• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

And I thought I was bad at math...

Gravy

Downsitting Citizen
Gravy
Joined
Mar 27, 2006
Messages
17,078
The other day Ron Wieck directed us to the comments on Rick Siegel's (9-11 Eyewitness) small blog. Siegel had some funny comments on the shows we did with LTW. I've made a few posts there, but I can't continue. I didn't realize that there were intellectual levels below that of the LC forum. I'm just gobsmacked by the ignorance.

Poster "rick," who I assume is Siegel, attempted a calculation of the amount of asbestos dispersed by the tower collapses. He started with a weight for the towers: 500,000,000 tons (one trillion pounds, or 454,545,454,545.45 kg), and went from really big to really small.

Each building empty was 250,000,000 tons? The rubble accounted for less than 30 percent of the mass as they removed 125,000,000 tons from the whole site. But lets just figure 70 percent turns to molecular level residue as the linked report provides.

30 percent from the 500,000,000 tons means 350,000,000 tons of micro-dust. Lets drop it to 250,000,000 tons? Not enough, 100,000,000 tons then. So 800,000 tons of asbestos spread over the whole of south Manhattan and Brooklyn.

Maybe the actual number of floors left is moot as is whose perception of “packed with asbestos” makes sense. 800,000 tons of asbestos micro dust is a lot of asbestos.

What about the 3000 murder investigations, sealing the crime scene, gathering of forensics? The next day destruction of the crime scene started instead of any investigation? You avoid the obvious to quibble on subjective definitions that have no bearing on the obvious – tons of asbestos packed into the buildings exploded out to cover all of south Manhattan in 10cm of microscopic particulate of toxins while the government claimed all is well.
Click to expand...
Now WTC no-planer Nico Haupt has entered the fray.
http://911researchers.com/web/node/19#comment-25
 
Last edited:
Woah!

Didn't each tower weight 500,000t and not 500,000,000t? Rick looks like he's failed some aspect of maths at some point in time lol.

Nice find Gravy :)
 
According to my calculations that would give the WTC the gravitational potential energy equivelant to a 430 Kiloton Nuclear Warhead (1,800 Terajoules).

Ouch.

-Gumboot
 
Lol that would be 28 and two thirds larger than the bombs dropped on Japan (They were 15kt right?).
 
Indeed. That would explain why "70%" of the buildings were reduced to "molecular" size. Not quite sure how those molecules were tracked down for testing, but there we have it.

I never thought I'd say this, but this guy's dumber than TS1234.

Why don't they stop to think? Why don't they say, "geez, 500,000,000 tons sounds like a lot. I'd better check that out?" And why, when they're corrected, do they become indignant, rather than saying, "Wow. I was off by a factor of 500. That's a lot. When I think about it, 500 Twin Towers in lower Manhattan would be a lot of Twin Towers. Even if they were placed up against each other, they'd cover 500 acres (203 hectares). Or, if we wanted to save room, we could have one 208-foot-square tower, but our trillion-pound building would be 129 miles high. We'd better get PNAC working on that Star Wars weaponry to protect our Space Tower!"

Don't they think? Don't they ever just stop and think?
 
Last edited:
Gravy said:
Don't they think? Don't they ever just stop and think?
Click to expand...

You know that's actually a damn good question Gravy.

The problem with Conspiracy Theorists is they rarley admit they are wrong. So instead of saying "Whoops, 500,000 pounds is what I meant", they will come up with some absurd theory that shows the towers were made of super steel that weights 5,000,000 pounds. That is just an analogy though, I'm not saying that's what they've done ;)

Basically what I'm saying is that if they are wrong - they'll make themselves right no matter how absurd they have to go to get there. They will then try to convince others that they are right to give themselves a sense of security until they, themselves, believe it.
 
Of course there's the terrifying possibility that they often do stop and think, that they eliminate ideas that are even more absurd, and that what we see are their best efforts.
 
Gravy said:
Of course there's the terrifying possibility that they often do stop and think, that they eliminate ideas that are even more absurd, and that what we see are their best efforts.
Click to expand...

Ah Touché.

That would be very alarming indeed.


 
Gravy said:
Indeed. That would explain why "70%" of the buildings were reduced to "molecular" size. Not quite sure how those molecules were tracked down for testing, but there we have it.

I never thought I'd say this, but this guy's dumber than TS1234.

