9/11 Physics from Non-Experts

[gumboot]

Just one thing...

Can people perhaps drop the bizarre "metric ton" and use the correct term; "tonne".

The use of non-SI units is confusing enough for those of us from the land of metric without mixing up the names for the units as well!



-Gumboot

 

[CHF]

how much explosive do you need to accomplish the "truther" goal?

I'd also love to hear an answer to that question. Twoofers never give numbers for some reason.

I'd also like to hear why it would even be necessary to "pulverize the concrete." We're talking far more explosive power than would be needed to simply down the towers. Ridiculously more!

So what's the point? Why did the neo-cons deem it necessary to blast into dust a whole lot of concrete that wasn't even tasked with holding up the structure?

 

[Furcifer]

As someone upthread pointed out, this is based on a 100% energy transfer from explosion to pulverization. I have no idea what the real rate would be, but I'd be willing to bet it is considerably less than 100%.

Rule #1- Don't let logic get in the way of your conspiracy, if you want 100% energy transfer, you got 100% energy transfer.

 

[AZCat]

Rule #1- Don't let logic get in the way of your conspiracy, if you want 100% energy transfer, you got 100% energy transfer.

If only I were able to reach for the clouds and manufacture the necessary from their ethereal stuff, but no! I am a slave to logic; chained for life to the wheel of rationality, I know nothing but the slow grinding that mills truth from the subjective harvest that is life.

 

[Totovader]

Just one thing...

Can people perhaps drop the bizarre "metric ton" and use the correct term; "tonne".

The use of non-SI units is confusing enough for those of us from the land of metric without mixing up the names for the units as well!



-Gumboot

Request denied. Check your NWO playbook- we are trying to do away with the metric system next year. It's the whole America super-power play.

OT: I was watching a science show the other day and the female host said "That's 150 degrees [Celsius], or about 300 in old money". I think that phrase rocks, so I'm using it.

 

[gumboot]

Request denied. Check your NWO playbook- we are trying to do away with the metric system next year. It's the whole America super-power play.

I don't mind you Americans using the Imperial system, but if you do refer to the metric system, I'm asking you use the right terms.

Using "metric ton" is like me saying "imperial metre" for "yard" or "imperial litre" for "gallon".

-Gumboot

 

[Furcifer]

"megagram"

 

[LashL]

I don't mind you Americans using the Imperial system, but if you do refer to the metric system, I'm asking you use the right terms.

Using "metric ton" is like me saying "imperial metre" for "yard" or "imperial litre" for "gallon".

-Gumboot

[off-topic mini rant]
Please, don't even start on litres and gallons. The U.S. gallon (3.78 litres) is smaller than the Canadian [aka Imperial] gallon (4.5 litres), and Canada adopted the metric system decades ago. However, because of our close proximity to the U.S., and because the U.S. backed out of adopting the metric system, it means that Canadians had to learn the metric system but still have to know the imperial system, as well as the one-off differences, such as the one between U.S. gallons and Imperial gallons.

This wouldn't be a big deal if it were not for the fact that it has caused confusion in calculating fuel loads on airplanes (with nearly catastrophic results at least once - a crash landing by a very experienced pilot is all that saved the lives of many) and that it has caused all manner of confusion for many people trying to comprehend the difference in gasoline prices on the opposite side of the border.

If it wasn't enough to have to calculate the litres-to-gallon conversion applicable to the "gallon" standard of the rest of the world, and to have to calculate the current value of a dollar based on current exchange rates, in order to make a valid comparison, Canadians also have to calculate the litres-to-U.S. gallon conversion and the current value of a dollar relative to curernt exchange rates, in order to make valid comparisons between Canadian and U.S. gasoline prices.

It's a fun mental exercise for some of us but the vast majority of those it affects just find it annoying.

[/off-topic mini rant]

 

[Furcifer]

[off-topic mini rant]

I hear yah, I live in a border town. I still think in Fahrenheit, and i'm not old enough to make an excuse for it.

 

[Slayhamlet]

Just one thing...

Can people perhaps drop the bizarre "metric ton" and use the correct term; "tonne".

The use of non-SI units is confusing enough for those of us from the land of metric without mixing up the names for the units as well!



-Gumboot

People use the word "metric" before "tonne" here in the United States in order to avoid ambiguity with the more commonly heard (here) American standard unit "ton". It's unnecesary in print because of the difference in spelling, but you have to remember that the two words are homophones.

 

[R.Mackey]

It's worse than that. Tonne == ton in the USA just due to regular evolution of language. Much like "catalogue" and "programme" are almost never seen in their wild-type varieties anymore.

