9/11 Physics from Non-Experts

[SYLVESTER1592]

More and more sure: you are a fraud

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.

You are fudging the numbers again. I don’t think they are moving water. I think you can read this thread and find my posts. 2/7*1.7 million= 485714 tons Your estimates are far too low to explain the differences. 485714 tons comes a lot closer to the 500.000 tons that were published then to your numbers. You have the mass of an entire tower missing in your estimates. That at least should tell you your estimates are far too low. If you would start to calculate the mass of the materials used, the mass of the cement and steel alone exceeds most of the numbers you present. The amount of materials used in the construction was far more. If not all the material was recovered due to loss during the collapse that would be more logical then if more material was recovered that did not belong at the WTC site in the first place. You did not put the amounts of debris in your calculations neither did you address the materials used in the building of the towers. You have not provided an explanation for the difference. Yet you maintain that you must be right and everyone else is lying. Your estimates don’t explain the difference. So again, you are wrong and try to hide it. I can admit when I’m wrong. I have nothing to loose here, as a former CT, I find your point of view interesting. However, I won’t lie. You should try that too. When I suspect you are untruthful, I will address it. I have not yet begun to label you as a fraud, since I wasn’t sure it was intentional. I’m sure now. If someone is not careful, it must surely be you. If you are not a fraud the burden on proving that is on you, since it's your paper. You are a fraud, the only reason not to address my posts is because your defense is lacking miserably. You have just proved that.

 

[SYLVESTER1592]

I see you edited your post, still... not good enough Explain the differences with the amount of debris and the amount of building materials used. Or are you suggesting the lie started in 1964...

 

[jaydeehess]

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

LOL

Hyperbole!
It isn't a right wing plot, its a right wing mistake.
BTW I need to correct a mistake in my 'dig a trench in the concrete post'.

One should start detonating the trench furthest from the core first then sequentialy set off the ones closer to the core. This will put more power into the concrete except between the outer most trench and the perimeter wall.

 

[jaydeehess]

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

Imperial litre would be a quart

LashL's point illustrates why in Canada we cannot buy 4 litres of paint. Instead we get 3.78 litre containers since the biggest market is the USA and the paint co.'s don't want to create two different sized containers.

In non-border crossing items we get true metric quantities such as 1 litre milk containers.

 

[SYLVESTER1592]

Bring it

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.

Even by choosing the most doubtful estimates on the amount of collected debris (the ranges are actually 1.7-1.9 million tons) and adding water, then using an average to decrease the differences., you still don’t manage. And you have the audacity to tell me I have to be careful. It’s your paper convince us…Less patient and slightly annoyed, Sincerily, SYL

 

[boloboffin]

Ok, this one here apparently comes from a Norwegian truther, and although it may be a case of irony (but honestly, nothing from that camp surprises me anymore), I feel that this one ranks up there with the chicken wire experiments...

Oh, this is fun!

Let's say that WTC 7 weighed, oh, I don't know, what's that figure in the air there, 180,000 tonnes. Let's say.

Now a comparable weight on top of WTC 7 would be 333 times that mass, or just shy of 60 million tonnes.

Just shy of it.

Now, what would be a good visualization of 60 million tonnes, to sit on top of WTC 7?

In 2003, Cinergy Corporation released 60 million tonnes of carbon dioxide directly into the atmosphere. Well, that's not going to help our visualization. But that's one of the first things that popped up on a Google search.

Apples! According to the Encyc Brit, global apple production had hit 60 million tonnes by the end of the 20th century. All of the apples grown all over the world in a single year on top of Building 7... Nah. Still doesn't have the necessary punch here.

Hmm. Oh, look - Steel!

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0KWH/is_1_43/ai_n9484373

In 1989, China produced 60 million tonnes of steel. This was 8% of the world's output of steel in 1989. So if we took all of the steel produced in China in 1989, and placed it on top of WTC 7, it would just stay up there, right? WTC 7 would still be there today, just a-grinning.

Well, it's still a little hard to grasp this. 60 million tonnes is really hard to conceive of...

How about the Titanic? It weighed around 35,000 tonnes. Let's see -- 35,000 goes into 60,000,000 how many times? 1715 times.

So take 1715 Titanics, and stack them neatly on top of WTC 7.

Getting better. Oh, wait, I've got it!

How about WTC 7 itself?

Take 333 Buildings 7 and stack them on top of Building 7. Surely anyone can see that the structure of Building 7 couldn't hold up the weight of 334 Buildings 7?

And yet a dinky little 10g mild carton can hold up 33kg of barbell. Maybe, just maybe, there's something wrong with using this picture as a model for understanding the collapse of Building 7.

Or we could go with the flea thing. That's a rather nifty way of putting it.

