payne1000 wrote:
The cardboard I used was made entirely of cellulose--basically paper--certainly no steel inside. Considering scale, the cardboard walls were about twice the height of those in the twin towers.
The flimsy cardboard boxes you see in warehouses weighing 100 lbs have additional stiffening materials inside. The cardboard I used can be torn by hand. How much styrofoam have all of us had to dispose of from boxes we open? My experiment proves the interior floors would prevent rapid floor collapse in the towers. You can attempt to obfuscate all you want but the experiment proves you are lying again.
The image below shows the tower wall heights in scale. The cardboard walls in my experiment were at least twice the height of the tower walls when scale is taken into account.
The weight of the tower floor slabs in scale would not even approach the weight of the 75 pound concrete blocks.
The cardboard I used was made entirely of cellulos... (
show quote)
The weight of the concrete on one office area floor was 434 tons. The weight of concrete in one core area floor was 193 tons. The total weight of concrete on one tower floor was 627 tons. This is just the concrete, it does not include the weight of steel in the floors or that of the office contents. The average weight of one tower floor (everything) was 4500 tons.
To what purpose is your experiment with drywall sheets, duct tape and bags of cement? To what purpose is your experiment with a cardboard box and cement blocks? These experiments and your arguments to support them make no sense at all. None of these have any relationship to the design and construction of the twin towers. And, they are effectively defeating your original claim that the "super strong" structural steel was invincible.
If the steel structure was capable of supporting 2000% of the tower's static weight, what prompted you to argue for an additional element of structural strength that, in reality, did not exist?
In the photo here, you have added what appears to be an integrated wall system throughout the office areas, complete with doors and such. Such a thing did not exist in the twin towers. The primary selling point of the twin towers was maximum rental space. Such an enclosed office system would defeat that purpose and was not necessary. Only in rare instances did more than one tenant occupy a single floor. In most cases a single tenant occupied multiple floors--Morgan Stanley, for instance, occupied 21 floors in the South Tower.
Building enclosed offices would add additional weight to each floor, they would reduce available space and curtail the efficiency of every day business communications and transactions, they would slow down considerably employee interactions, they would prevent direct contact between individual departments in the company. After all, it was the World Trade Center, the premier center of world finance. The highest percentage of tenants were engaged in the fast paced world of finance--bankers, investors, venture capitalists, traders, speculators, etc. The people involved in this certainly did not need or want to knock on office doors--"Got a minute?"
Which leads to the question of why truthers are accusing those in the world of high finance--the bankers, investors, venture capitalists, traders, and government insiders--for plotting and killing the very hand that feeds them? Why would those with huge investments of time, energy and money in their dynamic businesses destroy the most advanced and efficient center of world finance in existence at the time?
.