself very smoothly indeed. You will never see a jolt.

Another important point about buckling is that it involves an initial sideways motion which ensures misalignment. This misalignment destroys every relevant truther argument ever made by Szamboti et al.

"neither structure could stand on its own without the connections to the other". This is not true. You could build the middle on its own and it would stand all by itself that's how strong it was.

All your assertions have been a step too far, because your understanding of what you saw is limited.

A steel construction may be strong enough to hold itself up, yet be too unstable to remain there. The statement you disagree with so emphatically is absolutely true.

Just watch the building collapse. I'd just to add you can't have "debunked" Newton's third law of motion. It's universal. I don't completely understand Mr Chandler's explanation on why the building defies Newton's third law, well, I do kind of but I don't understand it enough to put it in writing. I will get back to you on that.

The argument made is completely circular one. If you use ENERGY terms you can get somewhere:

• The energy released during the collapse process was a proportion of the potential energy of the building, which was created while lifting the material to its final position above ground zero.
• As the buildings fell at 2/3G then 1/3 of the PE (equivalent to 32 tons of TNT) became available to pulverize concrete, and grind, tear, and bend steel.
• Most of the remainder of that energy (the other 2/3) ended up as heat at ground zero. This was an amount capable of raising hundreds of tons of steel to melt temperature.

 

[Jeffrey Orling]

The 47 core columns were not of equal strength by a long shot...and the thre columns directly below the antenna were the least strong of all the core columns by perhaps 10% of the columns at the corner.

The core could stand alone as a steel frame with all it's bracing intact... perhaps the floor plates in there help keep it square...

The facade likely could not stand with out the floor plate bracing.

 

[lemonlover]

Why would you? If the columns were not aligned, then it would be a continuous series of impacts, not bang bang bang.

So the building wasn't built properly? Anyway I'm still not 100% certain I understand mr Chandlers explanation but I'll give it a go. Essentially the force being applied by the falling block of floors to the bottom block was less than the force exerted by the top block at rest, and so logically no collapse should have occurred. The building is accelerating downwards, not at freefall but at 64% off of freefall which means there is some resistance. According to Newton's third law, for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction, so every time one of the floors hit the bottom floor, the bottom floor would have exerted at an equal amount of force back upwards and this goes on and on until the top floor which is weaker than the bottom part of the building stops. But this isn't what happened because the bottom part accelerates, ie gains speed. The bottom part was designed to withhold 3-5 times the weight on top of it but as the block falls the force of interaction is only a third of the weight of the top of the building. So according to mr chandler the bottom half of the building lost about 90% of it's strength. As I say I'm not a physicist. I was trying to explain Mr Chandlers point. Here is another explanation of it .... http://911blogger.com/news/2009-01-15/more-newtons-third-law as well as the video at the top of the page.

 

[lemonlover]

Nobody is doing that. I interpret what I see differently - in the light of some related experience.


Who is doing that? Apart from you?


If you want to buy a bridge I'm sure you'll find someone to sell it to you.


Why does he have to be lying? He could simply be mistaken. Talking about melting steel using aviation fuel, for instance, is not reasonable in the light of the knowledge that the buildings would have failed long before that. Also talking about cut ends, when straight (uncut) ends resulted from snapped fixings.


By using their ears. By watching the buildings progressively sagging before their failures.


The strongest part of the building was at its base. It didn't fail there. In fact the base was almost the last to fail.


An intense fire burnt around them for an hour before the central columns failed. They failed when they were forced to receive the load released by the failing exterior columns.


Well, no. A building is a collection of such bodies which becomes a mechanism when it collapses.


Not in the case of buckling collapse there isn't. (Read it up). All the buildings buckled.


You see the top disappearing behind, not into, dust.


On the contrary. Buckling initiates itself very smoothly indeed. You will never see a jolt.

Another important point about buckling is that it involves an initial sideways motion which ensures misalignment. This misalignment destroys every relevant truther argument ever made by Szamboti et al.


All your assertions have been a step too far, because your understanding of what you saw is limited.

