North Tower Acceleration

[jesters]

180. As I point out in post #176,

Greening himself makes a distinction between fracturing and pulverization, stating that pulverization does indeed require further expenditure of energy, although he uses a framework to suggest that only 10% of the concrete could have been pulverized into the fine particles, which he defines using specific measurements. Ross uses Greening's 10%, and comes up with a slightly higher energy expenditure.

Greening as well makes a further distinction for elastic strain of the concrete. So this presumably is also not factoring into the momentum loss estimates. Nor are the elastic and plastic strains for the columns. So these are all factored outside of the original momentum loss, yet you don't seem to have a problem with any of the others. Why are you picking on the concrete pulverization?

As it is explained to me, the momentum loss that Ross calculates is simply the energy expended bringing the lower mass up to the speed of the impacting mass.