The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

[Agi Hammerthief]

there, there /pats psik on shoulder

[felltoearth]

Well the Big TWO ONE is approaching.

You just have to Google "425,000 WTC" to find sources specifying the amount of concrete in the towers..

Hilariously the NIST NCSTAR1 report is not one of them.


WTC Specifications
425,000 cu.yd. concrete 200,000 tons of steel
https://hypertextbook.com/facts/2004/EricChen.shtml

The material expenditures on the towers were enormous; 192,000 tons of steel, 425,000 cubic yards of concrete, 43,600 windows with 572,000 square feet of glass, 1,143,000 square feet of aluminum sheet, 198 miles of ductwork, and 12,000 miles of electrical cable.

https://rarehistoricalphotos.com/twin-t ... otographs/

Curious that this says 192,000 tons of steel. The NIST says 200,000.

[810,658]
[445,672] Sept 29, 2016
psik

Yes IOW groundhog day. We went through the concrete figures. Those “sources” don’t show their figuring. A lot of concrete is in the super basement alone.

See you next year.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[psikeyhackr]

Well the Big TWO ONE is approaching.

You just have to Google "425,000 WTC" to find sources specifying the amount of concrete in the towers..

Hilariously the NIST NCSTAR1 report is not one of them.


WTC Specifications
425,000 cu.yd. concrete 200,000 tons of steel
https://hypertextbook.com/facts/2004/EricChen.shtml

The material expenditures on the towers were enormous; 192,000 tons of steel, 425,000 cubic yards of concrete, 43,600 windows with 572,000 square feet of glass, 1,143,000 square feet of aluminum sheet, 198 miles of ductwork, and 12,000 miles of electrical cable.

https://rarehistoricalphotos.com/twin-t ... otographs/

Curious that this says 192,000 tons of steel. The NIST says 200,000.

[810,658]
[445,672] Sept 29, 2016
psik

Yes IOW groundhog day. We went through the concrete figures. Those “sources” don’t show their figuring. A lot of concrete is in the super basement alone.

See you next year.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Oh, your calculations matter more than multiple sources, some of which existed before 9/11. That is funny. Of course that does not explain how they agree with each other on the steel but you want to imply that they are wrong about the concrete.

And then you want to mention the basements. Maybe you should tell Frank Greening about the basements. He did these really impressive calculations regarding energy transfers in the building collapse. Oh yeah, the entire mass of the building was above ground, which he divided be 110, resulting in calculations assuming that every level was the same mass.

https://archive.org/details/WTC-REPORT-GREENING

Why don't you try finding data on how much mass was below ground versus above ground? I have only seen one place claiming to have it but I don't believe it. Ever heard of Gregory Urich. He created a spreadsheet supposedly having data on every level. I spent hours studying it before I noticed what made absolutely no sense. He had mass and potential energy for every level. I finally noticed that he did not have a column for height. How do you compute potential energy without height?

But the cool thing about spreadsheets is the ability to add columns and do calculations on the cells in columns. So I divided the potential energy column by the mass column to get height. Every level in his fictitious building was 12' 4". None of the levels in the real building were that height. Most were 12', mechanical levels were 14', the ground level and the first 3 or 4 were different. So Urich's entire spreadsheet was junk and why would a software guy in Europe have it.

Physics is not about BELIEVING and making 1360ft skyscrapers hold themselves up means getting weight and strength correct.

So the Twin Towers Affair is still bullshit with morons believing crap.

[felltoearth]

Your sources have no calculations for the concrete and as far as I can tell are all referencing the same tourist brochure.

I actually looked at the plans and drawings by the actual designers at least. If you have anything better, do show it.

[psikeyhackr]

Your sources have no calculations for the concrete and as far as I can tell are all referencing the same tourist brochure.

I actually looked at the plans and drawings by the actual designers at least. If you have anything better, do show it.

You are still stuck with the ASSUMPTION that your plans and drawings are accurate. Didn't the designers have to figure out how much concrete they would use just to do cost estimates on the building? Shouldn't that total have to be written somewhere? Why is the number for the steel so consistent but the concrete supposedly is not.

What is your motive for defending not having data? Is that good science? You are just claiming to be right because you did more work. Did you build a model that can collapse?


[811153]
psik

[felltoearth]

I asked for YOUR working out or at least SOME working out rather than a tourist brochure. You still haven’t provided it. It’ll be another 21 years.

