Does Newton's Laws of Motion prove or disprove the official story of 9/11?

Does Newton's Laws of Motion prove or disprove the official story of 9/11?

First law: In an inertial reference frame, an object either remains at rest or continues to move at a constant velocity, unless acted upon by a net force.

Second law: In an inertial reference frame, the sum of the forces (F) on an object is equal to the mass (m) of that object multiplied by the acceleration (a) of the object: F = ma.

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.

All three of the collapses seem inconsistent with the above. Would Veeky Forums care to discuss?

Other urls found in this thread:

ws680.nist.gov/publication/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=861610
youtube.com/watch?v=XrnmbUDeHus
youtu.be/TJNzaMRsN00
nist.gov/el/faqs-nist-wtc-towers-investigation
youtu.be/iiwpj7aa9c8
nist.gov/pba/nist-federal-building-and-fire-safety-investigation-world-trade-center-disaster-answers-faqs
youtube.com/watch?v=ySHgiUxnLC0
youtube.com/watch?v=LJDX9V_pPV8
youtube.com/watch?v=SYUx5zJ3yss
youtube.com/watch?v=qLShZOvxVe4
m.youtube.com/watch?v=cxFXFkN6FaI
youtube.com/watch?v=FzF1KySHmUANewtons
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

>All three of the collapses seem inconsistent with the above.
In what way?

Well considering the height of the impact zone where the damage would of occurred, I have trouble seeing how the top section of roughly 15-20 floors could give in and proceed to plummet through 70-80 floors. it is especially concerning when you consider the support systems, designed to with stand three times the weight of the tower were destroyed in this floor-based collapse. Isn't the section of building several floors below impact zone considered healthy and undamaged structure? How did its support for the weight it held for decades before this event suddenly fail?

OP you seem to not or misunderstand the balancing forces of the Normal Force and the Force exerted on the towers by the earth via Gravity.

That's a structural engineering question not a question of the fundamental laws of Newtonian mechanics...

Well in regards to building 7 I have to disagree. It experienced 2.6 seconds of free-fall according to the official investigation (source: ws680.nist.gov/publication/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=861610 page: 44)

This means the building and its steel structure passed through minimum 15 floors with 0 resistance from below, violating the third law. How could this occur without the use of explosives?

My knowledge on the many forces of nature is rather fundamental which is why I bring this topic to this board.

My immediate thought however is that gravity is a force these buildings have always dealt with. It simply baffles me to see a smaller section of building at the top of its structure pass through a significantly larger portion of the building, obliterating everything between it and the ground through the path of greatest resistance.

It's with this issue I wondered if Veeky Forums could maybe shed some light

God tier bait

My apologies
A quick correction on this post

>passed through a minimum 8 floors

uhhh because wtc 7 wasn't destoyed by a bomb (and high impact) in the top floors, but by structural damage from the nearby towers collapsing?

yeah, this guy has been practicing for a while

I understand the assumption of it's collapse but such a claim does not negate the resistance it should of experience. A building passing through 8 floors as if they are not there at all is a profound phenomenon

I assure you this post has been made out of scientific concern. If you believe that the science behind the official story is sound please do share your reasons

> structure weakens everywhere
> surprised when it fails everywhere
Uhh okay

I'm not surprised at the fact it fell so much as I'm surprised by the way it fell.

Free-fall is the fastest any object can possibly travel when the only force applied to it is gravity. For this to occur for 8 floors of a collapse means that 8 floors of the building disassembled itself evenly across all supports at the exact same time. This can be done with an explosion but this can not be done by asymmetrical damage from falling debris and it can not be done with fire.

The real question is that can the jet fuel really melt steel beams?

You're assuming that the building must fail from top to bottom incrementally?

>structural damage from falling debris
>building is standing up solidly, looks largely intact
>building then falls uniformly like a curtain dropping, at near free-fall speed

wow. that sure was a lot of massive internal structural damage that managed to weaken ALL of those large steel beams in such a way that they all failed symmetrically and nearly simultaneously, yet the vast expanse of the buildings facade wasnt damage, even windows were not blown out.

Its like you turn your fucking brain off because you read an article in Popular Mechanics that said basic physics were debunked.

OP here

Especially considering picture related

I don't believe 20 floors of building can fall through 80 floors of building, resulting in a massive pile of dust and mangled support systems.
Maybe if 20 floors fell through 20 floors of if the top section fell to the side but not all the way through cold hard undamaged steel

I know it can be frustrating but try to relax my friend. 5 years ago I would of been arguing the same thing yet hear I am today, the author of this thread.
In order for me to fully consider the possibility I first had to let go of my old perspective on the world and replace it with a less desirable one. In my opinion this alone is enough to make someone shut themself off from the possibility of an alternate event

im not the most knowledgeable about this kinda stuff but- if we assume that the top 20 floors could fall for some height and gain some momentum, then when they impact the floors still standing theyd impart a pretty large force onto them due to the change in momentum in both objects. this force of such a huge mass of metal falling onto weakened metal would probably be much much larger than the lower floors were rated to endure, because they wouldnt expect large forces over very short durations. a quick estimate says that the top floors would be moving at 20m/s when they hit the rest of the building. the top floors weighed around 9*10^7kg. thats a huge momentum to impart to the buildings and it is easily concievable that the force far exceeded the force that they normally resisted

> it is easily conceivable that the force far exceeded the force that they normally resisted

absolutely, no doubt about it. However, again looking at Newtons Laws

> 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.

