It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
How much mass?
How much does it affect the ke?
What happens during the 12' fall between floors?
Is ke again increased again?
What happens when they hit the ground?
Do you expect them to remain intact?
If you're unaware of these photos and testimonies being posted here on ATS already, then you are behind the curve.
Baseless assertion
Lie.
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.
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.
The columns are, not the floors and their connections.
Floors dont support other floors. Columns do.
Who says it was floating?
It was being supported by the columns.
But stuff falls on floors, not on columns.
Oh brother.......
No. the amount of momentum transferred is dictated by strentgh of the connections. They are not of infinite strength.
*Ahem*
Do you agree that ke is gained when the mass is accelerated by gravity during the appx 12' of air space between floors?
Originally posted by ErtaiNaGia
They never got a chance to hit the ground, because they were vaporized in mid air.
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?
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?
LOL !!!!!
So how was all of the concrete vaporized?
As a result of the impacts?
Or explosives?
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.
Originally posted by ErtaiNaGia
Steel used in the WTC: 200,000 tons
Concrete used in the WTC: 780,000 metric tons
www.infoplease.com...
Originally posted by Cassius666
Well what do you think?
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
I was pointing out that there was a great deal of drywall used in the construction of the building.
"The density of normal concrete is 2400 kg/m3 and the density of lightweight concrete is 1750 kg/m3
Times 220 floors = 137,000 tons.
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.
BTW, what "vaporized" the concrete floors into dust?
Don't dodge....
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.
"If we consider that the total mass of concrete in the two towers was about 150,000"
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!
Originally posted by ErtaiNaGia
And who is this guy that you are quoting?
What are his sources?
Most all of his assumptions are just utterly wrong.
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.