We are not in agreement. You are using the term EXPLOSIVE FORCE. I used the term Joules, which can be provided in various ways, one being explosives. We agreed on 40,000 Joules if I recall correctly.
We had calculated the required initial velocity at 21 meters per second, supplied by 40,000 joules and the approximate altitude at 333 meters.
I suggested the energy came from sideways displacement of only 0.2% of the potential energy of the beam during it's fall.
You suggested that it could only come from explosives. But this is an assertion and not a proof. The debris field extended quite wide, and so nobody is questioning whether much of that was displaced sideways by translation of potential energy to sideways and downward kinetic energy and movement. How then is beam is proof of explosives, if it does not lie seriously outside the field of debris?
The calculations of energy, potential and kinetic energy, and sideways motion do not require "explosive force." They simply use an input in Joules for F. It's not that high a value, either. 40,000 joules does not require a "chemical explosion" to produce it.
You introduced several errors and misunderstandings of physics here. If those are corrected, then I would hope that you understand that the movement of 4 ton beams as described is not evidence that supports a requirement of controlled demolition, explosives, etc in the collapse of the towers.
Only by mistating the physics and the dynamics of the beams can this issue be used to support the anti-American, pro-Muslim propaganda effort that blames the USA for the 911 atrocity, and makes the terrorists Muslims innocent of it. And it's exactly that sort of propaganda and beliefs that encourages not too smart Muslims to become little Allah Akbars...
No I did not expect you would give up your pathetic attempt at supporting your bias no matter how many facts I beat you over the head with. So canons don't use explosive force? Riiiight. Regardless of what you call it, it is the same thing. Large amounts of energy. You claim that this comes from the potential energy of gravity pulling the building down, but
yet you still can not explain how that downward force is translated into lateral motion, nor can you explain the mechanism for this.....
Yes, I did explain how PE is translated into sideways motion. Twice. It's possible you missed it or I did not state it clearly. I'll be happy to state it again, or just pull the explanation from a book and link to it.
Here's a third attempt, though. A long time ago, building designers created "arches" and used them. Think Roman era. But balancing tension and compression forces wasn't understood. A simple circular arch in stone would cause failure, and at the points of failure, the stones would be thrown out sideways. The arch that balanced tension and compression was later figured out. Now in the WTC case, you will agree that there was careful and sophisticated balancing of forces. But when they started to come down, that balancing ceased to exist. Of course pieces would be thrown out sideways.
At the tail end of the WTC towers' fall all the PE is translated into some or all of four things. Heat, a bigger hole in the ground, sideways motion, and/or fractured materials.
How do we know this? Because the PE does not exist anymore. It's gone. One of the easiest of these four factors to understand is sideways motion, because in any movement of a group of junk toward the ground, sideways motion occurs. You accept that. You just have a problem with the 21 meters per second. Is that correct? If it was nominal, you would shrug it off.
However, equations exist for the size and shape of piles of rubble. Civil engineer stuff. "If we put 500 dump trucks of stuff over there, how big will it be around the base?"
You have posted yourself illustrations of the size and extent of the debris of the twin towers. You've admitted it went out laterally to the extent of 500-600 feet. To me this is just part of the necessary dissipation of the potential energy.
A quick google search indicates the PE of one WTC tower's fall to be > 150 tons of TNT...But there's just something about a 4 ton piece of steel going out six hundred feet that bothers you.
Why?