A steel construction may be strong enough to hold itself up, yet be too unstable to remain there. The statement you disagree with so emphatically is absolutely true.


The argument made is completely circular one. If you use ENERGY terms you can get somewhere:

• The energy released during the collapse process was a proportion of the potential energy of the building, which was created while lifting the material to its final position above ground zero.
• As the buildings fell at 2/3G then 1/3 of the PE (equivalent to 32 tons of TNT) became available to pulverize concrete, and grind, tear, and bend steel.
• Most of the remainder of that energy (the other 2/3) ended up as heat at ground zero. This was an amount capable of raising hundreds of tons of steel to melt temperature.

The building should have stopped falling because if the floors pancaked then the floors that were hit would pushed their energy back. They would have eventually stopped because there was not strength in the top part of the building. "On the contrary. Buckling initiates itself very smoothly indeed. You will never see a jolt." this is complete utter rubbish. This was 100 foot building. You would clearly be able to see if there were jolts.

 

[Mick West]

So the building wasn't built properly? Anyway I'm still not 100% certain I understand mr Chandlers explanation but I'll give it a go. Essentially the force being applied by the falling block of floors to the bottom block was less than the force exerted by the top block at rest, and so logically no collapse should have occurred. The building is accelerating downwards, not at freefall but at 64% off of freefall which means there is some resistance. According to Newton's third law, for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction, so every time one of the floors hit the bottom floor, the bottom floor would have exerted at an equal amount of force back upwards and this goes on and on until the top floor which is weaker than the bottom part of the building stops. But this isn't what happened because the bottom part accelerates, ie gains speed. The bottom part was designed to withhold 3-5 times the weight on top of it but as the block falls the force of interaction is only a third of the weight of the top of the building. So according to mr chandler the bottom half of the building lost about 90% of it's strength. As I say I'm not a physicist. I was trying to explain Mr Chandlers point. Here is another explanation of it .... http://911blogger.com/news/2009-01-15/more-newtons-third-law as well as the video at the top of the page.

Take a hammer, and rest it on top of a wine glass. The wine glass supports the hammer just fine. Maybe even three hammers. It's supporting that weight, and has some spare capacity.

Raise the hammer 12 feet above the wine glass and release. The glass shatters, the hammer barely slows down.

Mysterious huh? The wine glass is more than capable of supporting the weight of the hammer, and yet when the hammer is dropped 12 feet, the exact same weight ploughs through the wine glass as if it was not there.

How is this possible? The wine glass is clearly designed to support several hammers, but if you drop a single hammer on it, then it offers almost no resistance?

 

[WeedWhacker]

....I'm still not 100% certain I understand mr Chandlers explanation but I'll give it a go. Essentially the force being applied by the falling block of floors to the bottom block was less than the force exerted by the top block at rest, and so logically no collapse should have occurred.

No, Mr. Chandler's simplistic 'explanation' is inadequate, and assumes aspects RE: the building and its construction that just aren't factual.

The buildings were not solid blocks. Again, they were constructed of hundreds of thousands of entirely separate components, all with a specific load-bearing design in the plan.

Designed to, of course, resist gravity AND some level of lateral forces, due to any anticipated winds during the lifetime of the structures.

The severe damage inflicted by the airplane impacts combined with the out-of-control and very, very intense fires were the ultimate undoing of these very, very innovative building designs.

IF you watch videos (I presume you do, since you posted one in the OP), then perhaps this will help:



AND this:

 

[Keith Beachy]

So the building wasn't built properly? Anyway I'm still not 100% certain I understand mr Chandlers explanation but I'll give it a go. Essentially the force being applied by the falling block of floors to the bottom block was less than the force exerted by the top block at rest, and so logically no collapse should have occurred. The building is accelerating downwards, not at freefall but at 64% off of freefall which means there is some resistance. According to Newton's third law, for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction, so every time one of the floors hit the bottom floor, the bottom floor would have exerted at an equal amount of force back upwards and this goes on and on until the top floor which is weaker than the bottom part of the building stops. But this isn't what happened because the bottom part accelerates, ie gains speed. The bottom part was designed to withhold 3-5 times the weight on top of it but as the block falls the force of interaction is only a third of the weight of the top of the building. So according to mr chandler the bottom half of the building lost about 90% of it's strength. As I say I'm not a physicist. I was trying to explain Mr Chandlers point. Here is another explanation of it .... http://911blogger.com/news/2009-01-15/more-newtons-third-law as well as the video at the top of the page.

