I recently posted an article on sci.physics.research about a simple
physics matter involving the child-like law of falling bodies, as
established by Galileo.

In my post, I showed that the WTC 7 building, as observed in the
referenced video, took the same amount of time to fall to the ground as
an apple thrown from the roof of that building.

The moderator of sci.physics.research, Igor Khavkine, rejected my post
on the grounds that it was "inappropriate" and "overly speculative".

Here, why don't you decide:

[Rejection notice from Igor Khavkine]
=====================================
Unfortunately, the article you posted to sci.physics.research is
inappropriate for the newsgroup because it is overly speculative.

For more information, see the sci.physics.research charter at
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/spr.html

Please note that, since the article was posted to a moderated group and
was not approved, it will not appear in ANY newsgroup. If you want to
post it to any unmoderated newsgroup, you must post it again, avoiding
any moderated newsgroups.

Keep in mind that posts are randomly distributed to one of the ACTIVE
co-moderators. At any given time, one or more of these can be
inactive. If, rather than resubmitting a post in the normal way, you
email a moderator directly, it might arrive while he is inactive,
causing an unnecessary delay.

Sincerely,
Igor Khavkine, sci.physics.research co-moderator

=====================================



[My Original Post]
==================
TITLE: Freefall collapse of WTC 7

An examination of this video

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...32340306101329

reveals that the collapse of WTC 7 started at second 17 and completed
at second 23. That is a total of 6 seconds.

It can be easily shown that this building collapsed in the same time it
would take an apple to fall from the roof of this building and hit the
ground - a freefall.
Let's do a simple calculation:

distance travelled = initial velocity * total time + 1/2 *
acceleration * total time^2

or

s = ut + 1/2at^2

Since the apple was stationary before falling (just like building was
prior to collapse), u = 0.


Since the height of the building was 174 meters, s = 174.

Since we are at ground level the gravitational field strength is
aconstant, so a = 9.8 m/s^2

Now,
174 = 0 t + 1/2 9.8 t^2


Solving for t
t = sqrt( 2 * 174 / 9.8)
= 5.9590

Well look at that, an apple would take 6 seconds to fall from the roof
of WTC 7, just the same amount of time it took WTC 7 to collapse.

The 10 year old intellect can easily deduce then that WTC 7 must've
freefallen.

==============================


For how much longer must you be told by the physics elite that
buildings can freefall into themselves, freefall through concrete,
until you see the obvious?

For how much longer must you be told by the physics elite that the flat
rotation curves of galaxies and missing mass problem mean that fairy
dust halos of unobservable dark matter occur at just the right places
to make the failed theory of General Relativity fit with observation,
until you see the obvious?

For how much longer must you be told by the physics elite that
all-permeating blobs of unobservable strings composed nothingness flip
and flop to create the physical universe, until you see the obvious?

For how much longer must you be brainwashed into believing in a sky
that is green but with fairy that makes it blue, until you see the
obvious?

The physics establishment is a historical laughing stock, how many more
brainwashings do you need unil you see that?

I hear you pain.
and share it.

Schoenfeld wrote:

I recently posted an article on sci.physics.research about a simple
physics matter involving the child-like law of falling bodies, as
established by Galileo.

In my post, I showed that the WTC 7 building, as observed in the
referenced video, took the same amount of time to fall to the ground as
an apple thrown from the roof of that building.

The moderator of sci.physics.research, Igor Khavkine, rejected my post
on the grounds that it was "inappropriate" and "overly speculative".

Here, why don't you decide:

[Rejection notice from Igor Khavkine]
=====================================
Unfortunately, the article you posted to sci.physics.research is
inappropriate for the newsgroup because it is overly speculative.

For more information, see the sci.physics.research charter at
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/spr.html

Please note that, since the article was posted to a moderated group and
was not approved, it will not appear in ANY newsgroup. If you want to
post it to any unmoderated newsgroup, you must post it again, avoiding
any moderated newsgroups.

Keep in mind that posts are randomly distributed to one of the ACTIVE
co-moderators. At any given time, one or more of these can be
inactive. If, rather than resubmitting a post in the normal way, you
email a moderator directly, it might arrive while he is inactive,
causing an unnecessary delay.

Sincerely,
Igor Khavkine, sci.physics.research co-moderator

=====================================



[My Original Post]
==================
TITLE: Freefall collapse of WTC 7

An examination of this video

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...32340306101329

reveals that the collapse of WTC 7 started at second 17 and completed
at second 23. That is a total of 6 seconds.

