Originally posted by adam_zapple
I don't think you understand what that means....but let's find out.
Based on the image above, when the concrete sphere is dropped:
C'mon you're kidding me right?
Are you working on the assumption that the top sections of the towers dropped on lower floors causing a 'pancake' collapse? If you are give it up,
it didn't happen, that was the whole point of the WTC 2 top tilt discussion earlier. It's an impossibility.
Your diagram has nothing to do with the path of least resistance. The ball is not an example of the towers top section. If the ball was sitting on
top of the block you'd be close. If you had another block of the same size sitting on top you'd be closer.
The 'sphere' in your diagram is going to drop straight down, path of least resistance, until it meets resistance, the block. What else do you want
me to say about it?
No, the lower building is not going to apply any more force to the top than it was already applying. Where are you expecting this 'extra force' to
come from? The top was tilting, what can the pivot do to change that motion other than collapse underneath it? Problem is the pivot point didn't
fail, that would have sent the top off the side of the building, the whole building failed equally in all directions around it's circumference, not
just the pivot side of the tilt. It fell symmetrically from asymmetrical damage, which is physically impossible by itself.
You are not claiming the towers fell with no resistance? How about proving to me they did? How can you seriously argue they didn't?
[edit on 1/16/2009 by ANOK]