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

page: 5
34
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 11:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by ErtaiNaGia

To deny that your Back of the envelope calculations for the total mass of the concrete in the twin towers are more accurate than the official sources for those figures?

Really?


If we're talking about the weight in the floors ONLY, then yes, since....




425,000 cubic yards of concrete used in the construction of the World Trade Center complex

www.nysm.nysed.gov...



This is a figure for the complex, and doesn't differentiate for the floors ONLY.

How can you continue to deny this?

We know the floor areas. We know the concrete weights.

It is irrational to reject the figure of there being 169,000 tons of concrete in the floors in both towers.




posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 11:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Joey Canoli
 



This is a figure for the complex, and doesn't differentiate for the floors ONLY.

How can you continue to deny this?


Who said that I was denying that PARTICULAR point?


We know the floor areas. We know the concrete weights.


And if you assume that the only concrete in the floors was the concrete that you are adding to your calculations, then you will continue to be WRONG.


It is irrational to reject the figure of there being 169,000 tons of concrete in the floors in both towers.


IT is irrational to state that your calculation is fact, when you have no proof to back up your assertion.

IT is FURTHER irrational to state that rebuffing your assertion is irrational, since you have not provided any proof for your assumption.



posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 11:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by ErtaiNaGia

You are ignoring the concrete around the columns, the concrete in the columns in the core, and other essentials.


OIC.

You believe that the core columns were encased concrete, and not gypsum and SFRM.

LMAO....


You have nothing but guesses for those figures, and frankly I'm a little tired of you asserting that your red herrings actually make one IOTA of difference to the topic of discussion.


It was your assertion that all the concrete was vaporized, and since it is 3/4 of the weight in the towers, there is a lack of mas to drive the gravity collapse.

I am correcting your mistake so that others can learn from them.


But I AM objecting, because you do not posses all of the facts, and this is clear, because you are merely guessing about your calculations on the amount of concrete per floor, your calculations are childish in the extreme, and you are presenting them as FACT.


Sorry for making such childish calcs then.

But since we know the floor arteas, and the concrete weights, then you surely show us all your math eloquence and provide a stunningly beautiful calc that shows me up?



posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 11:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by ErtaiNaGia


IT is irrational to state that your calculation is fact, when you have no proof to back up your assertion.



Calcs are either right, or they are wrong. there is no opinion involved.

Can I get this then out of you?

If we ignore all other things, can we agree that the concrete weight for the floors ONLY, in both towers, was 169,000 metric tons?

Or do you require other info to check up on it?

Remember now - floors only....



posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 11:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Joey Canoli
 


So, again... back to the ORIGINAL POINT, Mr Red Herring:



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


The loss of the concrete mass from the collapsing twin towers affects its kinetic energy, which reduces the energy of the collapse.



And looking back, I see that I have responded to each and Every one of your points.... and yet you continue to *IGNORE* most of my questions directed towards you.

Mr. Red Herring



It was mostly drywall dust.
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.


You have yet to provide a response to this statement.

Honestly... "Most of the dust was Drywall"





posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 11:34 PM
link   
The jews placed the charges
The US government covered all the bases
The Arabs supplied the flight crews
The bush family plotted with the binladens to perpetrate the assault
And we the people got screwed



posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 11:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Joey Canoli
 



You believe that the core columns were encased concrete, and not gypsum and SFRM.

LMAO....


You have a source stating otherwise then?



You have nothing but guesses for those figures, and frankly I'm a little tired of you asserting that your red herrings actually make one IOTA of difference to the topic of discussion.


It was your assertion that all the concrete was vaporized, and since it is 3/4 of the weight in the towers, there is a lack of mas to drive the gravity collapse.

I am correcting your mistake so that others can learn from them.


You are correcting nothing.... because you are not trying to find the truth, you are trying to cover it up.

We have already determined that the Concrete weighed more than the steel in the towers, and yet you continue to deny this.

We have already determined that a LARGE portion of the dust was what USED TO BE the concrete in the towers, and yet you deny this.

We have already determined that a reduction in mass reduces Ke, and yet you deny this.

Honestly, you are about as transparent a disinformation shill that I have ever seen.

I hope they don't pay you much, because they aren't getting their money's worth, whatever it is.


But since we know the floor arteas, and the concrete weights, then you surely show us all your math eloquence and provide a stunningly beautiful calc that shows me up?


You are still assuming that the FLOORS are the only concrete in the entire building.

And this is a mistake.


Calcs are either right, or they are wrong. there is no opinion involved.

Can I get this then out of you?


If you had the correct data to put INTO the calculator, then I would agree.. but as it stands, you don't.


