I would have to read your paper to fully appreciate the disagreement. Have you considered updating it to show what sort of levels of energy would be involved in vibration, sound, and heating during the pulverization of the concrete and wallboard in the towers?
The paper is at newtonsbit.blogspot.com Most of it is about the concept of buckling, which my first paper was about. Ross wanted to see calculations on how far off he was: 269% too large.
The point about inelastic buckling is in the third and second to last paragraph. Inelastic collisions are easily defined by conservation of momentum:
m1v1 = m2v2
where
m = mass at two different time periods (1 and 2)
v = velocity as corresponding time periods.
At these time periods, there is a kinetic energy 1/2 m*v^2. Since the mass and velocity are linearly dependent on each other in the conservation of momentum equal, there is a change in kinetic energy between the two time stamps.
To make a complicated subject seem simple: in an inelastic collision two objects basically become one and there is a change in kinetic energy (0.5*mass*velocity^2). This change in kinetic energy is equal to the strain energy exerted on the two objects. This available strain energy goes into the buckling of columns, the "dustification" of concrete, sound, heat, etc. If there is more change in kinetic energy than what the strain energy can exert, you just had a penetration (think bullet) or some other complicated issue.
For example, imagine two cars with equal mass and equal velocity colliding in a head on collision. Your common sense tells you that these cars will be brought to an almost complete and near-sudden stop with massive damage to the cars. The change in kinetic energy is equal to the energy on the cars, minus sound, head, vibrations, etc. Ross is trying to say in his paper that the change in momentum stops the cars but any additional damage should be done by explosives since there is no more available energy in the impact. It's downright ludicrous.
I will never address the "vibration, sound, and heating" because Ross does not. I'm keeping the same assumptions in his paper. He assumes they're insignificant and not worth addressing and so do I. If he thinks "vibration, sound, and heating" are significant, he needs to modify his paper. He won't though, because it's absurd to think that "vibration, sound, and heating" can cause any significant sink in energy. It's almost always completely neglected in engineering calculations because it's so tiny.
It's just a red herring.