It can be easily shown that this building collapsed in the same time it
would take an apple to fall from the roof of this building and hit the
ground - a freefall.
Let's do a simple calculation:

distance travelled = initial velocity * total time + 1/2 *
acceleration * total time^2

or

s = ut + 1/2at^2

Since the apple was stationary before falling (just like building was
prior to collapse), u = 0.


Since the height of the building was 174 meters, s = 174.

Since we are at ground level the gravitational field strength is
aconstant, so a = 9.8 m/s^2

Now,
174 = 0 t + 1/2 9.8 t^2


Solving for t
t = sqrt( 2 * 174 / 9.8)
= 5.9590

Well look at that, an apple would take 6 seconds to fall from the roof
of WTC 7, just the same amount of time it took WTC 7 to collapse.

The 10 year old intellect can easily deduce then that WTC 7 must've
freefallen.

==============================


For how much longer must you be told by the physics elite that
buildings can freefall into themselves, freefall through concrete,
until you see the obvious?

For how much longer must you be told by the physics elite that the flat
rotation curves of galaxies and missing mass problem mean that fairy
dust halos of unobservable dark matter occur at just the right places
to make the failed theory of General Relativity fit with observation,
until you see the obvious?

For how much longer must you be told by the physics elite that
all-permeating blobs of unobservable strings composed nothingness flip
and flop to create the physical universe, until you see the obvious?

For how much longer must you be brainwashed into believing in a sky
that is green but with fairy that makes it blue, until you see the
obvious?

The physics establishment is a historical laughing stock, how many more
brainwashings do you need unil you see that?

Ok, so "physicists" are ****heads. Engineers know this, what
would you have us do about it?
Androcles.




"Schoenfeld" wrote in message
ps.com...
|I recently posted an article on sci.physics.research about a simple
| physics matter involving the child-like law of falling bodies, as
| established by Galileo.
|
| In my post, I showed that the WTC 7 building, as observed in the
| referenced video, took the same amount of time to fall to the ground as
| an apple thrown from the roof of that building.
|
| The moderator of sci.physics.research, Igor Khavkine, rejected my post
| on the grounds that it was "inappropriate" and "overly speculative".
|
| Here, why don't you decide:
|
| [Rejection notice from Igor Khavkine]
| =====================================
| Unfortunately, the article you posted to sci.physics.research is
| inappropriate for the newsgroup because it is overly speculative.
|
| For more information, see the sci.physics.research charter at
| http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/spr.html
|
| Please note that, since the article was posted to a moderated group and
| was not approved, it will not appear in ANY newsgroup. If you want to
| post it to any unmoderated newsgroup, you must post it again, avoiding
| any moderated newsgroups.
|
| Keep in mind that posts are randomly distributed to one of the ACTIVE
| co-moderators. At any given time, one or more of these can be
| inactive. If, rather than resubmitting a post in the normal way, you
| email a moderator directly, it might arrive while he is inactive,
| causing an unnecessary delay.
|
| Sincerely,
| Igor Khavkine, sci.physics.research co-moderator
|
| =====================================
|
|
|
| [My Original Post]
| ==================
| TITLE: Freefall collapse of WTC 7
|
| An examination of this video
|
| http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...32340306101329
|
| reveals that the collapse of WTC 7 started at second 17 and completed
| at second 23. That is a total of 6 seconds.
|
| It can be easily shown that this building collapsed in the same time it
| would take an apple to fall from the roof of this building and hit the
| ground - a freefall.
| Let's do a simple calculation:
|
| distance travelled = initial velocity * total time + 1/2 *
| acceleration * total time^2
|
| or
|
| s = ut + 1/2at^2
|
| Since the apple was stationary before falling (just like building was
| prior to collapse), u = 0.
|
|
| Since the height of the building was 174 meters, s = 174.
|
| Since we are at ground level the gravitational field strength is
| aconstant, so a = 9.8 m/s^2
|
| Now,
| 174 = 0 t + 1/2 9.8 t^2
|
|
| Solving for t
| t = sqrt( 2 * 174 / 9.8)
| = 5.9590
|
| Well look at that, an apple would take 6 seconds to fall from the roof
| of WTC 7, just the same amount of time it took WTC 7 to collapse.
|
| The 10 year old intellect can easily deduce then that WTC 7 must've
| freefallen.
|
| ==============================
|
|
| For how much longer must you be told by the physics elite that
| buildings can freefall into themselves, freefall through concrete,
| until you see the obvious?
|
| For how much longer must you be told by the physics elite that the flat
| rotation curves of galaxies and missing mass problem mean that fairy
| dust halos of unobservable dark matter occur at just the right places
| to make the failed theory of General Relativity fit with observation,
| until you see the obvious?
|
| For how much longer must you be told by the physics elite that
| all-permeating blobs of unobservable strings composed nothingness flip
| and flop to create the physical universe, until you see the obvious?
|
| For how much longer must you be brainwashed into believing in a sky
| that is green but with fairy that makes it blue, until you see the
| obvious?
|
| The physics establishment is a historical laughing stock, how many more
| brainwashings do you need unil you see that?
|

