Nov 2000 Thread: "If A 707 Hit The World Trade Center?... "

reply to post by ANOK

Hmm? Want to re-think your claims a little?

Nope.

The resources were easily available. Re read your source.

amazingrust.com...

I imagine the heat of a jet fuel flame is a pretty descent mixing method.

reply to post by ANOK


Then I guess we know why the core remained intact while the smaller parts came crashing down, and why the collapse of the core took nearly half a minute. Good thing there were no demos. Otherwise it would have all came down together and the mystery would remain.

Originally posted by Gorman91
Yep. But that's not a whole lot of difference when you're talking about 400,000 tons,

The steel alone was 100,000 tons according to the NIST.

The concrete should have been concentrated toward the bottom also to provide the weight to resist the torque produced by the wind. But we don't have the data to know what the distribution was.

Your assumption of equal density through the entire height is ridiculous.

You still haven't explained that picture. What was the material? What was the weight? What were the initial conditions? What were the final conditions?

psik

reply to post by psikeyhackr


It was Minimalist in design. Open your eyes and look.

Seems pretty consistent to me.

You could probably guesstimate what you want to know within acceptable levels.

i.dailymail.co.uk...

sadredearth.com...

www.allartnews.com... n-River-1970-as-seen-from-Jersey-City.jpg

www.aiany.org...

reply to post by psikeyhackr


But we know the thickness of the concrete floors and the surface area covered, as well as the type of concrete used. So armed with that information you can come up with a good estimate of the mass (of concrete) per floor.

We calculate the mass of concrete on each WTC 1 floor as follows:
Core floor area = 862 m2
Out-of-core (Office space) floor areas:
2 long one-way slabs = 1,225 m2
2 short one-way slabs = 486 m2
4 two-way slabs = 1,137 m2
Total out-of-core area = 2848 m2
The floors in the core areas were made of normal weight concrete, density 1760 kg/m3
The floors in the office areas were made of lightweight concrete, density 1500 kg/m3
Volume of 5-inch normal weight concrete per floor = 109.5 m3
Weight of normal weight concrete per floor = 193 tonnes
Volume of 4-inch thick lightweight concrete per floor = 289.4 m3
Weight of lightweight concrete per floor = 434 tonnes
Total weight of concrete on one floor of WTC 1 = 627 tonnes
source

Is that what you're looking for?

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by psikeyhackr

 

It was Minimalist in design. Open your eyes and look.

Seems pretty consistent to me.

You could probably guesstimate what you want to know within acceptable levels.

I am not interested in the minimalism of the design in terms of the appearance of the building. I am only interested in the strength in relation to the weight which would not be minimized. The greater the strength to weight ration the more difficult a collapse would be.

You aren't the only architect I have encountered trying to discuss this subject.

letsrollforums.com...

MikeR claims to be an architect and he talks the same kind of nonsense as you do.

psik

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by ANOK

 

Then I guess we know why the core remained intact while the smaller parts came crashing down, and why the collapse of the core took nearly half a minute. Good thing there were no demos. Otherwise it would have all came down together and the mystery would remain.

Part of the core remained standing until it collapsed straight down. That does not help your case, it only creates more questions.

But regardless, the collapses should never have got to that point in the first place, as I have shown the fires were not enough to initiated steel failure. Not until someone, anyone, explains how the collapses initiated in the first place, will I bother to take seriously any hypothesis about how the collapses actually continued after initiation.

You have so much going against your reasoning, whatever way you want to spin it there is a problem with what NIST claims, and what NIST neglected to cover, that you are filling in with nonsense from 911myths etc...

Originally posted by PhotonEffect
reply to post by psikeyhackr

 

But we know the thickness of the concrete floors and the surface area covered, as well as the type of concrete used. So armed with that information you can come up with a good estimate of the mass (of concrete) per floor.