See you on the next ground hog day.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[psikeyhackr]

I asked for YOUR working out or at least SOME working out rather than a tourist brochure. You still haven’t provided it. It’ll be another 21 years.

See you on the next ground hog day.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

You seem to care about playing ego games with me.

I just care about solving the problem. I do not give a shit about you.

For the nation that put men on the Moon 50 years ago to not be able to provide the data on the distributions of steel and concrete down a1360 foot skyscraper when anyone can find a picture of the Eiffel Tower is pretty hilarious.

ET&TTD.jpg (273.97 KiB) Viewed 511 times

[The_Metatron]

What’s the fucking point with you?

There is no answer you will accept, anyway. So, I ask again:

What’s the fucking point with you?

[Hermit]

For the nation that put men on the Moon 50 years ago to not be able to provide the data on the distributions of steel and concrete down a1360 foot skyscraper when anyone can find a picture of the Eiffel Tower is pretty hilarious.

No mention of the Tacoma Narrows bridge. How disappointing.

[psikeyhackr]

For the nation that put men on the Moon 50 years ago to not be able to provide the data on the distributions of steel and concrete down a1360 foot skyscraper when anyone can find a picture of the Eiffel Tower is pretty hilarious.

No mention of the Tacoma Narrows bridge. How disappointing.

No link to a good model of the North Tower collapse?

Not disappointing since totally expected.
[811384]

[Agi Hammerthief]

What’s the fucking point with you?

There is no answer you will accept, anyway. So, I ask again:

What’s the fucking point with you?

who are you asking?
quite frankly I blame the moderation team for him (again/still) beeing a member of this forum.

I think the fucking point is that he’s an embarrassment to other 9/11 nutters and hopefully they stay away while he’s pissing around here.

[psikeyhackr]

Greg Urich's paper.

http://journalof911studies.com/volume/2 ... dPeWtc.pdf

I presume you guys never heard of it.

Here is the spreadsheet:

http://www.911research.wtc7.net/papers/ ... PeWtc1.htm

I just did a search. Urich's spreadsheet has not been mentioned in this thread since 2015.

[felltoearth]

I think the fucking point is that he’s an embarrassment to other 9/11 nutters and hopefully they stay away while he’s pissing around here.

As evidenced by the pat on the head the AIA accredited architect dude gave him in that email.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[psikeyhackr]

I think the fucking point is that he’s an embarrassment to other 9/11 nutters and hopefully they stay away while he’s pissing around here.

As evidenced by the pat on the head the AIA accredited architect dude gave him in that email.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

"pat on the head"

LOL

Funny that you don't actually quote that architect from post 9718.

He is into explosives.

People are not supposed to research your innuendos.

Fascinating topic Karl!

I am copying physics teacher David Chandler and master experimenter and civil engineer Jon Cole because I think that they will be fascinated by the model that you made to try to understand better how the twin towers might’ve collapsed, or not. John Cole’s physical models are quite impressive also and I think you will appreciate and learn much:

https://911speakout.org/jonathan-cole/

As for me, I am much more impressed with the physical evidence of explosives in the world trade center and the eyewitness testimony also. I think that there is so much room for argument in the model making, as you yourself point out With regard to scaling, etc., that a jury would be quite confused by expert testimony from each side. However they would be quite convinced looking at the massive series of explosions in the towers themselves:

https://youtu.be/dzSXjGbYIm4

Hope this helps!

Richard

---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Richard Gage, AIA, Architect <RichardGage911@gmail.com>

[felltoearth]

The guy is gently telling you model making is a waste of time.

You’ve wasted your time and he is delusional.

Enjoy the rest of your life.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[psikeyhackr]

Enjoy the rest of your life.

You mean that you are going to stop posting at me so I don't waste time with your bullshit?

Not quite true since I find your silly responses somewhat amusing.

[felltoearth]

I looked up irony in the dictionary and found your post.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[psikeyhackr]

I looked up irony in the dictionary and found your post.

Got a link?

I provided links for Gregory Urich.

[The_Metatron]

“Positing agency where none exists.”

… a wise man from the East

Known here as Spearthrower.

An absolutely perfect description of the last 487 pages, in five words!

[psikeyhackr]

“Positing agency where none exists.”

An absolutely perfect description of the last 487 pages, in five words!

You mean there was no steel holding up the towers and I am asking for data on something that did not exist?

The search turns up 20 pages of posts containing "distribution of steel" which go all of the way back to 2010.