"Roger Bagula" wrote in message
t...
|I hear you pain.
| and share it.

well said.

Androcles.


|
| Schoenfeld wrote:
|
| I recently posted an article on sci.physics.research about a simple
| physics matter involving the child-like law of falling bodies, as
| established by Galileo.
|
| In my post, I showed that the WTC 7 building, as observed in the
| referenced video, took the same amount of time to fall to the ground as
| an apple thrown from the roof of that building.
|
| The moderator of sci.physics.research, Igor Khavkine, rejected my post
| on the grounds that it was "inappropriate" and "overly speculative".
|
| Here, why don't you decide:
|
| [Rejection notice from Igor Khavkine]
| =====================================
| Unfortunately, the article you posted to sci.physics.research is
| inappropriate for the newsgroup because it is overly speculative.
|
| For more information, see the sci.physics.research charter at
| http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/spr.html
|
| Please note that, since the article was posted to a moderated group and
| was not approved, it will not appear in ANY newsgroup. If you want to
| post it to any unmoderated newsgroup, you must post it again, avoiding
| any moderated newsgroups.
|
| Keep in mind that posts are randomly distributed to one of the ACTIVE
| co-moderators. At any given time, one or more of these can be
| inactive. If, rather than resubmitting a post in the normal way, you
| email a moderator directly, it might arrive while he is inactive,
| causing an unnecessary delay.
|
| Sincerely,
| Igor Khavkine, sci.physics.research co-moderator
|
| =====================================
|
|
|
| [My Original Post]
| ==================
| TITLE: Freefall collapse of WTC 7
|
| An examination of this video
|
| http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...32340306101329
|
| reveals that the collapse of WTC 7 started at second 17 and completed
| at second 23. That is a total of 6 seconds.
|
| It can be easily shown that this building collapsed in the same time it
| would take an apple to fall from the roof of this building and hit the
| ground - a freefall.
| Let's do a simple calculation:
|
| distance travelled = initial velocity * total time + 1/2 *
| acceleration * total time^2
|
| or
|
| s = ut + 1/2at^2
|
| Since the apple was stationary before falling (just like building was
| prior to collapse), u = 0.
|
|
| Since the height of the building was 174 meters, s = 174.
|
| Since we are at ground level the gravitational field strength is
| aconstant, so a = 9.8 m/s^2
|
| Now,
| 174 = 0 t + 1/2 9.8 t^2
|
|
| Solving for t
| t = sqrt( 2 * 174 / 9.8)
| = 5.9590
|
| Well look at that, an apple would take 6 seconds to fall from the roof
| of WTC 7, just the same amount of time it took WTC 7 to collapse.
|
| The 10 year old intellect can easily deduce then that WTC 7 must've
| freefallen.
|
| ==============================
|
|
| For how much longer must you be told by the physics elite that
| buildings can freefall into themselves, freefall through concrete,
| until you see the obvious?
|
| For how much longer must you be told by the physics elite that the flat
| rotation curves of galaxies and missing mass problem mean that fairy
| dust halos of unobservable dark matter occur at just the right places
| to make the failed theory of General Relativity fit with observation,
| until you see the obvious?
|
| For how much longer must you be told by the physics elite that
| all-permeating blobs of unobservable strings composed nothingness flip
| and flop to create the physical universe, until you see the obvious?
|
| For how much longer must you be brainwashed into believing in a sky
| that is green but with fairy that makes it blue, until you see the
| obvious?
|
| The physics establishment is a historical laughing stock, how many more
| brainwashings do you need unil you see that?
|
|
|

Schoenfeld escreveu:

Solving for t
t = sqrt( 2 * 174 / 9.8)
= 5.9590
Well look at that, an apple would take 6 seconds to fall from the roof
of WTC 7, just the same amount of time it took WTC 7 to collapse.

Sorry if I am going to say something stupid. I am just a surgeon... not
a physicist.

