3 Easy ways to win a 9/11 truth debate.

delete

[edit on 10-9-2009 by john124]

reply to post by Edrick

This question poses 2 assumptions.

1. There were people on the plane.

2. IF their plane did not crash, then the people who you believe were on the plane (That you have no evidence for) vanished.


Occam's Razor... There was no one on the plane to begin with.

I'll keep this simple for you: I'll not assume anybody were on that plane, and I'll not even assume one did crash even though wreckage indicates a plane crash did indeed happen!

Now tell me where the people are who the govt. claimed died in that plane crash? Accusations of murder are entirely baseless without some form of evidence at least to back it up.

Note you said:

killed by malicious agents to stage an event of this magnitude.

Using Occam's Razor implies these are the only possible explanations, and since you cannot explain one basic fact that should go along with your little theory, you are hardly in a position to claim any credibility for your claim to even consider it an explanation, therefore your point is entirely moot.




[edit on 10-9-2009 by john124]

Originally posted by johnmhinds
You can't compare 2 completely different buildings doing different things and say they should both be reacting in the same way.

Yes you can, physics laws apply to ALL buildings regardless of what they're made of.

Objects, of any kind, do not fall through the path of most resistance.
That is the point being made, not how the buildings materials effect a collapse.

If you had a tower made of wood and it was damaged like the WTC, leaving lower floors undamaged, the collapse would still meet resistance from undamaged wood.

It's the most basic physics.

Originally posted by Wally Hope

Originally posted by johnmhinds
You can't compare 2 completely different buildings doing different things and say they should both be reacting in the same way.

Yes you can, physics laws apply to ALL buildings regardless of what they're made of.

Objects, of any kind, do not fall through the path of most resistance.
That is the point being made, not how the buildings materials effect a collapse.

If you had a tower made of wood and it was damaged like the WTC, leaving lower floors undamaged, the collapse would still meet resistance from undamaged wood.

It's the most basic physics.

Yet again your tower made of wood is not a valid comparison for the Twin Towers because the Twin Towers were not made of wood.

Of course they wouldn't react in the same way, they aren't made of the same thing.

You're using failed logic yet again.

And anyway, how can you claim to know that a 400m+ tower of wood would not collapse in the same way anyway as the Twin Towers, it's never happened.
You're just assuming things by thinking about on the collapse of a small house or shed made of wood and extrapolating those results out to a 400m+ tower.
When you should clearly know that varying the height, weight, and mass of anything could result in dramatically different results.

The wood at the base of this imaginary 400m+wood skyscraper wouldn't offer anymore resistance to the weight falling on it than the steel and concrete frame the Twin Towers had.

[edit on 10-9-2009 by johnmhinds]

Originally posted by hgfbob

Originally posted by jthomas

Originally posted by king9072
How to win a 911 argument?

WTC7. GOOD GAME.

There's absolutely no way that small fires around a building can cause every part of the building to fail completely and symmetrically allowing for a systemic collapse at near free fall speed.

Fires were NOT responsible for buildings falling SYMMETRICALLY. Symmetry is completely unrelated to fires. And how is the 14+ second collapses anywhere CLOSE to freefall speeds? It is not, so why are you claiming it?

and where do YOU get 14 seconds?

You mean you don't know that? How could you NOT know that?

Presumably, you can count:
www.youtube.com...

And where do you get the ridiculous idea that fires cause buildings to fall "symmetrically?"

In fact, history has shown us that an entire steel frames skyscraper can burn ENTIRELY and not collapse.

FALSE. The unfought fires during WWII bombing raids caused thousands of steel-framed buildings to collapse. The historical record, including the actual steel and photographs, are preserved in museums in Dresden, London, Tokyo, and elsewhere.

lol...and YOUR actually referencing buildings that were initially BOMBED to back your claim of collapse from fire?

My God, you don't even know the history of firebombing in WWII. Amazing.

"The Bombing of Dresden by the British Royal Air Force (RAF) and United States Army Air Force (USAAF) between 13 February and 15 February 1945, twelve weeks before the surrender of the Armed Forces (Wehrmacht) of Nazi Germany, remains one of the most controversial Allied actions of the Second World War. In four raids, 1,300 heavy bombers dropped more than 3,900 tons of high-explosive bombs and incendiary devices on the city, the baroque capital of the German state of Saxony. The resulting firestorm destroyed 39 square kilometres (15 sq mi) of the city centre, and killed up to 135,000 civilians.[1] Estimates of civilian casualties vary greatly, but recent publications place the figure between 24,000 and 40,000.[2]

en.wikipedia.org...

