I enjoy watching pedophiles suffer as much as the next guy, but I do think they were a bit quick to taze him. He was clearly terrified, posed no threat, offered no resistance and only began to run after they fired the tazer at him, which I would say is a human instinct.

I understand your explanation, but you are talking about the tower as if it were two seperate objects. You cannot go from the resistance offered by the undamaged tower below the crash to no resistance in under a second, it is physically impossible.

NIST have themselves said that they can offer no explanation for the collapse, and several British universities have found no explanation with their own work; only one of these universities has went public so far.

However, your method would probably work, but it still relies entirely on a uniform collapse starting right at the very top of the tower. Correct me if I am wrong.

This isn't right surely, what you are saying would mean that I would only have to knock out about 8 inches of my house for the entire thing to collapse into rubble. There isn't enough time for the falling part to gather enough inertia and therefore total mass.

In reply to this comment by Irishman:
When you calculate total mass, the value of the mass you are using should already take into account its inertia.

In reply to this comment by Irishman:
The total distance fallen by the taller building was 416.97 metres.

g at sea level is 9.81m/s

t (time taken for collapse) is 10 seconds from the seismic records and video footage.

416.97 metres will take 9.22 seconds to fall in a vacuum. The taller tower collapsed in 10 seconds.

That means that the 80 lower floors offered less than one second of resistance; this is not including air resistance.

That leaves less that one second for the amount of inertia to build up, not the 11 seconds that I think your equation needs. But correct me if I am wrong.



In reply to this comment by MycroftHomlz:
Yes.

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

Go to 6. There is the answer.

Right, so let me know if I lose you, and I will try to make it more clear-

The basic idea is that as the mass collapsed the initial collapsing floors collapsed at a total acceleration less than gravity at STP. At the floors collapsed onto each other their total momentum increased.

Or an easier way to see it,

F= (M+dm)*a = (M+dm)*g_STP-Fimpulse

Here I represented the force downward as an increasing quantity and Fimpulse as the force due to the collision of the total mass at time t-1 to time t. So, as the mass falls it gains more mass, until eventually the total force of the mass falling can be approximated F~(M+dm)g_STP.

Not that more mass falls at a faster rate, rather as more mass falls the effect of the other forces becomes negligible.

This means that for the most part the acceleration can be effectively described by something in freefall, and hence g_STP~a.

Note Fimpulse is a constant as a function of time.
In reply to this comment by Irishman:
I back Choggie's comments.

My own thoughts,
The thermite theory addressed the problem of the freefall speed of the tower's collapse.

There is still no official or third party theory that addresses that problem.

A freefall speed of collapse explicity implies no resistance, and that is impossible for 3 of the buildings that collapsed at freefall speed unless they were demolished.

If someone can explain how the freefall collapses were caused by the fire, then they will have solved the riddle.

When you calculate total mass, the value of the mass you are using should already take into account its inertia.

In reply to this comment by Irishman:
The total distance fallen by the taller building was 416.97 metres.

g at sea level is 9.81m/s

t (time taken for collapse) is 10 seconds from the seismic records and video footage.

416.97 metres will take 9.22 seconds to fall in a vacuum. The taller tower collapsed in 10 seconds.

That means that the 80 lower floors offered less than one second of resistance; this is not including air resistance.

That leaves less that one second for the amount of inertia to build up, not the 11 seconds that I think your equation needs. But correct me if I am wrong.



In reply to this comment by MycroftHomlz:
Yes.

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

Go to 6. There is the answer.

Right, so let me know if I lose you, and I will try to make it more clear-

The basic idea is that as the mass collapsed the initial collapsing floors collapsed at a total acceleration less than gravity at STP. At the floors collapsed onto each other their total momentum increased.

Or an easier way to see it,

F= (M+dm)*a = (M+dm)*g_STP-Fimpulse

Here I represented the force downward as an increasing quantity and Fimpulse as the force due to the collision of the total mass at time t-1 to time t. So, as the mass falls it gains more mass, until eventually the total force of the mass falling can be approximated F~(M+dm)g_STP.

Not that more mass falls at a faster rate, rather as more mass falls the effect of the other forces becomes negligible.

This means that for the most part the acceleration can be effectively described by something in freefall, and hence g_STP~a.

Note Fimpulse is a constant as a function of time.
In reply to this comment by Irishman:
I back Choggie's comments.

My own thoughts,
The thermite theory addressed the problem of the freefall speed of the tower's collapse.

There is still no official or third party theory that addresses that problem.

A freefall speed of collapse explicity implies no resistance, and that is impossible for 3 of the buildings that collapsed at freefall speed unless they were demolished.

If someone can explain how the freefall collapses were caused by the fire, then they will have solved the riddle.

Yes.

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

Go to 6. There is the answer.

Right, so let me know if I lose you, and I will try to make it more clear-

The basic idea is that as the mass collapsed the initial collapsing floors collapsed at a total acceleration less than gravity at STP. At the floors collapsed onto each other their total momentum increased.

Or an easier way to see it,

F= (M+dm)*a = (M+dm)*g_STP-Fimpulse

Here I represented the force downward as an increasing quantity and Fimpulse as the force due to the collision of the total mass at time t-1 to time t. So, as the mass falls it gains more mass, until eventually the total force of the mass falling can be approximated F~(M+dm)g_STP.

Not that more mass falls at a faster rate, rather as more mass falls the effect of the other forces becomes negligible.

This means that for the most part the acceleration can be effectively described by something in freefall, and hence g_STP~a.

Note Fimpulse is a constant as a function of time.
In reply to this comment by Irishman:
I back Choggie's comments.

My own thoughts,
The thermite theory addressed the problem of the freefall speed of the tower's collapse.

There is still no official or third party theory that addresses that problem.

A freefall speed of collapse explicity implies no resistance, and that is impossible for 3 of the buildings that collapsed at freefall speed unless they were demolished.

If someone can explain how the freefall collapses were caused by the fire, then they will have solved the riddle.

I back Choggie's comments.

My own thoughts,
The thermite theory addressed the problem of the freefall speed of the tower's collapse.

There is still no official or third party theory that addresses that problem.

A freefall speed of collapse explicity implies no resistance, and that is impossible for 3 of the buildings that collapsed at freefall speed unless they were demolished.

If someone can explain how the freefall collapses were caused by the fire, then they will have solved the riddle.

As Einstein has proven - Energy can NOT be created or destroyed. The energy that was acting on the top floors HAD ALWAYS ACTED ON THEM(potential energy). When the top floors gave way(because of the supposed fires from the plane crash) - sure, they would fall - won't argue about that one - their POTENTIAL energy from gravity acting on them gets converted to KINETIC energy and THE TOP FLOORS FALL(because ENERGY CAN NOT BE CREATED OR DESTROYED).

You have to remember - the bottom floors HAD ALWAYS RESISTED the "pressure applied" from the top floors for OVER 20 years up to that point!

Why, all of a sudden, would they provide NO resistance(and thus each building falls in LESS THAN a minute) to the top floors, on September 11th?

Do I need to tutor you in high school physics, my friend?

The collapse of the WTC Buildings 1, 2, and 7 couldn't have happened without the laws of physics being VASTLY skewed(at the very least), or without the assistance of some type of Thermite/explosive. Refute me on that.