Meaning any force that the lower half would of endured, the top half would of also received. So if this force was enough to reduce 80 floors to powder, should it have not reduced the top 20 to powder first leaving nothing behind to push down with.

It also seems to me due to a number of experiments I have witnessed through videos. No matter what materials you use and what height you drop from, an object that is roughly 20% the mass of it's 80% counterpart can not plummet through to the bottom, and rightly so. The maths just doesn't add up

...

>I don't believe
Nobody gives a fuck. Your beliefs don't matter.

>should it have not reduced the top 20 to powder first leaving nothing behind to push down with
I agree that the top 20 floors should become a powder, but that mass is still present. a kilogram of steel and a kilogram of steel powder still impart the same force, right?
>experiments on videos
whilst scale models can be useful, they do have the limitations of the fact that an objects ability to hold weight is dependant upon its cross sectional area but its weight itself is dependant upon volume and hence one scales quadratically and the other scales cubically. id be very interested if you could link a video that takes into account those factors

Read this. It's from my architectural engineering textbook.

Textbooks will always support the mainstream thought and beliefs and not the objective truth

no, because textbooks write opinion instead of fact
>thinking this on sci
>even being on sci with this type of mindset
pls, go be dumb somewhere else

Does Hubble's law prove or disprove the grassy knoll?

Brainlet detected. Go take a mechanics of materials class and come back when you're not completely retarded

The force of the upper floors falling on top of the floors beneath them is going to weaken the structural support of those floors which in turn will fail and impact an even greater force on the floors beneath them due to the growing mass of falling material, etc.

I'm really gonna have to start saving my own post because I'm tired of trying to explain Building 7 over and over and over.

Basically what happened is this
>fires go on for hours, sprinkler systems fails
>Thermal expansion causes a floor collapse
>One of the pillars now completely unsupported and collapses
>other pillars now have to support that weight + already weakened by fires
>domino effect of pillars collapsing
>Building 7 Pretty much a hollow outer shell at this point
>Outer shell collapses neatly in on itself

Since it was pretty much an outer shell it hardly had any resistance.

youtube.com/watch?v=XrnmbUDeHus
Your gif is incredible deceitful, here if the full footage. You can see the penthouse collapses a full 4 seconds before the rest of the building.
The penthouse was directly above that pillar that collapsed first.

+ no sounds of explosions whatsoever.

Micronukes buried in granite holes below the basements of 1 and 2. The towers funneled the blast with the tops falling in and more or less disintegrating, why there was hardly any debris and why what was left was quickly shipped to China on the slow boat to cool down, not be scrutinized. Removing evidence from a crime scene is just one of many laws broken that day aside from physical laws that don't jive with the official conspiracy theory. WTC 7 was the real stroke of genius though because a 10 year old could tell you that was a classical controlled demo thus drawing attention away from the nuking of towers 1,2 and probably 6.

It was basically a deep state, shadow government, military, corporate, church, fascist coup, many of the top level perps are heavily into the occult and were bound by extreme blood oaths so a top down conspiracy like that not too hard to imagine, easy than the ridiculous official narrative. The big lie just like Hitler said, similarities to the Reichstag fire - Enabling act...dark future.

Newtons laws don't disprove that a plane cause it to crash. Politics does. US is a corrupt nation that needed to hold off an economic collapse for a couple years so it could be blamed on the next president. So they blew it up to go to war. And of course they blew up the stock market, it was to prevent it from blowing itself up

Actually i do see the collapse as improbably but possible. But i am tired of talking about it

OP here. Thank you everyone for this civil debate.

I'm sorry if this belief offends you, I only ask you explain why you disagree.

Indeed the mass is present but as can be seen in the footage this mass is spread outwards across a wide distance and begins to fall alongside the collapse rather than assisting the collapse. Even if we assumed the mass held its form and concentrated it's force downward onto the rest of the structure. Newton's third law expresses that
a deceleration should occur from the resistance received from each consecutive floor and this deceleration should eventually lead to a halt.

