an observation about the destruction of WTC 1, 2 & 7

That's what gravity does, but it was slowed by the floors beneath, to an average of 64% of FFA.

 

So 36% of the weight of the upper mass accounts for all of the force required to pulverize & eject tons of material + totally destroy each level as it falls......(?)

This is in support of the mainstream medias lame excuse for a story and so far, there has been no proof at all of this being possible.

 

Why would you make such a ludicrous claim? How do you come up with "36% of the weight"?

 

Because if anything is falling at 64% of g
then it is only expressing 36% of its weight against whatever is under it.

 

Um ... no. That's not how the math works.

The mass is what you need to look at, not the weight.

 

So you have this HUGE mass in motion, and just exactly how does it express that huge energy that it has? do tell?

 

It crashes downward, severing the connections floor by floor.

 

so in your universe, a falling mass can expend energy without slowing down?
or is it that you believe that the 36% of the weight is sufficient to totally pulverize tons of material and eject said material out the sides of the tower and destroy the structure of each level on the way down(?)

 

Once again: the weight has nothing to do with it. Nothing.

The was was slowed by the floors as it encountered them. This is why the building did not collapse at the rate of FFA.

 

Weight has EVERYTHING to do with it, mass is stuff without a gravitational reference to give it weight. A 20kg mass in low earth orbit is falling and going around the earth at the same time and therefore weightless, however on earth if you drop said weight, while it is falling, it is weightless the same as the object in orbit, and when it strikes something, then it can express the energy it has, but only by slowing down or stopping. The mass falling at 64% of gravity, is only expressing 36% of its weight downward.

In the case of the WTC towers "collapse" there are several things that make this problematic. First the fact of the uniformity of the descent, and additionally the uniformity of destruction.

I saw a "king of the nerds" episode where they had a heavy weight drop through horizontal plate glass partitions in a tower, and the glass from the above bits would accumulate with the weight to strike the lower bits, however the action slowed down and stopped after breaking 6 or 7 of the glass plates.
Question(?) can anyone design an experiment where the dropping of a heavy weight on a tower of some design/construction could cause, buy way of the weight of individual levels being added to the falling material imposing upon lower levels such that the tower is completely destroyed in the process?

 

Rather than simply having the glass plates alone, place the same weights on each plate.

For example, have glass plates 15 inches apart stacked as high as you'd like. Place a 10 pound bowling ball on each plate. (Since the load is static, the glass should have no problem supporting it.) Pick up the uppermost bowling ball 15 inches and drop it on the top plate. The first plate is shattered and the ball continues downward, a bit slower but with enough force to shatter plate number two, releasing the potential energy of the second ball. Now BOTH balls fall the 15 inches to the NEXT plate. They meet with (obviously) more force, (because now there are two balls instead of one) and now THREE balls fall to the next plate and so on.

What happens all the way down?

 

Now comes the need for "QED" ...... you see, just saying that it could happen like that is insufficient, where is the proof, and to that you will probably demand that I prove its not possible. However, the mainstream media was the first to assert that it was allegedly possible for the phenomenon to have happened exactly as described. Why is it, that this is not part of freshman engineering curriculum in every engineering school in this land?

Two questions persist even after the more than a decade after the event.
1: is it possible to obtain the result of the alleged gravity driven "collapse" without any help from explosives.
2: how is it known for certain that the mass increased floor to floor in the "collapse" event of the towers, given that so much material was pulverized and ejected, what means could be used to know for certain that the mass increased floor by floor?

 

Those questions no longer persist.
1) Yes. See my example above. No explosives needed.
2) Of course mass was added as it descended through floors. See my example above. More mass is added as each glass sheet fails?

You don't have to prove my example false, simply answer the following question: In my example above, when does the force subside enough that a glass sheet arrests the fall of the bowling balls?

 

You have made a shift from the real bit to the hypothetical bit
in attempting to assert that the mass would increase on the way down,
however given the evidence available from the actual collapse event(s)
of the two towers, what bit gives certainty to the claim of the mass increasing on the way down?

 

The Destruction of the World Trade Center:
Why the Official Account Cannot Be True
David Ray Griffin


Jones, Steven E., 2006. "Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Collapse?" In Griffin and Scott, eds., 2006.

Heller, David, 2005. "Taking a Closer Look: Hard Science and the Collapse of the World Trade Center," Garlic and Grass, Issue 6, November 24 (http://www.garlicandgrass.org/issue6/Dave_Heller.cfm).

Hoffman, Jim, 2003. “The North Tower's Dust Cloud: Analysis of Energy Requirements for the Expansion of the Dust Cloud Following the Collapse of 1 World Trade Center,” Version 3, 9-11 Research.wtc7.net, October 16 (http://911research.wtc7.net/papers/dustvolume/volume.html).

_____, 2004. “Your Eyes Don’t Lie: Common Sense, Physics, and the World Trade Center Collapses,” 9-11 Research.wtc7.net (http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/radio/youreyesdontlie/index.html).

_____, 2005. “Building a Better Mirage: NIST's 3-Year $20,000,000 Cover-Up of the Crime of the Century,” 911 Research, August 21 (http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/nist/index.html).

Hufschmid, Eric, 2002. Painful Questions: An Analysis of the September 11thAttack. Goleta, CA: Endpoint Software.

Killough-Miller, Joan, 2002. “The ‘Deep Mystery’ of Melted Steel,” WPI Transformations, Spring (http://www.wpi.edu/News/Transformations/2002Spring/steel.html).
King, Jeff, 2003. “The WTC Collapse: What the Videos Show,” Indymedia Webcast News, November 12 (http://ontario.indymedia.org/display.php3?article_id=7342&group=webcast).
Lavello, Randy, n.d. “Bombs in the Building,” Prison Planet.com (http://www.prisonplanet.com/analysis_lavello_050503_bombs.html).

Meyer, Peter, n.d. “Did the Twin Towers Collapse on Demand?”, Section 3 of “The World Trade Center Demolition and the so-Called War on Terrorism,” Serendipity (www.serendipity.li/wtc.html).
_____, 2005b. “WTC Basement Blast and Injured Burn Victim Blows 'Official 9/11 Story' Sky High,” Arctic Beacon, June 24 (http://www.arcticbeacon.com/articles/article/1518131/28031.htm).
Griffin, David Ray, 2004. The New Pearl Harbor: Disturbing Questions about 9/11 and the Bush Administration. Northampton, MA: Olive Branch (Interlink).
Glanz, James. 2001. “Engineers Are Baffled over the Collapse of 7 WTC; Steel Members Have Been Partly Evaporated,” New York Times, November 29.
Bollyn, Christopher, 2001. “Some Survivors Say ‘Bombs Exploded Inside WTC,’” American Free Press, October 22 (http://www.americanfreepress.net/10_22_01/ Some_Survivors_Say__Bombs_Expl/some_survivors_say__bombs_expl.html).

Baker, Jeremy, n.d. “PBS Documentary: Silverstein, FDNY Razed WTC 7,” Infowars.com (http://www.infowars.com/print/Sept11/FDNY.htm).

 

This example does present a logical scenario.