without doing a multicut cause this is getting boring and you're getting snarky so this will go to shit fast (lol at REEEE about "magic")
i want to quote one thing in particular:
The fact is that it is physically impossible that the top 1/3 of the structure punched through the bottom 2/3 of solid structure while only losing about 20% of gravity. Look up videos of demolition failures to see what would have been a more likely outcome.
take a model of the building, cut the top 1/3 of it off, remove 3 or 4 floors, drop it back onto the opened top building.
each tower weighed 1,500,000 tons
how hard do you think it is for ANYTHING other than the earth to "catch" 500,000 tons and stop it from moving?
You don't remember the articles, the satelite imagery showing thousand degree temperatures up to 6 months later?
Again, it's not "could it collapse" but "could it collapse AS IT COLLAPSED". If the 110 floors took 2-3 minutes instead of the ~40 seconds, then you would be making a strong point.
Projecting steel several blocks laterally, pulverized concrete from every floor, AND maintaining about 80% of gravity. That's not enough energy, even if you dropped the top 1/3 from 20 stories up.
And more, there was no "shock" a reduction in acceleration when the top block collided with the lower block.
BTW- it is reddit tier form to act shitty and then act hard done by when it's called out.
You don't remember the articles, the satelite imagery showing thousand degree temperatures up to 6 months later?
no
Again, it's not "could it collapse" but "could it collapse AS IT COLLAPSED". If the 110 floors took 2-3 minutes instead of the ~40 seconds, then you would be making a strong point.
Projecting steel several blocks laterally, pulverized concrete from every floor, AND maintaining about 80% of gravity. That's not enough energy, even if you dropped the top 1/3 from 20 stories up.
And more, there was no "shock" a reduction in acceleration when the top block collided with the lower block.
it 100% did collapse exactly like that though... why do you assume it's impossible even after you've had it explained to you.
once the upper 500,000 tons begins to freefall the broken topped bottom isn't able to "catch" the weight and it just unzipped those walls as the canteleverd floors blew apart in a cascade all the way down.
it looked like a piece of chalk in a press crumbling from the tip down to the ground... it's been modeled 100's of times it behaves exactly as it's supposed to when you actually account for the forces and weights and physics involved.
the building was mostly air, it's actually a feature in the design, one of the first of it's kind experimental open floors. due to the construction when you break the floors you break what is holding the walls pinned to the core
it's 500,000 tons, 1 Trillion pounds... in freefall as it falls through the failing damaged area. i mean come on man did you really expect 2/3 of a skyscraper to catch 1/3 of a skyscraper? it's impossible.
BTW- it is reddit tier form to act shitty and then act hard done by when it's called out.>
i wasn't complaining, i was laughing. you bitched about a sprinkle of sarcasm like it tore out a little chunk of your ass so much that you had to address it. it was awkward so i laughed.
You're mistaken, that's why. It's impossible because the energy of pulverizing concrete and projecting steel beams outward requires energy, the ONLY energy available is 9.8m/s^2. That 500k tons had to crush through ~1500k tons, and it did so using only about 2m/s^2 of that energy.
If there was a 'pancake collapse' you have a collision of 2 floors, then the floor breaks, drops, then collide with the next, break, drop, collide, break, drop. That would appear on video in a noticeable and measureable feature of collapse.
Then the simulations, the simulations were garbage, they didn't go from start to end because they ALL diverge from the video, the worst was WTC 7, where the simulation couldn't even get to 7 seconds before being noticeably different from the video.
you're just assuming the methodology inside the cascade, most of the energy going into the system was stored there when it was built... when all that mass was hauled up there. gravity is pulling it down and as it gains speed it requires more and more force to stop it.
catch a tennis ball, now catch an anvil.
when a floor fails, it doesn't turn into powder, there is pretensioned crete that snap and go flying... and gravity itself helping to rip everything apart. it's not JUST the weight of the building slamming into a solid static objecct... it's hitting mostly air all the way down. there is not nearly as much resistance as you are thinking because you are mistakenly assuming the lower part was built from solid granite.
without doing a multicut cause this is getting boring and you're getting snarky so this will go to shit fast (lol at REEEE about "magic")
i want to quote one thing in particular:
take a model of the building, cut the top 1/3 of it off, remove 3 or 4 floors, drop it back onto the opened top building.
each tower weighed 1,500,000 tons
how hard do you think it is for ANYTHING other than the earth to "catch" 500,000 tons and stop it from moving?
other than that...
where is the giant puddle monument?
show it to me.
You don't remember the articles, the satelite imagery showing thousand degree temperatures up to 6 months later?
Again, it's not "could it collapse" but "could it collapse AS IT COLLAPSED". If the 110 floors took 2-3 minutes instead of the ~40 seconds, then you would be making a strong point.
Projecting steel several blocks laterally, pulverized concrete from every floor, AND maintaining about 80% of gravity. That's not enough energy, even if you dropped the top 1/3 from 20 stories up.
And more, there was no "shock" a reduction in acceleration when the top block collided with the lower block.
BTW- it is reddit tier form to act shitty and then act hard done by when it's called out.
no
it 100% did collapse exactly like that though... why do you assume it's impossible even after you've had it explained to you.
once the upper 500,000 tons begins to freefall the broken topped bottom isn't able to "catch" the weight and it just unzipped those walls as the canteleverd floors blew apart in a cascade all the way down.
it looked like a piece of chalk in a press crumbling from the tip down to the ground... it's been modeled 100's of times it behaves exactly as it's supposed to when you actually account for the forces and weights and physics involved.
the building was mostly air, it's actually a feature in the design, one of the first of it's kind experimental open floors. due to the construction when you break the floors you break what is holding the walls pinned to the core
it's 500,000 tons, 1 Trillion pounds... in freefall as it falls through the failing damaged area. i mean come on man did you really expect 2/3 of a skyscraper to catch 1/3 of a skyscraper? it's impossible.
i wasn't complaining, i was laughing. you bitched about a sprinkle of sarcasm like it tore out a little chunk of your ass so much that you had to address it. it was awkward so i laughed.
all good man.
You're mistaken, that's why. It's impossible because the energy of pulverizing concrete and projecting steel beams outward requires energy, the ONLY energy available is 9.8m/s^2. That 500k tons had to crush through ~1500k tons, and it did so using only about 2m/s^2 of that energy.
If there was a 'pancake collapse' you have a collision of 2 floors, then the floor breaks, drops, then collide with the next, break, drop, collide, break, drop. That would appear on video in a noticeable and measureable feature of collapse.
Then the simulations, the simulations were garbage, they didn't go from start to end because they ALL diverge from the video, the worst was WTC 7, where the simulation couldn't even get to 7 seconds before being noticeably different from the video.
you're just assuming the methodology inside the cascade, most of the energy going into the system was stored there when it was built... when all that mass was hauled up there. gravity is pulling it down and as it gains speed it requires more and more force to stop it.
catch a tennis ball, now catch an anvil.
when a floor fails, it doesn't turn into powder, there is pretensioned crete that snap and go flying... and gravity itself helping to rip everything apart. it's not JUST the weight of the building slamming into a solid static objecct... it's hitting mostly air all the way down. there is not nearly as much resistance as you are thinking because you are mistakenly assuming the lower part was built from solid granite.