The Physics to Disprove Twin Towers Pancaking

Force Diagram.

 

Okay, you said your bowling ball example, and it would be right, but remember, in the WTC it was slowed down by further floors. Besides, Sythe already proved to you that the steel wouldn't have been weak enough to allow a collapse.

 

ok, so before the attack, the floors were pushing upwards with the same amount of force as the upper ones were pushing down.

after the attack, once three or four of the floors had piled together and started falling, the lower, undamaged floors could not withstand the impact of multiple floors hitting at the same time. They could withstand one, maybe, but not several.

the floors were designed to hold up the higher floors, but not to withstand their impact as all of them hit at the same time.

what I'm trying to say is that they snowballed. after the first few damaged floors, there was too much weight hitting at one time for one floor at a time to resist.

they were also possibly weakened to SOME degree by the flames and collision of the plane.

 

The weight snowballed would be the same as all of them standing normal...

 

The only way they could have not been losing speed is if the weight above was much greater than the weight below making the force of gravity too strong for the floors to support.

 

my point is that the weight of the entire tower was distributed throughout all of the floors. after the collapse began, the weight of a few falling floors was concentrated on one floor at a time. one floor was unable to support the falling floors.

 

Have you ever played jenga?

When you play jenga, the object is to keep the tower standing, and take out all the middle pieces. the tower will fall when you pull out a side piece without something supporting it.


Simple wooden plastic bricks... looking at how the planes hit, one hit the middle, and the other hit ONE collumn. Now, judging at that angle, the jenga tower would collapse. I've played jenga many times... you always take from the middle. This keeps the tower up.. Until someone takes away it's standing point, IE a side. If a side is taken out the tower will fall...AT AN ANGLE.

Even if you take out BOTH of the sides while playing jenga.. it will not fall straight down. it will fall on either side. If you take out the middle of the jenga tower at bottom, and then remove the two side pieces, it will fall straight down, then go at an angle. However..

If you have a tower that is 10 blocks high, and 10 people. Each person takes out the sides of the tower... the tower will fall straight down..


A simple childs can show that the twin towers collapsing as such is impossible >.>

 

http://youtube.com/watch?v=PnZhmS3rrWA
Watch the WHOLE video.

 

There are other dissipative forces one needs to take into account. Those formulas are fine-and dandy, IF we lived in a perfect physics world (i.e. a vacuum ). There are SEVERAL factors that you are completely neglecting, period. It would take a whole lot more that those few formulas to isolate all of the variables involved, most of which aren't reproducible anyway.

Basically, your logic = flawed.

 

These factors being?

 

perhaps you misunderstand me. each floor is capable of holding up the floors above it, but not capable of withstanding the impact from all of those floors hitting it at the same time.

 

Yep, your right, but it still is capable of slowing the upper floors down.

 

so it would slow it down, add its mass to the collapsing floors, and it would continue.

however, since the mass keeps on getting greater, wouldn't the floors be able to resist for less and less time?

 

If we continue to fight, we will win.

If we pull out now, who says they wont come on to our soil and fight?

 

Yes, it would slow down less and less each time, but since it DIDN'T follow this pattern we can see that it was a controlled demolition.

 

well, Shawn_, I watched the whole movie you mentioned, and I really can't saying anything to contradict it.

honestly, I don't really have much choice, as the evidence is there.

I'm going to have to accept that the official US story of what happened is incorrect, and that they were involved in the collapses to some degree.

well, it did follow that pattern, as it did speed up, but I can't see how it could collapse as fast as it did if it was truly pancaking.

 

Last time I checked Iraq never wanted to go to war with the US.