Originally posted by Seymour Butz
Do you agree with this? Because I believe it explains the difference in collapse speed quite clearly.
You can "believe" whatever you want.
To answer your question, no, it does not explain why WTC7 accelerated at free-fall. To destroy an entire building, a significant
energy would be required, even if just from failing the required connections on every floor. You even talk about energy being used. It has
be, it's inevitable
. But you can't have it, no matter how badly you need it, because the acceleration proves that there was virtually none
exerted from PE, and virtually none is a big difference from the amount actually required to destroy a building. The "style" in which it happens is
not going to magically reduce the energy required to destroy the whole building to nothing. If anyone has calculations that support this, then they
have done their math wrong somewhere, and that's all there is to it.
Coming from JREF, I've seen people like Greening reduce the towers to 1-dimensional theoretical models and completely ignore/contradict numerous
observed phenomenon (not to mention the entire geometry of the towers as laid out in the structural documentation) just to try to prove a point. Then
later Greening will be grilled on all his assumptions and all the things he ignored and simply say he was only trying to provide an "example," not a
anymore. You see how it works? I've had enough classes to at least understand the terminology being thrown around and follow the
math's general implications of what is happening physically, and these guys are pulling things out of their asses just the same as any other
"debunker" would, except they just carry over the same assumptions into formulas.
WTC 7, on the other hand, has the contact interface at or near ground level. Momentum transfer is to the Earth, and so rather than slow down
the descending "upper block," it merely destroys everything at the ground level all at once.
Too bad everything was solidly bolted/welded all the way up the building, especially the columns (which would have essentially been solid lengths of
huge box columns), so any energy spent bending or deflecting something below is going to transfer up the building anyway. What you're suggesting is
basically like saying you can drop a chair and the top part of the chair will free-fall to the ground because the ground is where the actual contact
is being made, and the top of the chair isn't there yet. Ask yourself, using physics/engineering terminology, what is impossible about the scenario
I just described? Why does the top part of the chair stop as soon as the base hits the ground? When you figure it out, you'll realize how it
relates to WTC7.
You would have to assume a "house of cards" for there to be no relation between the base of the building, and the top. Even if it folded in the
middle like an accordion, connections failing in the mid-range as a "cushion" before being transferred all the way up to the top, you would still
see energy being expended in destroying the building, and it would still eventually slow the top floors in their descent. These are the kinds of
stupid assumptions that carry over into the math that are completely unsupported.
None of the Earth's inertia gets transmitted up. As a result, the "momentum sink" of WTC 1 and 2 just doesn't happen.
There was no "momentum sink" for the Twin Towers. I'm not talking about theoretical models. Watch them fall; they maintain a constant rate for
as long as they can be seen, and it neither speeds up or slows down. Floors pop out in regular intervals as free-falling debris accelerates around
them. Again, people making assumptions in their math that are not supported.