The Physics of 911

That's the point!! No one has explained it. I have no explanation as to how a structure can pass right on through another structure of the same composition as if it wasn't there. The consensus here is that if I can't explain how it was done, then no one has to address it.

If no one has ever been able to explain it, maybe it just cannot be explained.

Correct. No one can explain how a structure can pass through another structure of the same composition as if it wasn't there. We know it couldn't have been magic?

I provided not one, but 8 different explanations to how a structure can pass through another structure of the same composition as if it wasn't there.

I even included the nano-thermite explanation... and extra-terrestrials.

At least one of those explanations must have made sense to you.

Let's look at those, and go from there.

Quote:
1) What you are calling the lower block may have already been falling by the time the upper block was falling.

So you're saying that the entire lower part of the Tower was already falling when the upper block began its descent. Did you know that the core of the Tower was a continuous, connected vertical structure with cross-bracing? So explain how the whole of the Tower below the impact zone began falling.
Quote:

2) The connection of the lower block may have already been weakened enough that it didn't take much energy to detach it.

Now go ahead and address my post. But start first with which of your 8 explanations you reject.

Again, explain how the continuous core structure below the impact zone can become "detached."

Quote:
The energy of the upper block may have been high enough that the collision wasn't noticed.

This is a repeat of the idea that the upper block passed through the lower block as if it wasn't there. That's ridiculous, and you know it. The lateral ejection of steel and concrete reduces the mass which is required for what you suggest. Plus, the force of material ejection must be accounted for. Also, the pulverization of said steel and concrete is yet another energy sink. So where did the energy to accomplish all that come from? Not even a jolt was observed as the antenna descended.

Quote:
4) The positioning of the video you are relying upon might be masking something.

Sure, we wouldn't want to believe our lying eyes, now would we. Explain what you mean by "masking something." Was the video too old and grainy?

Quote:
5) You may be misinterpreting the orientation of the blocks, or the video, or the science.

The orientation of the blocks? Well don't be so closed-mouthed about it. Explain what you mean, and we'll look at it.
_________________________________________

Now go ahead and address my post. But start first with which of your 8 explanations you reject.

Do we?

You are making the claim that one structure is "passing through another structure". That sounds like magic to me. You are making the claim, I think you need to explain it. I don't see how even the claim of super secret military termites could make one structure "pass through" another structure. Although your theory that the other structure was "neutralized" (perhaps by extraterrestrial technology) is the coolest thing you have said.

The truth is that you are just making stuff up. You don't have a clue what you are talking about. You don't know anything about Science, about how Buildings collapse or about what happened.

My opinion is that you have a basic misunderstanding of science that has, combined with your desperate need to believe this conspiracy theory, has caused you to make up things that don't really exist. Of course, I don't know much about the building or building collapses in general (although I do know a lot about science). But... I don't go making up stuff I don't understand and then declaring them as facts (unless I am joking with you).

You just want to believe... so you see what you want in a YouTube video.

That was a thinly veiled attempt at a turn around. I've been asking you to explain how a structure can pass through another structure of the same composition as if it wasn't there. Here is the video that shows the rate of descent--the one that you said was grainy, but really isn't:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xGAofwkAOlo
30 second mark.

It wasn't really grainy, was it? And the rest of your post can be summed up as you saying: I don't believe you, Glennn.
______________________________________

You're didn't answer my last post to you. So, we'll start there:

Quote:
4) The positioning of the video you are relying upon might be masking something.

Sure, we wouldn't want to believe our lying eyes, now would we. Explain what you mean by "masking something." did you mean that the video too old and grainy?

And then answer this one if you would please:

Quote:
1) What you are calling the lower block may have already been falling by the time the upper block was falling.

So you're saying that the entire lower part of the Tower was already falling when the upper block began its descent. Did you know that the core of the Tower was a continuous, connected vertical structure with cross-bracing? So explain how the whole of the Tower below the impact zone began falling.

Your key argument is based on dubious claim that you are making with no real reason behind it.