911blogger is not an engineering journal, and the only place nonsense like breaking Newton's third law claims is tolerated and praised out of ignorance. It makes no sense; essentially it can't be debunked because it so dumb. Like debunking Santa Claus. It is hard to believe Chandler is a physics teacher.



A floor in the WTC can only hold 11 more floors. When the top section hits the first floor below it instantly fails and has new velocity based on momentum transfer, and accelerates at g to the next floor. The initial collapse matches a momentum floor by floor transfer, in speed and acceleration. The floors do not stop, and only slow based on momentum transfer; the floors falling velocity is slowed to a new instant velocity based (the missing jolt nonsense, which in reality of a falling floors 207 by 207 feet become an average you might not see based on the chaotic uneven collapse) on the new mass conserving momentum, the energy lost it trivial plus, if you could stop the floors at each floor magically, the floor would fail anyway. Albeit, this is basic physics, the collapse is complex, but once started, the mass of the top floors can't be held by one floor. The floors connect the shell to the core, and thus the system is falling apart. With the shell gone the core has lost the lateral support, and the core will collapse as seen falling apart 10 to 20 seconds after the floors and shell have fallen away.



The WTC floors can only hold 11 more floors, Chandler has no valid points. Please don't play the path of least resistance law made up by 911 truth.



Who has the momentum transfer graph for an idealized floor by floor collapse - using physics. The time of collapse matches a momentum transfer, and thus the CD nonsense fails to indicated by the WTC collapse caused by the action of 10 terrorists and two aircraft - as if 911 truth missed the cause, deny the aircraft, deny the terrorists and make up no name scapegoats. I will track down the momentum graph, etc.

 

[Mick West]

A visual explanation:

 

[lemonlover]

Moving away from the OP in which Chandler's treating the upper and lower portions as solid objects , or as having columns aligned at the moment of collapse initiation, is clearly in error

So the steal beams don't weigh down then? Your comment is unbelievable.

 

[WeedWhacker]

So the steal beams don't weigh down then? Your comment is unbelievable.

Could you please explain what you meant, here? It's not very clear.

 

[lemonlover]

911blogger is not an engineering journal, and the only place nonsense like breaking Newton's third law claims is tolerated and praised out of ignorance. It makes no sense; essentially it can't be debunked because it so dumb. Like debunking Santa Claus. It is hard to believe Chandler is a physics teacher.



A floor in the WTC can only hold 11 more floors. When the top section hits the first floor below it instantly fails and has new velocity based on momentum transfer, and accelerates at g to the next floor. The initial collapse matches a momentum floor by floor transfer, in speed and acceleration. The floors do not stop, and only slow based on momentum transfer; the floors falling velocity is slowed to a new instant velocity based (the missing jolt nonsense, which in reality of a falling floors 207 by 207 feet become an average you might not see based on the chaotic uneven collapse) on the new mass conserving momentum, the energy lost it trivial plus, if you could stop the floors at each floor magically, the floor would fail anyway. Albeit, this is basic physics, the collapse is complex, but once started, the mass of the top floors can't be held by one floor. The floors connect the shell to the core, and thus the system is falling apart. With the shell gone the core has lost the lateral support, and the core will collapse as seen falling apart 10 to 20 seconds after the floors and shell have fallen away.



The WTC floors can only hold 11 more floors, Chandler has no valid points. Please don't play the path of least resistance law made up by 911 truth.