As far as I understand you initially supposed that the building should
have a slower fall.

However, I'll guess the huge mass falling from top had such a high
momentum so that teh concrete below would impose a very small delay in
fall. And during the fall more conrete falling and higher speed
produced more and more momentum so that this delay, if any delay at
all, tended to xero comparing to a free fall.

The buiding had a very have body in its top related to its equilibrium
and as far as I know it was the fall of this body that produced the
collapse.

Aguiar

On 8/7/06 12:14 PM, in article
, "Schoenfeld"
wrote:

I recently posted an article on sci.physics.research about a simple
physics matter involving the child-like law of falling bodies, as
established by Galileo.

In my post, I showed that the WTC 7 building, as observed in the
referenced video, took the same amount of time to fall to the ground as
an apple thrown from the roof of that building.

snip

The following will not stop continuation of this crap but here goes anyway.

Recently, the first demolition of a Los Angeles by explosives in many years
was shown on television news. Obviously, the Government must have fixed it
to collapse much more slowly than a free fall just to refute shoenfeld1
claims.

Bill
-- Ferme le Bush

What is the point? Apples are not very dense and would probably reach a
terminal velocity relatively quickly. The terminal velocity would be the
velocity where the air drag is equal to the acceleration of gravity times
the mass. Understanding the rate of collapse of the building is more
complicated. If the apple fell at the same rate as the building it's a
coincidence.



Personally I am not a fan of the law of falling bodies, as established by
Galileo. It does not consider wind resistance. The larger cannon ball should
fall faster due to differences in the ratio of mass and surface area. A
microscopic "cannon ball" may not even fall. Particles of a fine powder do
not fall at the same rate as large objects even when they are composed of
the same material.

www.ILikeIt.Unfranchise.com



"Schoenfeld" wrote in message
ps.com...
I recently posted an article on sci.physics.research about a simple
physics matter involving the child-like law of falling bodies, as
established by Galileo.

In my post, I showed that the WTC 7 building, as observed in the
referenced video, took the same amount of time to fall to the ground as
an apple thrown from the roof of that building.

The moderator of sci.physics.research, Igor Khavkine, rejected my post
on the grounds that it was "inappropriate" and "overly speculative".

Here, why don't you decide:

[Rejection notice from Igor Khavkine]
=====================================
Unfortunately, the article you posted to sci.physics.research is
inappropriate for the newsgroup because it is overly speculative.

For more information, see the sci.physics.research charter at
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/spr.html

Please note that, since the article was posted to a moderated group and
was not approved, it will not appear in ANY newsgroup. If you want to
post it to any unmoderated newsgroup, you must post it again, avoiding
any moderated newsgroups.

Keep in mind that posts are randomly distributed to one of the ACTIVE
co-moderators. At any given time, one or more of these can be
inactive. If, rather than resubmitting a post in the normal way, you
email a moderator directly, it might arrive while he is inactive,
causing an unnecessary delay.

Sincerely,
Igor Khavkine, sci.physics.research co-moderator

=====================================



[My Original Post]
==================
TITLE: Freefall collapse of WTC 7

An examination of this video

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...32340306101329

reveals that the collapse of WTC 7 started at second 17 and completed
at second 23. That is a total of 6 seconds.

It can be easily shown that this building collapsed in the same time it
would take an apple to fall from the roof of this building and hit the
ground - a freefall.
Let's do a simple calculation:

distance travelled = initial velocity * total time + 1/2 *
acceleration * total time^2

or

s = ut + 1/2at^2

Since the apple was stationary before falling (just like building was
prior to collapse), u = 0.


Since the height of the building was 174 meters, s = 174.

Since we are at ground level the gravitational field strength is
aconstant, so a = 9.8 m/s^2

Now,
174 = 0 t + 1/2 9.8 t^2


Solving for t
t = sqrt( 2 * 174 / 9.8)
= 5.9590

Well look at that, an apple would take 6 seconds to fall from the roof
of WTC 7, just the same amount of time it took WTC 7 to collapse.

The 10 year old intellect can easily deduce then that WTC 7 must've
freefallen.

==============================


For how much longer must you be told by the physics elite that
buildings can freefall into themselves, freefall through concrete,
until you see the obvious?

For how much longer must you be told by the physics elite that the flat
rotation curves of galaxies and missing mass problem mean that fairy
dust halos of unobservable dark matter occur at just the right places
to make the failed theory of General Relativity fit with observation,
until you see the obvious?

For how much longer must you be told by the physics elite that
all-permeating blobs of unobservable strings composed nothingness flip
and flop to create the physical universe, until you see the obvious?

