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.
Originally posted by Cassius666
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)
Originally posted by Varemia
Originally posted by Cassius666
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)
I think it likely could have. The potential energy was pretty high, given the weight and mass of the tower above the impact point, along with 12 feet of space to accelerate.
Also, in no pancake collapse will the floors collapse symmetrically onto each-other. This was one of the reasons cited for the straight downward momentum. The collapse was non-uniform, and was thus able to continue applying force downward using gravity as the main driving force, the space in-between the floors acting as an accelerator.
Originally posted by Joey Canoli
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.
Originally posted by Bob Sholtz
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.
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.
200,000 tons of steel used in the construction of the World Trade Center complex
425,000 cubic yards of concrete used in the construction of the World Trade Center complex
Originally posted by Cassius666
The potential energy is the topic of the thread and discussed in the opening thread. Id like some input into weather the figures given are realistic. Also the quote I provided and the link argues why the potential energy wouldnt have been enough.
And there's the handwave.
Nevermind then.
We know how you look now...
Originally posted by Cassius666
Okay then.
Using your weights, it is 770 tons/ floor
Times 220 floors = 169,000 metric tons.
If I may.
hypertextbook.com...
I am sorry but it looks like 150.000 is way off.
Originally posted by Varemia
Originally posted by Cassius666
The potential energy is the topic of the thread and discussed in the opening thread. Id like some input into weather the figures given are realistic. Also the quote I provided and the link argues why the potential energy wouldnt have been enough.
It's like putting a few pounds of pressure on the center of a toothpick. It will break.
He assumes nothing.
"If we consider that the total mass of the concrete in the two towers was about 150,000 tons...
Originally posted by Cassius666
reply to post by Varemia
No, in a top down demolition the top part crushes the bottom part as long as it stays intact. It does not work on every building though, such as steel framed building.
But that isnt the topic of the thread. The topic is about checking the numbers of the OP.edit on 16-9-2011 by Cassius666 because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by Varemia
Originally posted by Bob Sholtz
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.
Actually, in one case you have 9 stories of mass/weight beginning the collapse from the top down.
In the second case, you have 90 stories of mass/weight (that is ten times the mass) falling on 9 stories. The 9 stories would be instantly crushed, and then the 90 stories would be destroyed by gravity and there being no way for the building to come to rest without a solid foundation.
In my opinion, this argument is empty and does not say anything about the collapse.
Originally posted by ErtaiNaGia
Oh please... His assumptions are fallacious, and hist conclusions FROM those assumptions are equally wrong.
Im not "Handwaving" them... I am REJECTING it, because it is wrong.
Originally posted by Cassius666
reply to post by Varemia
It has been tested and applied. Its called the Verinage or French demolition technique. You dont see the top part initiating the collapse and turning into dust. The dop part drives the collapse and stays intact till the bottom or till its out of juice.
But we are going offtopic here.
hypertextbook.com...
The weight of the tower was 450.000 tons if that helps.
Originally posted by ErtaiNaGia
He never cites his reasoning for this assumption, nor does he back it up with sources.
We fixed his concrete weights. You MUST agree with the weights per floor. They are you numbers.
His reasoning behind is claim for saying that only 1/3 of the concrete was given.
Sure he does. He gave the floor area inside/outside the core, and the weight for each type of concrete.
You have no rational reason to object to the weight per floor now.
You cannot object.