That's debris, mostly paper, being expelled by the force of the crash. Seriously, get a clear video of the events of that day. Your "explosions" vanish under the glare of high-resolution.
Well I guess I was completely wrong. That couldn't POSSIBLY have been broken glass falling from the N tower when the S tower was hit. INCONCEIVABLE!
Surely you ought to set an example?
Huh? Why would you ask a tour guide for a scientific analysis of the collapse of the towers? You've already been referred to Bazant & Zhou (2001), Bazant (2006), Greening (2005-6). Your refutation of their work? Your experts? Your peer-reviewed articles?
Although the math quickly goes over my head, I understand the principles involved, I have read arguments supporting and attempting to refute the papers I cited, I have read the entire NIST report and numerous other papers and some books about progressive collapse, the behavior of structural steel in fires, and the construction of tall buildings. I have seen no reason to disbelieve the experts.
Look at all the "explosions"!
I await your expert analysis of the Bazant & Zhou paper...
He presented papers by recognized experts in the appropriate field. That is how science works, and that is how this site works. If that is unsuitable for you you're welcome to go elsewhere where you won't look as foolish.
Clearly a plain old silent sucking bomb that sucked the perimeter columns inward until the building collapsed.
I explained myself quite clearly. Since you are capable of doing the math and believe the papers are wrong, show us. I have learned a lot from the lively discussions that result from such actions. I love to learn about things. While I wouldn't be competent to analyze your math if it's complex, others here are, and I always learn a lot from their explanations.
Still awaiting your detailed mathmatical debunking of Bazant and Zhou (structural engineers btw Jessica).
