WTC collapse videos exposes the lies of the 9/11 conspiracy theorist movement

aaahh, i feel as if we are reaching an equilibrium here. avada, i'm going to present a scenario, and i'd like for you to demonstrate the same scenario to see where our ideas come together, and where they do not:

No problem.

as the falling top section falls on the bottom floors, it meets their resistance, though they do not arrest, or suspend the momentum of the falling section. it will continue to fall downwards with the weight of its load + gravity until its momentum is extinguished as it meets the resistance of the 60+ bottom floors. as you have correctly stated, if this were a naturally occurring collapse, the top section would at this point experience deceleration.as this process continues, and if it has occured naturally, then by the time the top section's momentum has traveled around 20 floors down, it should have either a) fallen over to one side because of asymmetrical damage or b) asymmetrically lodged itself into the remaining 30+ floors that haven't experienced fires or bent steel (as plube's thread points out - if i am understanding it correctly, the lower floors seemed to be split from one another rather than being bent and heated to the point of exhaustion). instead of a natural collapse, the steel columns were no longer visibly standing once the destruction has ended and the smoke has cleared. they have been neutralized - somehow taken apart in a symmetrical fashion. a natural collapse, dare i say, would never cause such an instance.

how does your idea of the building's demise differ or correlate with mine?

I would agree that there was not much bending of columns going on, in fact the connections holding them together were sheared meaning the columns did not need to bend to fail.

The top section of tower 1 at least did acquire angular momentum which did not stop, but as they top section did fragment the angular momentum was preserved as translational momentum. The top floor of the bottom section will offer little resistance against the far bigger top section crashing down into it, it does however slow the acceleration of the top section slightly. You have to understand that the force required to arrest the upper tower would be equal to the required change in momentum of the upper block divided by the time in which this change is made.

I would agree that there was not much bending of columns going on, in fact the connections holding them together were sheared meaning the columns did not need to bend to fail.

The top section of tower 1 at least did acquire angular momentum which did not stop, but as they top section did fragment the angular momentum was preserved as translational momentum. The top floor of the bottom section will offer little resistance against the far bigger top section crashing down into it, it does however slow the acceleration of the top section slightly. You have to understand that the force required to arrest the upper tower would be equal to the required change in momentum of the upper block divided by the time in which this change is made.

interesting that you would mention the columns shearing. if by shearing you literally mean "cut from," then how exactly can this happen so symmetrically, even with the translational momentum of the broken top portion of tower 1? what exactly would be doing the cutting?

i have to say that i agree with your depiction, as it really does not look very different from mine at all, but let's take this a bit further. i'd like to look at your claim that the top floor of the bottom section will offer little resistance against a far bigger top section. this is where i see our primary, if not only, difference. while i agree that the top floor of the bottom section would cause little to no resistance, what about the remaining 60+ floors under it? i keep coming back to this point because it's pivotal to understanding the building's descent.

one floor causes no resistance, but 60 - 80 floors of steel columns DEFINITELY cause a lot of resistance onto a falling section of around 15-20 floors. from this, much more than just deceleration of the top section would occur. we would have seen eventual arrest of the top section's momentum. this is how a natural collapse would have looked if it was in fact natural.

i mean.. i don't know, maybe i'm just not understanding this right at all - how do you see 15 falling floors being able to "shear off" over 60 floors of steel trusses and columns? if we're talking straight physics here, how would the 15 falling floors, which as you state break apart on the way down, regain a symmetrical amount of kinetic energy strong enough to slice steel columns apart after it has met the resistance of about 20 floors on its way down? i guess a more focused question would be, do you expect the kinetic energy and momentum of 15 falling floors to be able to symmetrically rip through over 60 standing floors of steel? if so, how is this possible, and where else can i observe such a phenomenon for comparison?