Btw, the “missing” concrete could easily be the slurry wall, built prior to the construction of the WTC, which took 14 months to complete. Once this wall was completed, the towers could then commence being built.
The wall is described as
Of course, I’m almost positive that howstuffworks.com is part of the conspiracy.
This likely amounts to the “missing concrete”, but I’m sure it will NOT be accepted because some website or magazine somewhere used the wrong indefinite article or possessive pronoun in describing the amount of concrete used in the construction of the WTC. Something like “There were 415,000 lbs of concrete used in constructing the towers” with no reference of where the concrete was used. Ergo, some may assume that each tower had 200k+ lbs of concrete… which isn’t necessarily the case.
I admire your pluck. It takes something special to stand up to the weight of evidence, expertise and reason. Good news is, you’re not alone. You’re in good company with creationists, moon hoaxers, hollow earthers and anti-vaxxers.
I’m wondering why no one has done an analysis of the food from the building’s restaurants and cafeterias for the presence of mind-controlling drugs. What if the fairy-thermite was put in place then everyone was made to forget they saw it happen?
What is the EVIDENCE about the amount of concrete in each tower and how it was distributed?
The NIST uses the word “concrete” more than 3,000 times in their 10,000. I have read every sentence with that word and often the entire page since often the word appears in clusters. What kind of “evidence” can they produce if they say the towers had 200,000 tons of steel but do not specify a total for the concrete?
But what “evidence” are you talking about regarding the concrete? It is not even possible to accurately compute the Potential Energy of the north tower if the concrete distribution is unknown.
All you can do is play guilt by association word games by mentioning Moon hoaxers and hollow Earthers.
Am I supposed to admire the ignorance of people who cannot figure out what data is necessary to resolve a middle-school physics problem?
I think we should coin a new phrase: Asimov wept. After all, it gets tiresome to repeat the following a dozen times every day:
[QUOTE=Isaac Asimov]
Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.
[/quote]
Exactly. I noticed it is a 123mb download - how much does 123mb weigh? Has anybody calculated that? Why wasn’t this brought up in the 10,000 page NIST report? How will we know, conclusively, what happened that day we saw two fuel-ladened jet aircraft slam into two buildings, causing massive impact and fire damage which eventually weakened the steel supports to the point where they could no longer support the weight of the 10-30 floors above it, causing the “tops” to fall directly down on top of the rest of the buildings, thereby destroying it… How will we know what made those buildings collapse if we don’t know the simple fact of how much weight is represented in a 123mb download?
I’m sorry, but you are wrong. Many groups, including NIST has modeled the collapse. That you want some other type of model is really meaningless. And many groups, including NIST have absolutely explained the why and the how of the collapse of all 3 buildings. That they haven’t explained it to your satisfaction is, well, rather sad (for you), but is really meaningless.
Horseshit. Sorry, but because you think this doesn’t make it a reality. In order to model progressive collapse they don’t need to know the exact amounts of concrete (or anything else) in the towers. Again, this really underscores your ignorance in how models work and how they are used.
Well, I think we are done here. You’ve been shown the data. You reject it and insist on some ridiculous level of evidence that, frankly, no one is going to have since it would be silly for anyone modeling the event to jump through those hoops, being unnecessary and all. Was there anything else you wanted to discuss or was that it?
Think of it as a science experiment conducted by an Evil Scientist: “If I ram a fuel-laden aeroplane into the WTC, can I cause it to collapse?” He does so, and voila! It collapses.
Another Evil Scientist says “I need to verify this. Let’s get another fuel-laden airplane.” He slams it into the other tower, and it too falls.
So the experiment was reproduceable. And, in real life, we saw this experiment reproduced. We saw not one, but two airplanes crash individually into not one, but two separate (but equal*) buildings, and the result was exactly the same. We now know, to the best of our ability, that if you crash two fuel-laden aircraft into the WTC towers, the towers will very likely fall down.
So we actually saw this mad scientist experiment. Twice. The result was the same. So why the questions, Psikey?
(Unfortunately, this experiment is not falsefiable. You can crash airplanes into the WTC in a manner that won’t cause it to crumble as it did. And an infinite amount of positive observations still won’t make a complete general theory as to why this happens. But as far as reproducability goes, the WTC attacks gave that to us in spades.)
So provide us with a link to this model of the north tower explaining the collapse. It is not my fault that you just accept their word that they did a model. How could they make an accurate model without the corret amount of concrete being simulated? So if they did the model then where is the specification of the amount of concrete?