jammonius, I have a very basic question to you. This is about basic physics. Please read the following claim that I make:
In order for buildings to get destroyed the way the WTC was destroyed on 9/11, and end up in the shape they were found at the end of the day, their materials (such as steel, aluminium, ...) must be deformed.
By deformation I mean things such as: changing shape (bending etc.), changing physical state (melting...), changing chemical state (reactions), coming apart (cutting, breaking, grinding...) or coming together (fusion).
This is done through mechanisms of work, such as applying mechanical force, heat, radiation, etc.
Work is always the transfer of energy.
If this is done within a certain amount of time, the energy transfer / deformation happens at a rate called power.
So for all the deformation that takes place during a building collapse, a certain amount of work must be done, and that implies that a certain amount of energy must be available to start with.
(Note: I have linked several physical terms to Wikipedia, so we know more precisely the meaning of these words. When I do link, the meaning of the term linked to is the meaning I wish to imply).
So here is the question, jammonius:
Do you agree with the above declaration? If not, what do you not agree with?
I ask this to get a clearer understanding of why you reject what you call the "energy canard".
If the above is true, and you agree with it, then certainly, a full theory of 9/11 and its technical aspects must ultimately account for the work done on the buildings, and explain where the energy came from.
