Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Outside energy had to be introduced for the twin towers to collapse the way they did

page: 3
34
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 09:39 PM
link   
reply to post by Joey Canoli
 



How much mass?

How much does it affect the ke?


Steel used in the WTC: 200,000 tons
Concrete used in the WTC: 780,000 metric tons

www.infoplease.com...

that's a 3/4 loss of mass.


What happens during the 12' fall between floors?

Is ke again increased again?


Are you assuming that the floors are free floating in space again?

Like the support columns don't exist or something?


What happens when they hit the ground?

Do you expect them to remain intact?


They never got a chance to hit the ground, because they were vaporized in mid air.


If you're unaware of these photos and testimonies being posted here on ATS already, then you are behind the curve.


Then please, Enlighten me....

If you Can, that is.


Baseless assertion


Nope, Most of the mass of the towers was concrete.




Lie.

It was mostly drywall dust.


And you are a shill.


I'm not, and you're lying when you claim I do.

I'm asking for a number, and there are nothing but baseless statements to back yours up.


Super... then give me a figure of how much drywall was in the WTC.


I agree.

Now, how much was lost again? A baseless statement like "most of the mass was lost as dust isn't gonna cut it.


3/4 of the mass of the towers was concrete, and there was precious little of it in the rubble pile at the end of the collapse.

Therefore, *MOST OF THE MASS WAS LOST AS EJECTA DURING THE COLLAPSE*


The columns are, not the floors and their connections.


And you keep assuming that the columns don't exist.


Floors dont support other floors. Columns do.


I am speaking of a "Floor" as the Floor, and the columns in that floor, my calculations are as a floor sized cross-section of the building, I thought you already knew that.... and you aren't talking about what I am talking about anyway.


Who says it was floating?

It was being supported by the columns.

But stuff falls on floors, not on columns.


And the columns support the floors... at least, they WOULD, if the floors weren't pulverized into dust.
edit on 16-9-2011 by ErtaiNaGia because: (no reason given)




posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 09:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Joey Canoli
 



Oh brother.......


I'm not your brother.


No. the amount of momentum transferred is dictated by strentgh of the connections. They are not of infinite strength.


And they don't have ZERO strength, as you seem to be thinking.

They subtract from the Ke of the falling floors.

It's as simple as that.

reply to post by Varemia
 



*Ahem*


AHEM nothing.

Does that sheet rock count for any substantial portion of the total mass of the towers?

DOES IT?

Go ahead, provide some actual statistics to back up your claim.

You seem to be trying to disprove MY claim by asserting a straw-man argument there anyway... I don't even see why you posted.

The majority of the mass of the twin towers was Concrete... your Gypsum accounts for basically nothing.


Do you agree that ke is gained when the mass is accelerated by gravity during the appx 12' of air space between floors?


Do you agree that the Ke is reduced by the support columns and the floors themselves?
edit on 16-9-2011 by ErtaiNaGia because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 09:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by ErtaiNaGia

They never got a chance to hit the ground, because they were vaporized in mid air.



LOL !!!!!

So how was all of the concrete vaporized?

As a result of the impacts?

Or explosives?



posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 10:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Joey Canoli

Originally posted by ErtaiNaGia

And each of those connections requires a certain amount of Kinetic energy to fail, and that is kinetic energy that is subtracted from the total Kinetic energy of the falling floors.


Do you agree that ke is gained when the mass is accelerated by gravity during the appx 12' of air space between floors?


That is already accounted for in the numbers. No gravity no KE.


Originally posted by Joey Canoli

Originally posted by ErtaiNaGia

They never got a chance to hit the ground, because they were vaporized in mid air.



LOL !!!!!

So how was all of the concrete vaporized?

As a result of the impacts?

Or explosives?


Well what do you think?
edit on 16-9-2011 by Cassius666 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 10:02 PM
link   
reply to post by Joey Canoli
 



LOL !!!!!

So how was all of the concrete vaporized?

As a result of the impacts?

Or explosives?


Welcome back to the topic of the thread.



posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 10:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by ErtaiNaGia
AHEM nothing.

Does that sheet rock count for any substantial portion of the total mass of the towers?

DOES IT?

Go ahead, provide some actual statistics to back up your claim.

You seem to be trying to disprove MY claim by asserting a straw-man argument there anyway... I don't even see why you posted.