We calculate the mass of concrete on each WTC 1 floor as follows:
Core floor area = 862 m2
Out-of-core (Office space) floor areas:
2 long one-way slabs = 1,225 m2
2 short one-way slabs = 486 m2
4 two-way slabs = 1,137 m2
Total out-of-core area = 2848 m2
The floors in the core areas were made of normal weight concrete, density 1760 kg/m3
The floors in the office areas were made of lightweight concrete, density 1500 kg/m3
Volume of 5-inch normal weight concrete per floor = 109.5 m3
Weight of normal weight concrete per floor = 193 tonnes
Volume of 4-inch thick lightweight concrete per floor = 289.4 m3
Weight of lightweight concrete per floor = 434 tonnes
Total weight of concrete on one floor of WTC 1 = 627 tonnes
source

Is that what you're looking for?

Seen it before. I have communicated with Frank Greening before also.

Now why does this data from before 9/11 seem to be so common?

* Steel used in the WTC: 200,000 tons (I will use metric tons, not short tons. A metric ton is 1000 kg).
* Volume of steel (at 7900 kg/cubic meter): 25,300 cubic meters.
* Concrete used: 425,000 cubic yards concrete = 325,000 cubic meters
* Mass of concrete (at 2400 kg/cubic meter): 780 million kg or 780,000 metric tons
* Dimensions: 415 and 417 meters high by 63 meters square
* The "bathtub" - the sunken basement of the buildings, is 60 feet (18 meters) deep.

www.uwgb.edu...

425,000 cubic yards of concrete would be more than 300,000 tons per building even if it was all the lightweight 110 lb/cu.ft. concrete. There was more concrete than just in the floors. So where was it?

The floors outside the core was poured on corrugated pans. The thickness varied between 4 and 5 inches. I have seen pictures of the edge of the pans. I use 4.33 inches as the floor thickness. My computations yield a weight of 600 tons for the weight of the standard floors outside the core. But there were 84 of those types of floors in each tower. The mechanical floors were heavier.

psik

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

Seen it before. I have communicated with Frank Greening before also.

Well that's good.

* Steel used in the WTC: 200,000 tons (I will use metric tons, not short tons. A metric ton is 1000 kg).
* Volume of steel (at 7900 kg/cubic meter): 25,300 cubic meters.
* Concrete used: 425,000 cubic yards concrete = 325,000 cubic meters
* Mass of concrete (at 2400 kg/cubic meter): 780 million kg or 780,000 metric tons
* Dimensions: 415 and 417 meters high by 63 meters square
* The "bathtub" - the sunken basement of the buildings, is 60 feet (18 meters) deep.

www.uwgb.edu...


425,000 cubic yards of concrete would be more than 300,000 tons per building even if it was all the lightweight 110 lb/cu.ft. concrete. There was more concrete than just in the floors. So where was it?

I suppose a rather healthy amount was used for the walls of the foundation (the "tub"), no?

Click here to learn more about this warning.

reply to post by ANOK

Part of the core remained standing until it collapsed straight down. That does not help your case, it only creates more questions.

Maybe for you, not for me. No horizontal bounds for the core, it just falls apart like a hand full of macaroni.

But regardless, the collapses should never have got to that point in the first place, as I have shown the fires were not enough to initiated steel failure. Not until someone, anyone, explains how the collapses initiated in the first place, will I bother to take seriously any hypothesis about how the collapses actually continued after initiation.

Told you already. The resources to make thermite were sufficient. Jet fuel weakens it, the thermite fails it.

You have so much going against your reasoning, whatever way you want to spin it there is a problem with what NIST claims, and what NIST neglected to cover, that you are filling in with nonsense from 911myths etc...

I don't really give a damn what NIST or some other ogvernment agency claims. I care about what I can see and know. Wasn't it NIST who claimed it was still molten days after the collapse? ha! Are you honestly expecting me to take their claims seriously?

Click here to learn more about this warning.

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by psikeyhackr

 

The level of ignorance from one posit is amazing. Please go back and re read stuff because right now I feel like I'm dealing with someone whom is incapable of understanding terms more than 3 words long without mixing them together.

So you can talk yourself into believing someone else is stupid because you don't explain a picture that you post. What is the material? What is the weight? What was the initial condition?

