psikeyhackr - 15 May 2013 07:25 PM

He can say there were 4 inch slabs **throughout** the building but then the well known fact that there were also 5 inch slabs is irrelevant because he says so.

Liar (again). I never said the inner core five inch slabs was irrelevant, I said your clarification on that detail doesn’t refute my position there is four inches of concrete slab as flooring.

Me: “The floor is this thick throughout the structure.

Psikey: “It’s actually thicker in this area, although I’ve been professing no one knew these kinds of details previously.”

Me: “That doesn’t actually make my assertion incorrect, but it does show you’ve been lying.”

And furthermore the important factor was if said concrete was in any way contributing to structural strength of the building, which it wasn’t.

That particular piece of information you submitted didn’t refute a thing I said, but it did clearly demonstrate you knowingly lied about the distribution of the concrete throughout the towers as being ‘unknown’.

His apologizing for saying 15% by weight is irrelevant because what matters is that he thought it long enough to write it. How do you figure out how much height at the top was 15% by weight? I haven’t the vaguest idea. So what does it say about him that he even thought it?

I incorrectly assumed you were talking about 15% of the mass of the entire building, since mass of a particular portion will determine impact forces, not dimensions with undefined mass.

I grossly overestimated your intelligence and knowledge of the issue, and therefore assumed you were proposing at least one competent piece of physics.

Ane then I’m supposed to have a model weighing 450 tons? **ROFLMAO**

Only if your model was scaled to at a 1:1000 ratio and you scaled the mass by the same ratio. Which I then pointed out doesn’t happen in reality and demonstrated so with simple math. Which you then cried about and then tried claiming math applied to physics isn’t really all that important all the time.

If airliners could bring the buildings down then it should have been explained in good detail long ago with accurate data on the towers.

It has been, hence sources like the NIST report. The NIST report, which according to you specifies the actual the amount of concrete in the towers. Which you claim the distribution of is top secret information kept secret from anyone unwilling to Google it for five seconds. Which then someone can point out to you was distributed as concrete flooring and the foundation of the structure. Which you then add additional detailed to the inch precision information on, despite you just claiming such information was hidden/suppressed/unavailable in the first place. You’re a liar and there’s no possible way you can deny it.

But I have never even seen a flat layout of the horizontal beams in the core. Were they the same on every level? They did not have to be because the elevator shafts were different lengths.

None of which is relevant to vertical supports not being strong enough to withstand upper portions of the building’s mass slamming down onto them. You do not understand the difference between static and dynamic loads of standing structures, nor understand how to calculate cross sectional footprints and load bearing capacities of structures, including of models you yourself built.

You are frightened of math and you know it demolishes your arguments, hence why you have publicly admitted you will not do the math and instead try to play down the importance of applying math to physics. You’re also a proven liar on multiple occasions and make claims for missing data you don’t bother to prove is actually missing in the first place.

How much thicker did they get down the towers? Never seen that discussed either.

Prove they got thicker and prove they needed to.

So how airliners could do it does not have to be explained in detail but any other explanations must be. Absurd!

Except it has been explained and quite thoroughly. Your objections stem from making claims certain pieces of data are unknown, which you’re then proven to be knowingly lying about. Furthermore you make up information you claim is missing, without proving that information even exists in the first place, such as how horizontal beams got ‘thicker’ down the towers.

Your position boils down to ignorance, lying and making shit up.

All explanations require detailed data on the towers. Everyone should agree to that. So what was the total amount of concrete in the towers? It was 200,000 tons for the steel. Even the NIST has agreed to that. So what is the story with the concrete? Account for that 425,000 cubic yards.

So you ask what the total amount of concrete in the towers is, and then you answer your own question with the answer of 425,000 cubic yards three short sentences later. Unbelievable. If you’re unable to track information you yourself type out over the space of three sentences, it is little wonder why this is all so confusing to you.

That amount of concrete is accounted for via the concrete slab flooring of the towers and their base foundations. Any other stupid questions?

Why do we have that number from before 9/11?

Because engineers, design schematics and simple math tend to produce that information before we even build a structure, you poor ignorant simpleton.