John Hancock Tower, Chicago = 384, 000, 000 kg
Sears Tower Chicago = 440, 000, 000 kg.
Taipei 101 = 700, 000, 000 kg.
Petronas Twin Towers = 350, 000, 000 kg. (each)
Both twin towers were built to be as light yet rigid as possible so as to withstand the extreme forces of the 100 + mphs. The buildings load was carried 60% by it's core and 40% by it's perimiter steel columns. The perimiter carried the lateral load to resist the wind where as the core carried the gravity load.
Now check this....the weight of structural steel used in each Tower is generally reported to be 96, 000, 000 kg and the weight of concrete is said to be 48, 000, 000 kg per Tower.
The Aluminium panels were reported at 2 million kg
The wallboards were at 8 million kg
Adding those together the skeletal structure clocked in at 154 million kg per tower.
More mass is added to the figure when you factor in the utilities, and other fixtures.
Because there is no actual report that fema nor nist gave for these figures the only thing we can really do is take a guess at it.
Plumbing, electrical and telecom would each add about 5 million kg giving us additional 15 million kg. Adding that to our structure we get a figure of 169 million kg which constitutes as the buildings dead load.
When we populate the buildign with office furniture, supplies and people then more mass is a dded.
As you can see this 169 million is only a 1/3 of the reported total weight of the building. Factoring the live load of people, office furniture and other objects in the buildings...the live load will rise dramatically and the building could top out to over 300 million kg. but it's still 200 million shy of the 500 million.
The sears tower was larger and taller than either tower and it is also a tube within a tube steel building yet it weighs less?
John Hancock is 100 stories and is built as tube within a tube just like the twin towers composing, of steel, aluminium and glass, yet it clocks in at 384, 000, 000kg. (live load included). And the building was not built of light weight steel like the twin towers so it was in fact heavier.
WTC is similar to John Hancock in terms of it's concept so it's fair to consider the two buildigns will be close in mass value. In any mathematicaly equation if one variable is off by just a mere fraction this throw s ur result off. Greening was off by 200 million kgs....so his values for the k.e. and g.p.e. would undoubtedly give us those high values with such a large mass.
What upsets me guys is not enough detailed information on the towers construction is widely distributed....and the only figures we can really work from are fema and nist....because the buildings plans and structural elements are deamed national security. If they have nothing to hide then why can't independent scientists get copies of the buildings designs? They are already destroyed and they won't be used again so why the secrecy?
here is greenings direct reply: ~Lyte Trip
"You make some very good points and I will try to address them as best I can. First let me say that the article you are quoting was written a while back and I have done some other stuff since then that adds and expands on my original work. That original work was therefore a first attempt to see if the Towers could theoretically have fallen by a pancake collapse. The answer appeared to be YES! But as I looked at more videos and read some of the stuff I am sure you have also read, I now say that the collapse of both Towers was more complex than my simple model, as I will explain in a moment. First, on the mass of the Twin Towers, I have recently done some checking into that and I see quite a spread in values.... Some references simply give the potential energy, which implies a mass through the equation 1/2Mgh, (factor of 1/2 because average height fallen is h/2)...... For example, FEMA give the PE of one Tower as 4 x 10^11 J which implies a mass of 196, 000, 000 kg, but the May 2002 issue of Civil Engineering Magazine to be found at ASCE.ORG gives the PE as 3 x 10^12 J implying a mass of 1, 472, 000, 000 kg! The figure I used, and I think it was similar to the value quoted by Profs Eager, Bazant and Kausel ( all engineering profs who have written articles on 9-11) is somewhere between the FEMA and the ASCE.ORG number, let's say about 500, 000, 000 kg....... But I would really like to see a detailed breakdown of the mass, because I am not sure if any of these numbers are correct!"
(so he backs away from his own conclusions by calling them "old"......admits he is not sure about the mass and that GQ makes good points......and then admits that he is "adding" to this flawed paper instead of revising it!) ~Lyte Trip
Ti= 1/2 (330, 000, 000/110) x (8.5)2 = 108, 375, 000 J that is 59, 693, 181.82 J less than the figure Greening got!!!
If we use the dead load this is what we get: 55, 501, 136.36 J!!!! That's less than the difference in energy of the live load vs Greenings magic number!!!
KE for the combined floors: Ta = 1/2 (330, 000, 000/110) x (8.5/2)2 = 27, 093, 750 Joules
Now let's calculate that energy for the floor collapse.