You don't distinguish floors AND LEVELS. As you come down the buildings more and more FLOORS must be supported. The FLOORS are attached to the CORE and PERIMETER COLUMNS. So the steel in the columns on each LEVEL must support the weight of all LEVELS above. The columns must support their own weight also.

So explain the still photo otherwise why did you post it. Or did you not create it and you don't have the information. Is that it?

You said:

I made something like this in school freshman year of architecture major. I called it the time bomb because it literally was a timed explosive architecture.

So does that mean it is not actually your creation and therefore you can't answer questions about it? THEN YOU SHOULD NOT HAVE POSTED IT!!!

psik

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

You don't distinguish floors AND LEVELS. As you come down the buildings more and more FLOORS must be supported. The FLOORS are attached to the CORE and PERIMETER COLUMNS. So the steel in the columns on each LEVEL must support the weight of all LEVELS above. The columns must support their own weight also.

Ya sure, the columns and core support the weight above so long as it's a static load- which is what skyscrapers are designed to do...

However, all bets are off once that static load becomes a dynamic one...

But you knew this already I suppose.

reply to post by psikeyhackr

So you can talk yourself into believing someone else is stupid because you don't explain a picture that you post

I did. You ignored it.

What is the material? What is the weight? What was the initial condition?

Plastic stuff (found it in the garbage), probably around 5 lbs, I guess a wood frame.

You don't distinguish floors AND LEVELS. As you come down the buildings more and more FLOORS must be supported. The FLOORS are attached to the CORE and PERIMETER COLUMNS. So the steel in the columns on each LEVEL must support the weight of all LEVELS above. The columns must support their own weight also.

Yes, and it;s simple economics to create a ratio of mass per structure versus mass per floor. Different sort of designs come into effect such as lighter floors having more height room for different customers who desire it, if they so desire. Denser spaces are cheaper because there's less floor space, and in turn economics come into effect to how to sell the space. In the end, it is more profitable to keep the mass per floor pretty even, and as least as possible.

o explain the still photo otherwise why did you post it. Or did you not create it and you don't have the information. Is that it?

You will find your answer several posts back.... You know, the one you ignored because you're acting superior when you're my equal.

So does that mean it is not actually your creation and therefore you can't answer questions about it? THEN YOU SHOULD NOT HAVE POSTED IT!!!

Now where do you get that from? Nobody ever got anywhere by assuming a million things. In fact, that's how the 9/11 conspiracy started.

reply to post by Gorman91


Almost made my to leave my safety in "the government did it zone".
Nice points you put out there. I really really found the one with the outer column still standing as evidence for no explosives. And the free-fall theory have been nagging on me for a wile. Since i never understood how they got my 20 ish seconds to become 9-10 seconds.

Not saying Taliban did it thou. Might been aliens. What the f do we know, right?

Thanks for the info.

reply to post by FejkNick


I believe the government knew. The evidence is there.

Best I can say, is that after defeating the soviets, the government got cocky. It's evident in its policy and attitude. And they just didn't take the idea of farmers following an oil tycoon bringing down buildings as a serious note to investigate. Then it blew up in their faces, so they overreacted. This is not some king-of-the-world, new world order conspiracy with a disaster to usher in the new age of their ruler. It's more akin to the British assuming they would retake the colonies in a few months, never anticipating a 10 year war that would bankrupt them.

Then again, maybe they just felt like being a douche bag. Lie you said, what do we know?


The evidence is sufficient to say they knew the plot existed. What they did with that knowledge is simply unknown.

reply to post by Gorman91

The structure itself would survive, as the buildings are surrounded by other buildings, and thus only a hit could take place high up on the structure (meaning not at or reall near ground level) If it could somehow penetrate and hit the base, that would take it out completely, but a hit 500 or 600 feet up most likely wouldn't take out the whole thing.

A valid perspective.

**Attention**

Please refrain from attacking each other and discuss the topic. Further remarks regarding people's stupidity or ignornace, or any other thinly veiled insult will result in a temporary suspension of posting privileges minimum of 72hrs.

Thank You.

~Keeper
ATS Moderator