The list of things that you don't understand just never gets any shorter, does it?
Let's see if you're right.
The force of gravity between the Earth and the building are equal and opposite to each other.
This statement is wrong. The force of gravity is only one of the forces involved. The normal force is the other one. If you truly understood physics, you would never have made that statement using those words. Let me explain.
Newton's third law says, "for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction."
According to
http://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/newtlaws/Lesson-4/Newton-s-Third-Law
The statement means that in every interaction, there is a pair of forces acting on the two interacting objects. The size of the forces on the first object equals the size of the force on the second object.
What you meant to say is that the building exerts a force on the earth. This force is the force due to gravity. Since we know Newton's third law of motion is correct, the earth must exert a force that is equal and in the opposite direction. Let's call this the "normal force", because that is what it is usually called.
Now, is there any part of that statement that proves I don't understand Newton's third law of motion? No. I am the one who corrected you. I am the one who has demonstrated a better understanding of physics than you have. I know you will deny this, but
your statements are proof that you have a limited understanding of physics. Again, your statements are the proof. I am the one who corrected you. Let's continue.
When the building was standing, the contact force and reaction between the two were also equal and opposite to each other, but that's a completely different force.
What you are saying is that the building was standing (not accelerating and not moving, obviously); therefore, the force due to gravity was equal to the normal force, and the net forces were balanced.
Then you say that is a completely different force. First off, there are two forces involved and they are equal and opposite to each other. Are you trying to say the "contact force" is the normal force?
When the building was standing, the contact force must have been equal to (but not the same thing as) the gravity force, because it they weren't equal, the building wouldn't stand up.
Are you referring to the normal force, or the force due to gravity? As long as the building is standing, and not moving or accelerating, the forces are equal and opposite. To make this perfectly clear, the force due to gravity and the normal force are equal and in the opposite direction. Why have you decided to call one of those forces the "contact force"? Is it because you haven't done enough research to learn the correct terminology?
When the top mass was set in motion, the impact forces in the collisions were also equal and opposite on the colliding objects
OK. You are correct. When objects collide they exert equal and opposite forces on each other. Now you want to take the forces exerted on the entire building, and break them down to the forces exerted on each floor. OK.
We already know that Newton's third law of motion says that for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. So, you have stated that every time any object collides with another, they exert equal and opposite forces on each other. So far we are in agreement. Remember this for later, when the subject of acceleration comes up.
, but there is absolutely no reason to think they were equal to the force of gravity.
This is where you have made your mistake, and you show you really don't understand Newton's third law. I'm sorry, but you are the one who made the statement, and it's wrong. Here is why.
For simplicity, let's imagine a model with three floors. It is going to represent a building - any building. For the umpteenth time, scale does not matter because we are talking about the direction of forces and Newton's laws of motion.
We are talking about the direction of forces, so scale does not matter. This should not be hard to understand.
Visualize our three floor building, and let's consider the top floor, which is floor number 3. At the beginning of our experiment the entire building is standing and not moving or accelerating. What does this mean? It means that the force exerted by the building on the earth (force due to gravity) is equal and opposite to the force exerted by the earth on the building (normal force). We already know this.
This also means that floor 3 is exerting a force on the building, and the building is exerting a force on floor 3. This has to be correct, right? If floor 3 is not moving or accelerating, the force exerted by floor 3 on the building has to be equal and opposite to the force exerted by the building on floor 3. Right?
Now, for whatever reason, it does not matter what the reason is, assume floor 3 begins to accelerate downwards. For the sake of simplicity, let's assume that whatever was supporting floor 3 disappears at once. This is not a trick, it is just to make the example as simple as possible. As it accelerates downward, what forces are involved? If the floor is accelerating downwards, and everything supporting it is now gone, that means the only forces acting on it are gravity and air resistance. Again, for the purpose of simplicity, let's disregard air resistance. As long as the only force acting on the floor is gravity, it will continue to accelerate downwards, right?
OK, as floor 3 accelerate downwards the only force acting on it is gravity. What will change the downward acceleration of floor 3? The answer is simple. Floor 2 will be the first thing to impart a force on floor 3. Now, what forces will be involved?
We know that gravity is causing floor 3 to accelerate downwards, so we know that the force due to gravity is involved. When floor 3 impacts floor 2 we know that floor 3 will exert a force on floor 2 and floor 2 must exert a force on floor 3. We know this, and it should not be the subject of any debate.
Your claim is (below)
In fact, the collapse is simply convincing evidence that they weren't equal.
This claim is wrong. We know the forces
were equal. We know Newton's third law is correct. This means we know that floor 3 exerted a force on floor 2, and
floor 2 exerted an equal and opposite force on floor 3.
You get confused because you think that if floor 2 begins to accelerate downwards that the forces at the instant of impact are not equal. This is where you misapply Newton's third law.
Newton's second law says that force equals mass times acceleration. We know that since floor 3 is accelerating that the force it exerts on floor 2 at the instant of impact will be greater than when it had no acceleration at all. This is a fact. We know this.