Who has the momentum transfer graph for an idealized floor by floor collapse - using physics. The time of collapse matches a momentum transfer, and thus the CD nonsense fails to indicated by the WTC collapse caused by the action of 10 terrorists and two aircraft - as if 911 truth missed the cause, deny the aircraft, deny the terrorists and make up no name scapegoats. I will track down the momentum graph, etc.

No the floors do not stop but according to Newton's third law they should do, because for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction, so when the first floor hit the second floor that floor should have pushed back with the same momentum and because the top part of the building was much weaker than the bottom part (which was designed to hold three to 5 times of the weight above it it should have stopped the collapse but it didn't because it's strength was removed with explosives.

 

[Mick West]

No the floors do not stop but according to Newton's third law they should do, because for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction, so when the first floor hit the second floor that floor should have pushed back with the same momentum and because the top part of the building was much weaker than the bottom part (which was designed to hold three to 5 times of the weight above it it should have stopped the collapse but it didn't because it's strength was removed with explosives.

So why does the wine glass not stop the hammer? It can clearly support multiple hammers with ease.

 

[lemonlover]

No, Mr. Chandler's simplistic 'explanation' is inadequate, and assumes aspects RE: the building and its construction that just aren't factual.

The buildings were not solid blocks. Again, they were constructed of hundreds of thousands of entirely separate components, all with a specific load-bearing design in the plan.

Designed to, of course, resist gravity AND some level of lateral forces, due to any anticipated winds during the lifetime of the structures.

The severe damage inflicted by the airplane impacts combined with the out-of-control and very, very intense fires were the ultimate undoing of these very, very innovative building designs.

IF you watch videos (I presume you do, since you posted one in the OP), then perhaps this will help:



AND this:

Chandler is only using the reports put forward by the government people. They are the people who claim that it is a solid block. But as you've just said yourself it isn't a solid block so how can the official story be true?

 

[WeedWhacker]

No the floors do not stop but according to Newton's third law they should do....

No, once again.....the term "pancake" in reference to the way the WTC 1 & 2 collapsed was a term of immediacy, and not accurate, used as a visual aid.

It is overly simplistic, and does not represent the actual chaotic interactions that were involved as hundreds of THOUSANDS of separate and individual connections reached their over-stress to breaking points....and BROKE. In milliseconds, and in a very, very complex manner.

Just take a bit of time to research the way the buildings were constructed, please. Look at the variety of individual components. Know that EACH of those had to be attached to the other with "A Weakest Link"...smaller bolts and rivets. Please understand the dynamics involved are FAR more complex than the multitude of so-called "9/11 truth" websites tend to say.

 

[lemonlover]

So why does the wine glass not stop the hammer? It can clearly support multiple hammers with ease.

I'm not a physicist but I would guess momentum would carry the hammer through the glass because it is not strong enough. In the same way the top part of the tower went through the bottom bit because it's strength was taken out.

 

[Mick West]

Chandler is only using the reports put forward by the government people. They are the people who claim that it is a solid block. But as you've just said yourself it isn't a solid block so how can the official story be true?

Please don't make extreme claims like that without providing actual quotes. Any such similar unsourced claims will be deleted. Nobody has claimed the top of the building was a solid block.

 

[scombrid]

I'm not a physicist but I would guess momentum would carry the hammer through the glass because it is not strong enough. In the same way the top part of the tower went through the bottom bit because it's strength was taken out.

The glass was strong enough to hold the static load. With no alteration the glass was unable to handle the same mass when that mass was moving.
The building was strong enough to hold the static load of the floors above the failure. With no alteration of the lower floors the building was not able to hold the dynamic load of the falling upper floors once a floor failed.

 

[Mick West]

I'm not a physicist but I would guess momentum would carry the hammer through the glass because it is not strong enough. In the same way the top part of the tower went through the bottom bit because it's strength was taken out.

But the glass is strong enough to support several hammers.

The lower part of building was strong enough to support the upper part (with some safety margin).

So the two situations are identical. Yet you are not surprised when the glass does not stop the hammer, and you are surprised when the building does not stop the upper part.

So what's the difference? Is the glass + hammer breaking Newton's third law of motion?

 

[Mick West]

here's another illustration I made:


Cardboard box easily supports a weight, but when the weight is moving (just dropped a few feet) the box offers almost no resistance.

Why does the box not stop the weight, when it is designed to be able to support it?

 

[lemonlover]

No, once again.....the term "pancake" in reference to the way the WTC 1 & 2 collapsed was a term of immediacy, and not accurate, used as a visual aid.

It is overly simplistic, and does not represent the actual chaotic interactions that were involved as hundreds of THOUSANDS of separate and individual connections reached their over-stress to breaking points....and BROKE. In milliseconds, and in a very, very complex manner.

Just take a bit of time to research the way the buildings were constructed, please. Look at the variety of individual components. Know that EACH of those had to be attached to the other with "A Weakest Link"...smaller bolts and rivets. Please understand the dynamics involved are FAR more complex than the multitude of so-called "9/11 truth" websites tend to say.

You're right pancake isn't accurate at all because the buildings were blown up. You talk about complex chaotic interactions, just watch the building come down. The flying bits of debris, whole bits of steel, and the victims were pulverized. There were flying bit's of debris measured at 56 miles an hour. The pancake theory explanation for this goes against the laws of physics. It amazes me anybody can watch those buildings come down and not believe that explosives were used.

 

[lemonlover]

But the glass is strong enough to support several hammers.

The lower part of building was strong enough to support the upper part (with some safety margin).

So the two situations are identical. Yet you are not surprised when the glass does not stop the hammer, and you are surprised when the building does not stop the upper part.

So what's the difference? Is the glass + hammer breaking Newton's third law of motion?

The two situations are not identical because a hammer is far stronger than a glass. Also Mr Chandler is talking about when the block falls it is weaker so if the official story were true the collapse should have stopped because of Newton's third law. But it didn't because a lot of the strength was taken out by something else.

 

[Mick West]

You're right pancake isn't accurate at all because the buildings were blown up. You talk about complex chaotic interactions, just watch the building come down. The flying bits of debris, whole bits of steel, and the victims were pulverized. There were flying bit's of debris measured at 56 miles an hour. The pancake theory explanation for this goes against the laws of physics. It amazes me anybody can watch those buildings come down and not believe that explosives were used.

You can't just argue from personal incredulity. You seem to be just saying "looks weird to me". But what's the actual science?

 

[Mick West]

The two situations are not identical because a hammer is far stronger than a glass. Also Mr Chandler is talking about when the block falls it is weaker so if the official story were true the collapse should have stopped because of Newton's third law. But it didn't because a lot of the strength was taken out by something else.

Okay, then what if you had ten glasses on top of a column of 100 glasses? You raise up the ten glasses 12 feet, then drop them. Same thing.

There are issues of scale to consider here which make smaller analogies inaccurate, but the principle is the same.

Why do you think that only a tiny fraction of people who can do the math actually think there's a problem here?

 

[WeedWhacker]

You're right pancake isn't accurate at all because the buildings were blown up.

NO!!!!! Sorry, but NO! They were NOT "blown up"!

Also Mr Chandler is talking about when the block falls it is weaker so if the official story were true the collapse should have stopped because of Newton's third law.

I really (personally) think you should take a step back and ponder, because being too enamoured of Mr. Chandler and his mistaken opinions and claims RE: Newton's Laws of Motions is clouding judgment here.

 

[lemonlover]

here's another illustration I made:


Cardboard box easily supports a weight, but when the weight is moving (just dropped a few feet) the box offers almost no resistance.

Why does the box not stop the weight, when it is designed to be able to support it?

Momentum. The weight is much heavier than the box and so the momentum carries it through. Or to put it another way the box is weak and cannot hold up the momentum of the weight.

 

[Mick West]

Also Mr Chandler is talking about when the block falls it is weaker so if the official story were true the collapse should have stopped because of Newton's third law.

Next time you repeat a claim, can you please quote it, instead of paraphrasing it. Thanks.

