Explain the upper block accelerating at the rate of gravity for the first 100 feet of it's fall. That is equivalent to eight stories.
The Con Edison substation was two stories tall and there were deep trusses from the central core out to the perimeter columns spanning over the substation. This had nothing to do with the collapse of WTC 7 and the NIST didn't even try to go there.
Tony,
My knowledge of the construction details of WTC 7 is much less than WTC 1 and 2. So until I do a little more research, I can't comment on it's construction. It just didn't make sense to me that if the insiders rigged the WTC7 for demo, why did they wait so long to initiate the charges?
I'm not asking you to do my research for me, but do you know what the "official story" cause of the WTC7 was? (ok..maybe I am. )
Who knows? no-one can know what is in the mind of others, you can only speculate and come up with an infiinty of answers.It just didn't make sense to me that if the insiders rigged the WTC7 for demo, why did they wait so long to initiate the charges?
"move along nothing to see" is basically the official story.I'm not asking you to do my research for me, but do you know what the "official story" cause of the WTC7 was? (ok..maybe I am. )
.
I told you the tons you can convert that to pounds if you want. I prefer tons because it puts things into perspective relative to the steel. The towers averaged 862 tons of steel per level.
What is 34 tons of kerosene going to do to 862 tons of steel?
That is one of the reasons we need to know the steel on every level. Presumably the levels in the impact zone had less than 862 tons. But how much less?
psik
."I told you the tons you can convert that to pounds if you want."
I cannot make it any clearer.
38,000 l of fuel
If you cant figure out what i am saying then this whole thread is a big waste of time.
.I am sure you realize 34 tons of the jet fuel did not even make it into the buildings let alone stay on one floor. FEMA did an estimate on the fuel distribution and NIST felt it was fine and used it. Someone did a short five page paper about this and what you are saying and it is published at the Journal of 911 Studies.
.
You can do liters, I'm so impressed.
Does kerosene burn hotter in liters? Excuse me, Jet Fuel.
psik
Looking at sites on the topic, it was stated that WTC7 had structural damage and a Fire that burned without any firefighting. Coupled with the fact that it was in proximity of WTC1 and WTC2 collapse which would of generated a localised shockwave.
I still say it's a dead horse being flogged.
.I could care less about impressing you. You needed a road map to figure that out and i even gave a link and wrote 10,000 U.S gallons equal what? the l means what? STILL, both you and Tony were clueless. Very telling. Clearly you discuss things that are beyond your ability to understand them so dont come off like an arrogant scholar. FOS, that is what you are.
"I told you the tons you can convert that to pounds if you want."
I cannot make it any clearer.
38,000 l of fuel
If you cant figure out what i am saying then this whole thread is a big waste of time.
yeah....SURE. That is how i, and everyone else i know, write it and when referring to liquids i never had a problem with people not understanding the standard and accepted abbreviation. Never have i come across this problem accept when dealing with laypeople.
For some reason I have a feeling that you are looking for any little thing to pick on, possibly because your arguments for the present government story on the collapses of the towers don't seem to be holding up too well.
Could I be right?
no, you are not right. in fact i really think you are deluded.
an engineer should have been able to understand it and i found that perplexing.
but i am not making an issue of it because psikeyhacker is the one who is bringing it up. as long as i know how to convert gallons to liters then that is good enough for me.
.10,000 US gallons equals 38,000 l then what else could i possibly referring to? When i worked as an engineer we had to know this.
.Damn...your right Styder...we are beating the hell out of dead horses..while I have used this thread to gain knowledge...looking up the facts to disprove "unconventional ideas...i think it's time to lay down the law.
Single topic trolling should be inforced.
.
Yes, the conservation of momentum is very unconventional.
At least among scholars on this planet. :wtf:
psik