For how much longer must you be brainwashed into believing in a sky
that is green but with fairy that makes it blue, until you see the
obvious?

The physics establishment is a historical laughing stock, how many more
brainwashings do you need unil you see that?

Ok, ok, so you see that the top of the building was falling at free fall and
you dispute it.

The plane hit the building about 2/3 of the way up, clearing out a floor or
two. One floor failed, dropping on to the floor below. The columns also
buckled outwards about then. At that point the top indeed was falling, and
without any signficant support was pretty close to free fall. As the top of
the building descended it gathered a great deal of momentum. Any resistance
was quickly overcome by the force of the top third plus dropping on it.
When the building finally came down to rest, it wasn't at the bottom of the
pile. The rubble was a few stories up. Figure that each floor slowed the
reaction down by only a few milliseconds, and that the collapse started in
the center, some time before you notice the top starting to go down.

With the precision you are working at, you must remember that at 6 seconds,
things are moving at 180 ft/sec in free fall. At the precision you have
indicated, the apple could have been 100 ft ahead of the building, and you
would say it landed at the same time.

Michael

"Schoenfeld" wrote in message
ps.com...
I recently posted an article on sci.physics.research about a simple
physics matter involving the child-like law of falling bodies, as
established by Galileo.

In my post, I showed that the WTC 7 building, as observed in the
referenced video, took the same amount of time to fall to the ground as
an apple thrown from the roof of that building.

The moderator of sci.physics.research, Igor Khavkine, rejected my post
on the grounds that it was "inappropriate" and "overly speculative".

Here, why don't you decide:

[Rejection notice from Igor Khavkine]
=====================================
Unfortunately, the article you posted to sci.physics.research is
inappropriate for the newsgroup because it is overly speculative.

For more information, see the sci.physics.research charter at
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/spr.html

Please note that, since the article was posted to a moderated group and
was not approved, it will not appear in ANY newsgroup. If you want to
post it to any unmoderated newsgroup, you must post it again, avoiding
any moderated newsgroups.

Keep in mind that posts are randomly distributed to one of the ACTIVE
co-moderators. At any given time, one or more of these can be
inactive. If, rather than resubmitting a post in the normal way, you
email a moderator directly, it might arrive while he is inactive,
causing an unnecessary delay.

Sincerely,
Igor Khavkine, sci.physics.research co-moderator

=====================================



[My Original Post]
==================
TITLE: Freefall collapse of WTC 7

An examination of this video

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...32340306101329

reveals that the collapse of WTC 7 started at second 17 and completed
at second 23. That is a total of 6 seconds.

It can be easily shown that this building collapsed in the same time it
would take an apple to fall from the roof of this building and hit the
ground - a freefall.
Let's do a simple calculation:

distance travelled = initial velocity * total time + 1/2 *
acceleration * total time^2

or

s = ut + 1/2at^2

Since the apple was stationary before falling (just like building was
prior to collapse), u = 0.


Since the height of the building was 174 meters, s = 174.

Since we are at ground level the gravitational field strength is
aconstant, so a = 9.8 m/s^2

Now,
174 = 0 t + 1/2 9.8 t^2


Solving for t
t = sqrt( 2 * 174 / 9.8)
= 5.9590

Well look at that, an apple would take 6 seconds to fall from the roof
of WTC 7, just the same amount of time it took WTC 7 to collapse.

The 10 year old intellect can easily deduce then that WTC 7 must've
freefallen.

==============================


For how much longer must you be told by the physics elite that
buildings can freefall into themselves, freefall through concrete,
until you see the obvious?

For how much longer must you be told by the physics elite that the flat
rotation curves of galaxies and missing mass problem mean that fairy
dust halos of unobservable dark matter occur at just the right places
to make the failed theory of General Relativity fit with observation,
until you see the obvious?

For how much longer must you be told by the physics elite that
all-permeating blobs of unobservable strings composed nothingness flip
and flop to create the physical universe, until you see the obvious?

For how much longer must you be brainwashed into believing in a sky
that is green but with fairy that makes it blue, until you see the
obvious?

The physics establishment is a historical laughing stock, how many more
brainwashings do you need unil you see that?

asaguiar wrote:
Schoenfeld escreveu:

Solving for t
t = sqrt( 2 * 174 / 9.8)
= 5.9590
Well look at that, an apple would take 6 seconds to fall from the roof
of WTC 7, just the same amount of time it took WTC 7 to collapse.

