Idea to end all the debate

I'm a bit rusty on physics and the other necessary calculations, so I'll call upon you guys to do this for me (if you are so inclined).

Obviously buildings are over-engineered to hold more than the load put upon them. The best figure I could find was 3 to 5 times as much. If anyone has better information, by all means, use it.

Why not take the mass of the structure from the fire and above. Figure what it's force would be from it's downward velocity, and see if it exceeds the amount that the building below the fire should have been able to handle.

Just an idea.

[edit on 5-5-2007 by white4life420]

(This is white4life420 - read that only way to change name was to make a new account so I did).

Wanted to add that the reason I chose this method is that it seemed like the most plausible way to prove either theory - as making a model or computer simulation is extremely complicated. This way, not every joint or steam beam needs to be singled out.

The hardest part would be figuring the force coming down. Other than that I see no issues.

Am I correct?

[edit on 5-5-2007 by Sublime620]

[edit on 5-5-2007 by Sublime620]

The more of the building that fell off from the top the greater the relative strength of what was left below. Keep in mind that the last twenty stories or so were supporting the entire weight of all the other floors prior to the collapse. As the building collapsed more and more of that weight was removed. A collapse "to the ground" unassisted by explosives is impossible. (All expletives [none directed to you] deleted.)

Originally posted by ipsedixit
The more of the building that fell off from the top the greater the relative strength of what was left below. Keep in mind that the last twenty stories or so were supporting the entire weight of all the other floors prior to the collapse. As the building collapsed more and more of that weight was removed. A collapse "to the ground" unassisted by explosives is impossible. (All expletives [none directed to you] deleted.)

I didn't really even want to get into that. Again, too much to be factored in. Then you start having to think about ejected materials, force lost in each floor being hit, etc.

Just the initial collapse.

I hardly see the point of calculating how much the top portion was crushing the floors below because the simple fact is it wasn't crushing the floors below as we can clearly see here.

The momentum was not downward, it was pivoting to one side.

Originally posted by PepeLapew
IThe momentum was not downward, it was pivoting to one side.

Yes but then something made it stop going to one side and start collapsing straight down ?

[edit on 5-5-2007 by ULTIMA1]

I am in complete agreement. I just figured this: if it could be determained that the amount of force exerted down was not enough to initialize a collapse of the truses (let alone the core), then there is really no argument for the collapse being caused by the floors above it.

Debunkers would have to come up with a whole new theory and Im not sure they are up for that challenge.

*Edit* And what I was hoping for is that it wouldn't even be close to enough force even when exhaggerated.

[edit on 5-5-2007 by Sublime620]