You 9/11 "Truthers" can never get your facts correct.

Now, look up the other cities that were firebombed and get you collapse times correct.




[edit on 10-9-2009 by jthomas]

Originally posted by jthomas

Originally posted by hgfbob

Originally posted by jthomas

Originally posted by king9072
How to win a 911 argument?

WTC7. GOOD GAME.

There's absolutely no way that small fires around a building can cause every part of the building to fail completely and symmetrically allowing for a systemic collapse at near free fall speed.

Fires were NOT responsible for buildings falling SYMMETRICALLY. Symmetry is completely unrelated to fires. And how is the 14+ second collapses anywhere CLOSE to freefall speeds? It is not, so why are you claiming it?

and where do YOU get 14 seconds?

You mean you don't know that? How could you NOT know that?

Presumably, you can count:
www.youtube.com...

And where do you get the ridiculous idea that fires cause buildings to fall "symmetrically?"

In fact, history has shown us that an entire steel frames skyscraper can burn ENTIRELY and not collapse.

FALSE. The unfought fires during WWII bombing raids caused thousands of steel-framed buildings to collapse. The historical record, including the actual steel and photographs, are preserved in museums in Dresden, London, Tokyo, and elsewhere.

lol...and YOUR actually referencing buildings that were initially BOMBED to back your claim of collapse from fire?

My God, you don't even know the history of firebombing in WWII. Amazing.

"The Bombing of Dresden by the British Royal Air Force (RAF) and United States Army Air Force (USAAF) between 13 February and 15 February 1945, twelve weeks before the surrender of the Armed Forces (Wehrmacht) of Nazi Germany, remains one of the most controversial Allied actions of the Second World War. In four raids, 1,300 heavy bombers dropped more than 3,900 tons of high-explosive bombs and incendiary devices on the city, the baroque capital of the German state of Saxony. The resulting firestorm destroyed 39 square kilometres (15 sq mi) of the city centre, and killed up to 135,000 civilians.[1] Estimates of civilian casualties vary greatly, but recent publications place the figure between 24,000 and 40,000.[2]

en.wikipedia.org...

You 9/11 "Truthers" can never get your facts correct.

Now, look up the other cities that were firebombed and get you collapse times correct.




[edit on 10-9-2009 by jthomas]

This whole time you have been squandering about how we shouldnt be comparing other plane impacts and fires to WTC towers because they are not the same as what happened on 9/11.

Meanwhile, you are sitting here using WW2 bombing to correlate to what happened on 9/11.

I smell hypocrisy.

If you want to ignore history to justify 9/11 thats one thing, but then to go back and use historic events to justify your cause is pure hypocrisy.

Not to mention bombing civilian buildings does not cause a symmetrical collapse either, but thats bit of logic that you have to learn to grasp. (hopefully that came out as nice as possible)

Originally posted by demonseed
Hmm... my post "mysteriously" disappeared. Well, here goes try #2.

Next time someone wants to debate about how 9/11 was NOT an inside job, just ask them to provide a picture or video of one of the following:

1) An Al Queda member wearing a red bandana

2) A building collapsing symmetrically due to a plane crash and/or fire.

3) Debris in shanksville.

Here's my take on these three....

1) I agree that this is irrelevant. I once wore a blue beanie. Does that make me a member of Hell's Angels or P.E.T.A.?

2) I agree that WTC 1 & 2 did NOT fall symmetrically. They were very tall buildings and to my knowledge, no one knew how it would react during a demolition. WTC 7 on the other hand was a perfectly symmetrical controlled demolition. Yes, I said it... So have hundreds if not thousands of architects/demo crews.

3) Absolutely right, no debris. Just a big hole with small pieces of crap along a trail of 8 miles. Where did the people go? They were incinerated by the missile's explosion. What missile? The one that was used to shoot down the plane AGAINST ORDERS. A captain in the USAF (HOOAH) did NOT follow an order to disengage because of the unethical consequences. I applaud the captain (sorry I don't know his name at the moment) for doing so.

Also, I am not a heartless coward, I do grieve for the lives lost that day. 17 of my friends were among the dead.

