According to Top Russian General, 9/11 was a Globalist Inside Job

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by ANOK

 

Wrong again - (mechanics). Not talking about mechanics.

No, pounds per square inch is pressure, period.

How can it be weight? It is a measurement of the amount of pressure exerted per square inch of area. Weight is measured in pounds, not pounds per square inch.

And your 'we're not talking about mechanics' is hilarious. How dumb can you get? If you don't understand that, it is no wonder you can't understand the laws of motion. All you can do is parrot what people like Bazant have said and pretend you know what you're talking about, but when it comes to actually knowing the subject you are lost.

Here Einstein, another definition...

Pounds or pound force per square inch (psi, lb/in^2, pfsi or lbf/in^2) is a widely used British and American unit of measure for pressure. 1 psi equals 6,894.76 Pascals.

www.sensorsone.co.uk...

We're not talking about mechanics, LOL!

mechanics

me·chan·ics
   [muh-kan-iks] Show IPA
–noun
1.
( used with a singular verb ) the branch of physics that deals with the action of forces on bodies and with motion, comprised of kinetics, statics, and kinematics.
2.
( used with a singular verb ) the theoretical and practical application of this science to machinery, mechanical appliances, etc.
3.
( usually used with a plural verb ) the technical aspect or working part; mechanism; structure.

dictionary.reference.com...

Not that it makes any difference to what psi is.

Hooper appears to be working alone at the moment, minus his minders....

...this would explain the tripe he is spouting about PSI etc....

Normally he doesn't make these mistakes...maybe he's lost his Manuals?? Bet they are expensive too.

They'll probably take it off his salary...he's clearly not ready to "go it alone' on ATS yet, and we all know how his employers are struggling financially at the moment...

Notice how the OP has been beautifully steered off-track?

Nice work again boys !!

reply to post by hooper

Don't get it - what with the army of engineers and other professionals all so indignant about the NIST reports why they don't they prepare their own report? What do they need NIST data for? Sounds like a lame and lazy excuse to me.

I know you don't get it mate. It is about national security. When you start looking for answers to the remaining questions the wall of national security continual pops up. There are a lot of damning reports out there raising serious questions about the integrity of government. A lot of the information to either proved or disprove the allegations is kept by organisations like NIST and the Pentagon and shielded by the excuse of 'National Security'.

So what is in the interest of nations security? The answers to a crime involving 3000 fatalities and other damage or preserving the status quo? Considering the allegations I do believe that the people making the assessment to inhibit information due to national security are experiencing a conflict of interest and are unable to be objective about all of the national implications.

Globalist new economists, the names keep changing, but its always the same people, those who control the money.

reply to post by ANOK

Expression of Dead Load in Structural Calculations

There are several convenient ways to express the intensity of dead loads.

Floors, Roofs, and Walls

Most floor, roof, and wall systems have fairly uniform density and their weights can be expressed in terms of weight per unit area. With dead loads expressed in this manner, tributary area concepts can be used to determine the forces exerted on the supporting members.

To compute the average unit weight (i.e. weight per unit area) such a system, the weights of all items in system are expressed in terms of their weight per square foot of surface area even if they are located as particular locations.

www.bgstructuralengineering.com...

Here ya go.

reply to post by psikeyhackr

But the floors were steel pans and trusses so it was not just the weight of concrete. So you still don't have the weight of the concrete in the towers. We know they used 110 lb per cu ft and 150 lb per cu ft. But the total weight in the towers is still not specified.

Look again, its pounds per square foot of concrete, not per cubic foot. If you know the square footage of each level you can calculate accordingly, and being that the towers were basically a square it shouldn't be too difficult. Good luck.

reply to post by ANOK

Not that it makes any difference to what psi is.

Yep, since I said pounds per square foot, the defintion for pounds per square inch doesn't make a difference. You do realize that inches and feet are different, right? That they're not the same thing?

******* ATTENTION *******

We seem to have lost the plot a bit. The thread topic is According to Top Russian General, 9/11 was a Globalist Inside Job .

Please stay on topic.

Originally posted by Cassius666
Globalist new economists, the names keep changing, but its always the same people, those who control the money.

And who do you think "controls the money"? Like I really need to ask.