Sorry if I am going to say something stupid. I am just a surgeon... not
a physicist.

As far as I understand you initially supposed that the building should
have a slower fall.

Yes, it shouldn't of have fallen at all. If it burned for maybe another
2 years, parts of it may have broken off and fallen. The collapse as
observed requires simultaneous structure failure and that is the
providence of controlled demolition and only controlled demolition.

However, I'll guess the huge mass falling from top had such a high
momentum so that teh concrete below would impose a very small delay in
fall. And during the fall more conrete falling and higher speed
produced more and more momentum so that this delay, if any delay at
all, tended to xero comparing to a free fall.

The concrete would've acted as a major source of kinetic friction
during the descent and the structure should not have collapsed at all.
But, you need not consider the material or geometric composition of the
structure in order to see that how the laws of physics and the NIST
pancake theory cannot be reconciled.

Let us assume that a floor collapses at the instant the top floor
collided with it, having no delay.

For a building of 47 floors, we have 47 different freefalls. In other
words, the top floor accelerates from rest and collides with it's below
floor. Both combined* floors now accelerate from rest and collide with
their below floor, etc.

The collapse described by this model is a net motion composed of 47
separate freefalls, each spanning the height of 1 floor.

The video evidence clearly suggests 1 freefall spanning the height of
47 floors.

The NIST 'pancake model' is irreconcilable with the evidence and
established, elementary laws of physics.

*: If the floors did not combine, then it means the top floor decreases
in velocity (due to momentum transfer). This makes no difference since
the total time for all floors to fall to the ground is the same if they
did combine.

The buiding had a very have body in its top related to its equilibrium
and as far as I know it was the fall of this body that produced the
collapse.

It is as likely as a tree simultaneously turning into saw dust and
freefalling into the ground.


Aguiar

"Schoenfeld" wrote in message
oups.com...

asaguiar wrote:
Schoenfeld escreveu:

Solving for t
t = sqrt( 2 * 174 / 9.8)
= 5.9590
Well look at that, an apple would take 6 seconds to fall from the roof
of WTC 7, just the same amount of time it took WTC 7 to collapse.

Sorry if I am going to say something stupid. I am just a surgeon... not
a physicist.

As far as I understand you initially supposed that the building should
have a slower fall.

Yes, it shouldn't of have fallen at all. If it burned for maybe another
2 years, parts of it may have broken off and fallen. The collapse as
observed requires simultaneous structure failure and that is the
providence of controlled demolition and only controlled demolition.


Or of a weakended and buckled structure due to heat and the force above it.
All you really have to do is to get the loads to be non axial and things
buckle quickly. An aluminum soda can is able to hold well over 100 pounds
until it has the slightest dent in the side. Then the weight will collapse
it rather quickly. Much the same happened with the wtc.

However, I'll guess the huge mass falling from top had such a high
momentum so that teh concrete below would impose a very small delay in
fall. And during the fall more conrete falling and higher speed
produced more and more momentum so that this delay, if any delay at
all, tended to xero comparing to a free fall.

The concrete would've acted as a major source of kinetic friction
during the descent and the structure should not have collapsed at all.
But, you need not consider the material or geometric composition of the
structure in order to see that how the laws of physics and the NIST
pancake theory cannot be reconciled.

Let us assume that a floor collapses at the instant the top floor
collided with it, having no delay.

For a building of 47 floors, we have 47 different freefalls. In other
words, the top floor accelerates from rest and collides with it's below
floor. Both combined* floors now accelerate from rest and collide with
their below floor, etc.

The collapse described by this model is a net motion composed of 47
separate freefalls, each spanning the height of 1 floor.

The video evidence clearly suggests 1 freefall spanning the height of
47 floors.


The collapse started 2/3 up the building. The top floor did not collapse
onto the floor below it until it was very nearly at its final resting point.
By then, it had enough momentum that when the supporting columns pushed back
a little, the ties failed instantly. The top 47 floors or whatever
basically punched through the lower section of the towers with their full
mass. The lower section couldn't resist that kind of impact.


The NIST 'pancake model' is irreconcilable with the evidence and
established, elementary laws of physics.

*: If the floors did not combine, then it means the top floor decreases
in velocity (due to momentum transfer). This makes no difference since
the total time for all floors to fall to the ground is the same if they
did combine.

The buiding had a very have body in its top related to its equilibrium
and as far as I know it was the fall of this body that produced the
collapse.

It is as likely as a tree simultaneously turning into saw dust and
freefalling into the ground.


Aguiar




Michael