[quote]This is a high quality shitpost, but it deserves a response because a lot of people here are impressionable young folks that probably haven't gone through anything higher than high school physics and may err on the side of apparent authority. Anyways, this'll be quick because you've based your entire spiel on a couple blatantly false assumptions: [quote]But this is not the case of the towers. They did not decelerate. [/quote] The towers did not collapse in freefall, so the upper 'block' did in fact decelerate. In slow motion video of the collapse, you can clearly see subsequent impacts as floors collapse immediately after the initial failure of the supports. I could stop there, but evidence of this is clear enough when you see each upper 'block' lean partially away from the axis of the supports; that means there was an initial collapse of the upper 'block', whose momentum was partially arrested by the lower 'block', but not sufficiently. If the lower block had absorbed more of the momentum, the upper block may have angled and fallen to the ground. Instead, that initial shock destroyed the the top of the lower block's supports, causing catastrophic failure of the internal columns.[/quote] I love it when uneducated people pretend like they know what they're talking about. You're just vomiting words out of your mouth without even understanding what you're saying. Also, there is no deceleration, try again. https://youtu.be/ZjSd9wB55zk [quote][quote]The top block would simultaneously be getting crushed with the bottom block as well. This would happen until the top block is crushed into complete disintegration, until there is nothing left of it to act as a pile driver onto the lower. Since the top block was only 20 or so stories, it would only have the energy to destroy an equal amount of floors of the bottom block.[/quote] This entire section is laughably absurd. You're actually claiming that when you drop one object onto another, either the bottom object is crushed, or the top object object disintegrates from the normal force exerted by the lower object? That's some cartoony Acme physics right there. And you're also saying that a 'block' of 20 stories only has enough """"energy""" (correct unit: mass) to destroy 20 more stories? Huh? That's not at all how building supports work, especially when the internal support columns were decimated by an airplane and further weakened by burning Jet A. The collapse occurred floor by floor, not as one block falling on another.[/quote] I love having to repeat myself because people are too lazy to read all the information I posted in the OP. That's actually how crushing works entirely as a matter of fact. You think the upper floors will stay intact and act as a pile driver all the way down? What happened to Newton's third law? Is the falling upper floor not going to experience a force enacted from the floor it falls on, and if so, what magical spell has been casted on it? Last time I checked, if I were to drop a glass bottle onto the ground it would shatter itself and not shatter the floor, [b]but I guess I'm the crazy one![/b] Fast forward to 7:25 if you're also too lazy to watch the entire thing. https://youtu.be/9YRUso7Nf3s

[quote]I love it when uneducated people pretend like they know what they're talking about. [/quote] Ok. I have an engineering degree, and you've taken high school physics. You're clearly attempting to restate phrases you've heard in these videos, to utter failure. [quote]You think the upper floors will stay intact and act as a pile driver all the way down? [/quote] No, and that isn't what happened -- nor is that what's described in any of the videos you linked, hence why I don't think you actually understand what you're talking about. The entire concept of one block falling on another is completely inaccurate in modeling the towers' collapses. What occurred was a destruction of supports due to the plane's impact, the mass of collapsed floors around the impact site, and fires (started by jet fuel, and continued by carpet, building material, office supplies/furniture, etc.) weakening surrounding support structures, resulting in a cascading collapse beginning around the point of impact. The site you linked supposedly debunking the acceleration refutes itself: it demonstrates that the collapse took upwards of 10 seconds, when a freefall would have taken 20% less time. He even states that the lower block would have arrested approximately 36% of the upper blocks weight, and the building falls at 64% of the """acceleration of gravity""" -- that's deceleration, kiddo. Your source is using handrawn measurements from a handheld camera to measure accelerations that would have occurred in microseconds. What a joke. You're committing too hard to your shitpost. When you get to college, if you go the STEM route I encourage you to check out a materials engineering course where you'll learn all about deformation, stress, and other considerations of physics in regards to structures and materials.

I've already studied all that. One of the first things I learned is that a steel column will always buckle before crushing. You're a joke if you think 47 steel columns per floor can be crushed in microseconds. Give me a -blam!-ing break pal.

The steel supports weren't crushed. You can look at any pictures of the cleanup effort and see countless girders and supports that deformed and failed. You kind of suck at this. At least Krishna does his fake research.

[quote]When you get to college, if you go the STEM route I encourage you to check out a materials engineering course where you'll learn all about deformation, stress, and other considerations of physics in regards to structures and materials.[/quote] The sad part is that according to OP, he is a university/college educated Civ. Eng. Technologist.