9/11 Science Club! What Are Specific Heat and Heat-Energy Content?

Riiiigghhhhht. I don't know how it works... What a joke.

Let's get down to business Koko. How much force was generated upon the jet's impact. Give us a number. Can you do that or will you back down yet again? I bet you make some lame excuse for not supplying it. You think the perimeter walls should have held against the impact, supply some numbers and let's see what you're basing your claim on.

Or are you basing your claim on something else?

 

Tell you what Koko. I'll start a new thread and we'll discuss the math behind perimeter columns vs. the jets. Sound good? No derailing, no name calling, no snide remarks. Just a discussion about the math. If I'm wrong, so be it. I'll admit it. I can chalk it up to learning something.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QbkpOnNzvU8&list=PL8A5E12A6C804B81A

Did Jet Fuel fires melt the WTC steel?
or for that matter weaken it?

 

Melt? No.

Weaken, absolutely. That's what heat does to steel.

 

Did you actually watch the video, and do you get it
that is the quantity of fuel that it would take to damage
the WTC structure........

 

More than just jet fuel was burning.

 

The $64 question is
was there sufficient fuel even available
to cause the result observed?

 

The answer is obviously yes. Huge amounts of combustible material across multiple floors.

 

Given that some floors were but half occupied, the heat load
would NOT be anything near uniform, so why is it that the building
"collapsed" in a uniform manner?

and can it be proven that the office materials in the building
constituted enough fuel to cause the result observed?

In the case of the North tower, the top 17 floors were on fire,
the rest of the building showed no signs at all of fire, therefore
what would have had to happen, would be for the upper 17 floors
to collapse down upon the remaining 93 floors and cause the
destruction that was observed, on the face of it, that is totally absurd.
There are so many possible outcomes that do not include the total destruction of the tower(s) and total destruction ( question, why did the NIST use the term "TOTAL COLLAPSE" ? ) being the least likely possibility.

 

What gave you the ridiculous notion that the collapses were 'uniform'

 

Depending on the standard you embrace
that is does total destruction = 99% or for that matter 95% .. or?
the towers were totally destroyed. and as such, bears a striking
resemblance to Controlled Demolition. In addition, the speed of
the destruction is a factor also, if it took a much longer time to
achieve the result, it could have been sold as a "natural" collapse
but at the speed of the event as documented on video, the event
would require an additional source of energy to make it happen
as it did.

 

Has nothing to do with a standard,you were speaking of the collapses being 'uniform,they were NOT.

 

one feature of the uniformity is the
totality of destruction, just as would
be expected of a properly executed
Controlled Demolition.
Also there is the uniformity in the "collapse"
event itself, the towers had a wave of destruction that continued down the tower without pausing, or getting off-center or tilting, I'd say that was some damn good magic to accomplish ... or possibly some precision placed explosives? could it be?

 

Nope. No evidence of explosives. Period.

 

You say no evidence of explosives, however
simply in the effect observed, there is very
clearly evidence of an additional source of
energy having been put to work on the tower(s).

 

Additional to what?

 

it is alleged that the potential energy of the mass of each tower
was the driving force to destroy the tower(s), however the energy
required would also have to be focused because as unfocused energy,
it could not possibly be expected to be totally effective, bits of the tower
were ejected away and as such, depleted the mass available to contribute to the energy required to destroy the building and in addition, the ejected stuff required energy to move it, and thus constituted a liability against the total energy available.

Given the fact that a Controlled Demolition involves precision placement of explosives to achieve the goal of demolition of the building, and CD gone wrong results in less than complete demolition, therefore the odds against there being a collection of forces caused by chaotic damage & fires resulting in the same thing as a Controlled Demolition are astronomical.

 

NO,you are WRONG.

 

Thank U ever so much for your opinion.
Do you have anything more to say, possibly to
expand upon the initial 4 words of reply to my last?

 

CD does not eject portions of buildings as was seen on 9/11. Ergo, you just made an argument against controlled demolition.

 

No,you're still wrong

 

ALL CD events are not identical
the major goal here being the demolition
of the building ( and that was done and done very well )
The fact that even attempts to demolish buildings
( that is attempts that do not go well ) result in the incomplete
demolition of the building, in a case of complete demolition,
one can well wonder exactly what forces were at work to cause
this complete demolition of said building.

also to address the ejection of material from the tower(s)
what mechanism could eject material as was observed
if the only source of energy was gravity? The potential
energy of the building structure however great, would
have to have been focused to achieve the result.
what magic caused this focus?

 

The major goal is demolition WITHOUT damaging other buildings

That didn't happen on 9/11...you're WRONG

 

I'm not looking for approval from you
I'm looking to illustrate a point here.
and my point is well made.
Thank U very much.............

- - - Updated - - -

Have you ever heard of ROOSD?
really off-the-wall theory about how
the tower(s) fell as they did.