Yeah, talk is really cheap when you don't even explain yourself and just try to play psychological games. psik
Yeah, that's me...I huge psychological games guy. Always looking for the most complicated answer to the most simplistic stuff aren't you? You've been given the math so many times it's ridiculous. Giving it to you again would be a waste of my time and resources.
Provide us with a link to where the volume of concrete has been computed before on this site instead of just talking about math. It's your mouth. Show us that you can remove the foot. psik
First off, I don't have my foot in my mouth. I am, also, not digging through the entirety of PF to find you the volume of concrete. However, I will provide you with that math when you answer just 1 question for me. How does the volume of the concrete prove CD? (Make the answer realistic, not just more of your woo.)
First, you have no clue what the report specifies because you haven't read it. You've only searched it. The entire document is not OCR, and thus not even completely searchable. There's information in schedules. There's information in figures. There's information in supplemental tables that you haven't read because you assumed that it is indexed via your expectation of a keyword. Second you have no clue what the relationship between strength and weight really is. More steel does not necessarily mean stronger steel. In a previous post you said: So let's do that. Let's say you have 2 steel columns made of the exact same type of steel, with the exact same area moment of inertia. 1 column is 8 feet long, and the other is 12 feet long. Which column is heavier? Which column is stronger?
What happens to F (the maximum critical force) as L (length) increases... What happens to the mass of the column as L (length) increases
So after all of this time that I have spent saying that it ain't there all you can do is IMPLY that it is. ROFLMAO Why don't you just say what it is and where it is? Oh yeah, if it ain't there then you can't do that. And why is it that I can find the total for the steel of "roughtly 200,000 tons"? Why would the NIST have the steel searchable and not the concrete if it was there? Your argument makes SO MUCH SENSE. psik
the concrete weighs roughly 4000 lbs per yard if the used light weight concrete which i doubt they did would weigh jys 3500 lbs per yard..and yes i am a concrete person for more than 35 years..
You can regard yourself as being in control of the conversation all you like. You brought up the issue of my not having read the NIST report and imply I must have missed something important but you but neither you nor anyone else has proven it is there to miss IN FIVE YEARS. So you need a distraction. LOL psik
then times that that by how many cubic feet per yard..and there is roughly 80 square feet to a yard 4 inches deep
I don't need to imply anything. You haven't read the report. It's like searching the book Treasure Island for the word "Arr" and concluding the book can't be about pirates because it's not there. (Coincidentally the word Pirate is only in there 6 times) The important thing you missed is the actual content of the report... Yeah, and one of the many issues for your claims is that the floor sections did not increase in mass from top to bottom of the building. They were fairly uniform with the exception of the HVAC floors in the middle of the building. The columns themselves did increase in mass from top to bottom, but they didn't not increase in excess strength. Strength is one of the other issues with your claims. So instead of complaining that I'm controlling the conversation, maybe you should answer my simple question for your own edification. If there are two columns of different length made from the exact same material, using the exact same cross sectional area, which is stronger, and which is heavier? If you can answer that, you can attempt to answer this next one: Why did the WTC use BOX columns instead of I columns or T columns, or concrete encased columns?
You should also think about how the energy is transmitted through the structure. This happens much faster than the acceleration of gravity... How fast does the energy move through the stationary steel balls in Newton's cradle?
What exactly do you think you are joking about? Are you trying to respond to the question, "How fast does the energy move through the stationary steel balls in Newton's cradle?" Do you not know how energy moves through a material? Joking seems like a (*)(*)(*)(*) poor way to hide that fact. I'll give you a hint. The answer has to do with sound.
What does this statement have to do with the comment you quoted? No wonder no one can ever understand you. You're missing nouns, verbs, and your pronouns are always ambiguous. It's like madlibs without the prompts for the missing information. Please rephrase this comment in some form of language that can be parsed.
I have known the floor slabs outside the core were about 600 tons for years. Because of the corrugated pans I use 4.333 inches as the thickness for the slabs. However this does not explain why sources from before 9/11 say the two towers totalled 425,000 cubic yards of concrete. So your suggestion has done nothing to resolve the problem. psik
