The Physics of 911

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

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

Could thermite have made the antenna fall in the way you claim it is falling?

Where's your Evidence?
http://gordonssite.tripod.com/id6.html

...

The towers were brought down by a combination of two types of charge and placement. One was a series of concussive explosives placed on the outer core columns adjacent to the core column welded joints every three stories, while the second was a series of incendiary charges placed on the corners of the perimeter column structure every fifteen to twenty storeys.

The expulsions of dust and debris from the towers can easily be seen to emanate from storeys where the core column welds were situated, every three storeys, and these expulsions can be seen to firstly emanate from the mid-faces of the tower walls opposite to the outer core columns.

Immediately prior to the onset of the collapse there is a radical change in the amount and character of the smoke from the upper floors of the towers and the first portion of the tower to show signs of collapse was the antennae, indicating a failure of the core columns.

The core columns which fell during the early stages of collapse were the outer core columns - the strongest parts of the tower - while the weakest columns, those from inside the core, survived the early stages, leaving the "spire". These outer core columns which suffered the early failure were situated adjacent to and accessible from inside the elevator shafts.

The outer core columns retrieved from the debris pile exhibit petaling failures and failures showing opposite concave faces on core columns, this first a phenomenon which has in other historical cases been associated with massive concussive forces, and both being exactly the type of failure which could be expected from such a placement of concussive charges.

The core column ends show a discoloration indicative of localised thermal events.
Other than these failures, the recovered core columns are relatively straight and separated at their welds and do not exhibit the massive bending expected from a heat induced collapse.

As I did it, I made it clear that doing this sort of analysis on a YouTube video is scientifically invalid (I used those exact words)

Rest assured that the law of conservation of energy was not violated.

Where's your Evidence?

Gordon Ross

If I say that the WTC towers were brought down by means other than the aircraft impacts and the consequent fires then it would be perfectly acceptable for anyone to ask for the evidence and reasoning behind this belief.

By exactly the same reasoning, exactly the same question can be asked of those who believe that the towers were brought down by the impacts and fires. Yet here we are, more than seven years later, and not one single person has shown one single piece of physical or visual evidence that supports this latter claim.

No detailed scenario of events exists, no meaningful theory of fire-caused collapse exists and no sensible explanations have been given for the very many unusual events which occurred immediately prior to and during the collapses themselves.

In contrast to this desert of information, the claim that the towers were brought down by controlled demolition has a wealth of accompanying argument. There are many pieces of evidence, all of which can easily be fitted into a meaningful explanation that shows a logical train of events and giving cause and effect for each of those evidential instances.

http://gordonssite.tripod.com/id6.html

Edit: I have already answered you question about the vid. The answer is yes, given enough flammable material, and a slow (constrained but open) oxygen flow so that the fire keeps burning for a long time in reductive conditions. A measure of asbestos in the rubble would help too, as it makes for good heat insulation.

This subject has been brought up off topic in another thread. The poster who brought it up has made a claim regarding melted metals. He has said:

Focus on the molten metals. No one has ever suggested that the alleged hijackers had anything but jet fuel, which can only create temperatures of about 1,800F. Molten steel was in abundance, melting temperature about 2,750F. Vaporized steel, a much higher temperature. Molten molybdenum 4,750F.


_________________________________________

If anyone wishes to refute his claim, they may do so in this thread.

Good day.

9/11 WAS an inside job.
Yes - We went to the moon - But Not in rockets (Fireworks).

There are human colonies on Mars, and many other planetoids throughout this, and other universes.

We are Not the 1st advanced species on Earth - In fact we're not very 'advanced' compared to those preceding us.

And - We'll be extinct by 2026.

Have a Lovely day

You may be some form of an idiot Glen, sorry to inform you, but based on your delusions about the collapse of the buildings, believing that fires could achieve that sort of demolition, then I have no other choice than to assume your brain does not really function very well.
You must realize that the fires were above the 90th floor or thereabouts, and that means that the strongest part of the whole building (floors from basement up to floor 90) were as structurally perfect as the day it was made.
And you also must realize that 10 floors of lighter grade steel construction collapsing on to structurally sound and heavier construction below, is physically unable to turn the whole building into dust and fragments.
And almost NO ONE was allowed to examine the debris, the bulk of which was sent to china before any investigation could even begin.
So yes, they were lying, and still are.