I also assume you meant concrete dust rather than steel dust

I am aware that the damage from the plane is what supposedly initiated the collapse. My issue is not with the initiation but with the collapse itself, the sequential floor by floor failures do not add up with Newtons Laws of Motion

>an even greater force
Remember that the third law requires that force be distributed in the opposite direction as well. This is why a deceleration is always observed when a scenario such as this is recreated. This growing mass is not coming from the falling structure alone but also from the resisting structure

These floor by floor collapse hypothesis are also unable to account for the buildings central support columns disappearing into the rubble. This support is a free standing structure on its own and should remain if floors are being stripped from their connections

That's exactly NISTs explanation and they built a model to demonstrate this effect. They never released the data from that model which has to be the most unscientific approach I have ever seen. Their model, however, shows this "outer shell" losing its shape as is expected if it's central support and inner contents were to collapse and fail. This however does not occur within the footage

Sorry I forgot to address your request. A down scaled model of the trade centre collapse was never produced in the investigations believe it or not. I have one video that I can show but I'm at work at the moment so the rest will have to wait. These are by no means accurate models but they do show what I have come to expect from the affects of newtons law.

youtu.be/TJNzaMRsN00

There was an article at one point of an anti-conspiracist wanting to reconstruct and recreate the World Trade Center disaster to scale so he could disprove the conspiracies. I personally am in full support of the idea and am confident that experiment would show very different results in numerous areas than what occurred on the day

What's it like knowing that you'll be a truther over the next terrorist attack as well?

>My issue is not with the initiation but with the collapse itself, the sequential floor by floor failures do not add up with Newtons Laws of Motion
Well there's your issue, you are arguing with a strawman:

nist.gov/el/faqs-nist-wtc-towers-investigation

"NIST's findings do not support the "pancake theory" of collapse, which is premised on a progressive failure of the floor systems in the WTC towers (the composite floor system—that connected the core columns and the perimeter columns—consisted of a grid of steel "trusses" integrated with a concrete slab; see diagram). Instead, the NIST investigation showed conclusively that the failure of the inwardly bowed perimeter columns initiated collapse and that the occurrence of this inward bowing required the sagging floors to remain connected to the columns and pull the columns inwards. Thus, the floors did not fail progressively to cause a pancaking phenomenon."

If you don't believe physics and evidence, what will you believe?

I mentioned the pancake theory because it seemed popular within this thread. The NIST investigation addresses an initiation of the collapse it then assumes that the action described within this initiation is enough to conclude a scenario of a total collapse. So yes they do deny pancake theory and I agree with that. What they don't do is replace it with a new theory or any explanation at all. This "investigation" does not outline what is occurring through out the duration of the collapse in any way and this is why me and many other would like a new investigation.

Not to mention the text book segment you attached before describes the event as a pancake collapse

Well to be honest with you out of all the terrorist attacks that have occurred this is the only one I've had trouble believing.

I feel I should also mention that the concept of the official story violating laws of physics is not a concept unfamiliar among more profesional members of science

Europhysicsnews.org/articles/epn/pdf/2016/04/epn2016-47-4.pdf

>you attached
Not me.

The quote above explains the collapse. The perimeter colums failed and the floors dragged them inwards.

Why?

That explains how it started, it even refers to it as an initiation. It does not explain how this initiation dismantled 80 floors of undamaged structure below

Because as I've stated in many posts including the OP it doesn't match with newtons laws of motion that the top 20% portion of the building was able to obliterate the bottom 80%. The collapse that occurred in conjunction with the official account is impossible to replicate.

If you disagree I would be more than happy to see your application of the laws of motion fitted to this scenario

Wew, you should dig deeper if you dare. Consider what synthetic terror has manifested so far, everyone in the west is now living in a surveillance state, Constitutions that took centuries to establish destroyed and in many places the risk of being indefinitely detained without counsel or charges. Maybe even tortured. Bali bombing, 7/7, the original WTC bombing, Oklahoma...these are all very suspicious. It is clear a totalitarian tiptoe is underway and chances are it will be far too late when called out for what it is and it will take far more blood to be set free again. History repeats.

I have my theories on many happenings in the world but no reason to believe anything until I've done research on those matters to support or disprove my theories. For the sake of this thread however I'd mostly like to focus on the collapse of these towers. It seems nature itself has been disproving the official narrative and we as a society are very slowly starting to listen

My apologies, it can be hard to identify specific anons sometimes :)

If this is satire it is excellent and hilarious

If it is serious then I weep for humanity

There is no physical issue with how the collapse carried through the entire building. The issue is that the sequential process could not have started the collapse. The collapse began with a large portion of the building's structure being weakened by fire. Once this large portion failed the rest of the building could not stop the falling mass. You can't just use the third law as a rule of thumb. You have to actually do the math. And NIST already did the math.

From the same webpage I posted earlier:

"The structure below the level of collapse initiation offered minimal resistance to the falling building mass at and above the impact zone. The potential energy released by the downward movement of the large building mass far exceeded the capacity of the intact structure below to absorb that energy through energy of deformation.
Since the stories below the level of collapse initiation provided little resistance to the tremendous energy released by the falling building mass, the building section above came down essentially in free fall, as seen in videos. As the stories below sequentially failed, the falling mass increased, further increasing the demand on the floors below, which were unable to arrest the moving mass."

