Coal is a fossil fuel and contains a considerable amount of hydrogen. The rubble at the WTC was predominantly steel. How can you even think of comparing them is beyond me. This isn't a coal seam fire.
It also did not last for decades. It also contained a vast amount of combustible material.
ETA: a coal seam is contained within non-combustible rock so it is also pri,arily non-combustible material. Your 'point' is meaningless.
Nonsense. Are you implying that the upper sections just dodged the massive steel and concrete cores?
1) the only concrete in the cores was the flooring whicj was only 4 incjes thick.
2) The steel COLUMNS are what is responsible in a standing structure, for transfering the loads to the foundation. These columns stayed put but when those columns failed at a point on the fire floors and the upper mass dropped, those columns buckled, fractured or snapped AND THE UPPER SECTION'S COLUMNS NO LONGER WERE LINED UP with the columns of the lower section. This is a concept you steadfastly refuse to even consider let alone grasp.
I ask now for the 4th time;
What possible mode is used to transfer the force of impact and of gravitation, of the upper section to the columns of the lower section.
Your continued utter silence on this matter indicates your utter lack of any useful knowledge in the matter of physics or engineering. It points to you holding to your position due to a political world view rather than any interest in 'truth'.
And even if your ridiculous "mass increases" theory were true, this would be a constant, and would be happening in the crash zone as well, so a discrepancy in resistance would still be measurable.
No, as collapse continues the mass of debris must increase. Given an acelleration of collapse, the falling debris must also increase in velocity. momentum is the product ( that means multiply the two factors) of mass and velocity. Double the mass and double the momentum, double the velocity and double the momentum, double BOTH mass and velocity and quadruple the momentum..
Care to express it as kinetic energy?
That is proportional to mass but proportional to the square of velocity.
Double the mass, double the kinetic energy, double the velocity and quadruple the energy, double both and kinetic energy goes up by a factor of 6.
That momentum was being transfered primarily to the floor pans NOT the tops of the columns of the lower section. The floor pans were never designed to accomodate such a load so vastly greater than the load normally expected to be on ONE floor.
It is unwise to enter a battle naked and unarmed yet that is exactly what you have metaphorically done here. Oddly though it seems you are unaware of your nakedness.