Here's a video of a building collapsing in a similar fashion to the WTC. It's analogous to the WTC collapses because the floors have been removed "without explosives" which is similar to the destruction caused by the burning jet-fuel melting & weakening the WTC steel structures. I did mention it earlier that there's a video demonstating this. Until now I didn't think it would be necessary to show it, as I thought the truther's lack of logic would be apparent after a while even to themselves!



Since all of you 9/11 truthers seem to think size, composition, materials etc of the building aren't valid for your own examples, then you have little reason to ignore this video either. But I'm guessing you will just because it doesn't fit in your own tiny realities.

At least this video actually demonstrates similaries to the WTC collapses, where the truther's posted videos are certainly like comparing apples to oranges.


[edit on 10-9-2009 by john124]

Why do people carry this debate on?

I've tried and tried to reason with the believers.

They're ignorant. Bottom line.

No, buildings do not fall down perfectly symmetrical, due to missile impact, bombings, planes bombings, etc. It's just simply _impossible_

And once again, all of the 9/11 believers, ALL off them, cannot explain this nice hunk of evidence.




So, end the debate, the believers are ignorant and will see to it that they carry on the endless debate, you are no more intelligent to give them as much as a rebuttal because they will make it their personal vendetta to try and prove you wrong, attempts futile.

The truther's arguments are no more logical than claiming all buildings should collapse as the following video demonstrates:



I have no idea why people think collapses should ever be symmetrical!

[edit on 10-9-2009 by john124]

reply to post by john124


The thing is those supports were ALL severed symmetrically, unlike the WTC buildings that sustained asymmetrical damage yet experienced a symmetrical collapse.

How do you explain WTC2 with this hypothesis? For the top to symmetrically collapse the building underneath it, wouldn't it have to be sitting 'true' on the top of the undamaged structure, not tilting off the side?

For your hypothesis to work ALL connections would have to fail at the same time, like the building in your vid. That isn't going to happen from office fire that do not heat everything up evenly. Also when steel fails it doesn't do it suddenly, it sags, bends, leans, whatever as it starts to lose it's strength. Steel doesn't suddenly fail when it hits a certain temp.

I'm also sure the lower columns in that building were weakened to help it collapse. That is the usual method.

Your vid doesn't take into account the asymmetrical damage, and that whole floors collapsing symmetrically from asymmetrical damage is just a NIST assumption, there is no physics to support this hypothesis.

It's obvious from WTC2 that whole floors did not 'pancake' onto floors bellow. You see the tilt and then the building collapse from UNDERNEATH the top causing the top to stop tilting. This goes against the laws of angular momentum.

Your vid doesn't take into account that whole situation. It's easy to pick points and debunk them, but when you connect ALL the dots those points become relevant every time.

You'd be better off learning some real physics instead of relying on other peoples uneducated opinions.

reply to post by john124


It's nice that you think all truthers are inept and subscribe to "tiny realities". No disrespect, but I disagree with the way you judge others just by their opinions/theories.

Anywho....
That is a nice video of a controlled demolition you have there. As it states, no explosions were used in its demolition. Though it does state that "supports on one floor in the middle of the building were removed". How could this be possible? Oh.... wait....THERMITE!!!

Thermite is a pyrotechnic composition of a metal powder and a metal oxide, which produces an aluminothermic reaction known as a thermite reaction. It is not explosive, but can create short bursts of extremely high temperatures focused on a very small area for a short period of time.

The clip of Richard Gage does not help the author's case as it was demonstrating free fall vs. resistance. It seems the author wanted it to look as if the 20 year architect thought the top part of the tower would only fall a couple of floors and stop. He was merely showing that an object with no resistance will fall faster than one with resistance. I'm sure the author of the video has some form of formal education on the matter, otherwise this video would be moot. (can you smell the sarcasm there?)

As for the puffs of air you see in that video of yours....
Yes it is air escaping compression by the falling floors. I'm not going by the puffs of air on 9/11. I go by eye witnesses that heard the multiple explosions.

Not all of us will "ignore" your video as it does have some merit on explaining some things. However, it does not explain it all.

Originally posted by Wally Hope
reply to post by john124

 

The WTC collapses weren't symmetrical. The centre of gravity of the mass above where the planes hit was approximately central in the building, therefore it collapsed downwards after the support structure sufficiently weakened. The resulting momentum transferred to each floor in split seconds, causing further collapses which accelerated due to gravity and an increasing mass from above for each floor. Taking into account all the other factors that you mentioned this can all still occur.