You are making up the "fact" that one structure is "passing through" another structure. You are stating this as fact without based on what you see in the video. I don't see it, sorry. As you know I did analyze it carefully at your request and came up with the conclusion that the antenna in question is accelerating at a slower rate than the normal acceleration of gravity.

You assert that this is "science" (it isn't). It is just something you made up. I have looked at the video carefully several times and nothing their changed my mind.

That is my answer to your question. Your assertion that the any structure is passing through another structure as if by "magic" is absurd. And, I see nothing in the video to suggest otherwise.

Your claim is absurd. Which is why I have no answer for it.

Really? The video doesn't lie. I count five seconds that it takes for the antenna to fall 360 feet. A falling object will fall 400 feet in five seconds. That means that the descent of the upper block was 40 feet shy of freefall. That means that the upper block fell through the lower core structure as if it wasn't there.

You even took a "scientific" stab at an explanation for what the video shows. However, when I challenged your idea, you simply decided to remain quiet. See for yourself.

Quote:
1) What you are calling the lower block may have already been falling by the time the upper block was falling.

So you're saying that the entire lower part of the Tower was already falling when the upper block began its descent. Did you know that the core of the Tower was a continuous, connected vertical structure with cross-bracing? So explain how the whole of the Tower below the impact zone began falling.

In other words, where did it fall to?? You failed to answer that.

1. 360 is not equal to 400.

2. I counted 5.5 or 6 seconds (and maybe more since the antenna was clearly tipping before it was obscured by smoke. That make 484 ft (which is also not equal to 360 ft).

3. Even if that antenna falling at the acceleration of gravity that doesn't mean that one structure is "passing through another structure". Even if you were correct... your statement is still absurd.

4. The claim that "one structure is passing through another structure" is absurd even if you allow for the super secret military termites that you seem to be implying.

And by omission, you're implying that an impact from an airliner, which these structures were designed and engineered to cope with easily, completely severed all of the massive internal steel structural members of the building, with just office furniture and kerosene.

Completely and absolutely absurd.

Can you give me a theory that is less absurd than mine, Builder?

Do you believe that hundreds of government agents planted military grade thermite on the building, and that the airplanes that were seen by several hundred eyewitnesses hit the building were fakes?

If you could give me a theory that was more plausible than the one I accept... then maybe we can talk.

You guys have got nothing... in fact you haven't even tried.

No, it just means that the upper block didn't slow down, and in fact accelerated as it collided with the lower core structure. Your explanation as to how that could be possible is that "the lower block may have already been falling by the time the upper block was falling." However, I pointed out the absurdity of that statement by pointing out to you that the core structure was a continuous, connected vertical structure from top to bottom complete with cross-bracing. Remember my asking you where you thought it could possibly fall to? And remember you failing to answer because you recognized the absurdity of such a statement? My guess is that you finally googled WTC core structure and decided it would be best to distance yourself from the explanation you gave?

So, to sum up, by posing such a ridiculous explanation for the upper block passing through the lower core, you exposed your lack of knowledge concerning the make-up of the core structure, and that that lack of knowledge didn't stop you from formulating an explanation that included the lower core structure falling down at the same rate as the falling upper block.

What do you think happened to this "continuous, connected vertical structure from top to bottom complete with cross-bracing"?

I haven't googled anything Glennn. I am accepting everything you say without bothering to check anything (accept for the video you asked me to analyze). What you are saying still doesn't make any sense.

Let's say you are correct... what does it mean?

Yet again you propose that if no one knows who did it, how it was done, and why they did it, then the lower intact core structure can instantaneously fall downward at the same rate as the descending upper block even though there is nowhere for it to fall.

Exactly. That means that, without knowing anything about the core structure of the Tower, you've decided what it can and can't do. That's called an uninformed opinion.

I don't do science by Google. I do science by Science (and yes, I did the science and remain unconvinced that your video shows anything).

Let's try another tack.

Do you agree that thermite can explain the acceleration you see in the falling antenna?

In this case, you did science without knowing the parameters of that which is being discussed; to wit, the core structure of the Towers.