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 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?
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.
Originally posted by ErtaiNaGia
You are ignoring the concrete around the columns, the concrete in the columns in the core, and other essentials.
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.
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.
Originally posted by ErtaiNaGia
IT is irrational to state that your calculation is fact, when you have no proof to back up your assertion.
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
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 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 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?
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?
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 looking back, I see that I have responded to each and Every one of your points
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.....
Wrong. I asked what you think vaporized the concrete? No definitive answer yet.... Only dodging...
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.
Originally posted by ErtaiNaGia
And since most all of the concrete was turned to dust, that is a substantial figure indeed.
Originally posted by ErtaiNaGia
And that's just absurd.
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.
Originally posted by ErtaiNaGia
I'll check on that.
How much was due to explosives?
fairly obvious, but I wanted to see if you have a number on explosive charges, how big they were, etc...
I'll check on that.
I'm waiting.
It's not all that hard to do the calc.
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.
Originally posted by liejunkie01
I believe that anok twists Newton;s laws to fit his description.
Originally posted by ErtaiNaGia
I'd say most of it... Concrete does not readily vaporise, even when smashed between heavy objects.... it just fractures.