[edit on 10-9-2009 by john124]

Originally posted by john124

Originally posted by Wally Hope
reply to post by john124

 

The WTC collapses weren't symmetrical. The centre of gravity of the mass above where the planes hit was approximately central in the building, therefore it collapsed downwards after the support structure sufficiently weakened. The resulting momentum transferred to each floor in split seconds, causing further collapses which accelerated due to gravity and an increasing mass from above for each floor. Taking into account all the other factors that you mentioned this can all still occur.



[edit on 10-9-2009 by john124]

1) You clearly dont understand the basic laws of gravity.

In a vacuum, if you where to drop a feather and a 2 ton weight from the same height, they would both land at exactly the same time.

Increasing Mass does not increase the power of gravity.

2) Your explanation, even if you prove it true, does not explain WTC tower 7.

3) Your explanation disregards the entire design of the WTC towers 1 & 2. They where designed to withstand the "impact" of a plane. A plane could hit the Tower and plow through the middle or the sides or the bottom it wouldn't matter. The structure was built with support frames on all sides that could take hold even in the event of a plane crash.
The WTC towers being so tall made plane crashes a top priority. The case that NIST states was that it wasnt the plane impact that caused the collapse but the fires that weakened the steel. That is why the building didn't collapse upon impact.
And again, even disregarding all of this, you then have WTC 7's symmetrical collapse that made no sense.

reply to post by demonseed

 

1) You clearly dont understand the basic laws of gravity.

In a vacuum, if you where to drop a feather and a 2 ton weight from the same height, they would both land at exactly the same time.

Increasing Mass does not increase the power of gravity.

No of course gravity does not change significantly over a few hundred metres but the higher the mass, the larger the force due to gravity. Don't tell me you don't even know Newton's 2nd Law of Motion: Force=Mass*Acceleration, whereby acceleration = g = 9.81 ms^-2.

Therefore gravitational forces do increase with every floor collapse. It's basic mechanics!!!

These are laws of motion that are applicable, not "basic laws of gravity". Newton's Laws of gravitation are between point masses such as planets.

Why on earth are you talking about vacuums?!

I think it's you who doesn't have a clue about even the most basic of Physics with your poor use of terminology. You are truely laughable!!!

2) Your explanation, even if you prove it true, does not explain WTC tower 7.

Why not? It's a perfectly reasonable explanation for falling & fiery debris to have the same effect on adjacent buildings. After all this has been demonstrated to happen in the Dresden bombings to name one example: en.wikipedia.org...

3) Your explanation disregards the entire design of the WTC towers 1

My explanation explains exactly what happened.

& 2. They where designed to withstand the "impact" of a plane. A plane could hit the Tower and plow through the middle or the sides or the bottom it wouldn't matter. The structure was built with support frames on all sides that could take hold even in the event of a plane crash.
The WTC towers being so tall made plane crashes a top priority. The case that NIST states was that it wasnt the plane impact that caused the collapse but the fires that weakened the steel. That is why the building didn't collapse upon impact.

I'm not disagreeing on any of its actual design parameters, but it's quite apparent that certain aspects were not planned for either; because it was ill-prepared for such a scale fire, or it was unfeasible to design a tower to withstand this level of burning jet fuel.

Not every plane crash into the towers would be as devastating for several reasons; certain planes are smaller and lighter than others certain planes carry less fuel, collisions with the buildings may not be at the same velocity, therefore may not produce as destructive effects. Have you considered what would have happened had the planes hit the towers at the outer edges, or if they wings had clipped the towers? It's quite possible the towers would still be there, even if this would have caused carnage on the ground elsewhere wherever the plane and its debris ended up.

And again, even disregarding all of this, you then have WTC 7's symmetrical collapse that made no sense.

Sense?? That's not really an interpretation that is meaningful. WTC 7's collapse was expected both by men on the ground, and has be explained rationally and logically by science, both by me and many others.

Some collapses (especially smaller buildings, although larger ones can too) may appear symmetrical, but no collapse can be exactly symmetrical.

Check out this new scientist article: www.newscientist.com...

"Common sense" and good intentions are no substitute for hard evidence. You might think, for instance, that scaring young offenders by showing them what prison life is like will discourage them from reoffending. In fact, randomised trials show that such schemes, long popular in the US, increase reoffending rates.

Although intended to show how politicians and policy-makers don't always base decisions on empirical evidence, it can also apply to anyone.