The KE before impact is show below
T1 (wtc) = 14 X 1, 083, 750, 000 = 1, 517, 250, 000 J
T2 (wtc) = 29 x 1, 083, 750, 000 = 3, 142, 875, 000 J
The KE lost as heat is calculated as follows
Q (WTC 1) = 1/(1 + N) x Ti (WTC 1) = 14/15 x 1, 083, 750, 000 J = 101, 150, 000 J
Q (WTC 2) = 1/(1 + N) x Ti (WTC 2) = 29/30 x 1, 083, 750, 000 J = 104, 762, 500 J
The precent of energy lost as heat for each tower:
Tower 1 = Q/T1 x 100 = 6.67 percent
Tower 2 = Q/T2 x 100 = 3.33 percent
One thing Greening forgot to mention was how much energy was also lost as sound and that is something that can't really be calculated unless decible readings were taken, then we can calculate the energy lost to sound as well.
OH before I forget to mention it....t he weight of one floor is NOT 4, 360, 000kG, it is in fact 3, 000, 000Kg and that is our live load!!!! the dead load is actually 1.56 million Kg per floor.
Moving on.....
If we now assume, as previously
discussed, that the yield strength of the core columns is about 6.7 times higher than the
yield strength of the exterior columns, we estimate that an additional 3.60 ? 108 J are
required to collapse the 47 core columns supporting each floor. Thus, based on T.
Wierzbicki et al. calculation, we estimate a total of 6.29 ? 108 J of impact energy was
required to collapse one WTC floor, a value that is remarkably clo se to Baants estimate
of 5.0 ? 108 J for the plastic energy dissipated by the collapse of one floor.
Greening says 62, 900, 000, 000 J is required to collapse one floor of the WTC Towers....
Now as you can see from my calculations.....it isn't even close to that!!!
The maximum kinetic energy of each WTC tower collapse occurred at the end of
the 1st stage of the two-stage collapse. At this point in time the falling material, consisting
of at least 80 floors weighing about 370, 900, 000 kg, was moving at about 50 m/s. We will therefore assume that each tower had a maximum kinetic energy of
x 370, 900, 000 x (50)2 J or 4.6 ? 1011 J.
Again because his mass is wrong....this throws everything off again...
80 floors equates to 72.2% of the building....so we multiply that by the mass of the building and we get the weight of the 80 floors.
The fig ure we get is 240, 000, 000Kg!!! Which is about 130, 900, 000 KG difference!!!!
so let's do the kinetic energy
1/2 x 240, 000, 000 x (50)2 = 30, 000, 000, 000 J.
Greening Got 46, 000, 000, 000 J so we have a difference 16, 000, 000, 000 J of energy here!!!
From photos of the debris pile produced by each WTC tower collapse it is evident
that steel columns and trusses, aluminum fasciae, glass windows, gypsum wallboards and
other construction materials were all fractured and pulverized to varying degrees during
the collapse events. Thus only a fraction, f, of the 4.6 ? 1011 J of kinetic energy, was
available to crush the WTC concrete. For the present calculation we will assume a value
for f of ~ 0.75, giving 3.5 ? 1011 J of available kinetic energy.
Lets consider the beginning of the 1st sage of the collapse of each tower. For
WTC 1 we will take as an example 14 floors, and for WTC 2, 29 floors impacting the
floor below with a maximum velocity of 8.6 m/s. It follows that the kinetic energy on
impact was ? 1 4 ? (510, 000, 000/110) ? (8.6)2 joules = 2.4 ? 109 J for WTC 1, and the
K.E. was ? 29 ? (510, 000, 000/110) ? (8.6)2 joules = 5.0 ? 109 J for WTC 2. If we
assume 50 % of this energy was available to crush concrete, we have 1.2 ? 109 J available
for WTC 1, and 2.5 ? 109 J available for WTC 2. This is sufficient to crush the concrete
on the impacted floor to 175 ?m particles.
Some have suggested that even if Greening used an incorrect value for mass that his calculations still hold true and that a smaller mass would still lead to a collapse. This is not true as demonstrated here:
Tower 1: X 14 ? (510, 000, 000/110) ? (8.6)2 joules = 2.4 ? 109 J for WTC 1, (Greening)
1/2 x 14 x (330, 000, 000/110) x (8.6)2 = 1, 517, 250 , 000 J Almost 1.5 billion J Difference!!!!