"In other words, the momentum (which equals mass times velocity) of the 12 to 28 stories (WTC 1 and WTC 2, respectively) falling on the supporting structure below (which was designed to support only the static weight of the floors above and not any dynamic effects due to the downward momentum) so greatly exceeded the strength capacity of the structure below that it (the structure below) was unable to stop or even to slow the falling mass. The downward momentum felt by each successive lower floor was even larger due to the increasing mass."

Well there is someone named Judy who spread a bunch of disinfo about 'energy weapons' but all the signs point to small nuclear detonations in the granite bases of both 1 and 2 and probably 6. Go ahead and research away, radiation at the scene, pulverized debris, seismographs that match, assorted cancers showing up in almost every first responder many of whom are dead now, shiat - even the mushroom cloud, all you have to do is believe your eyes. Why would the debris be flung so far out like that from a simple collapse? The science is fairly advanced now since the above ground test ban decades ago all tests are underground, they can also make nukes as small as 10Kt, that is only 10,000 tonnes of TNT so the blast radius in a granite base would be about 100m wide.


Can you elaborate? Civilians have been getting nuked since the invention of nuclear weapons. First the massive testing in both the US and Russia, then the Japs, then Kosovo and the ME with DU weaponry and the Afghan today. No need to weep, on the bright side, the asbestos towers had to come down, tenancy was plummeting and they would have stood for 1000 years. No demolition company would even look at that job, in fact Controlled Demolition Inc. who did the cleanup said it couldn't even be done safely.

>the entire building
7 buildings! Brick shithouses actually, concrete, asbestos and iron taken out by 2 aluminum planes half loaded with kerosene. The official theory or those who defend it say pieces of 1 and 2 took out the other 4 buildings but take a closer look, WTC 6 for example also had a large smoldering crater in the basement - a pile of melted molten goo!

I have no problem with the complex being taken out like that, the price tag unacceptable though. We could be paying for the next 1000 years or more.

If NIST has done the math than they should show it so that it can be critiqued but they don't. Instead they give you the paragraphs that you have quoted and ask that you trust them. There are no experiments and there is no data, they only provide you with their word and a computer model that also has no data released. Those paragraphs also talk of the buildings as if the were just floors held up by the outer structure not taking into account that there is a completely free standing network of dense steel going all the way through the centre of this building. If the floors were stripped from this support due to a "build up of mass" then this central support should remain. I use quotations around the term "build up of mass" as it is an absurd thing for NIST to say when video footage from literally every angle shows this buildup being shot across the streets of New York, some of it even shooting upward. You can't have a gravity based collapse where steel member are traveling in the opposite direction of said gravity.

>and a computer model
That is only for building 7 mind you. For the twin towers they only give you their word

Why not request that Veeky Forums sets aside a brief 7 minutes to consider the following

youtu.be/iiwpj7aa9c8

Not only is the math shown in the reports, they even explain it in the first question of this faq:

nist.gov/pba/nist-federal-building-and-fire-safety-investigation-world-trade-center-disaster-answers-faqs

>Those paragraphs also talk of the buildings as if the were just floors held up by the outer structure not taking into account that there is a completely free standing network of dense steel going all the way through the centre of this building.
This shows you don't even understand what you're arguing against. The core is the first part that was critically damaged by fire and the impact of the plane, leaving more of the load on the perimeter columns. The perimeter columns would have saved the building if not for the trusses connecting the interior columns to the perimeter. When these trusses sagged they pulled the perimeter inward causing the entire system to fail.

>I use quotations around the term "build up of mass" as it is an absurd thing for NIST to say when video footage from literally every angle shows this buildup being shot across the streets of New York, some of it even shooting upward.
Have you ever thrown a large object, such as a piece of cardboard onto a dusty floor? Go look at what happens.

>You can't have a gravity based collapse where steel member are traveling in the opposite direction of said gravity.
Of course you can, that's what Newton's laws predict. Any downward impact of a large force is going to impart a large amount of momentum to relatively small objects, sending them flying outward and upward in all directions.

Do you know what potential energy is?
Each tower had about 115 Tons of TNT worth of potential energy. That's enough to catapult away some debris.

>catapult away some debris
There were no catapults involved though according to the official conspiracy theory. There are pictures showing many massive girders being ejected sideways up to 100m which defies simple gravity. A collapse would cause some air pressure buildup underneath the falling material but there seems to be another major force acting upwards as the tops fall into what appears to be nothing! The lower 2/3rds of 1 and 2 seemingly vaporize in an instant!

If the official line was true there would have been 2 small mountains of debris, instead smoldering holes and most of the material was pulverized into microscopic dust including the steel girders making up the frame...just vanished from a collapse? In fact if the official theory were correct there would be two large towers standing with some charred holes in them, then what? The WTC complex had to be removed as asbestos removal was unfeasible - the buildings were smothered in the stuff, the solution appears to have been orchestrated by elements within the US military.