[edit on 10-9-2009 by john124]

No of course not

but the higher the mass, the larger the force due to gravity. Don't tell me you don't even know Newton's 2nd Law of Motion: Force=Mass*Acceleration, whereby acceleration = g = 9.81 ms^-2. Therefore gravitational forces do increase with every floor collapse.

Force = mass*acceleration - mass of the building below it - friction - air resistance - many other factors you forgot to take into account.

Gravitational forces do not increase. Gravity remains the same throughout the collapse. THe only thing that changes is the mass being acted upon by gravity, and with each subsequent floor below acceleration is decreased due to friction.

Newtons law of motion works perfectly in a vacuum but the building did not fall in a vacuum. You are discounting the external forces of friction and the building below.

You're treating WTC towers as if they are Katamari Domacy balls that just go around glue everything to itself. That is not how physics works.

reply to post by johnmhinds

None of those videos can be compared to the WTC collapse because they aren't the same buildings.

You can't even compare them to each other and then say there is one single way for a building to collapse because they all react differently.

I *DO* Believe that I was explaining Symmetry in regards to a Building collapse.

Where as one set of videos was of asymmetrical collapse, and the other, was not.

Your comparison, of my comparison is ignorant of my original point.

Case in Point:

What you are trying to do is the equivalent of comparing a 30mph highway crash to a 200mph nascar crash and then saying the nascar was full of explosives because it acted differently.

You are comparing my comparison of Symmetry and Non Symmetry, to a Fictitious comparison of one car crash to another.

Your analogy Fails due to the fact that you completely missed the entire point of my original Comparison.

Ergo... You are Wrong.



@John124

I'll keep this simple for you: I'll not assume anybody were on that plane, and I'll not even assume one did crash even though wreckage indicates a plane crash did indeed happen!

Now tell me where the people are who the govt. claimed died in that plane crash?

I highlighted your answer for you.

The assumption you are operating on in this discussion, is that the Government is telling the truth about the people on the plane who died.

Accusations of murder are entirely baseless without some form of evidence at least to back it up.

I completely agree.

Using Occam's Razor implies these are the only possible explanations, and since you cannot explain one basic fact that should go along with your little theory, you are hardly in a position to claim any credibility for your claim to even consider it an explanation, therefore your point is entirely moot.

I was supplying a different set of initial conditions that would also explain all of the observed data.

To assume that my intent was to supply the ONLY POSSIBLE explanation to this event, is a baseless assumption that you have absolutely no proof of, therefore your point is entirely moot.

-Edrick

[edit on 10-9-2009 by Edrick]

[edit on 10-9-2009 by Edrick]

reply to post by demonseed

Force = mass*acceleration - mass of the building below it - friction - air resistance - many other factors you forgot to take into account.

Actually it should be defined as: Net Force, F = MA - resistive forces

With A = g = 9.81 m/s^2

whereby: resistive forces = air resistance + material frictional forces + reactionary forces

Material frictional forces are negligible in relation to reactionary forces. And reactionary forces reduce as the tower collapses.

Reactionary forces are resistive forces pushing back against the force of gravity within the buildings materials, e.g. at stress points in the steel structures that provide a reaction force to counter the force due to gravity. The vertical component of this force should be used. These forces are normally what keeps a stable building upright and standing.

This net force, F can be calculated for each individual floor during the collapse, if desired.

Since the centre of mass is approximately central in the building for each floor, the net forces downwards can be taken from a central position as well.

Air resistance is negligible in relation to all other forces, as we know air resistance on its own cannot hold up a tower block.

Reaction forces are reduced at each further collapse of a floor as the mass below decreases, and so the amount of structure with which to hold up the tower also reduces.

Gravitational forces do not increase. Gravity remains the same throughout the collapse. THe only thing that changes is the mass being acted upon by gravity, and with each subsequent floor below acceleration is decreased due to friction.

The mass above increased as each floor subsequently collapsed, therefore the force due to gravity, defined as F, also increased.

An increased net force, produced the acceleration of the collapsing towers with a mostly downwards component, and in turn with a smaller and reducing resistance, as each floor collapsed.

Newtons law of motion works perfectly in a vacuum but the building did not fall in a vacuum. You are discounting the external forces of friction and the building below.

Not really, I just didn't add the resistances before, as the forces due to gravity were much larger than the resistances. Therefore the originally modelling was still accurate enough to be correct. With the resistances specified, there’s still a net force downwards due to gravity.