If we ignore all other things, can we agree that the concrete weight for the floors ONLY, in both towers, was 169,000 metric tons?


I'll check on that.
edit on 16-9-2011 by ErtaiNaGia because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 11:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by ErtaiNaGia

The loss of the concrete mass from the collapsing twin towers affects its kinetic energy, which reduces the energy of the collapse.


And I agree with that.

It's just that we disagree on how much was there in the first place, and how much was ejected.

I say that there was only 169,000 mt in the towers, and provided calcs and my reasoning. I also provided a scholarly paper, that references other papers and reports that support the notion that only 1/3 of the concrete was ejecxted during the collapse progression.

You have provided a number on the TOTAL amount of cocncrete used in the construction of the WTC complex, but zero breakdown on how much is in the floors. Nor have you provided anything on there being concrete in the cores, etc, which is probably a good thing since even the most delusional here have given up on that lunacy. Nor have you produced any rteports that back your claim that supports the notion that 100% of the concrete was vaporized and ejected during the collapse.....


And looking back, I see that I have responded to each and Every one of your points


Wrong. I asked what you think vaporized the concrete? No definitive answer yet.... Only dodging...



posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 11:54 PM
link   
reply to post by Joey Canoli
 



And I agree with that.


Good.


It's just that we disagree on how much was there in the first place, and how much was ejected.


Yes, I realize that.


I say that there was only 169,000 mt in the towers, and provided calcs and my reasoning.


And this is what I disagree with.


I also provided a scholarly paper, that references other papers and reports that support the notion that only 1/3 of the concrete was ejecxted during the collapse progression.


I don't agree with those either.


You have provided a number on the TOTAL amount of cocncrete used in the construction of the WTC complex, but zero breakdown on how much is in the floors.


This is true, and I have not stated anything else to the contrary.


Nor have you provided anything on there being concrete in the cores, etc, which is probably a good thing since even the most delusional here have given up on that lunacy.


And that's just absurd.


Nor have you produced any rteports that back your claim that supports the notion that 100% of the concrete was vaporized and ejected during the collapse.....


I'm pretty sure that I never said that ALL the concrete was vaporised... just most of it.


Wrong. I asked what you think vaporized the concrete? No definitive answer yet.... Only dodging...


And you STILL have not provided an answer to my previous question, you have only dodged it.

And to ANSWER YOURS...

Yes, I believe that explosives were set off in the buildings, and *THAT* is what vaporised a majority of the concrete.

I was pretty sure that my position on the matter was rather obvious, I didn't realize that you needed me to spell it out for you.



posted on Sep, 17 2011 @ 12:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by ErtaiNaGia


We have already determined that a LARGE portion of the dust was what USED TO BE the concrete in the towers, and yet you deny this.


I'm going with 40%, since it is borne out by studies.



You are still assuming that the FLOORS are the only concrete in the entire building.

And this is a mistake.



Nope. the bathtub held a lot of the concrete

911research.wtc7.net...

"An 800- x 400-foot foundation box, 65 feet deep and with 3-foot-thick retaining walls -- the so-called bathtub -- was under more than half the World Trade Center complex, including the Twin Towers."

911research.wtc7.net...

"The floors were the only major part of these mostly steel buildings that contained concrete".

Oops. That's a truther site disagreeing with you....



posted on Sep, 17 2011 @ 12:10 AM
link   
reply to post by ErtaiNaGia
 



Originally posted by ErtaiNaGia
And since most all of the concrete was turned to dust, that is a substantial figure indeed.



The only concrete in the buildings were in the floors. The concrete averaged 4" thick and was sandwiched between a layer of corrugated steel and a layer of carpet or vinyl flooring.

The sheet rock did probably probably a large contributor to the dust, but the largest contributor was probably the fire proofing.

All of the steel in the building was coated with fireproofing or gypsum board. The spray on fireproofing averaged over 1.5" and covered the underside of the floors, the floor trusses, the core columns, the spandrel plates, and 3 sides of the exterior columns. The amount of area covered by fireproofing greatly exceeded that of the concrete.

The fireproofing was also much less resilient than concrete it can easily be crushed into dust with your bare hand.

During the collapse as one floor impacted the next, it would knock the fireproofing off the bottom of the floor. Next the over-pressurised air in the room would blow out the windows and the fast exiting air would carry the dust with it. This is what gave the impression of an explosion.

We know for a fact, that before the collapse, the steel was covered with fireproofing.

We know for a fact. that after the collapse, the steel was no longer covered with fireproofing.

Get the picture ?

The dust was mostly fireproofing. The white dust coming off of the core columns in spire videos is fire proofing dust.

