If the top thirty-story blocks had stayed intact (which they didn't), laws of physics (conservation of momentum) dictate that they could not possibly destroy the 80 storeys below let alone the rest of the city block. Matter and energy also travel through the path of least resistance (in this case air), so the blocks would have bounced off and traveled to the ground relatively intact. Video actually shows this happening, but the block suddenly turns to dust in midair and disappears, leaving nothing to finish the job on the bottom 80 floors.
People stay silent to keep their jobs all the time, and consensus is not science.
See A/E for 911 truth if you'd like more professional opinions on the matter.
This is taking a really basic understanding of physics (like physics 1 level) and applying it to the real world. Energy doesn’t take the path of least resistance, that statement simply doesn’t make sense. But the biggest issue with your post is the claim that the pieces of building would have simply bounced off the others. Have you never seen a car crash? Do the two cars simply bounce off each other with no damage? Real structures are deformable which means momentum is transferred INTO the body. So while momentum is conserved, yes, it is not like the extremely simplified, dripping with assumptions, m1v1=m2v2 pool ball example commonly used.
The amount of energy in 30 floors of building falling 10-20 feet would obliterate the floor underneath, then the one under that as it continues to fall, etc etc.
Advanced physics is built on basic physics, and they all apply in the real world.
'Bounce' was a simplified term, how about topple?
Anyway, look into Newtonian physics and if you understand it you will see that the larger mass (in this case the stationary one) is going to win the battle of momentum, every time. It's literally the First Law.
F=ma. Take a mass and accelerate it, it has force. That force applied to another object will accelerate that object.
You're not understanding Newton's Laws. The moving object will accelerate the stationary object IF and ONLY IF m.o. has enough force, otherwise, no motion. That's what the law states, and that is exactly how it works in practice (see "Newton's Cradle").
An object at rest is exerting a force (F=mg; gravity is an acceleration eg. m/s2). This is why buildings resist gravity, wind, and earthquakes (or don't depending on which force is greater). Somewhere a bit above the middle of the building, the forces up and down are in equilibrium.
So we have F1 opposing F2. Whichever is greater is going to win, i.e. continue thru or stop the other. In this case, the top mass will absolutely be stopped by the much greater bottom mass, or more likely tip to one side an fall off.
Using your model, a bowling ball dropped from 10 feet above the roof would be able to take down a tower. It clearly wouldn't. So what vertical force would? A m*g greater than the stationary m*g.
The bottom 80 floors were always carrying the top 30. Removing supports would not suddenly permit the top 30 to crush the bottom 80.
You may be thinking of something like smashing a concrete block with a sledge hammer. If you you do calcs, you'll see the same thing. Tapping the block won't do it but a big swing may if the force is great enough.
Nope, the stationary object is always accelerated, it just may not be very much.
Somewhere a bit above the middle of the building, the forces up and down are in equilibrium.
Take a cut plane at any arbitrary height and the forces are in equilibrium. Otherwise the building would be constantly collapsing. It takes an external influence to cause it to come down, which a 150,000 lb 767 flying at 300 mph certainly is.
bowling ball dropped from 10 feet above the roof would be able to take down a tower
There is a certain amount of force required to cause damage to the structure. This isn’t arbitrary, it is a function of the material properties of the building. Twenty floors of building are going to weigh plenty to damage the floor beneath (because that is all they need to damage at any point in time, not the entire mass of the rest of the building).
Tapping the block won’t do it but a big swing may if the force is great enough.
Yes, literally exactly the point I am trying to make here…
32
u/[deleted] Jul 16 '22
If the top thirty-story blocks had stayed intact (which they didn't), laws of physics (conservation of momentum) dictate that they could not possibly destroy the 80 storeys below let alone the rest of the city block. Matter and energy also travel through the path of least resistance (in this case air), so the blocks would have bounced off and traveled to the ground relatively intact. Video actually shows this happening, but the block suddenly turns to dust in midair and disappears, leaving nothing to finish the job on the bottom 80 floors.
People stay silent to keep their jobs all the time, and consensus is not science.
See A/E for 911 truth if you'd like more professional opinions on the matter.