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by psikeyhackr

 

But the floors were steel pans and trusses so it was not just the weight of concrete. So you still don't have the weight of the concrete in the towers. We know they used 110 lb per cu ft and 150 lb per cu ft. But the total weight in the towers is still not specified.

Look again, its pounds per square foot of concrete, not per cubic foot. If you know the square footage of each level you can calculate accordingly, and being that the towers were basically a square it shouldn't be too difficult. Good luck.

The type of concrete poured on the floor pans outside the core was 110 lb/cu ft.

You look again:

Normal weight concrete (150 pcf) was used in the core and mechanical floors and lightweight concrete (110 pcf) was used in the floor system for the tenant spaces between the building core and exterior.

www.google.com... AKs4YTCBw&usg=AFQjCNEwKzBEFnS1MjpWyo6aiEDlDVbx9Q&sig2=l6s0tlsnxkIK2gnCf9Yecw

Just search the page for "pcf".

psik

Originally posted by pshea38
9/11 WAS A TELEVISUAL EXTRAVAGANZA AND A HOAX.
All senior politicians and players worldwide know this.
They won't say anything. They are therefore complicit.
Read between the lines in the interview.
No Terrorists-No planes-few if any victims on 9/11.
Media Fakery has tricked us all into validating the agendas of a few.
The world is in the hands of NAZIS, and we don't know it.
Everything we are seeing is orchestrated with an endgame in mind, and it is shaping
up as though we are in for some big finish.

'like flies to wanton boys are we to these dogs.
They kill us for their sport'.

shame on you. I worked at bluecross, and my sister worked for cantor fitzgerald. luckily my sister worked at an office in CT, and I worked in white plains. I was told gruesome stories about bodies falling in the courtyard and bodies cut in half from first hand eyewitnesses who were there in the building when the jets hit.

shame on you for your insensitivity to the innocent dead, and shame on you for your ignorance

reply to post by torontoguy123

Osama bin Laden and "Al Qaeda" cannot be the organizers nor the performers of the September 11 attacks. They do not have the necessary organization, resources or leaders. Thus, a team of professionals had to be created and the Arab kamikazes are just extras to mask the operation.

Al Quaeda did not have the resources or organization to buy 19 plane tickets? Or send a couple of guys to flight school? There is no "thus" here. Were not talking about putting a man on the moon or building the Hoover dam. The whole thing could have been, and probably was, organized on someone's laptop.

This is PRESSURE not WEIGHT.

Floors were designed for a uniform live load of 100 pounds per square foot (psf) over any 200-square-foor area with allowable live load reductions taken over larger areas. At building corners, this amounted to a uniform live load (unreduced) of 55 psf.

www.serendipity.li...

psik

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
This is PRESSURE not WEIGHT.

Floors were designed for a uniform live load of 100 pounds per square foot (psf) over any 200-square-foor area with allowable live load reductions taken over larger areas. At building corners, this amounted to a uniform live load (unreduced) of 55 psf.

www.serendipity.li...

psik

Yes, it is kind of, but its not what I am talking about. Try reading the NIST report. Why are you avoiding reading that report? What do you think is in there that you are so afraid of? The report won't bite you.

Yeah gotta really take those Russkies seriously! Like when they say things like this:

Putin sent to Russia by God: Kremlin aide

Vladimir Putin was sent to Russia by God to help it deal with its troubles in the early post-Soviet era, the Kremlin's top political adviser was quoted as saying on Friday.

news.yahoo.com...

Yep, very reliable they are!

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
This is PRESSURE not WEIGHT.

Floors were designed for a uniform live load of 100 pounds per square foot (psf) over any 200-square-foor area with allowable live load reductions taken over larger areas. At building corners, this amounted to a uniform live load (unreduced) of 55 psf.

www.serendipity.li...

psik

What was the floor's vertical dynamic loading limit?

Also, why dont you read the NIST report? How can you attack something and scoff at it, if you dont even know whats in it? Seems pretty ignorant to me. I read it. So I do understand it, and it makes sense.

Originally posted by hooper

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
This is PRESSURE not WEIGHT.

Floors were designed for a uniform live load of 100 pounds per square foot (psf) over any 200-square-foor area with allowable live load reductions taken over larger areas. At building corners, this amounted to a uniform live load (unreduced) of 55 psf.

www.serendipity.li...

psik

Yes, it is kind of, but its not what I am talking about. Try reading the NIST report. Why are you avoiding reading that report? What do you think is in there that you are so afraid of? The report won't bite you.