>There were no catapults involved though

Since the towers fell at near free-fall speeds, it is impossible to conclude it collapsed under its own weight, ie, what the media tells us happened.

It was a controlled demolition

Just how slow does something fall when it collapses under its own weight, in your mind? Does it have to fall down like a feather?

You don't know how building cores work my friend. If the core is damaged all the way up on the 80-90th floor there is absolutely no reason why it should disassemble in its undamaged sections below. This is why controlled demolition requires explosives throughout an entire structure length. If you only blew out the top of a building the rest is not just going to follow suit. Picture related doesn't look like bent steel to me. It looks like sliced steel that was once molten, dripping from the slice

Yes if I throw an object at a dusty floor the mass involved with that dust is picked up and moved. What are you even suggesting with this?

Newtons law states that any action has a positive or negative reaction. Your talking about steel girdes bouncing of a surface that has downward momentum.

This scenario of an objects top 20% mass destroying its remaining 80% mass is a first in history. You can not replicate it under any circumstance. That top 20% should of been destroyed at the same rate as the next 20% that came below it but this simply did not happen. Can show me any incident outside of 9/11 where damage at the top of an object can destroy and dismember that entire object through out its whole length? Bombs at the top of buildings have never done this, missiles hitting the tops of buildings have never done this, nothing has ever done this.

You know what he's saying and he made some good points. Why not try and address them instead of mocking him like a teenager who has run out of points to make

It needs resistance. 110 stories falling short of a second the speed of gravity is a feat only achievable in controlled demolition. It has never been recorded elsewhere that's for sure

But there was also a plane in it

You keep saying that Newton's laws tell us things they don't, you may have arrived at a conclusion based on the laws, in which case you should probably explain them.

He was expressing that he thought what he said was funny, and as far as I can tell he was trying to be funny. I understand this kind emotion based interaction between two people can be hard for some on Veeky Forums to understand.

Not sure who you are referring to but what has been said incorrectly about Newtons Law?

It was me and it was supposed to be funny. How can you even look at something like the great events of 11 of 9 without a joke or two but the subject has fascinated me for years. There is a lot of cognitive dissonance involved especially in the older crowd, that such a big lie could be thrown out there and gobbled right up without any serious indigestion by the masses. That shit only went down in the history books and as such the current enlightened generation could never be so easily swindled?

Anyway, it was some Russian nuclear dood on the internets who threw the micronuke theory out there originally or I never would have considered it myself, not mine but it makes the most sense to me with WTC 7 just being a classic controlled demo to wrap things up at the end of that fateful day destroying any evidence of malfeasance. It was apparently command and control for the entire operation with most floors occupied by assorted spook shops, think tanks and FEMA type outfits.

Of course this is all moot, the flight path was in place before the event, there will be no serious investigation and any threat to the 'system' will be quickly silenced as their is simply too much at stake now. The war on terra - a war on a transient verb - is a multi trillion dollar biz now!

>If the core is damaged all the way up on the 80-90th floor there is absolutely no reason why it should disassemble in its undamaged sections below.
The building above it smashing into it with an enormous momentum is "absolutely no reason"? Is your delusional mind incapable of grasping this simple point?

>This is why controlled demolition requires explosives throughout an entire structure length.
WRONG. The reason it requires explosives throughout is so that all parts of the building fall at the same time instead of having pieces impacting each other, which spreads debris around, which is exactly what happened with the WTC.

>Picture related doesn't look like bent steel to me. It looks like sliced steel that was once molten, dripping from the slice
You're absolutely correct. It's steel that was cut with a blowtorch during cleanup:

youtube.com/watch?v=ySHgiUxnLC0

>Yes if I throw an object at a dusty floor the mass involved with that dust is picked up and moved. What are you even suggesting with this?
I'm suggesting that a downward impact can send mass flying by imparting force to the air which then pushes debris away. This is what happens when you throw a piece of cardboard onto a dusty floor. It also sends mass flying by imparting momentum directly to it and then the debris bounces off the surface below.

>Your talking about steel girdes bouncing of a surface that has downward momentum.
What else does it bounce off of? Use your puny little brain for a second.

>This scenario of an objects top 20% mass destroying its remaining 80% mass is a first in history.
A bullet obviously can't kill you since it's less than 1% of your mass. Go shoot yourself.

>That top 20% should of been destroyed at the same rate as the next 20% that came below it but this simply did not happen.
The mass does not get destroyed you moron, only the structure does. Let's go over this again retard:

1. The top of the building's structure failed.
2. The mass of the top part of the building fell onto the floor immediately below it.
3. This crushed the floor's structure
4. Go back to 2 until there are no floors left.

