Hi Doug R; Re: "The concrete floors were 4 inches thick."
Okay, I said 3", which is fairly close to 4". But it turns out that they were using lightweight concrete, so my figures for pounds per square foot are quite accurate, see below.
Re: "Was there more concrete than just that in the floors?"
Very little.
Re: "The outer walls. That's ALOT of wall."
No, the outer walls were almost entirely steel and glass. Look at a picture of the thing. Or here, read the document from the architects to find out where the concrete got used:
Construction system: steel frame, glass, concrete slabs on steel truss joists
greatbuildings.com
Re: "All columns, girders and floor beams are solid steel covered with 1 to 2 inches of brick terracotta and concrete."
(a) Brick terra cotta is not concrete. (b) 1" to 2" is negligible. (c) The WTC had no terracotta, you probably are mistaking the Empire State building (built in the depression) with the WTC. For example, see:
911research.wtc7.net
Instead, the vast majority of WTC steel members were coated with asbestos or "Cafco". Concrete doesn't work as well as an insulator because in such thin pieces it would quickly crack off. And concrete is heavier, which means you have to build the rest of the building that much stronger.
Cafco is a company that makes fire insulation. And it sure as hell isn't concrete. And if you look at what it is made out of, you will see that it makes pretty good dust (and this matches what shows up in the WTC dust according to the geological people):
cafcointl.com
There were some reinforced concrete beams but they were the exception rather than the rule in the WTC. I believe that they were used in the basement, where you'd find a good bit of the concrete, and on the "equipment floors", which carry heavier loads than the usual office stuff.
Re: "The amount of concrete in each building is documented."
Agreed. The figure is 425,000 cubic yards of concrete:
truthout.org
panynj.gov
foxnews.com
infoplease.com
fdnewyork.com
web.mit.edu
but it turns out that most of it was not "normal" concrete but instead was "light" which weighs only 110 pounds per cubic foot instead of the 150 figure I was using. That puts the weight of concrete for the whole structure at something like the figure your guy uses for the concrete in just one tower. And a lot of that was buried deep in the ground where the structure has to be much stronger and the concrete heavier (where all the parking garages etc. are). My figures for the weight of concrete in a floor are correct. Instead of 3" concrete at 150 pounds per cubic foot, they were using 4" concrete at 110 pounds per cubic foot. About the same.
Re: "What other world gave you the authority to change the facts?"
I didn't. Your guy got them wrong.
Re: "And what are you replacing the 3200 sq/ft per floor with? That's over 350,000 sq ft at 4 inches thick. Just saying that much area wasn't concrete doesn't hold water.
If it wasn't concrete, what was it? Was it a stronger substance than concrete? weaker? heavier? lighter?
Whatever it was, since I don't see large regularly shaped 3200 sq foot things in the pictures of the rubble, it was reduced to dust too. If its resistance to pulverization was similar to that of concrete it would belong in the calculations. Another 8+% error on your part."
I guess you think that the people got into the building by using a Star Trek materialization machine. Or maybe they crawled outside. Cause if you didn't leave space for elevators they sure as hell didn't get there any other way. And you have to substract the area of the steel vertical members. And pipes, etc. If anything, I'm being conservative here.
But as usual, you have no sense of numbers. Even if you use 43,200 instead of 40,000 the numbers still exclude your concrete figures. The error in your figures isn't 8%, it's about 500%. Wasting time counting percentages isn't going to buy you enough to make a difference. And really, how stupid could you be to think that the whole area of the building floors has to be filled with concrete?
Re: "And WHAT amount of energy did you say was necessary to reduce the concrete to particles of 60 microns in diameter?"
I said that the building's concrete was not reduced to 60 micron diameter particles. Only an idiot would think that. Look at these pictures, the big chunks of concrete are the rounded gray things in the rubble and they sure as hell ain't ground to no 60 micron size:
911research.wtc7.net
Now I'm not saying that there was no concrete ground to 60 microns. Sure some was. But it would have been a tiny fraction of the concrete. Concrete is mostly made of little rocks. When you drop a big piece of it a long ways, the rocks get loose, and the stuff that holds them together gets turned to a powder. But the concrete as a whole does not get milled to a dust. It just can't happen. Hell, the Space shuttle fell from orbit and it didn't get turned to dust. There were still pieces of its tiles found in Texas and those tiles are a lot more fragile than concrete.
What I said was that the majority of the dust was created by things that are much easier to pulverize than concrete. Things that you fully expect to turn to dust when smashed with a building. Like the asbestos coatings, the glass windows, and the drywall.
Re: "A couple questions: ..."
All the rest of your stuff is just more bullshit. Eventually we can talk about it. But for now, let us not spread ourselves thin by trying to discuss too many topics at once. Instead, let us stick to the three questions we're discussing already. How much concrete was actually suspended in the air up in the towers (and so COULD be turned to dust), how much of the dust was caused by concrete, and how much of the concrete actually turned to dust.
By changing the subject, what you're trying to do is to lie faster than anyone can possibly tell the truth. Stick to one subject at a time. Even if you want to cover it all before the election you still have a couple of months to go.
And remember, if you can't trust the WTC conspiracy theorists on the amount of concrete in the buildings, the source of the dust, or the amount of concrete that was pulverized, why do you think you can trust them on anything else?
-- Carl
By the way, I think that these tall steel/glass buildings are DANGEROUSLY underbuilt and a hazard even when people aren't flying planes into them. It's a miracle that more of them haven't fallen over. Do you really TRUST the BIG BUSINESSES who design and build them to make them safe? If you don't trust the GOVERNMENT to tell you what knocked them over, how can you trust the GOVERNMENT to design safe buildings? |