 

[GregoryUrich]

Sylvesters question:

I would like to thank you for defending your paper in this forum and respect your willingness to do so. I stand corrected in the proposed estimation of the total mass and my presumptions about a connection with Ross' paper. Nevertheless some questions remain. You are considering the bare structure. You estimate the dead loads. Would you not consider an estimation of the total weight calculated from the supply of materials (order forms) a more reliable means to estimate the total weight? since this is difficult after 40 years, maybe there is another way. I admit an estimate of the live and dead loads is difficult, but I would suspect a more reasonable estimation would probably be achieved by looking at the weight of the removed debris after 911. Values of 1.7 million tons are mentioned. (According to D.H. Griffin companies: "On any given day during the clean-up, there were 3,000 people working at the site. Together, they removed 1.7 million tons of debris, 110,000 truckloads at 100 trucks each day. At the beginning, it was estimated the job would take up to two years to complete) Calculations from that would come closer to 450000 to 500000 tons for the WTC towers. You agree? Especially since many different materials were used with varying weight and we are uncertain about the live and dead loads another method would seem preferable. The Port Authority would have the right numbers for some of that, but obviously not all. What happened to the rest of the materials that led to an estimation of 500000 tons by the Port Authority. Where did the added material come from? Digging? Many estimations are made in the paper and result in a lower mass, but the total mass removed from the site sheds a doubt on your estimations. You don't seem to address this discrepancy. Would you like to comment on that? Sincerily SYL

This must be the question you mean.

This is my answer:

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!

Sylvester again:

You are fudging the numbers again. I don’t think they are moving water. I think you can read this thread and find my posts. 2/7*1.7 million= 485714 tons Your estimates are far too low to explain the differences. 485714 tons comes a lot closer to the 500.000 tons that were published then to your numbers. You have the mass of an entire tower missing in your estimates. That at least should tell you your estimates are far too low. If you would start to calculate the mass of the materials used, the mass of the cement and steel alone exceeds most of the numbers you present. The amount of materials used in the construction was far more. If not all the material was recovered due to loss during the collapse that would be more logical then if more material was recovered that did not belong at the WTC site in the first place. You did not put the amounts of debris in your calculations neither did you address the materials used in the building of the towers. You have not provided an explanation for the difference. Yet you maintain that you must be right and everyone else is lying. Your estimates don’t explain the difference. So again, you are wrong and try to hide it. I can admit when I’m wrong. I have nothing to loose here, as a former CT, I find your point of view interesting. However, I won’t lie. You should try that too. When I suspect you are untruthful, I will address it. I have not yet begun to label you as a fraud, since I wasn’t sure it was intentional. I’m sure now. If someone is not careful, it must surely be you. If you are not a fraud the burden on proving that is on you, since it's your paper. You are a fraud, the only reason not to address my posts is because your defense is lacking miserably. You have just proved that.

1. Now you accuse me of fudging the numbers "again". You haven't shown that I have fudged any numbers yet. You don't show that I am fudging numbers here.
   Where are your numbers? How much did the subterranean area weigh? How much did wtc3-7 weigh​
2. Just because you don't think they are moving water logged debris doesn't mean they are not.
3. Even without the water and your extreme value for the weight of removed debris (I think 1.6 million tons is more realistic) you are off by 672,000 tons. I am only off by 412,000 tons.
4. Then again, the cleanup finished months ahead of schedule. Ever wonder why? I wonder if the cleanup companies got paid by pound? Wouldn't be the first time someone overbilled the government.

Show my numbers are fudged. Go on, it's your turn to do some work.

 

[gumboot]

I doubt the debris removed from the WTC was exaggerated much, considering there were thousands of FBI agents crawling all around the place, amongst other government officials.

GregoryUrich, how do you explain that the Empire State Building weighs half again as much as one tower (according to you) yet each tower has almost twice as much floor space as the ESB?

Was there some weird occupant rule with the ESB that all furniture had to be made out of concrete?

-Gumboot

 

[Belz...]

Invisicrete, maybe, Gum.

 

[GregoryUrich]

NIST gives a value of 31,000 usable sq ft per floor == 3,410,000 sq ft per tower. The empire state building has 2,734,122 sq ft of rentable space. So the WTC tower has only 20% more rentable space. The empire state building is a conventional structure and the facade is stone. The WTC tower was a tube/core structure which is much more efficient and gives more strength with less weight. There are a number of innovative features of the wtc tower design that allow it to weigh less.

There is alot of info on this all over the net. Why aren't you guys investigating your own questions before wasting my time?

 

[GregoryUrich]

weird occupant rule at jref--heads must be filled with concrete

I doubt the debris removed from the WTC was exaggerated much, considering there were thousands of FBI agents crawling all around the place, amongst other government officials.

GregoryUrich, how do you explain that the Empire State Building weighs half again as much as one tower (according to you) yet each tower has almost twice as much floor space as the ESB?

Was there some weird occupant rule with the ESB that all furniture had to be made out of concrete?

-Gumboot

Right, FBI agents. You must mean the ones who let all evidence from a crime scene be destroyed before a legitimate investigation was done.

 

[gumboot]

GregoryUrich,

I'd be curious to hear how you came to your conclusions that WTC3, WTC4, WTC5 and WTC6 combined would weigh the same amount as one tower.

I dispute this value, and I'm going to provide calculations for why.

First, let's clear up the size of the buildings.

You assert:

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.

However, a quick glance at Wikipedia reveals otherwise.

The footprint for each tower was 3,969m², with a total floor area of 436,590m².

