a nuclear physicist wrote that LMAO as far as I am concerned he is on very solid ground, but cant say the same for what you have produced. Got any kind of rebuttal to demonstrate he has err'd
I don't believe you. Cold fusion doesn't exist so no nuclear physicist would suggest the use of a cold fusion weapon. It's too stupid, and it's more likely that some crank wrote it. Someone else may have lifted data from somewhere, but no self-respecting nuclear physicist wrote that, if one did, he or she is insane. Yes, cold fusion. That says it all. No ifs, buts, or maybes...COLD FUSION Now, I'm putting you on ignore because your posts are stupid and I didn't come here to argue brain dead subjects with idiots. Good day and good bye.
Have you ever heard of the Google search engine? https://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/pseudosc/911NutPhysics1.HTM http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2004/EricChen.shtml Those turned up by Googling: wtc 425,000 concrete Does it make any sense to talk to someone who can't do research that simple? It is in documentation from the New York Port Authority from before 9/11. They were world famous buildings that attracted tens of thousands of tourists per year. Don't you think they gave out some specs on the buildings? That is something that cannot be disappeared. There is too much of it. 28 years of history. In fact when I was telling people that the NIST never provided the concrete information I had people giving me that number even though I already knew it. My point was that the NIST did not specify any number for the total amount of concrete in 10,000 pages. Very scientific! psik
All that stuff seems unlikely. I think aircraft slammed into the WTC. Of course they are made from titanium, and titanium literally burns white hot,
How much titanium do you think is in a 100 ton airliner? http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/tech_ops/read.main/51618/ Duh, use Google. LOL psik
You are saying the engines were pure titanium? psik - - - Updated - - - Exactly, ignorance must be maintained. Knowledge might confuse your argument. psik - - - Updated - - - Oh yeah it turned to dust all over Manhattan. No need to compute the Potential Energy of the building. psik
Go check your sources psikeyhackr and read VERY CAREFULLY. Thise sources say the WORLD TRADE CENTER which means the COMPLEX as a whole. Your sources do not say World Trade Center 1 or World Trade Center 2 had that much concrete.
don't be absurd,I made no such claim about the engines And I don't care if the concrete turned to pixie dust,it still didn't fail,the steel did
Let's do some math. Using what you deem to be correct: 425,000 yd[SUP]3[/SUP] of concrete for both towers means that 212,500 yd[SUP]3[/SUP] of concrete was used for each. Let's say that all 110 floors were a uniform 5" thick or .416' (there were not actual floors for a few levels above the mezzanine, but I'll let that slide). That gives us 208' (length of tower) x 208' (width of tower) x .416' (concrete floor thickness) which equals 17,997.824 ft[SUP]3[/SUP] or 666.59 yd[SUP]3[/SUP] of concrete PER FLOOR. That equals 73,321.6 yd[SUP]3[/SUP] of concrete for all 110 floors in one tower. I am, at this point, assuming that all 110 floors were solid and am NOT subtracting the open spacing for ANY elevator shafts that took up the MAJORITY of the core. 212,500 yd[SUP]3[/SUP] (supposed concrete used in one tower) - 73,321.6 yd[SUP]3[/SUP] (concrete for 110, 5" thick, solid floors) leaves us with 139,178.4 yd[SUP]3[/SUP] of concrete to account for in ONE TOWER. Using the dimensions of the twin towers (208' x 208'), how high would 139,178.4 yd[SUP]3[/SUP] of concrete go if contained in a 208' x 208' box. Let's convert the remaining 139,178.4 yd[SUP]3[/SUP] into ft[SUP]3[/SUP]. That gives us 3,757,816.8 ft[SUP]3[/SUP]. That means we could fill a 208' x 208' area to a height of about 86.85'. If the floors of the towers were 12' in height, we would be able to fill up to 7 floors (levels) of one tower with SOLID concrete. So if you are correct that 425,000 yd[SUP]3[/SUP] was used between both towers, then where was the remaining 139,178.4 yd[SUP]3[/SUP] of concrete used in one of the towers given the fact that all 110, 5" thick floors were poured already? If anyone sees any mistakes, please point them out. I'll be happy to admit mistakes and correct them.
I did not say it was correct. But it is the only data out there. If you want to imply that it is wrong then provide another source. psik
What do you think keeps skyscrapers from tipping over in 100 mph winds? How much WEIGHT is put into the BOTTOM? The WTC towers had SIX BASEMENT LEVELS, it was not all above ground. The basements were just as much part of the buildings as the above ground portion. 13 years and people can't get the most trivial stuff correct. psik
"DOE agrees 9-11 was a Nuclear Event" yep, the government has a new top secret radiation vacuum, they were testing it out before we go all out nuclear war... sure that's what really happened and it must work really well as no signs of radiation anywhere .
thats how they always do it. The activities for 2.7, 3.2, 4.7 and 7.57 are 33, 40, 58 and 93Bq/kg. The graph shows that there is too much U on the girder coatings. Normal levels of U are about 12, at most 40Bq/kg My belief is that there is a cold fusion weapon or device of some sort. This employs Uranium and Deuterium. The output is neutrons, lots of heat, lots of energy, gamma radiation. The devise is the size of an apple or grapefruit but heavy (20-40kg). No radioactivity after the explosion except from Tritium H-3 which together with He-4 is the product and some short lived gamma radiation from neutron activations products (e.g. Ca-45 from the Ca in the concrete, Fe-55 from the steel). These would be radioactive for a few days only. [emphasis mine] You would thus expect to find too much Uranium and also Tritium. You find both. There is a paper showing high levels of Tritium in the water at WTC. We also see U levels are too high. Maybe the Barium is part of this mixture, and the Strontium. I have certainly found high levels of both in the war samples.
You have GOT to be kidding me! Like a Weeble?! http://www.rubylane.com/item/645543-KC-03633/1970s-Weebles-Man-w-Blue-Shirt Why secure any building to the ground foundations then? You actually think that the reason buildings don't "tip over" is because they are heavily weighted at the bottom? As my calculations above show, are you saying that the lower six levels of the basement were filled with SOLID CONCRETE? I showed you how much concrete would have been left even after calculating that there were 110 floors of 5" thick concrete. I hadn't even taken out the elevator shafts yet which would further increase the amount of concrete left over. You suggesting that the lower six levels was where the remaining 3,757,816.8 ft[SUP]3[/SUP] of concrete was used is preposterous.
I did not say the weight was THE ONLY factor. How many buildings are 200 feet wide and 1360 feet tall? How much torqe would a 100 mph wind put on that? http://science.howstuffworks.com/engineering/structural/skyscraper4.htm psik
You can insist I said anything you want and make up any delusions you want. I am not responsible for your idiotic ASSUMPTIONS. The buildings must be bottom heavy because they must be stronger at the bottom to hold the weight above which rtequires more steel. The bottom must also pull the top back as it sways in the wind. The building must withstand the torque applied by the wind. psik
The WHOLE length of the building does that,the torque load is distributed evenly over the whole tower
Torque is computed from a pivot point. Pressue is distributed over the entire surface but the torque would be computed from one point. So the same pressure at the 100 story as the 30th story would produce different amounts of torque. http://formulas.tutorvista.com/physics/torque-formula.html But they would add up. My you ARE brilliant! psik