Once critical stress points had been reached within the steel structures on the weakened floors, the force due to gravity exceeded all the resistive forces (mostly reaction forces), and so the net force was no longer zero. This was the point of no return, when the towers subsequently collapsed floor by floor.

With centre of masses generally being centralised within the building, it’s no surprise that the collapses falsely appeared symmetrical from a fair distance away, but in actual fact, no collapse can ever be truly symmetrical. Closer-up observations in video of the collapse show that it wasn’t symmetrical, science explains exactly how they collapsed, and broken steel structures at ground zero demonstrate that the angles certain floors collapsed in relation to ground were in no terms perpendicular.

You're treating WTC towers as if they are Katamari Domacy balls that just go around glue everything to itself. That is not how physics works.

Never heard of "Katamari Domacy balls". Although that is the name of a video game according to google.

Fortunately for me, my education of physics is real and not “virtual”!


[edit on 11-9-2009 by john124]

reply to post by Edrick

The assumption you are operating on in this discussion, is that the Government is telling the truth about the people on the plane who died.

How is that any different to you assuming that the government are definitely lying?!

I was supplying a different set of initial conditions that would also explain all of the observed data.

Sure... let me try a theory: aliens from planet Edricksky shot down the plane mistaking it for a predatory animal, and felt so embarrassed they just had to clean up all of the mess!

It fits the observable data!! Therefore it must be a plausible and possible explanation!!

To assume that my intent was to supply the ONLY POSSIBLE explanation to this event, is a baseless assumption that you have absolutely no proof of, therefore your point is entirely moot.

Definition of Occam's razor: "when you have two competing theories that make exactly the same predictions, the simpler one is the better."

By attempting to make use of Occam's razor you are implying that either you or the govt. are correct. The range of explanations are endless even if we were to disregard the best explanation given by the govt. There's photos of wreckage shown on a previous posting! When there's wreckage of a plane, it's more likely a plane crashed, than didn't crash!

You said this:

Occam's Razor... There was no one on the plane to begin with

So don't tell me you didn't claim an alternate explanation to be correct using Occam's razor!

Occam's razor doesn't really apply here at all the way you've tried to use it, because it's no more logical than using it with the above theory on aliens stealing the wreckage and bodies, or any other wild theory for that matter! People are still missing or dead in each theory. And your incorrect usage of Occam's razor is exactly what I told you about last time!

So as well as not being able to explain any details of your conspiracy theory to any more extent than the alien abducting the plane + passengers theory, you are also providing pointless & meaningless drivel in return for me logically pointing out that your usage of Occam's razor is non-applicable.

And I was sat here thinking that maybe just maybe some of these truthers here will satrt to see sense after I try to use reason and logic to turn them into rational people! But it's pointless discussing anything with somebody who will be ignorant whatever line of reasoning is attempted!


[edit on 11-9-2009 by john124]

[edit on 10-9-2009 by john124]

Nice.

Your like a fox news pundant. Using loose connections as an insult. Clearly playing video games makes me a virtual scientist.

Katamari Domacy is a game in which a giant ball rolls around a city and consumes stuff. Think of that commercial where everyone was becoming attached to this giant ball that was rolling down San Francisco(?).

I applaud you for your wording, however you are still using this fallacy of "attachment"(or so ill call it for now). As the building is falling down you are forgetting that there is a structure below it that causes friction and resistance. The Tower above is very heavy, yes, but the Tower below was designed to hold that amount of weight. Yes, the force of gravity push it through the floors below, however not anywhere close to the pace at which it fell. There will be a strong resistance against the falling top half of each tower stopping it slowly.

What should really have happened due to a collapse:

The the top half the tower should have fallen and crumpled the steel on the floors. After some pull the floors would have let way and then the building would have crumpled through to the floors below, if at all.

Remember, there are still over a 100 story's below exerting a force back at the top half of the tower.

www.youtube.com...

Watch what happens at around 1 min. The first collapse its hard to tell but the second collapse is very obvious. The top half falls through the bottom half with no resistance whatsoever.

But, none of this really matters, because according to your physics:

"...gravitational forces do increase with every floor collapse..."

The gravity on Earth is a constant(generally). A couple dozen stories of building are not gonna change the force of Earths gravity to any negligible amount.

So really, i'm not quite sure who is studying virtual physics here.....

[edit on 11-9-2009 by demonseed]