>Can show me any incident outside of 9/11 where damage at the top of an object can destroy and dismember that entire object through out its whole length?
Can you show me a building with the same structure as the WTC that was damaged in the same way? No? Then shut the fuck up.

This has nothing to do with physical laws and everything to do with the design of the building.
15-20 floors of mass is all you need to pancake the rest of the floors. And then you might ask,
>but what about the core and the perimeter columns? they can't pancake
you're absolutely right, they can't pancake
and they didn't pancake
literally only the floors collapsed, it's like peeling the leaves off a branch by clenching your fist around it and sliding it down. The perimeter columns fell after the floors pancaked because of severe damage and no support.
The core didn't collapse until the rest of the building had finished collapsing, then it fell apart like an unsupported bundle of sticks.

You're misinterpreting the collapse. The thing that's free-falling isn't the building, it's the outer shell. The inside has already collapsed by the time the shell starts to fall. You can see the penthouse cave in meaning the entire column below it gave away, seconds before the shell starts to fall.

read second paragraph
read first paragraph, also that pic shows molten aluminium from the plane debris bunched up in that corner

where's this powder thing coming from? if you look at images of ground zero there's heaps of intact columns there. And concrete is known to crack into clouds of dust upon impact, that's what concrete does. Also, read first paragraph.

the core survived the collapse
the core survived the collapse
wrong, they did not freefall
south tower fell in 15 seconds and north tower fell in 20 seconds
freefall is 9.2 seconds
the collapse wave traveling down the building had a constant speed, no acceleration

>When these trusses sagged they pulled the perimeter inward causing the entire system to fail.
In the impact zone, yes. But the core below the impact zone survived the collapse.

Try and remain calm, there is no reason insults

>The building above it smashing into it with an enormous momentum is "absolutely no reason"?
The building above it is less than 20% the mass of the building below it. Like I have said, it is impossible that 20% mass can destroy its 80% counterpart. This isn't a conspiracy this is an equation that forms the fabric of our reality. Prove me wrong by all means

> Is your delusional mind incapable of grasping this simple point?
Considering the physical impossibility of it, yes, that is why I made the thread

>The reason it requires explosives throughout is so that all parts of the building fall at the same time
youtube.com/watch?v=LJDX9V_pPV8
That's what happens when explosives fail to go off in controlled demo. The core is interlocking steel joined together to act as a thick post that the rest of the building is supported by. You cant destroy the top of a metal post and expect the rest to just shatter.

>You're absolutely correct. It's steel that was cut with a blowtorch during cleanup
Potentially. What about pic related?

>I'm suggesting that a downward impact can send mass flying
I know. That's my point. The mass was no longer on top of the building pushing it down like you originally claimed

>What else does it bounce off of?
My point is that 2 objects that are falling due to gravity would not have the energy to propel upwards. If one collided with the other a deceleration would certainly occur. Something that is falling down being struck by something else that is also falling down is not going to then result in bouncing upward

>A bullet obviously can't kill you since it's less than 1% of your mass
What even is this. We aren't talking about the building dying, we are talking about it being pulverized. With that in mind I resume my original argument and state that a bullet would not be able to pulverise me into dust.

Don't get so worked up about this please. I'm not trying to upset you

>15-20 floors of mass is all you need to pancake the rest of the floors.
Only the official investigation itself says a pancake did not occur.
The core is designed to withstand tremendously more weight than it every carried. It is also designed as a grid system so that an isolated incident in one are is not going to affect other areas.

>The perimeter columns fell after the floors pancaked because of severe damage and no support.

Floors stripping off the core is not going to remove its support. The core supports the floors not the other way around

>then it fell apart like an unsupported bundle of sticks.
and this is in my opinion the biggest issue with this entire topic. People are not giving this steel structure enough credit. Steel structures are intense when it comes to strength. In WW2, Warsaw Poland, a building known as the prudential building was a steel supported structure that was bombarded with over 1000 artillery strikes. This rid the building of all of its contents, floors included. This building still stands today. The demolition of a steel structure is an extremely precise process that requires careful placement of explosives. Its extremely expensive and goes wrong all the time. The thought of a plane and gravity being all that is required to demolish two of the biggest steel structures ever built is an absurdity. The thought of fire alone to demolish WTC7 as is outlined in the official investigation is a blatant lie.

>WTC7
The inside can not collapse simultaneously across the entirety of the building due to natural causes. It isn't glass that just shatters, this is steel. These are supports that can hold significantly more than they ever actually do. I really can't stress this enough

>molten aluminium
Molten aluminium is picture related, it melts silver and begins the bubble as it reaches its boiling point. It never glows orange

>What about pic related?
It's certainly mysterious the molten debris underneath the rubble. It was found under WTC 1,2,3,5 and 6 accompanied by mysterious holes. Responders also starting hosing it down right away and it carried on for weeks.