I am not reading 10,000 pages of what is obviously mostly bullsh#.

It took me two weeks to conclude that airliners could not destroy buildings that big that fast. But it is the way the strength has to be distributed to support the distribution of mass that makes it obvious. So nitwits spend 3 years and $20,000,000 producing a 10,000 page report but can't do something as simple as specifying the TONS of STEEL and TONS of CONCRETE that were on each and every level of the towers even though the towers obviously had to hold themselves up for 28 years.

Structural engineers pretending their area of expertise is more difficult to understand than it actually is.

psik

Originally posted by GenRadek

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
This is PRESSURE not WEIGHT.

Floors were designed for a uniform live load of 100 pounds per square foot (psf) over any 200-square-foor area with allowable live load reductions taken over larger areas. At building corners, this amounted to a uniform live load (unreduced) of 55 psf.

www.serendipity.li...

psik

What was the floor's vertical dynamic loading limit?

Also, why dont you read the NIST report? How can you attack something and scoff at it, if you dont even know whats in it? Seems pretty ignorant to me. I read it. So I do understand it, and it makes sense.

I an not reading 10,000 pages of what is obviously mostly bullshi#. I have been telling people for 4 years that the NIST report does not even specify the total amount of concrete in the towers. Not one person has come back with that information and where it is specified in the report. But they do it for the steel in three places. Anybody that has read that entire report is really DUMB. I suspect people just CLAIM to have done it.

I already talked about the difference between FLOOR and LEVEL.

Are you talking about the loading limit of the floor outside the core or the columns and beams inside the core? Those have to be very different. It will be the same for all of the 84 identical FLOORS. But it would have to increase down the core.

If the people who wrote the NIST report are so smart why did they say in 3 places that the distribution of weight was necessary and then not supply the information? This is grade school physics. People are deliberately obfuscating it. Where is the energy required to collapse each level of the core specified?

People trying to explain what cannot possibly have happened do have a problem. They need to leave out information. Where is the engineering school that has built a model that can completely collapse? If the buildings did that then why shouldn't it be possible to make a physical model be able to do it?

The problem is all of the people who BELIEVE WHAT THEY ARE TOLD even when it is stupid expect everybody to believe what they are told. The real physics can be demonstrated.

www.youtube.com...

www.youtube.com...

psik

reply to post by psikeyhackr

I am not reading 10,000 pages of what is obviously mostly bullsh#.

Well noted. You haven't read it but know that it is BS.

It took me two weeks to conclude that airliners could not destroy buildings that big that fast. But it is the way the strength has to be distributed to support the distribution of mass that makes it obvious.

You've reached a conclusion but freely admit that you don't have the information needed to reach a conclusion. Pretty neat. Makes sense, you know what is and is not in a report you have not read and can reach a conclusion without the data you demand is necessary to reach a conclusion.

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by psikeyhackr

 

I am not reading 10,000 pages of what is obviously mostly bullsh#.

Well noted. You haven't read it but know that it is BS.

It took me two weeks to conclude that airliners could not destroy buildings that big that fast. But it is the way the strength has to be distributed to support the distribution of mass that makes it obvious.

You've reached a conclusion but freely admit that you don't have the information needed to reach a conclusion. Pretty neat. Makes sense, you know what is and is not in a report you have not read and can reach a conclusion without the data you demand is necessary to reach a conclusion.

You can talk a lot but you can't tell us where the NCSTAR1 report specifies the total amount of concrete in the towers which I say isn't there even though I have not read so much as 400 pages. That is what computers are for. Doing the idiotic busywork of searching.

People like you can't figure out the important information to search for to resolve the grade school physics problem. Search for "center of gravity" and "center of mass". The NCSTAR1 report says the top of the south tower tilted more than 20 degrees and how much north/south and how much east/west but not where the center of gravity was so we can figure out whether or not it was still above the core.

That is one of the peculiar things about 9/11. Why didn't the top of the south tower crush one side of the building more than the other and fall down the side? That 10,000 page report is STUPID! Some people are just too dumb to figure out some of the reasons why it is STUPID.

psik