FAQ   Search   Memberlist   Usergroups   Register   Profile   Log in to check your private messages   Log in 
Top Reasons Indicating an Inside Job
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The Next Level Forum Index -> 9/11 HardCorps Specifics Investigation
  ::  Previous topic :: Next topic  
Author Message
Grumpy



Joined: 05 Sep 2007
Posts: 876
Location: NC USA

PostPosted: Sun Apr 06, 2008 7:18 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

psikeyhackr

The point about the air was not it's negligable weight, but that 70% of the VOLUME of the building provided little or no resistance to the falling mass.

I've already showed you how to get the weight of concrete and steel for one floor, why should I have to repeat???

The 20 million gave us much more information than you are insinuating, read the reports if you are really interested in the science of the collapses, stop trying to waste my time explaining things you could find for yourself, if truth is REALLY your goal.

Grumpy Cool

_________________
Wheel yourself out in the streets and demand the truth from these dumbshits.
O dear, taken to drinking and swallowing the pain tablets together eh Grumpy? aAzzAa
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
psikeyhackr



Joined: 13 Oct 2007
Posts: 71

PostPosted: Sun Apr 06, 2008 6:44 pm    Post subject: Dont do any skyscraper design Reply with quote

Quote:
Total weight of the concrete on one floor of WTC 1 = 627 tons.

In addition, the mass of structural steel on one floor is estimated to be 1000 tons(average per floor taking total steel and dividing by 110) Higher floors had slightly less, lower floors slightly more by about 20-30% either way from the 55 floor.

All the values used to do this calculation were gleaned from the study of navstar1-1. As to exactly where each of these values are in that document, find them yourself, the exercise will do your brain some good.


The WTC towers were 116 stories tall. The NIST report has a spot where it says some steel at the bottom was 7" thick. Other sources say the box columns were made of 5" and 3" steel. At the top floors it was down to 1/4". I bet there was more structural steel in the six basement level than in the top 20. I don't buy a linear distribution for a minute. So the clowns at NIST need to compute and all of the architects and structural engineers in the country should be demanding it.

They had to figure this type of stuff out for the Empire State Building. What kinds of computers did they have then?

psik

_________________
Kill an economist for KKK
Karl, Kenneth & Keynes
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
psikeyhackr



Joined: 13 Oct 2007
Posts: 71

PostPosted: Sun Apr 06, 2008 6:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

There were SIX BASEMENT LEVELS!

They had to have steel too. There were technical floors with machinery for elevators. They did not have NORMAL flooring.

psik

_________________
Kill an economist for KKK
Karl, Kenneth & Keynes
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Rumpl4skn



Joined: 11 Feb 2006
Posts: 2949
Location: 36� 3'N x 86�40'W

PostPosted: Sun Apr 06, 2008 6:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Fintan's analysis on the mass of the twin towers, as compared to the size, from top to bottom:



Nothing linear about it, when you consider the materials used.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger
Grumpy



Joined: 05 Sep 2007
Posts: 876
Location: NC USA

PostPosted: Mon Apr 07, 2008 8:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

psikeyhackr

Quote:
I don't buy a linear distribution for a minute.


The floor weights, other than the three mechanical floors, were identical for every floor. The only differences from one floor to another was the varying thickness of the steel the frame and core columns were made from.







This is the base of the largest corner core columns, with specs.

Grumpy Cool

_________________
Wheel yourself out in the streets and demand the truth from these dumbshits.
O dear, taken to drinking and swallowing the pain tablets together eh Grumpy? aAzzAa
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
aAzzAa



Joined: 03 Sep 2007
Posts: 1140

PostPosted: Tue Apr 08, 2008 7:23 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Rumpl4skn wrote:
Fintan's analysis on the mass of the twin towers, as compared to the size, from top to bottom:



Nothing linear about it, when you consider the materials used.


Hard to imagine a pancake effect when you look at it like that.
I think the "experts" are being sent in to BS.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Grumpy



Joined: 05 Sep 2007
Posts: 876
Location: NC USA

PostPosted: Tue Apr 08, 2008 8:04 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

aAzzAa

Quote:
Hard to imagine a pancake effect when you look at it like that.


Hard to imagine anything, when you know so little about it.

Quote:
I think the "experts" are being sent in to BS.


No, you just don't have the ability to think at all. Who sent you???

Grumpy Cool

_________________
Wheel yourself out in the streets and demand the truth from these dumbshits.
O dear, taken to drinking and swallowing the pain tablets together eh Grumpy? aAzzAa
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
aAzzAa



Joined: 03 Sep 2007
Posts: 1140

PostPosted: Tue Apr 08, 2008 8:37 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Grumpy wrote:
aAzzAa

Quote:
Hard to imagine a pancake effect when you look at it like that.


Hard to imagine anything, when you know so little about it.

Quote:
I think the "experts" are being sent in to BS.


No, you just don't have the ability to think at all. Who sent you???

Grumpy Cool


Sorry Grumpy, my comment was in reference to experts, not you.
But if you must know, the merry men sent me to have a good laugh at those so sure like you.