These are the holes left by underground nuke testing and similar to pictures of the hole building 6 left. Also, there were large vaults underneath the complex, much gold. There was not even an effort to recover this? Why? I suspect because some people knew all valuables were removed prior to 9-11 and the vaults vaporized. There are so many anomalies with the official conspiracy theory that it soon becomes laughable and preposterous on so many levels, even more so with the strange Pentagon missile attack (a retrofitted A-4 under remote control and painted like an airliner), but don't feel bad about many peoples highly emotional response to any questioning of this. There is much nationalism and sunk cost bias built up. Many people have spent their entire lives believing what their military, media, monetary and spook systems tell them. In some ways I am really impressed by the entire operation, especially the rapid dismantlement of the entire complex through what appeared to be a couple of airliners. In reality, this would be like shooting a flaming arrow into a 300 foot Redwood and watching it collapse to ash an hour later. Unpossible.

Don't forget Newton's Fourth Law: Jet fuel can't melt steel beams.

>the core survived the collapse
That is by no means survival. It stands for less then 10 seconds after its collapse. You have to understand that the core is like the buildings skeleton, It doesn't give in to the load it carries. Just the same as your skeleton

> north tower fell in 20 seconds
This is a gross over-estimation. Although they are difficult to calculate you can literally watch and count with a clock, you will fall well under 20 seconds. Do you have the source that told you this?

Here is a video of north tower youtube.com/watch?v=SYUx5zJ3yss

10 seconds, pretty much free fall, you even see an orange fireball erupt near the top to set it all off and the others below I am sure obscured by the ever expanding debris field.

I don't think a controlled demolition would look much different and this was the conundrum. There was no way it would have been allowed without evacuating the joint for 10 blocks around. If they tried to disassemble the complex piece by piece it would have taken years and been even more expensive. The complex had reached end of life and something had to be done and I believe this opportunity was taken advantage of for the simple reason there were no other options. In summary obviously no physical laws were broken here and everything appears to have gone off without too much blowback. The tinfoil alternate conspiracy theories were contained for the most part, perhaps after the corrupt shadow government and deep state currently running the show are long gone the topic can be scrutinized again, maybe not but history is rewritten everyday anyway.

>I don't think a controlled demolition would look much different

In its effectiveness to bring down a structure no but in the sense of what's occurring it's not a method you would ever see in practical use. Usually they use cutter charges to break as many connections as they need, leaving the building standing, but disconnected, with its own pressure holding it in place. Then depending on the size of the structure they use two or three larger explosions to knock the cut connections out of place and have the structure fall to the ground.
The end result is essentially what you see happen to building 7.

The towers on the other hand were floor by floor explosions from the top to bottom in an attempt to make it look like a floor by floor collapse. The reason you'd never normally see this in controlled demo is because of the outward destructive spray of debris that it shoots in all directions would greatly increase the chance of damaging surrounding structures. On close inspection you can see the squibs, puffs of smoke that shoot out very fast below the trail of destruction. A clear indicator that controlled demolition is taking place.

Some people try to say that its air pressure knocking out a window or the floors collapsing ahead of the rest. The problem with this is that many windows on that building would of been shattered by the plane leaving no possibility of air busting a window and if the floors were collapsing ahead of the rest you would expect dust as thick in density and as gray in colour as the other floor collapses occurring higher up. My step brother worked in demolition for ten years. He's the one that got me to look into 9/11 and his boss is the one that showed him building 7. Apparently building 7 causes a bit of talk amongst demo experts because of how neat its collapse was. His boss said this so called natural collapse is an A+ Example of what they aim to achieve when they spend weeks and months planning to bring a building down

>physics
>prove or disprove
Lrn2physics fgt pls

youtube.com/watch?v=qLShZOvxVe4

> you even see an orange fireball erupt near the top
that's the flames in the floor completely filled with fire in this pic bursting out from the air pressure

> Molten aluminium is picture related, it melts silver and begins the bubble as it reaches its boiling point. It never glows orange
Wrong.
Fires in the south tower reached ~1000 deg C
Enough to glow orange.

In order for it to stay orange it has to maintain that temperature. Dropping through the air for as little as 1 sec is enough to cool it down and re-solidify it.
The substance pouring from the tower maintained an orange glow for the duration of its fall. The molten steel found at ground zero remained orange for up to three weeks

m.youtube.com/watch?v=cxFXFkN6FaI

Cooling is partially a function of amount of substance. A tub of boiling water will take a lot longer to cool off than a thimble of boiling water. Your statement is meaningless without considering the sheer mass involved and makes me suspect you don't actually have much experience performing basic physics calculations.

Rosie was talking about wtc7 in that interview. Beside the point 14.5 seconds doesn't excuse much considering a natural collapse usually occurss over a duration of hours and never leads to a total collapse. So no the towers them self did not come down directly on free fall but they are the fastest buildings to collapse outside of controlled demolition and they are in the lead by an outrageously huge margin. Especially considering their size

You use a lot of superlatives in your arguments. Do you have any actual data on how the WTC collapse was the "fastest ever" outside of controlled demolition.

