RE: "If, what was done in the demolition was just to "surgically" cut the steel columns, in my opinion, most of the solid material would not have turned to dust but would have fallen to the ground, certainly in bits, but still in its original identifiable form. This was not the case."
I think part of our different perspectives is I don't think most people realize how little of what goes into a building is actually structural. Sheetrock, for example, will take very little punishment before turning to dust. Most of its strength comes from what it's attached to. The same goes for concrete. It's strong as long as whatever it's sitting on is solid, or if it has reinforcement added, but otherwise it's prone to cracking and crumbling.
I don't know a lot about commercial construction, but I've built several houses, so I have some first hand knowledge about the limitations of many of the materials involved. The idea that several million pounds of building materials turned to dust after falling a quarter mile isn't that mysterious. On the other hand, the amount of redundant strength that goes into the frame work of a building should make it close to impossible for one to fall down.
Simple rules of ballistics also apply. The faster an object moves, the more force it carries. The main problem I have with Hoffman's analysis is it ignores physical laws so basic a grammar school student could pick it apart.
I don't doubt that shock waves from explosives account for much of the ejection of dust and debris from the towers. What I have a problem with is the force of gravity is virtually ignored in the Hoffman nonsense. The amount of energy involved in a building that heavy falling as little as 10 feet is enough to account for pulverizing materials at the point of impact.
Take a small piece of glass and hit it with a hammer. You'll get quite fine particles as a result. Hit it again and what you'll have left is pretty darn small. The same goes for concrete, and it certainly goes for sheetrock.
The problem isn't with the amount of dust that formed. The problem is how the building accelerated to a point where it was possible to create the dust in the first place. Then continued to accelerate in spite of the energy being consumed by smashing things on the way down, and in spite of the fact much of the initial weight had spilled over the sides and was no longer in contact with the buildings.
With a little basic information, I don't think it would be too hard to calculate the point where the progression of the collapse would have stopped, even starting on the assumption the plane crashes weakened the structure of the buildings to the point of total failure at the levels of impact. |