The difference between you and I, from what I see, is that I am prepared to listen to more than just one side of an argument. Knowing about physics does not lead to knowing about the cause that led such physics to unfold.

The NIST report has many grey areas. They admit it themselves, which is why I made comment about your mediocrity.

From the beginning NIST make statements like " the outputs of the four step simulations was subject to uncertainties in the as-built condition of the towers, the interior layout and furnishings, the aircraft impact, the internal damage to the towers (especially the thermal insulation for fire protection of the structural steel......). Once again they have to rely on visual evidence from the outside and eye witness accounts. With regards the thermal insulation they say that the WTC towers likely would not have collapsed if the thermal insulation had not been widely dislodged. Where is the evidence that the thermal insulation was widely dislodged? I am not suggesting it wasn't, I am referring to their admission that the whole area is filled with uncertainty (their word)

Based on this uncertianty, NIST also say that there was no corroborating evidence for the use of explosives. You mean no visual evidence from cameras, and no eye witness accounts? Well, I've not watched much but I have seen a few videos of witnesses giving accounts of explosives. Now that I know that visual evidence and eye witness accounts is the main gist of the theory I will certainly go on the lookout for more evidence regarding explosives.

It's just the way I am Grumpy, open minded. If you are happy with your obnoxious insulting methods to hang onto your own over-surety, then so be it. But that's all you are, an overconfident physicist with a blind streak and an obnoxious resentment for anyone challenging your theory. You should have stayed selling pantomime tickets.

Not all scientists are happy with the NIST report. I can see why to some extent. Mediocre mentalities like yours can then come along and call all the "experts" that are not happy with the report "fools" and not scientists. If you are not already, why not get yourself some extra money working as some agent whose job it is to stop challenges to the NIST report from gaining momentum?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Grumpy



Joined: 05 Sep 2007
Posts: 876
Location: NC USA

PostPosted: Tue Apr 08, 2008 10:00 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

aAzzAa

Quote:
Not all scientists are happy with the NIST report.


Just the ones with nothing to sell, like Jones, Ryan and Wood. There are a few who think various point were not given sufficient emphasis, some who wanted NIST to describe the events of the collapses in detail, but there are very few who would claim that the conclusions are wrong. And like all groups, there are always a few on the lunatic fringe, even among Physicists.

And YOU still don't know what you're talking about.

Grumpy Cool

_________________
Wheel yourself out in the streets and demand the truth from these dumbshits.
O dear, taken to drinking and swallowing the pain tablets together eh Grumpy? aAzzAa
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
psikeyhackr



Joined: 13 Oct 2007
Posts: 71

PostPosted: Tue Apr 08, 2008 10:13 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Rumpl4skn wrote:
Fintan's analysis on the mass of the twin towers, as compared to the size, from top to bottom: Nothing linear about it, when you consider the materials used.


Those gray bands are the TECHNICAL FLOORS. Those floors had beams instead of trusses. They had to be a lot heavier, So they would have to bulge outward for that picture to be representative of their weight.

The slanted sides look like a linear increase but since the area of each floor is going to be the square of the side it would be more than that. I would still prefer a table or a graph.

psik

_________________
Kill an economist for KKK
Karl, Kenneth & Keynes
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
aAzzAa



Joined: 03 Sep 2007
Posts: 1140

PostPosted: Tue Apr 08, 2008 10:23 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Grumpy wrote:
aAzzAa

Quote:
Not all scientists are happy with the NIST report.


Just the ones with nothing to sell, like Jones, Ryan and Wood. There are a few who think various point were not given sufficient emphasis, some who wanted NIST to describe the events of the collapses in detail, but there are very few who would claim that the conclusions are wrong. And like all groups, there are always a few on the lunatic fringe, even among Physicists.

And YOU still don't know what you're talking about.

Grumpy Cool


And you still side stepped the whole issue. Doesn't look good on you actually.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
aAzzAa



Joined: 03 Sep 2007
Posts: 1140

PostPosted: Tue Apr 08, 2008 6:57 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Grumpy Poo, I can suggest a better reason to not look for evidence of explosives. Can you imagine the kind of signal it would have sent out if the government asked for the experts to search for evidence of explosives? It was a non starter. Alternatively, what was very much on the agenda was to try to make things fit into a theory where the planes were seen as the cause. Now, you may not question the conclusions of such a report, but here are the grounds their report was built on:

Quote:
" the outputs of the four step simulations was subject to uncertainties in the as-built condition of the towers, the interior layout and furnishings, the aircraft impact, the internal damage to the towers (especially the thermal insulation for fire protection of the structural steel......).


You're not honestly telling me an effort was made to even look for an explosive are you? For NIST to say they found no evidence is an outright lie. They could never have instigated any search, it would have been unthinkable under the circumstances. We were supposed to have been hit without warning by a bunch of blood thirsty terrorists.

Screw your fake surety.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The Next Level Forum Index -> 9/11 HardCorps Specifics Investigation All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10  Next
Page 8 of 10

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group

Theme xand created by spleen.