What REALLY happened to the plane that didn't hit the Pentagon on 9/11

[Gravitycollapse]

330. I counter your elementary understanding of energy and movement...

With a more complex and more correct explanation.

When two bodies collide, there is a transfer of energy and the kinetic energy inherent in motion is transformed into other forms of energy. Among many things, such as heat, this produces negative acceleration; an object or, objects moving, will slow down. How much each object slows down is relative to its mass and the mass of the object being impacted as well as the velocity of both objects.

When a massive object traveling at high speed impacts an object of standardized size, it will be subject to a lesser force of negative acceleration when compared to a less massive object at a slower speed. Although, this is subject to the compressive characteristics of each object. A massive object that is highly compressible can more easily shed momentum by deforming.

Now, when immensely massive objects, the size of a sky scraper, for instance, have high velocity they will be subject to a lesser force of negative acceleration than a car or a boulder. This is functionally called momentum and is the product of mass and velocity.


Now, the collapse of the towers produced an important effect. The mass of the tower collapsing gained momentum not only by acceleration but also by the added weight of each floor as it pancaked (accelerating the acceleration). The cascading failure exerted the force of the collapsed upper floors on each floor below, buckling it and then that buckled floor is added to the mass of collapsing building that then acts upon the next floor that also buckles.

Such a failure is called a cascade.

The initial collapse of the upper floors of the towers would not have been enough to bring down the lower floors if they were totally rigid (incapable of compressing and buckling). But a building is not an incompressible object. It is a massive series of supporting structures. Each one is independently capable of failure that can initiate the failure of the next supporting structure in the series.


So you ask, or at least imply, how is it possible that the collapse of the upper floors was sufficient to bring down the entire building. Well, I've provided you with the answer. How is it possible that the collapsing portion of the building could build such momentum? I've also given you the answer.

At a certain point, having dozens of stories of collapsing building impacting a single floor is like stepping on an eggshell. The shell, while relatively strong in certain contexts, is not even remotely capable of supporting the weight of my body. Even if attempts are made to reinforce the metal beams to protect against a cascade failure of the upper floors, there are physical limitations that have to be taken into consideration.