What i mean is you have taken a stand that the standard hypothesis ( or standard conspiracy theory if you prefer) does not make sense according to simple physics. I asked you to provide a simple physics problem that applies here to demonstrate your claim. Let us all do the math with you. Show your work. You and I both agree that physics doesn’t lie as long as we can al agree on the starting parameters.
You sidestepped the question and focused on other issues.
Do you think physics is mathematics? How do you do the mathematics without the data to plug into the equations? How many times have I told you the NIST does not even specify the total amount of concrete in the towers?
I have demonstrated that the mass and distribution of mass affects the behavior of the structure.
Then I demonstrate that the static supports require energy to be crushed and that the falling mass loses velocity providing that energy and comes to a halt.
Physical models run on PHYSICS. It takes 0.118 joules to crush a single paper loop. The top 11 loops are single the next 17 are doubles and the bottom 5 are triples. We do not have any data on the amount of energy required to collapse each LEVEL of the WTC. But all of you BELIEVERS who talk trash about mathematics so you can pretend to be intelligent don’t demand that the NIST supply that kind of information but then you talk trash about mathematics for proof that what you believe is nonsense.
Here is a Python program for collapse time without supports using nothing but the conservation of momentum. But it does not have accurate data on mass distribution because we do not have it.
It uses 110 masses floating in the air supported by nothing to simulate a top don collapse. The top 14 masses are dropped on the rest. If the masses are equal it takes 12 seconds. Making the data more bottom heavy can increase the time to 14 seconds. No energy and therefore time is lost breaking supports. The north tower coming down in less than 26 seconds with the lower 90 stories intact is complete nonsense.
Of course BELIEVERS don’t have to do math to justify their beliefs so they don’t need data in the first place.