Tower 2: x 29 x (510, 000, 000/110) x (8.6)2 joules = 5.0 x 109 J for WTC 2. (Greening)
As a scientist Greening should know that rounding off numbers skews your results...in fact the correct figure for that calculation is 4, 857, 170, 455 J
1/2 x 29 x (330, 000, 000/110) x (8.6)2 = 3, 142, 875, 000 J
a difference of 1, 714, 295, 455 J!!!!!
Now if 50% of the energy is required to crush the concrete this is what we'll get for both towers:
Tower 1: 1/2 x 1, 517, 250, 000 J = 758, 600, 000 J
Tower 2: 1/2 x 3, 142, 875, 000 J = 1, 571, 437, 500 J
Consider now the newly formed mass of (14 + 1) floors of WTC 1, and (29 + 1)
floors of WTC 2, impacting on the floor below. Because of momentum transfer, the
impact velocities are slightly lower than the 8.6 m/s impact speed for the first floors hit:
8.1 m/s for WTC 1, and 8.3 m/s for WTC 2. The maximum kinetic energy prior to impact
is x 15 x (510, 000, 000/110) x (8.1)2 joules = 2.3 x 109 J for WTC 1, and x 30 x (510, 000, 000/110) ? (8.3)2 joules = 4.8 ? 109 J for WTC 2.
This is essentially the same result as the previous impact calculation and the kinetic energy released is therefore also sufficient to crush the concrete on the impacted floor to 175 ?m particles.
This is where he goes wrong!!!! HE says it requires 190, 000, 000, 000 J to crush concrete to 100 micro metre particles!!! Guess what; we don't have that enery!!!!
Let's do it using his 15 and 30 floor results
for 15 floors I got: 1, 625, 625, 000 J
for 30 floors I got: 3, 251, 250, 000 J
Greening got: 2, 300, 000, 000 J for 15 floors and 4, 800, 000, 000 J for 30 Floors.
See the big mistake!!!!
Frank Greening:
"Finally, we will cal culate the energy needed to crush all the concrete in a single
WTC tower (= 48, 000, 000 kg) to particles of a specified size. As we have noted before,
the energy required to crush all of the concrete in one tower to 60 ?m particles = 3.2 ?
1011 J which is only slightly less than the 4.6 ? 1011 J of energy available. However, the
energy required to crush concrete to 100 ?m particles is 1.9 ? 1011 J, which is well within
the crushing c apacity of the available energy. Hence it is theoretically possible for the
WTC collapse events to have crushed more than 90 % of the floor concrete to particles
well within the observed particle size range.'
Considering Greening's results are already skewed we know that the energy calculated is not sufficient to support the gravitational collapse of the towers.
everything is ok now, your government is in control
_________________
--------------------------
MSNBC archive: hijackers trained at US bases:
http://www.prisonplanet.com/alleged_hijackers_may_trained_us_bases.html
FBI agents told to "back off" from investigating al Qaeda months before
9/11:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Archive/Article/0,4273,4293682,00.html
Time.com "9/11, an Inside Job? How the boxcutters were preplanted"
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,175953,00.html
MSNBC Slate: Boxcutter story a myth:
http://www.slate.com/id/2088092/
USA Today: NORAD ran drills simulating 9/11 like attack
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2004-04-18-norad_x.htm
Bush forced EPA to lie about 9/11:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/08/09/national/main567489.shtml
Mineta testifying about Cheney's suspicious 9/11 behavior:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bDfdOwt2v3Y&search=mineta
MSNBC: Osama a former CIA asset:
http://www.msnbc.com/news/190144.asp
Pakistan funded 9/11:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,1266317,00.html
Two 9/11 hijackers lived with FBI informant:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/09/09/attack/main521223.shtml
Here's a VERY important Washington Times article showing how an FBI agent went to her superiors with documents from pre 9/11 that al Qaeda was going to strike with hijacked airlines:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A60651-2004Apr8.html
FBI agent blocked by higher ups on uncovering plot:
http://www.latimes.com/news/printed...1,1,5398407.story?coll=la-headlines-frontpage
but this was not a plane that was trying to land safely (like most crashes) It hit a solid object head on much like the vid *Rakkasan posted. I am actually suprized the pieces are as big as they are. 
