Alternative 9/11 Theories, page 2

Originally posted by ClashWho

I don't understand this question. Are you a physicist? Does the collapse violate the laws of physics?

Bsbray did a nice job of explaining it but I'll add my 2c...

You don't have to be a physicist to understand basic physics and engineering. This is high school stuff.

'Angular Momentum'...

The angular momentum of a rigid object is defined as the product of the moment of inertia and the angular velocity. It is analogous to linear momentum and is subject to the fundamental constraints of the conservation of angular momentum principle if there is no external torque on the object. Angular momentum is a vector quantity. It is derivable from the expression for the angular momentum of a particle...

Source

What this means is if an object is moving at an angle pivoted at a point it will continue in its path unless something else acts on it causing it to change its momentum.

So to put that in context with WTC2 ask yourself, what was it that acted on that top section to make it stop in mid air and then fall straight down? The hypothesis most debunkers believe is that the top crushed the undamaged lower building after the steel was softened by office fires. I'll prove this is impossible according to this physics law (let alone a couple of others, but it only takes one).
Why is it impossible? Because nothing, if you go by the 'official story', was acting on that top section to make it change its momentum. Or was it?
Well actually yes. Something had to have acted on it to make it change its angular momentum. Agree so far?

So what was it? Well the only thing that could have acted on the top and change its momentum was the undamaged building that it was pivoting on. So how did it do that? Well according to most debunkers the top crushed the building because it couldn't hold the weight.
Now remember the top is sitting at an angle pivoted on one side of the building. If the pivot point couldn't hold the top any longer the
tops angular momentum would have increased as it fell to path of least resistance. But it doesn't do that, it goes through the building in the path of most resistance (actually it just follows the bottom as it collapses from under it). Which is completely backwards to all known physics. So now its tilting and then suddenly, as the building starts to collapse, stops for a brief moment and then follows the rest of the building down.

So what caused it to stop in mid air? The only logical way this could happen is if the bottom building and the pivot point of the top fell
faster than the top was tilting. If the building fell slower, or at the same speed, the top would still be sitting on the pivot point and would continue its angular momentum, or tilt.

So how did the top crush the bottom if the bottom fell independently of the top?

The central core structure, composed of 47 massive box columns welded in 2 places to make the columns continuous and cross braced with I, or H beams depending on where you come from, would have to have been completely severed to allow the top to start tilting. No aluminum aircraft, that didn't even hit straight on, did that. Sorry but that's a no brainer. Office fires also didn't do that, another no brainer I won't even argue.

Now you tell me how those massive box columns were severed completely? If you can do that successfully then we move on to the 'angular momentum', already covered. Explain that successfully and then we get to start on the lack of friction/resistance. Explain that and we move on to blah blah....See my point?

I won't even guess at what was used to severe the columns because I have no idea, and don't really care what was used. It's a waste arguing stuff we have no idea about when there is so much more relevant points that need addressing. But unfortunately for the last 4 years of posting here and trying to get discussion about these problems from debunkers I've got nowhere. You all want to discuss 'no planes' and 'holograms' because you can snicker at your keyboard as you debunk another tin hat twoofer. But when hit with the real questions you all get NASTY. You lose your sense of humour pretty damned fast. Very telling...

But maybe it was 'bad welds' lol too funny...

[edit on 30/4/2008 by ANOK]