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

What "bits"?

 

Have you not been paying attention here?
there were solid chunks of structure +
many tons of pulverized material from the building ejected.
and given the video(s) of the event, isn't that rather obvious?

 

I'm asking you to tell me what "chunks" of the structure you are claiming to have been ejected and what proof are you looking at that shows these "chunks".

And pulverizing gypsum planking wouldn't create a large dust cloud?

 

If the cloud was composed exclusively of gypsum board, then
where is the concrete? what happened to the decks, many tons
of concrete, GONE, that is pulverized & scattered all over Manhattan.

 

They were in the massive rubble pile where the towers once were.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MDuBi8KyOhw

Start in at 2:05 ..... and listen to what the Governor sez.

 

Pataki examined the dust and can provide documentation that it was all concrete?

Hear that sound of awe in his voice? Know what that sound is?

Incredulity.

 

on the other hand
who has pix of concrete in solid form at ground zero?

 

A picture from the one year anniversary. Concrete walls still solid in the background.



http://wodumedia.com/ground-zero-september-11-2001-september-11-2011/at-ground-zero-a-lone-police-officer-sat-amid-the-rubble-during-a-ceremony-marking-the-one-year-anniversary-of-the-attacks-on-sept-11-2002-amy-sancettaassociated-press/

 

and this allegedly accounts for all of the
concrete in the 110 stories of decks?

 

That's not what you asked for. You asked:

I do. See above,

 

It is what you get when you are not sufficiently specific and allow significant wiggle room in your questions.

psik

 

Or when you decide to move the goalposts.

 

The original discussion was about the concrete contained
in the tower, that is the decks and the allegation was that
the decks did not contribute significantly to the pulverized
material that covered lower Manhattan that day.
therefore pix of any intact concrete associated with the decks
would be relevant to this thread.

 

Not what you asked for. I know you're embarrassed to be proven so very wrong, but .... a 'thank you' would be in order.

 

Why'd you ignore the first quesiton genericBob? I'll ask you again.

What "solid chunks of structure" are you talking about that were "ejected" from the building? It couldn't be concrete because you'd be contradicting yourself right? You said the concrete was pulverized and the material strewn about Manhattan.

So what "chunks" are you talking about?

 

obviously I have to explain this in great detail....
the "chunks" of concrete, would have to be remnants
of the decks that were 4" thick steel reinforced parts
of the building that were either destroyed ( that is totally
pulverized ) or some part of a deck, that is enough of
it to be recognizable as a bit of a deck survived to be
photographed. is there any evidence of a part of a deck
that survived as a "chunk" of concrete?

 

genericBob, one more time. You are quoted as saying this:

Do you see the enlarged, red text in your statement above? Your quote above says there were solid chunks of structure AND pulverized material ejected. I want you to tell me what "solid chunks" of structure were ejected in addition to the pulverized material. It couldn't have been "solid chunks of concrete" that you are saying were ejected because according to you, it was all PULVERIZED right?

Why are you playing games here?

 

wow man, do I have to nail down every *&^%$#@!
nit here? The ejected stuff along with the pulverized
material, could have been steel, or concrete, the real
question here is: In the rubble, that is the ejected stuff
& the material still local to ground zero, was there any
documented remnant of a concrete deck to be found that
had enough of it to be recognizable as a piece of deck?

 

No it couldn't have been chunks of concrete because you said it was all pulverized. So the only option you have now is steel. Do you have photos that you are looking at that lead you to believe steel components or assemblies were ejected or are you just guessing now?

 

Please, let us focus on what we were originally
discussing and that is the fact that the dust cloud
had to have been composed of significant quantities
of pulverized concrete, because there is only minimal
evidence of any whole chunks of concrete remaining
in the rubble. This then speaks of a huge force being
used to destroy the building, there was enough explosive
power to pulverize many tons of concrete in addition to
breaking up the connections within the core & breaking
outer wall box columns. The fact that people still allege
the energy required for this was contained in the potential
energy of a tall structure, is amazing. To do the job, that is
pulverizing mass quantities of all the stuff that indeed had
been pulverized, and level the building requires focused
energy, exactly how is it that the energy that was the potential
energy in the structure was so focused as to do the job?