>Rosie was talking about wtc7 in that interview.
Freefall for the twin towers is 9 seconds though? Just like she said. And the video proves her wrong.

>Beside the point 14.5 seconds doesn't excuse much considering a natural collapse usually occurss over a duration of hours and never leads to a total collapse.
too many assumptions here
there's nothing natural about this collapse by the way, a plane damaged the support and the fire weakened the rest, this is a collapse caused by human involvement
The towers would likely not collapse for anything natural like a hurricane or an earthquake, and fires would never reach this level without a kickstarter like a plane packed with jet fuel
This type of collapse cannot happen over several hours
When the top part of the building completely detaches from the bottom part, which it did, there's no way to not suffer total collapse. The same thing would happen with the new one world trade center standing today. Remove one floor and the building will suffer total collapse.

>So no the towers them self did not come down directly on free fall but they are the fastest buildings to collapse
You're right, their collapse was very fast, because of their size and weight

>Especially considering their size
That's the opposite of what someone should expect. The larger the building is, the easier it is for it to collapse.

Not trying to be mean but in follow up posts whoever is backing ops idea, whether or not it is op, has a severe lacking in understanding of fundemental newtonian physics. The laws are being applied incorrectly or assumptions/arguments are made which are entirely unrelated to proper physics or the three laws.

youtube.com/watch?v=FzF1KySHmUANewtons laws of motion work great in a vaccuum, this is real life. First you are forgetting entirely about momentum. Second there is a big difference between the strength of a building to hold a stationary weight vs an impacting weight.

>Remember that the third law requires that force be distributed in the opposite direction as well.
A very good example of how you really dont understand the three laws. You are applying the concept very much incorrectly.

You're forgetting potential energy, and more importantly the idea that the building was designed to hold a stationary object in the vertical position. The second the first collaspe hit the floor below it that immense for was also applied laterally to the building, something the building was never designed to withstand.

And when you use newtons third law it means things like the earth moved a little towards the towers as the towers fell to earth. Equal and opposite gravitational forces. Impacts are much more complicated than a loose and incorrect use of the third law in a very non-perfect system.

To truly be convinced you're incorrect you need to take a semester or two of physics, and it is impractical to educate you as such on a forum.

The building 7 collapse by design or not turned into the perfect red herring for the alternate conspiracy theory crowd drawing attention away from 1 and 2 which is why this thread is a little different and far more interesting. Two near identical collapses of enormous towers all riding on some questionable 'official' theories. The ironic part is these 2 collapses were replayed ad nauseam driving home the shock value but not so much the critical thinking.

Fireballs aside the most astonishing thing is the size of the debris field from these towers supposedly falling under the weight of gravity alone. This I think is what OP has a problem with, there are forces unaccounted for best explained by explosives. This may also explain the fractionally slower than free fall speed, upward and outward forces combined with the weight of the structure itself, most of which seemingly is pulverized instead of collapsing into an enormous heap. Assorted theories come up to explain this, that the concrete was rotten or defective and thus turned to dust, that the floors self pulverized each other on the way down but these seem questionable.

Air pressure...

>In my opinion this alone is enough to make someone shut themself off from the possibility of an alternate event

This right here is near the entirety of what keeps the 'official story' from being completely rejected. I once had a friend whom after several discussions and showing him various evidence said, " I don't want to believe the government was responsible for 9/11"

It's clear to anyone with an objective mindset this is the case.

I don't think air pressure from a pancake theory alone can eject 10,000 lb steel girders horizontally hundreds of feet. It looks more like a collapsing volcano eruption than gravitational collapse.

You have to be very clear on this, elements within the government but also the media, military, monetary and spook systems. People high up with top down control and compartmentalization. Any government has good people and bad people. The disinformation and gatekeepers when flustered point to "government" but that may be exactly what they want to dismantle as well, say in favor of a theocracy? The one common denominator across all these spheres though, the only thing that could tie all of these people together, is the occult. It flies under the flag of religion, usually Abrahamic or Masonic in nature. Again there are good religious people and bad , confused or suppressed religious people. At the higher levels their blood oaths supersede any civil oath by the wording alone, just check out the oaths of the first 3 degrees of the Scottish Rite of Freemasonry for example, or the Jesuit oaths. That in itself is a science of social control. People seem to balk at the idea of such an enormous conspiracy regarding 9/11. Seems to me that was the easy part, many higher ups probably more than willing to exercise some power. Wouldn't have even required thousands, perhaps a hundred or so, the rest would have flowed naturally by their armies of enablers...the holy oil crusades, the technocratic Inquisition. You can see the appeal to the base so to speak.

>I don't think
"I don't think" isn't good enough.
Yes, air pressure from the floors pancaking can push the perimeter columns pretty far.