For now we will ignore the fact that, by a floor average, the WTC towers would weigh much more as they were much taller structures, thus needed much heavier construction at the bottom. We'll assume an equal weight across total floor area for the much smaller buildings.

Glancing at number of floors, it appears you've already made a mistake:

WTC3 - 22 stories
WTC4 - 9 stories
WTC5 - 9 stories
WTC6 - 7 stories (oops!)

Now let's look at total floor area:

I couldn't get a figure for WTC3, but I dude some crude measurements on a scaled site plan, and got a building width of 20m with a long dimension of 120m. This gives us a total footprint of 2,400m² - about 60% of the footprint of one tower. That's obviously quite different to what you claim, so I'd like to know how you came by your calculation.

I couldn't find a value for WTC4 either, but it's slightly smaller than WTC5, so I decided to use the same floor area - which gives you a bit more than is actually the case.

For WTC5, Wikipedia tells us the average floor area per floor was 11,000m² which is about what you claimed in floor area (nearly 3x one tower).

WTC6 we get a total floor area from Wikipedia which works out at 7,136m² per floor - again only a little less than you proposed (although you had an extra floor!).

Now, if we add all of those floor areas together... we get:

WTC3: 52,800m²WTC4: 99,000m² (over estimate)
WTC5: 99,000m²WTC6: 49,953m²
Add all those up...

300,753m²
Now, according to you, this 300,000m² of floor space should weight about the same as the 436,000m² of floor space on one WTC tower, despite the fact that you're talking 45% more floor area!

And this is not even taking into account the much greater average mass per floor that would be found in the towers due to their heights.

Care to explain your figures?

By my considerations, each WTC tower should probably weigh AT LEAST half again as much as WTC3, WTC4, WTC5 and WTC6 combined.

Then there's your basement figure, which is GREATER than the mass of one tower. Now, I don't know how much of the WTC site was covered by the underground plaza, but I know it wasn't the entire thing. So let's for now, assume it was the entire site (perhaps Gravy can give us a better idea of how much of the WTC site was covered by the underground plaza). Assuming the entire 16 acre WTC site had six levels of basement, that's only 388,000m², still LESS than the total floor area of one tower. Yet you assert it weighs 20% more!

Then there's WTC7, which you assert to be 50% of the weight of one tower, yet at 174,000m², it has only 40% of the floor area.

So, it would appear to me that you have OVER estimated the weight for EVERYTHING EXCEPT the towers, and over estimated quite considerably.

Please explain where you got your figures?

-Gumboot

 

[GregoryUrich]

I doubt the debris removed from the WTC was exaggerated much, considering there were thousands of FBI agents crawling all around the place, amongst other government officials.

GregoryUrich, how do you explain that the Empire State Building weighs half again as much as one tower (according to you) yet each tower has almost twice as much floor space as the ESB?

Was there some weird occupant rule with the ESB that all furniture had to be made out of concrete?

-Gumboot

Half again as much? 279,000 tons x 1.5 = 418,500

Twice as much floor space == 20% more?

Will Sylvester accuse you of "fudging the numbers" or call you a fraud? I doubt it.

 

[Dave_46]

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.

An English ton is 2240 lb.

 

[gumboot]

Right, FBI agents. You must mean the ones who let all evidence from a crime scene be destroyed before a legitimate investigation was done.

Really? Hmmm. I wonder what the 50 FBI forensic crime scene teams were doing at Fresh Kills then, where all the debris was sorted by hand. Perhaps fishing for souvenirs?

Or what about the FBI crime scene office set up in a tent at ground zero? Just for show I take it?

Or do you not consider the FBI a legitimate agency to investigate a federal crime?

I guess NIST, also, just imagined going through the debris and marking the pieces of steel they wanted for their analysis? Because obviously it didn't happen right? Someone faked all those photographs in photoshop?

-Gumboot

 

[Dave_46]

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

I have heard the tonne pronounced "tunney" (my attempt at phonetic spelling).

Dave

 

[jhunter1163]

GregoryUrich:

Your post answers Gumboot's question re: the ESB.... how?

 

[gumboot]

Half again as much? 279,000 tons x 1.5 = 418,500

Twice as much floor space == 20% more?

Will Sylvester accuse you of "fudging the numbers" or call you a fraud? I doubt it.

Well okay, I was fudging those numbers off the top of my head...

Let me rephrase...

Can you explain how a building that (according to you) weighs about 30% more, has 30% less floor area (based on rentable floor space).

-Gumboot

ETA. For clarity, that means the ESB weighed almost twice as much as a WTC tower per square foot of office space.

 

[Newtons Bit]

The Empire State Building is from the previous era of engineering. WTC was a marvel because it was so light. It didn't have the heavy brick facades and heavy concrete everywhere that the ESB did. They're two completly different types of construction.

 

[gumboot]

The Empire State Building is from the previous era of engineering. WTC was a marvel because it was so light. It didn't have the heavy brick facades and heavy concrete everywhere that the ESB did. They're two completely different types of construction.

But twice as heavy?

-Gumboot

ETA. A solid clay brick has a density of 2000kg/m³. Structural concrete is 2400kg/m³. Steel is 3 or 4 times as dense.