 

Look. You made the claim now back it up. You say it's impossible for the potential energy in the descending upper structure to do what it did, yet you provide no numbers as to why you believe this.

So there WERE chunks of concrete in the rubble huh? 100% of the concrete floors weren't pulverized to dust? That begs the question. What percentage of the floors were pulverized to dust as opposed to chunks of various sizes? What were those sizes? How did you figure this out? You want to talk about the energy expelled in order to pulverize concrete, but have no data saying what the size of pieces of debris were. It obviously takes more energy to COMPLETELY pulverize 4" of solid concrete to dust than it would to break that 4" of solid concrete into 12" size chunks right?

Tell us genericBob. How much explosives would have to have been used to pulverize said concrete into various sizes (you have no data regarding the distribution of these sizes), sever how many thousands of connections (welded, bolted), and eject steel components and/or assemblies weighing TONS (you STILL haven't provided any photos of these ejected steel pieces).

Is this all speculation and guesswork? You were against speculation and guesswork when it came to our evidence. How about yours?

Because the descending mass of debris was contained/focused in a virtual 208' x 208' area. Is that "focused enough for you?

 

{only minimal evidence of any whole chunks
of concrete remaining in the rubble.}

Look again at what I wrote....
also note that if we are talking about the 208' square space
being confinement for the rubble mass, then the outside wall
would have to be strong enough to contain the rubble, but
if it was not strong enough, it would break, and not in a uniform
manner. Simply by the nature of the physical system at work,
the rubble would break out of one side before another and cause
an imbalance in the whole action. If it was assumed that the outer
wall was strong enough to hold the rubble, it would most certainly
pack up to capacity at some point ( probably in the descent of the
first 9 or 10 stories ) and the rubble from the above floors would
pack the space available in the lower floor and act like the sand
packed into a cardboard tube, a non-moving mass because its
transferring much of its weight to the wall & core. the event of
some sort of failure causing global "collapse" to a skyscraper
is indeed the very least likely scenario.

 

Let's turn the tables genericBob.

Try and explain how explosives could produce the visual characteristics seen in the tower collapse that a gravity driven collapse could not. Let's see if your "logical thinking" and "common sense" can help explain what we saw using explosives.

1. Why didn't the debris pour out of the sides at some level? Is it because they blew out each floor right before the debris front reached it?
2. If the above is your thinking, did they blow all the perimeter column/core column floor truss connections at the same time for each floor?
3. How did the destroy the upper descending section? Did the explosives go from the bottom up?
4. How did all the paper strewn about downtown survive? Surely if the explosions were strong enough to completely pulverize concrete into powder, that much weaker paper would not have survived either?
5. If the explosives went off simultaneously like you claim, why was there a tilt in the upper section?
6. If the explosives were strong enough to laterally eject perimeter column section weighing tons, then why are there no "explosion" mark on these columns and why were they not blown outside the perimeter? Why didn't those MASSIVE explosions tear off the aluminum cladding on the perimeter columns in the first picture below? How did the stairwell survive in the second picture? Such massive power used that could trun 4" concrete to dust yet other things survived? What are the odds of that?




Just a few questions. Let's see if you can come up with some detailed explanations.

 

Your numbered items constitute an attempt
to second-guess the event, its like asking
to know exactly what sort of explosive was used
C4 or atomic bombs ... or?

The fact speak for themselves, the uniformity of the
"collapse" event is illustrated in the distribution of
the dust in lower Manhattan, there is no significant
difference between the concentrations of dust to the
north, south, east or west of the tower location.

Also, note that the structural steel used in the towers,
would bend before breaking, so the presents of straight
pieces of steel would be anomalous to the event.
However pictures taken of the site from above,
( satellite images{?}) clearly show an abundance of
straight bits in the wreckage.
how did that happen?