But there is no evidence of such an event creating that much energy derived heat. Yes heat is generated but nowhere has it been documented to produce anything like that amount... otherwise it would be a common event on all collapses and demolitions. The kinetic energy result, (heat, disintegration, noise, dispersion) is all dissipated throughout the material which generates it and into the surroundings.
The point is that it is NOT "all dissipated throughout the material which generates it and into the surroundings". If you think about it, you'll see that that cannot possibly be true.
Some of the kinetic energy of a steel fragment hitting a stopped pile of fragments, many of which have been hammered and flattened already, would have passed through the pile to where it could reach the footing, which would have received a succession of blows, and was about to receive more. It's the principle that is demonstrated by Newton's Cradle.
[video=youtube_share;8M_8Sa_xfzk]http://youtu.be/8M_8Sa_xfzk[/video]
The interior and exterior column bases would have already be having the pleasure of reacting the SHEAR of
seventy floors punched off their fixings, and would be prime candidates for hotspots.
Less than half of the
total kinetic energy would focus
on ground zero, but that is still a
very significant amount.
But it is not a scientific conclusion, simply conjecture. From a debunking point of view a far better explanation would be molten lead from the massive batteries stored on that floor
Incorrect. There is a difference between them. The fire surrounded the pile of aircraft fragments immediately above where the pour took place. That room had a bright vermilion appearance like a furnace interior. The room beneath was not so hot. The batteries would have had to have had their electrolyte boiled dry before their metal melted.
The pour took place because the corner of
the floor above the batteries had dropped in some way, and not the floor beneath. There was probably forty tons of aluminum wreckage just above.
But the reaction is short lived, as demonstrated by the videos... it is not like the 'acid blood' from Aliens which eats through half a dozen floors before losing its potency.
Well, you can argue on my side if you like. Then
where did the thermite iron pool as it cooled down? In what? Or you could ask
how did it pool? Well, it couldn't, could it? By definition. Think about it.
The floors were steel reinforced lightweight in the office space but they were also laid on strong steel plating. Lightweight does not mean weak.
So you accept my assertion, with smoke and mirrors. I never said the concrete was weak. But let me assure you that small perlite puffs
do weaken a concrete's resistance to crushing. The interior of a perlite bead is AIR. In perlite concrete there is simply
less concrete per unit volume.
That conversation sprang from the notion that the dust cloud formed by such a collapse was unnatural.
I have worked with both, both laying it and dismantling it. Let me assure you Jazzy, I have broken up more than enough concrete to know how difficult it is, especially when it is reinforced
You and me both, then. How much of it was perlite concrete? Have you ever made and used it? I have.
that takes a machine or jackhammer... often it finishes up looking like a swiss cheese but still retains masses of integrity.
Don't you think if you drop 100,000 tons of steel it might be more effective than a jackhammer? Especially after a few seconds accelerating at .7G?
Here is a nice example of a building surviving a plane crashing into it and it is nowhere near as strong as the wtc's
No comparison. A plane on approach has
ten times less energy than the same plane traveling at 500 mph.
The WTCs were mostly air. Scale is an important consideration.
That is brilliant Jazzy... very witty and entertaining... I couldn't stop laughing.
While you're laughing you cannot slander. Keep it up.