That's why we are no longer mutual George. You have a fantasy which leads you to believe that you may ask me questions while not answering mine.
I never said that. You misrepresent what I said. Consistently.
It certainly was.
Aeroengineering, actually. Rather more specialized than civil. Rather more civil than you.
Yes. Like your above with "kinetic energy".
I'm glad you're happy about that. So let's work that back, shall we? 4 x 10^11 joules = 0.5 x M x g x h, right? Then M = 2 x 4 x 10^11 / 9.81 x 387 = 211,000 TONNES for one building.
Were there two towers? Then you'll have to multiply by two. Can you manage that? Now tell me, what exactly did both FEMA and I get wrong?
Frankly, you leave me at a loss, here. I am absolutely unable to answer you. Except that "all the energy put in to raise the building" isn't what I said - once again.
LOL.
And I ask you, what is 'an intellectual in its loosest sense'? You
know, you see.
It is always more honest to simply speak for oneself.
It's easy if you have at your disposal 95 tons of TNT.
Refrain from such a terminological inexactitude, please.
I don't think that there was any at all. The cores were steel alone. The dividers/partitions were wall boarding.
No there weren't. There was only the concrete in each floor slab. 34,000 tons per tower. The concrete used in the floors was a special lightweight concrete made by admixing pearlite. It has the consistency of tough biscuit and a low density.
Absolutely.
Was that this concrete, or concrete in general? Oh, concrete in general...
Is typical of you. All buildings in collapse hurl dust through any escape points they possibly can, as the falling floors are compressing the air volume held within them. In the case of the towers they were on fire, and the compressed air and fire shot upwards via the central core spaces (once the roofs were out of the way) which had been cleared by the kerosine/air explosion immediately after the impacts.