The majority of the mass of the twin towers was Concrete... your Gypsum accounts for basically nothing.


Stawman? I was pointing out that there was a great deal of drywall used in the construction of the building. The drywall was used as fireproofing and insulation for the elevators and core. I showed that they tended to be 2 in. in width each, and 16 in. long in sections. Now, multiple this out by the size of the core and the number of floors and you will have a rough estimate for the amount of drywall just in those areas. It is not a strawman at all.

All I did was show that you were incorrect in assuming a minor amount of drywall in the towers.



posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 10:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by ErtaiNaGia

Steel used in the WTC: 200,000 tons
Concrete used in the WTC: 780,000 metric tons

www.infoplease.com...



Frank Greening's Concrete Calculation
The floors in the core areas were made of normal weight concrete, density 1760 kg/m3
The floors in the office areas were made of lightweight concrete, density 1500 kg/m3
Volume of 5-inch normal weight concrete per floor = 109.5 m3
Weight of normal weight concrete per floor = 193 tonnes
Volume of 4-inch thick lightweight concrete per floor = 289.4 m3
Weight of lightweight concrete per floor = 434 tonnes

So that equals 623 tons of concrete per floor
Times 220 floors = 137,000 tons.

Oops........



posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 10:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Cassius666


Well what do you think?


I know for a fact that it is a lie to say that 100% of the concrete was vaporized and ejected in the



posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 10:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Joey Canoli

Originally posted by Cassius666


Well what do you think?


I know for a fact that it is a lie to say that 100% of the concrete was vaporized and ejected in the



posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 10:25 PM
link   
reply to post by Varemia
 



I was pointing out that there was a great deal of drywall used in the construction of the building.


And I was pointing out that the majority of the building was Concrete, and that the Sheet rock is negligible.

reply to post by Joey Canoli
 




"The density of normal concrete is 2400 kg/m3 and the density of lightweight concrete is 1750 kg/m3

hypertextbook.com...

425,000 cubic yards of concrete = 324,935.815 cubic meters
www.infoplease.com...

2,400 kg/m3 = 779,845,956kg = 859,633.018 short tons
1750 kg/m3 = 568,637,676kg = 626,815.742 short tons


Times 220 floors = 137,000 tons.


Nope.
edit on 16-9-2011 by ErtaiNaGia because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 10:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by ErtaiNaGia


2,400 kg/m3 = 779,845,956kg = 859,633.018 short tons
1750 kg/m3 = 568,637,676kg = 626,815.742 short tons

Nope.


Okay then.

Using your weights, it is 770 tons/ floor

Times 220 floors = 169,000 metric tons.

That destroys your assertion that 3/4 of the weight was in concrete.

Unless you wish to challenge the square footage of areas inside vs outside the cores...

BTW, what "vaporized" the concrete floors into dust?

Don't dodge....



posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 10:34 PM
link   
reply to post by ErtaiNaGia
 


But it had to contribute to the dust cloud. That is indisputable.

What I believe the current argument is over is how much concrete became pulverized. Am I correct? If so, apologies, because I have no idea about the specifics on this matter, and I'd like to abstain from the debate.



posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 10:38 PM
link   
www.911myths.com...

"We have previously shown that the WTC dust was made up of concrete, gypsum, manmade
vitreous fiber and cellulose-based material of which only about 40 % was concrete.
Thus we estimate that the collapse of WTC 1& 2 deposited about 50,000 tonnes of
concrete outside the footprint of the towers. If we consider that the total mass of concrete
in the two towers was about 150,000 tonnes we conclude that 100,000 tonnes of concrete
fell within the footprint of the towers. This has important implications for the issue of
mass-shedding during the tower’s collapse. It suggests that more than 90 % of the mass,
(concrete and steel), in the damage zone created at each impacted floor was retained by
the descending “hammer” thereby sustaining the progressive collapse of WTC 1.
6.2"

Now what?

40% of the dust was concrete.

Studies show that only about 1/3 of the concrete was ejected, and it weighs less than the steel, even using your numbers for concrete weight.



posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 10:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Joey Canoli
 



Okay then.

Using your weights, it is 770 tons/ floor

Times 220 floors = 169,000 metric tons.


And you just missed the entire point of our little discussion, didn't you?

I'm getting the ACTUAL MASS of the steel and the concrete from HERE:

www.infoplease.com...