 

[Mick West]

Momentum. The weight is much heavier than the box and so the momentum carries it through. Or to put it another way the box is weak and cannot hold up the momentum of the weight.

And how much momentum does the top of the building have after falling 12 feet? 24 feet? 48 feet? 200 feet? Accumulating other floors as it continues to fall? Is there no momentum there?

Look up at the ceiling above you. Imagine there's another 10 floors above that ceiling. Now imagine the walls around you failing - the ten floors above fall to the floor. Is there no momentum there?

 

[WeedWhacker]

Momentum.

NOW you are catching the gist of the point, here. Research the term "Potential Energy" please, as an aspect of physics education.

And again, please....we often (as Humans) like to try and "simplify" complex behaviours.....but, this situation is absolutely NOT simple....it is very, very complex. (AND, no "explosives" necessary).

 

[lemonlover]

You can't just argue from personal incredulity. You seem to be just saying "looks weird to me". But what's the actual science?

There are flying bits of steel, and debris. These are being pushed out by something. And remember the official pancaking theory is not possible. So what is ejecting this debris and bits of steel?

 

[Mick West]

There are flying bits of steel, and debris. These are being pushed out by something. And remember the official pancaking theory is not possible. So what is ejecting this debris and bits of steel?

Gravity. See existing threads:
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/debunked-wtc-multi-ton-steel-sections-ejected-laterally.1739/
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/9-11-is-this-photo-consistent-with-a-progressive-collapse.364/

And other non-explosive examples:

Read those thread first please.

 

[lemonlover]

NOW you are catching the gist of the point, here. Research the term "Potential Energy" please, as an aspect of physics education.

And again, please....we often (as Humans) like to try and "simplify" complex behaviours.....but, this situation is absolutely NOT simple....it is very, very complex. (AND, no "explosives" necessary).

It's obvious that there is no convincing you people. Even when Newton's laws are broken and you can clearly observe with your eyes bits of flying debris. You still believe the official nonsense. I'm not going to post on here anymore. Good luck with your "debunking" just remember you are also promoting the idea that Osama Bin Laden has re written the laws of physics.

 

[NoParty]

I'm not a physicist but...

Had you just stopped there, Lem, you'd have ended up miles ahead of where you eventually did.

(You are right, though, insofar as [eventually] realizing that the "Well, it seems to me…" argument isn't going to go far on this site. Best of luck.)

 

[WeedWhacker]

It's obvious that there is no convincing you people. Even when Newton's laws are broken...

No!!! NO Laws of Motion, as formulated and published and documented by Isaac Newton were ever broken!

Really.....take a step back and think about your claim there.

.....now, this is in all small letters, like a 'whisper'....but even if (and no, there were none), but even if there were 'explosives'....then, (n)ewton's (l)aws would still apply, no?

 

[Redwood]

Hama Neggs said: ↑
I suspect you would need to use MUCH finer increments of collapse to find such "jolts" and MUCH better photography in order to measure them. You're asking the impossible from the available footage.

You would clearly be able to see a "jolt" from all the videos I have posted.

NIST reports that the collapse failure mode of the floors beneath the impact zone was the floor connections being ripped out, sheared off, or otherwise deformed.

David Chandler calculates that the North Tower fell at an average of .64g. This average is from freefall minus the resistance provided at each storey by the breaking of the floor connection. There were about 90 storeys beneath the initiation point of the collapse at the North Tower. By simple division, the average reduction in the speed of the collapse at each storey is .36g/90, or about .004g. I'm sure that a 1,000 frame per second, hi-resolution camera could capture that, but good luck with 30 fps, mediocre-resolution news video.

 

[Hama Neggs]

The two situations are not identical because a hammer is far stronger than a glass. Also Mr Chandler is talking about when the block falls it is weaker so if the official story were true the collapse should have stopped because of Newton's third law. But it didn't because a lot of the strength was taken out by something else.

So what about using a glass block instead of a hammer? The result would be the same.

 

[Hama Neggs]

you can clearly observe with your eyes bits of flying debris.

How do you imagine a collapsing building could ever NOT produce "flying debris"?