Where you go wrong is when you assume that if floor 2 starts to accelerate downwards, the forces during impact were not equal.
We know they had to be equal and in the opposite direction of each other.
The issue is that the force exerted by floor 3 on floor 2 was to great for it to continue to stay in place, if floor 2 actually starts to accelerate downwards. You are confusing two different concepts. You assume that if floor 2 begins to accelerate downwards then it did not exert an equal force on floor 3.
We know this is impossible, because we know Newton's third law is true. The issue is that if floor 2 begins to accelerate downwards, it only means that whatever was supporting floor 2 could not withstand the force exerted by floor 3. It does not, in any way, mean that the forces exerted by each object on each other were not equal and in the opposite direction. We know they were.
You could easily have a scenario where floor 3 is stopped when it impacts floor 2, and you could have another scenario where floor 3 disintegrates when it impacts floor 2. The variables are too numerous to discuss, but one thing is for certain, at the instant floor 3 impacts floor 2, the force floor 2 exerts on floor 3 will be equal and opposite to the force floor 3 exerts on floor 2.
Imagine a fly hitting the windshield of a truck traveling at 60 mph. We know for a fact that the fly will exert a force on the truck at the instant of impact. The truck will exert an equal and opposite force on the fly. The truck won't have any issue absorbing the force of the fly. The problem is that the force the fly exerts on the truck, which is equal and opposite to the force the truck exerts on the fly, will cause the fly to go splat.
I have not "change[d] Newton's words to support [my] version of events or understanding science"; you simply don't understand how to apply them in a real-world situation.
I have taken a great deal of time to prove that your statement is not correct. Your misunderstanding of Newton's third law is what is preventing you from seeing what really happened.
If you could state Cole's argument in your own words, it might help in pinpointing where your reasoning fails you. But I suspect you are correct: there's no good reason to waste time doing that.
Show me where Cole is wrong. Don't say he is wrong, show me is wrong. Provide a link to any credible source that proves any of his claims are wrong.
[qoute]
You keep saying that, and yet the experiment in the NMSR video proves Cole is wrong.[/quote]
Wrong. The NMSR video shows that one disc dropped from an arbitrary distance can cause two more discs to collapse. This does not prove that Cole is wrong. Instead, it proves that skeptics are wrong by clearly showing the the discs decelerate as they impact each other. Why? It's because of Newton's third law of motion. Skeptics simply don't understand this or they refuse to accept what they see.
Cole is not trying to prove that floors won't collapse. You refuse to accept this. Cole is trying to replicate the motions observed during the collapses of WTC1 and WTC2.
Instead of realizing why that's so, you try to weasle out of it by suddenly realizing that that model is not an accurate dynamic model of the WTC towers
What is a "dynamic model"? How does Cole's model affect what he is trying to show? Since he is demonstrating direction and sequence of net forces, scale does not matter. You simply ignore this fact, and you have done nothing whatsoever to try to prove he is wrong. The reason is simple. You can't prove Cole is wrong because he is not wrong.
It does, however, show quite clearly that there must be something wrong with Cole's reasoning: the collapse proceeds all the way down, apparently never once violating Newton's laws. Verinage demolitions, Ronan Point, and Skyline Towers are also proof that Cole's conclusion must be wrong -- progressive vertical collapse can go through any number of floors without explosives -- and again,
The laws of physics can never be violated. If skeptics would understand this, or admit it, skeptics would cease to exist. You would all become truthers, which is why you won't let that happen.
Buildings can collapse. That is not the issue. The issue is Newton's third law. You have already admitted that as objects impact each other they will exert equal and opposite forces on each other. You have admitted that.
Now, think about this. You have shown you have a basic understanding of Newton's third law, you simply misapply it. If objects exert equal and opposite forces on each other, how is it possible for something to accelerate at or near a constant rate? If an objects impacts another object, because of Newton's third law, we know that the acceleration must change at the instant of impact. We know this. You can't deny it.
When we look at the collapse of WTC7, what can we say about acceleration for 2.25 seconds of the collapse? What has NIST said? When we apply Newton's third law of motion, what are we 100 percent certain is happening? You know the answers to these questions. You just ignore them so you can keep clinging to your fantasies and delusions.
you try to dodge that by saying they weren't the same type of construction as the WTC. That's about as self-refuting a rebuttal as I've ever seen: Cole's small-scale models (which bear no pertinent similarity to the WTC towers) are supposed to tell us something about the WTC, but full-size building collapses don't tell us anything unless they are exactly the same construction as the WTC. What a hoot.
Every time you mention scale and Cole's experiments, you undeniably prove you have no idea what Cole is doing. That is a fact.
and posted links that all agreed with my list, in some cases identically, in an attempt to disagree with what I said on the basis that none of the had the actual words "Mathematical Model"? And all this without gleaning the apparent understanding that a Mathematical model is merely the constructing of a Hypothesis using Mathematics to describe the system the Hypothesis is about.
)