*YOU* are just making up absurd red herring calculations that do not actually reflect reality.



Which Destroys your ENTIRE ARGUMENT!


BTW, what "vaporized" the concrete floors into dust?

Don't dodge....


And that is what this thread is about.

There was not enough potential energy contained within the towers themselves to CREATE the pulverized dust, and to expand it to the cloud size that it expanded to.

Go back to SCHOOL already.

reply to post by Varemia
 



But it had to contribute to the dust cloud. That is indisputable.


Well, yes.... EVERYTHING in the tower that wasn't the steel itself contributed to the dust cloud.

That is pretty obvious.

What I am saying, is that the total weight of your sheet rock is inconsequential towards the total mass itself, because there was not that much of it when compared to the concrete.


What I believe the current argument is over is how much concrete became pulverized. Am I correct?


Generally, yes, that is the basis of the argument, along with things like:

"If the concrete became pulverized, why are they including it's mass in calculations for Kinetic energy?"

and

"What cause the Concrete to become pulverised if the potential energy of the towers was not enough to actually pulverise it?"


If so, apologies, because I have no idea about the specifics on this matter, and I'd like to abstain from the debate.


Ya, no need to apologize, and welcome to the debate.

Although, it's less like a debate, and more like a verbal slaughter that I am conducting here.




posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 10:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Varemia
 


Its part of the argument. Equally important is the question, could have the pancake collapse occoured to the extent it did without introducing additional Energy. If that is not given, then any of the floors turning into rubble or even dust pretty much seals the deal about a theory NIST established. A theory that can not necessarily be seen unfolding in the video of the collapse. Examples of the Verinage demolition technique and the exploding buildings look nothing alike. But the latter comment is not the topic of the debate.

edit on 16-9-2011 by Cassius666 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 10:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Joey Canoli
 


And who is this guy that you are quoting?

What are his sources?

Where does he get his information from?

Really.


Most all of his assumptions are just utterly wrong, his mathematics are internally inconsistent, he bases most of his findings on assumptions and guesses, and thus his conclusions are highly questionable.



Period.
edit on 16-9-2011 by ErtaiNaGia because: (no reason given)



"If we consider that the total mass of concrete in the two towers was about 150,000"


And there ya go, his numbers are just plain WRONG.
edit on 16-9-2011 by ErtaiNaGia because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 10:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by ErtaiNaGia
reply to post by Joey Canoli
 



Okay then.

Using your weights, it is 770 tons/ floor

Times 220 floors = 169,000 metric tons.


And you just missed the entire point of our little discussion, didn't you?

I'm getting the ACTUAL MASS of the steel and the concrete from HERE:

www.infoplease.com...

*YOU* are just making up absurd red herring calculations that do not actually reflect reality.



Which Destroys your ENTIRE ARGUMENT!




No.

It destroys yours.

I used your figures to figure the weight of concrete per floor.

The area inside/outside the cores is known.

Therefore the weights are known.

To deny it is irrational.



posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 10:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by ErtaiNaGia

And who is this guy that you are quoting?


See the link?

Frank Greening.

He is a NIST detractor.


What are his sources?


See the linky?

He gives his sources.



Most all of his assumptions are just utterly wrong.


He assumes nothing.

His statements are backed by the sources in his paper, which are too numerous to list here.

Handwave it away only if you want to look the fool.



posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 10:57 PM
link   
for simplicity, let's say the towers were 100 stories tall. now, lets say the top nine stories fell ten feet onto the bottom 90 . now, lets reverse this and see if it makes sense. 90 stories fall 10 feet on to 9 stories. you're suggesting that the 9 stories on the bottom survive, and the 90 stories on the top are utterly destroyed.

does this make logical sense? no. for the math to work, there would have to be zero resistance.

9 stories falling 910 feet is the same as 90 stories falling 91 feet. do the math, it works out.

it's like a sledge hammer hitting a small steel nail, and the sledge shatters into dust.
edit on 16-9-2011 by Bob Sholtz because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 10:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by ErtaiNaGia

Most all of his assumptions are just utterly wrong, his mathematics are internally inconsistent, he bases most of his findings on assumptions and guesses, and thus his conclusions are highly questionable.



And there's the handwave.

Nevermind then.

We know how you look now...





new topics

top topics



 
34
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join