More importantly, it appears he doesn't understand the basics of physics, such as inertia...
Oh sure, inertia only applies to moving masses not stationary ones. The stationary mass does not slow down the moving mass on impact in your cartoon physics.
Basic physics. The centre of gravity doesn't fall outside of the base support. It needs to be around 45 degrees before that occurs. Also, the building section tilted is still connected to the non tilted part so even less of the 22 degree spill will be in effect.
So how did you pick 45 degrees? Half of a right angle? BRILLIANT! How much the center of gravity deviates from its normal position will be proportional to the sine of the angle:
the sine of 45 is 0.707
the sine of 30 is 0.5
the sine of 22 is 0.374
So that leaves the question of how far the center of gravity is up the tilted mass from the pivot point. We are talking about the top 27 stories of a 110 story skyscraper with mostly 12 foot stories. 324 feet. Actually the mechanical floors werE taller but let's ignore that.
324 * 0.374 = 121 feet
So the top of a structure 200 feet wide could deviate 121 feet from its design position.
But there is something peculiar about the mechanical floors and where the aircraft hit the south tower.
NIST_NCSTAR1-2A.PDF
41, 42, 43, 75, 76, 77 (mechanical levels); 107, 108, 109, 110, and roof (hat truss region) of both towers.
NIST_NCSTAR1-2A.PDF
For floor 109 (mechanical floor), sheet BC1-3 indicates LL = 150 psf. However, for consistency with the design criteria for other mechanical floors, this live load was applied in two parts, as LL = 75 psf and additional SDL = 75 psf.
According to the NIST floor 77 and 109 were mechanical floors. The aircraft impacted the south tower at the 81st floor. So the break in the building was just above one of the sections of mechanical floors.
But what was different about mechanical floors?
NIST_NCSTAR1-2A.PDF
The area outside the core was framed either in trusses (typical on tenant floors) or in rolled structural steel shapes (typical on mechanical floors). Truss-Framed Floors––The majority of the floors of the WTC towers were tenant floors where the areas outside of the core were constructed of steel trusses acting in a composite fashion with concrete slabs cast over metal deck.
NIST_NCSTAR1-2A.PDF
The mechanical floors were 5 ¾ in. concrete slabs on 1 ½ in. metal deck outside the core. The deck spanned in the direction of the primary beams and was supported typically at 6 ft 8 in. intervals by a 4C5.4 deck support channel. A 2 in. concrete topping slab was placed on top of the structural slab. The core area was framed similarly to the core of the truss-framed floors, but the steel beams were typically larger, and the concrete slab was 6 in. deep. The beam-framed floors above the mechanical mezzanine had a 7 3/4 in. normal weight concrete slab on 1 1/2 in. metal deck, while the core slab was 8 in. normal weight concrete.
NIST_NCSTAR1-2B_Chaps1-8.PDF
The exterior wall in the WTC 2 impact zone included a mixture of 100, 200, 300, and 400 series panels due to the proximity of the mechanical floors.
Mechanical levels were 14 feet tall instead of 12 and constructed more heavily to support greater loads. The towers were 1362 and 1368 feet tall. If all of the levels were 12 feet that would be 110 * 12, 1320 feet. Where were those extra 40+ feet? Where were the motors that ran the elevators? Where was the air conditioning and heating equipment to maintain the environment in a building which did not have windows that could open? Not the "mechanical floors" by any chance? So did the heavier weight of the construction and all of the weight of that equipment do anything to the center of gravity of the tilted section?
Then there is the matter of the core of the tower. The core was 135 feet by 85 feet. The NIST report says the core supported 53% of the buildings weight. That means ones side of the perimeter only supported 12% of the weight. Depending on which way the top tilted the center of gravity only had to move from 43 to 8 feet to be beyond the outher edge of the core and put most of the weight on one side of the perimeter.
the sine of 22 is 0.374
324 * 0.374 = 121 feet
By the way, the top of the building also had the hat truss to shift the center of gravity toward the top.
So why shouldn't we have detailed data on the distributions of steel and concrete in the building to analyze this SCIENTIFICALLY?
You guys do not look at what data is available to get a scientific idea of what could happen, but then want to dish out psychological BS to imply other people are stupid!
Of course sine calculations and quotes from the NIST must be indications of intellectual dishonesty from my deranged mind since you brilliantly scientific individuals cannot possibly be wrong.
Funny how no "scientists" or "engineers" from our legitimate institutions have said anything about the center of gravity of the tilted top of the south tower in SEVENTEEN YEARS (minus 3 months).
I downloaded the NIST report and burned it to DVD years ago so the searches were not too much of a problem. Long ago I searched for "center of gravity" and "center of mass" also. The NIST uses both terms maybe a couple of dozen times. Whenever they use "center of mass" they are talking about the aircraft. Whenever they use "center of gravity" they are talking about the a structural component simulated in the SAP 2000 program. Neither is ever used in relation to the top of the south tower.