I learned 1 ton = 1000 kg, and that's my story unless otherwise noted. In general I assume the target audience speaks metric, because if they don't, they probably won't follow my point anyway.

 

[gumboot]

People use the word "metric" before "tonne" here in the United States in order to avoid ambiguity with the more commonly heard (here) American standard unit "ton". It's unnecesary in print because of the difference in spelling, but you have to remember that the two words are homophones.

Yeah but the problem is people writing it as "ton" instead of "tonne".

Of course then there's the issue of long ton (2240lb, almost exactly a tonne), or short/net ton (2000lbs).

It's very confusing.

-Gumboot

 

[GregoryUrich]

Mr. Mackey wrote:

Look at this another way: Suppose all of your figures are correct. This structure of yours, 217,671 metric tons all told, is 73% load bearing structure. 73%!! Not very efficient use of concrete and steel, is it? If you were designing a building, and told your customer that for every single kilogram of contents you would need 3.74 kilograms of structure, do you think you'd win the contract?

One basic misconception. I am calculating actual load not design/code/permitted load. There is 75% reserve. What the building can carry is never what the building does carry. Think of your home. Think of your office. Nothing is loaded to the max permitted by code. If it is it is usually modified so that there will still be some reserve strength.

 

[SYLVESTER1592]

Mr. Mackey wrote:



One basic misconception. I am calculating actual load not design/code/permitted load. There is 75% reserve. What the building can carry is never what the building does carry. Think of your home. Think of your office. Nothing is loaded to the max permitted by code. If it is it is usually modified so that there will still be some reserve strength.

And again, no answer... Mr. Urich, you can calculate until you are blue in the face, but you will have to address my question or else your calculations won't matter at all. I'm more and more convinced I'm not the one who is confused. You my friend are highly suspect of being a fraud as suggested in my OP. If you are going to defend your paper then do so and answer my question.

 

[qarnos]

Yeah but the problem is people writing it as "ton" instead of "tonne".
-Gumboot

Is there a difference in the pronunciation of the two? I always wondered that.

 

[GregoryUrich]

Total mass of debris supports analytical calculations

R. Mackey wrote:

I agree that this is a valid question -- sorry if I gave the alternate impression. The amount of debris trucked away should give a pretty good estimate, if not perhaps the best, of how much material there actually was.

References I have found range from 1.2 - 1.7 million tons.

The debris was from everything that existed in the bathtub and probably even includes wtc7. Were talking wtc3, wtc4, wtc5, wtc6, the plaza. There was a six story subterranean structure under a large portion of the plaza and wtc3-6.

Wtc3 (Marriot) was 22 stories with equivalent floor area to wtc1.
Wtc4 and 5 were 9 stories, each with at nearly 3 x the floor space of wtc1.
Wtc6 was 8 stories with double the floor space of wtc1.

Lets not forget that everything was soaked with water due to ruptured water mains and fire fighting. This only effects porous materials and only increases their weight by 25% (for sand mixed with gravel). So with all values in tons...

It still looks like my numbers are more correct. Thanks, I will definitely use this!

 

[GregoryUrich]

Very quick to label fraud

And again, no answer... Mr. Urich, you can calculate until you are blue in the face, but you will have to address my question or else your calculations won't matter at all. I'm more and more convinced I'm not the one who is confused. You my friend are highly suspect of being a fraud as suggested in my OP. If you are going to defend your paper then do so and answer my question.

I have answered alot of questions my friend. To be honest your questions are lower priority for me because you aren't very careful and do not acknowledge when you are wrong.

What was your question again? I may have answered it in my last post.

 

[Belz...]

It's worse than that. Tonne == ton in the USA just due to regular evolution of language. Much like "catalogue" and "programme" are almost never seen in their wild-type varieties anymore.

I learned 1 ton = 1000 kg, and that's my story unless otherwise noted. In general I assume the target audience speaks metric, because if they don't, they probably won't follow my point anyway.

Huh ? There are people NOT using the metric system ????

 

[GregoryUrich]

1 short ton (normal US/english ton) == 2000 lbs
1 metric ton == 1000 kg == 2205 lbs

Those of us with a high school education prior to Reagan learned the metric system to prepare us for interaction with the rest of the world. Reactionary Raygun turned the clocks back on progress.

 

[twinstead]

1 short ton (normal US/english ton) == 2000 lbs
1 metric ton == 1000 kg == 2205 lbs

Those of us with a high school education prior to Reagan learned the metric system to prepare us for interaction with the rest of the world. Reactionary Raygun turned the clocks back on progress.

Of course. Not adapting the Metric System is some kind of right-wing plot.

LOL