If you don't know about the fireproofing, you should find out about it, before you spread your Truther Propaganda any further..

Spray on fire proofing on core columns.



Spray on fire proofing on exterior columns.




posted on Sep, 17 2011 @ 12:12 AM
link   
But if more energy is required how do physicists explain not pointing that out in 2002?

How can they admit it now?

psik



posted on Sep, 17 2011 @ 12:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by ErtaiNaGia

And that's just absurd.


And again...

911research.wtc7.net...

"The floors were the only major part of these mostly steel buildings that contained concrete. "


Yes, I believe that explosives were set off in the buildings, and *THAT* is what vaporised a majority of the concrete.


How much was due to explosives?


I was pretty sure that my position on the matter was rather obvious, I didn't realize that you needed me to spell it out for you.


fairly obvious, but I wanted to see if you have a number on explosive charges, how big they were, etc...



posted on Sep, 17 2011 @ 12:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by ErtaiNaGia


I'll check on that.


I'm waiting.

It's not all that hard to do the calc.

BTW :

911research.wtc7.net...

"The 10 cm thick concrete slabs were apparently a lightweight form of concrete typically used in high-rises. Its density and exact composition remain unknown, but such lightweight concrete is typically 60% as dense as concrete used in roads and sidewalks. The floors were the only major part of these mostly steel buildings that contained concrete. "



posted on Sep, 17 2011 @ 12:45 AM
link   
reply to post by Joey Canoli
 



How much was due to explosives?


I'd say most of it... Concrete does not readily vaporise, even when smashed between heavy objects.... it just fractures.


fairly obvious, but I wanted to see if you have a number on explosive charges, how big they were, etc...


No, I do not... but I could make estimates based on what would probably be necessary, and I believe that earlier in this thread I calculated it as somewhere near 17 metric tons.



I'll check on that.


I'm waiting.

It's not all that hard to do the calc.


Ya, but you kept responding, so I couldn't *DO* it.

I finally finished the calculations, and I actually came up with less than you did....

This is for the FLOORS ONLY: (Exterior spaces, and Central Column Area)

Floor: 1 acre (4,046.85642 square meters)
Core: 1,107 square meters

Total Floor area (minus core area): 2,939 square meters. (29,390,000 square centimeters)
Floor Thickness: 10 cm
Floor Volume: 293,900,000 cubic centimeters (293.9 cubic meters)

1750–2400 kg/m3
514,325 kg - 705,360 kg

1750kg
56,575,750 kg (110 floors)
113,151,500 kg (220 floors)

2400kg
77,589,600 kg (110 floors)
155,179,200 kg (220 floors)



Core Area: 11,070,000 square centimeters
Core Floor Thickness: 10 cm
Core Floor Volume: 110,700,000 cubic centimeters (110.7 cubic meters)

1750-2400 kg/m3
193,725 kg - 265,680 kg

1750kg/m3
21,309,750 kg (110 floors)
42,619,500 kg (220 floors)

2400kg/m3
29,224,800 kg (110 floors)
58,449,600 kg (220 floors)



Totals; *One Tower*:

All 1750: 77,885,500 kg (85,854.0676 short tons)
Inner 2400, outer 1750: 85,800,550 kg (94,578.9167 short tons)
All 2400: 106,814,400 kg (117,742.721 short tons)

I'm not entirely sure how I came up with less than you did... I suspect that I didn't do the thickness right or something...


Anyway, this is merely a back of the envelope calculation, and I do not believe that it actually represents the REAL amount of concrete in each building.

Furthermore, the Amount of Structural Steel used in the ENTIRE COMPLEX was 200,000 tons... which evenly divided between each building ALONE, would give us a ratio of 50% concrete, and 50% steel....

Which we know is not the case, as ALOT of the steel was used on the other buildings in the Complex.

So, considering the height of the other buildings, I would be willing to go so far as to say at least 80% of the 200,000 tons of steel was in the Two Towers ALONE....

Leaving us with 160,000 tons of steel for both towers, or 80,000 tons of steel per tower.

So, that puts the concrete as heavier than the steel in the tower....

However, that still leaves at least half of the mass of the tower unaccounted for.... and I absolutely refuse to believe that Gypsum and fireproofing weighs as much as the tower itself.

So, I'm thinking Ducting, Machinery, Elevators, etc.... although actually adding all of that up would be tedious, and darn near impossible.



posted on Sep, 17 2011 @ 01:02 AM
link   
reply to post by ErtaiNaGia
 


Fire proofing would not add a lot of weight, but it would make a lot of dust.

You are saying all the concrete was turned to dust so it had no mass to crush with. This is not true most of it appears to be fire proofing.

If you look at the exterior columns falling you can see the fire proofing dust trailing off behind them as they fall.



posted on Sep, 17 2011 @ 01:14 AM
link   
reply to post by waypastvne
 



Fire proofing would not add a lot of weight, but it would make a lot of dust.


This may be true, but it does not account for the total amount of the dust.

Even conservative findings show that the Dust plumes were 40% concrete....


You are saying all the concrete was turned to dust so it had no mass to crush with. This is not true most of it appears to be fire proofing.


Therefore this statement is not true either.


If you look at the exterior columns falling you can see the fire proofing dust trailing off behind them as they fall.


Yes, but this does not mean that all of the dust is fireproofing as you claim.



posted on Sep, 17 2011 @ 01:27 AM
link   
People who keep arguing that the dust was gypsum, need to show proof that the floors remained in the footprints.

If you can't show the concrete in the footprints then where did it all go, and when?



posted on Sep, 17 2011 @ 01:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by liejunkie01

I believe that anok twists Newton;s laws to fit his description.


You believe? You don't know?

If you don't know, and can not explain how I am twisting it, then you in no position to say I'm twisting it in the first place...
Or even argue for the OS for that matter.

Really, everyone in this thread who is arguing against the laws of motion need to educate themselves, and stop pretending you have the knowledge to even argue this stuff.

I show you the laws from physics sites, how am I twisting anything? What do I have to gain by twisting anything?

Argue from intelligence, not faith people.

edit on 9/17/2011 by ANOK because: typo



posted on Sep, 17 2011 @ 02:11 AM
link   
I have come in late to this "debate" but need to put in my two cents. I worked construction for over 20 years beginning when I was 17. I learned on the job a lot about engineering and why things were constructed a certain way. I also not even constructed structures I also "decunstructed" or demo'd buildings. Very huge warehouses and fuel storage containers.

What I would like to politely add to this discussion is somethings I have read from other posters.


Originally posted by ErtaiNaGia


I'd say most of it... Concrete does not readily vaporise, even when smashed between heavy objects.... it just fractures.



This is true only if once the pressure that causes it to fracture is released such as when a PSI test is done on a test pour sample from a construction project.

But for the twin towers the pressure did not stop at point of fracture, it increased each and every time the top floor driven down by the force of the upper floors impacted the stationary bottom floor held up by the remaining building.

Each and every time each floor impacted with the lower floors the pressure continued and increased.

The floors above it being carried down by the sheer weight of the tower as it was collapsing was still under enormous pressure which also increased as that mass impacted with the lower floors.

Eventually the whole mass impacted with the sub-floors and then the ground.

All that energy created by that huge falling mass could not be absorbed by the ground so it when back the way it came.

UP.

For every action there HAS to be a reaction.

The floors above the impact areas did not collapse until they all "rode" the building to the ground.

This can be seen in the videos that are available.

The energy released back UP into what was now rubble.

That is except for the energy that went out into the ground area effectively destroying the subway line and a number of the underground areas nearby.

The floors, now collapsed and now under pressure for the weight of the entire building and its contents, then again received all that energy and pressure again.

The facade of the towers, shown in the picture on somebody's post, was from the very top of the building and survived because there was nothing more to impact on it.

It was left in the position as shown from the return of energy.

The floors were held or hung from the central core of the building which was corrugated industrial steel.

Like branches radiating out from the trunk of a tree.

The concrete that was applied as a fire suppressant and sound dampener did not have a very high PSI, probably no more than sidewalk concrete.

And yes, you can pulverize this type of concrete until it is powder.

It is done all the time with recycled concrete that is now used in asphalt products.

It is crushed,the metal inside is removed with magnets and it is used as sand and fines in asphalt.

Any concrete can be reduced to fine powder with a crusher unit if you continually run it through the machine.

The "puffs" always seen in the videos from each corner of the building as "proof" of the use of explosives is laughable.

The corners of the building did not carry the load of the structure.

The original design did not include those I beams at each corner and the structures could have been built with glass panes at the corners.

The designers decided against that because the workers inside would become easy without seeing something in the corners.

The I beams only reach from floor to ceiling and were only basically positioned on top of each other.

The "puffs" seen in the videos is the energy being transferred down at the corners through each I beam as the buildings collapsed.

The "puffs" is from concrete of each floor, top and bottom at the corners, being crush to powder by the I beam plates.

If it was a "controlled demolition" you would also see them in the upper, momentarily intact, floors above where the plane impacted.

And you don't.

edit on 17-9-2011 by IamJustanAmerican because: (no reason given)





top topics
 
34
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join