Why don't they stop to think? Why don't they say, "geez, 500,000,000 tons sounds like a lot. I'd better check that out?" And why, when they're corrected, do they become indignant, rather than saying, "Wow. I was off by a factor of 500. That's a lot. When I think about it, 500 Twin Towers in lower Manhattan would be a lot of Twin Towers. Even if they were placed up against each other, they'd cover 500 acres (203 hectares). Or, if we wanted to save room, we could have one 208-foot-square tower, but our trillion-pound building would be 129 miles high. We'd better get PNAC working on that Star Wars weaponry to protect our Space Tower!"

Don't they think? Don't they ever just stop and think?
Click to expand...

Yup, kinda like the 180,000 gallon water holding tanks perched up on top of the twin towers. Comments such as these always expose the troothers for being the clueless dolts that they are. It reminds me of a conversation between two kids that I once heard. "My daddy's new car has a 2000 gallon gas tank."
 
Crungy said:
Yup, kinda like the 180,000 gallon water holding tanks perched up on top of the twin towers. Comments such as these always expose the troothers for being the clueless dolts that they are. It reminds me of a conversation between two kids that I once heard. "My daddy's new car has a 2000 gallon gas tank."
Click to expand...

180,000 gallons = 1.44 million pounds of water = a cube shaped tank 29 feet on a side. That's a big tank. That'd be twice the size of my house (not counting the attic)!

So what would a reasonable amount of water in the fire suppression system be?

jbs
 
gumboot said:
According to my calculations that would give the WTC the gravitational potential energy equivelant to a 430 Kiloton Nuclear Warhead (1,800 Terajoules).

Ouch.

-Gumboot
Click to expand...
Didn't Thera pretty much have an effect throughout the globe? Last figure I heard is that Thera was equivalent to 240 kilotons and the wtc was a measly 1.6. We were gyped. According to Seigel would that mean we now should have MAD by plane attack?
:dl:
 
Gravy said:
I 208-foot-square tower, but our trillion-pound building would be 129 miles high.
Click to expand...
Reminds me of Pellegrino's population cube. According to that, a cube of the entire population (a few years ago when it was 6 billion) would have filled a cube one mile per side with a population density like New York's.

Not a conspiracy but something you might find interesting. Ok, who is going to be the first to remark about the New Jerusalem in Revelation? oh...I did :)
 
switchtech said:
So what would a reasonable amount of water in the fire suppression system be?

jbs
Click to expand...
180,000 gallons would not be unreasonable, though not a standard tank size.

I've seen everything from 75,000 gallons to 500,000 gallons. I'd say 200,000 gal or 250,000 gal. tanks are probably the most common.

I think they make standard sizes up to 1 million gallons.

ETA: The tank size required really depends on the occupancy you plan to protect and what the particular sprinkler demand is calculated to be.
 
500,000,000 tons would be the equivalent of the displacement of 4167 Nimitz class aircraft carriers.
A Nimitz class aircraft carrier is just over 1000 feet long so two Nimitz class aircraft carriers on end would be just about be the same size as the towers.

Where'd they put the other 4165 carrier's worth of mass?
 
JamesB said:
Speaking of bad at math:

General George Casey, had done a complete 360 from last week's statement on no more troops being needed in Iraq, and had in fact endorsed the idea.

http://z10.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=1821

Bunch of geniuses...
Click to expand...

AAaaaaahahahaahahahaahaha

a ) Maybe that 360 was only 2/3rd of the total 540 degree turnabout!!!:D
b ) Maybe it was 360 degrees but there were two people involved and each took on half the task!!
c ) Maybe the author is illiterate in math and is attempting to use an expression he knows nothing about the meaning of.
 
Mr. Skinny said:
180,000 gallons would not be unreasonable, though not a standard tank size.

I've seen everything from 75,000 gallons to 500,000 gallons. I'd say 200,000 gal or 250,000 gal. tanks are probably the most common.

I think they make standard sizes up to 1 million gallons.

ETA: The tank size required really depends on the occupancy you plan to protect and what the particular sprinkler demand is calculated to be.
Click to expand...

For me, the unreasonable factor is both it's placement at the top of a skyscraper and the use of such an "old school" fire supression design in a building that was so cutting edge for the time. For a building that used such a economical small factor of safety structural system, this 180,000 gallon tank would not have been in concert with the building designers structural approach. The last building I worked on that had a sprinkler water holding tower (When I get a rare free moment at work, I'll see if I can dig up the specs on this tower from the old blueprints.) was a one block beheamoth that was built in the 1920s to house some type of industrial manufacturing. The building has long since used a fire pump to serve the sprinklers, but the original tank is still there, and the large supports protrude down to the slab on grade. My client is leasing this building and wanted it converted into garage space for it's service vehicles.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom