Yes, the mass of iron would stay the same, and I've previously told Mr. Baker he is out to lunch on his "missing steel" ideas. However, I am still amazed how my comments are misconstrued by some JREFers!
Sorry, once again!
I will attempt to address the arguments presented, but if I slip, I as forgivness in advance. First, a bit of my background:
perhaps if you were less cryptic, and less of a pedant, we might be less likely to misconstrue?
I have 30 years as a structural analyst, on everything from 200 square foot storage sheds made of wood, to the Faint Object Spectrograph, to motor coaches, to the space shuttle; all sorts of payloads for various launch systems -Titan, Centaur, STS, transfer orbit systems-up through the F-35 Lightning II. I also have dealt with all types of materials from wood, brass, bronze, steel, aluminum,and titanium up to graphite-epoxy composites.
I know the mechanical properties of materials, and the loading methods and ways systems of these materials can and do fail. Chemical properties are not my bailiwick, but I do know some Chemistry.
I do loads, loading, stress and failure analysis, both static and dynamic, either inertial, externally applied, acoustic, transient and random.
One of the things the troofers object to, and make a big deal of, is vagueness. The truely competent scientists and enginners seldom make absolute statements. We say "The most likely cause..." or "the most probable effect...".
Your earlier statements regarding the fall of the towers--and I am speaking from memory here, so don't get too upset--were that there was no evidence from the way the towers came down that explosives were not used. This would be true, if the collapse were studied without any corraberating evidence. The fact remains, that other evidence should be found in the remains if explosives were used. No such evidence was found, anywhere.
No such event occurs in isolation. The
whole must be studied to obtain the entirity of the event.
The arguments presented by youself have a tendency to look at snapshots of the entire situation, and are accurate for that snapshot, on the whole. Unfortunately, they tend to lend themselves to the trufer's favorite situation. Fire can't bring the building down. The structure was capable of withstanding the airliner crash. Therefore explosives were used.
It is the combination of events which caused the disaster, not any one thing.
Be a bit less cryptic, please. Most of us are capable of understanding what you want to say, if you say it clearly enough.
