Suggest you don't go hunting in Texas with Cheney.
Why don't you go for an automobile ride with Teddy Kennedy on Martha's Vinyard instead.
Could you imagine??? If I were going hunting with Dead Eye Dick and the fat bastard Kennedy was going to be driving us there over a bridge... hell, I might as well just shoot myself and get it over with.
>Everthing in those building was combustible and could act like fuel except the bones of the structure.. Are you asking if there was twice as much as combustible material as there was concret.. who knows..
Forget combustion. Concrete will not burn.
>You have to see that each floor became like a heavy hammer for the floors bellow in an instant as the back-bone of the buildings failed. The mass acted just like stone crushing machines that use mass to crush stones..
I do see that. The mass was acted on by gravity with an aceleration of g (32 ft/sec^2). So, you agree... according to the offical theory, the only energy having any affect on the concrete was from it's gravitational postion. (All the energy came from falling.)
>Not all concret became dust though... just some.
University of Delaware
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering
Distinguished Lecture Series
Top: Thornton discusses the design details and failure of the World Trade Center towers; center, Dept. Chair Michael J. Chajes presents Thornton with a plaque at the reception following the lecture; bottom, Thornton shows the Petronas Towers in Malaysia, the world's tallest buildings. His firm designed the towers, which have a crosswalk connecting them to provide an additional mode of egress if there is a problem in one tower.
Structural engineer discusses collapse of the World Trade Center
World-renowned structural engineer Charles H. Thornton of the New York-based Thornton-Tomasetti Group discussed the collapse of the World Trade Center for an audience of ...
Thornton attached some numbers to the devastation: Each floor of the two towers was an acre, adding up to 110 vertical acres apiece. Compressed, however, the rubble from the two buildings would fit into a surprisingly modest-sized hole�about 65 feet by 500 feet by 1,000 feet. In the six months since the collapse, some 1.2 million tons of debris have been removed from the site.
Some debris, however, has proved useful. While the concrete in the buildings was almost totally pulverized�resulting in the six to eight inches of dust that settled on everything in the vicinity of the disaster...
--You can reduce concrete to dust with a hammer. For the amount in the WTC, it might take you a few millon days--
Of course you could. You could also do it with 1 million tons of building falling ontop of itself in a much shorter time span. Hence "energy".
Can you? How would you know? For a man afraid to drop a piece of concrete, you sure know a lot.
The mistake you are making here is being overawed by your "1 million tons". Yes, one million tons of concrete falling has one million times the energy of one ton of concrete falling. Even you can see that it would also take one million times as much energy to turn it to dust.
<I'm not claiming to be an expert. I was a physics major and know a little of this and that.>
OK, my bad. You are not the typical USELESS mb poster. As a person with a major in the physical sciences, I assume that you have humility. Most people go through life not realizing that you can describe the physical world with mathematics. But they do like their palm pilot and cell phone. LOL. They also don't have a clue how hard the subject matter is. Where I work we have a saying: Fluid mechanics is humbling, and combustion is downright insulting. So, back to the WTC. My main point was that a proper analysis could be done on the situation:
1. What is the bond strength of concrete when at high temperature? I have heard you say that it has equivalent strength after it cools after exposure to fire. Stands to reason that basic chemistry says the molecules will be in a higher energy state when hot and the bonds potentially weaker.
2. You claimed that the fire could not be stoichiometric, I beg to differ. Stoichiometric is a fuel-air ratio (.068 for Jet-A), and is experienced in prodigious quantities in all turbulent diffusion flames. In fact, this fire actually burned fuel rich (>.068) at first, as shown by the black smoke billowing out. My guess is that fuel was virually everywhere in that building, and that vaporized fuel was abundant due to the heat of the fire. So, my guess is that this fire was VERY HOT.
3. A proper heat transfer analysis could be done to determine the flow of heat through the building in the steel reinforcement inside and outside of the concrete. This would tell what the concrete temperature distribution was. I'm sure the concrete temperatures on the high floors were very high.
I don't know what the thermal conductivity of concrete is, and what the properties at temperature are (if it is easily pulverized). So I am not offering a concrete (pun intended) theory here, just asking a question that could be answered by a proper analysis. If this analysis was not done, it should be IMO.
""Why would people who were so clever at evading the authorities for years, suddenly start leaving an obvious trail? Why would they behave so as to reveal all manner of operational details while the supposed parent organization would not even take responsibility for the attack? ""
Did you ever think they wanted to send a message to the United States and the rest of the Western world that fanatical muslims can defeat a great power.
All they accomplished was killing innocent men, women, and children. Typical of these camel humpers. Especially when they killed unarmed and not resisting people on the planes to gain control.
They are not men enough to fight real men. Just unarmed civilians.
There was a conspiracy. 9/11 was not an act of nature. The question is who was involved, and to what extent.
There was molten steel, and if you have an viable explanation I'm certainly willing to entertain it.
Put a chunky stone or glass in your fireplace and nothing will happen to it.. but that doesnt mean those aggregates have unbreakable bonds..
It terms of combusting, we are not talking about concret acting like a fuel but losing its properties..
The garage of a place that I lived in, a long while ago, had multiple concret floors and the engineers had looked at it and didnt like the damage caused by oil leaks in the cement and had recommanded resurfacing the cement with other materials to prevent further caustic damage to it before allowing it to reopen.
You kinda treat this material as though it is invincible, but it is not... Strength of concret is function of the bonds but also the aggregates play a role as they have not lost their properties.. the sand in concret is still sand and sand does get motlen and the bonds do fail for various reasons.. not that I know in this case that it did..
Nuclear reactors use concret in their construction but that doesnt mean it is invincible material and thats why it get used; it is pretty cheap and available for its strength and it is durable.. concret can be crushed better than stone though.