It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Police "pulled" WTC 7 ?

page: 2
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 27 2006 @ 10:31 PM
link   
Have you ever spent any time in construction/demolition? What about responding similar events? The magnitude was far greater, but not many surprises were found. You take that amount of concrete (110 floors) and collapse it into a pile how could a fair amount of it not be pulverized? There were plenty of chunks & massive pieces. Gravity provides more then enough energy to make the powder, even though you apparently don’t understand the concrete crushes & pulverizes on a regular basis.

As for the school getting back in crack, I’m certain I have work boots older then you dude.

Maybe when you grow up you can invent concrete that doesn’t make dust when broken & crushed.




posted on Jul, 28 2006 @ 12:20 AM
link   

Cracking a concrete block into two pieces requires energy, and pulverizing a concrete block into powder requires even more energy. The smaller the particles, the more energy needed.

The only energy available to pulverize the concrete in the WTC was the "potential energy" of the buildings due to the force of gravity. However, the photos show that no piece of concrete fell more than a few feet before turning into powder. This means the concrete picked up enough energy during the fall of a few feet to convert itself to a fine grain powder.

thewebfairy.com...

I have been to and worked on construction sites, but it's pretty irellivant whether I've been on a construction site or not.

When you look at the physics, nothing else matters. Physics works the same everywhere, and the same every day



posted on Jul, 28 2006 @ 12:39 AM
link   
Ive debated this in another thread,
but these two GIANT structures plummeted to the ground.
We saw the DUST clouds rise over NYC,
we saw the total destruction yet people on here scream conspiracy because some concrete was turned to dust?
ITs not going to fall apart like leggo now is it ? some concrete is going to be CRUSHED at the bottom.

I think its clear that mankind doesnt fully understand construction materials.

I mean, the builders were 'surprised' the towers WITHSTOOD the impact.
No one expected the steel to bend, and buckle under the heat.
No one expected the towers collapse,
yet people are screaming conspiracy because they dont believe concrete should reduce to powder?

GIMME A BREAK!

I dont believe that alqaeda flew those planes in,
but im definate in the belief that the towers 'WERE NOT' loaded with explosives, were not brought down on purpose.

Those gaping holes in the WTC, along with the burning of jet fuel, in my mind is enough to make all those TONS of materials and building ABOVE the crash site, was to much for the curropted, weakened structure of the floors below and around where the crash happened.

then, with the building weight and force of those floors coming straight DOWN< it would of been a domino effect of floor after floor collapsing under the sheer weight.



posted on Jul, 28 2006 @ 01:21 AM
link   
Problem is the steel columns didn't bend and buckle, the telescoped straight down...

And no it wasn't just some crushed concrete under the building. Have you watched the collapse? What do you think all that white dust is? Concrete getting crushed. But by what exactly? It was turning to dust before there was time for anything to crush it, and there is not enough force by gravity alone to pulverize that amount of concrete that fast.

This is where the pancake theory loses, concrete dust cannot crush solid concrete.

If a concrete floor fell onto an equally sized concrete floor, both concrete floors will sustain similar amount of damage...Thus if one is pulverized they both will be.
One of them isn't going to pulverize and the other one stay solid. And if the lower floor did stay solid while the upper floor hitting it pulverized, what caused the lower floor to pancake?

You can try this at home folks...

So a scenario...Floor 110 falls on floor 109, both are pulverize into dust. What falls on floor 108? Pulverized dust. Then what happens to the pancake theory?

There had to have been more going on than gravity alone. It's all in the physics. And isn't it strange that the physicists seem to get the most attacks?

Am I right?

[edit on 28/7/2006 by ANOK]



posted on Jul, 28 2006 @ 10:16 AM
link   
I think you are over looking the massive cumulative effect of so much falling at one time in one area. Whether you understand the experience in construction/demolition means more then reading (& quoting) stories on the internet is irrelevant. You seem to be misapplying basic principles and failing to realize that there are variables & more then one or two principles in action.

The dust was created from the 1st crack any of the concrete, not just at the bottom. Where did anyone claim that floor 110 & 109 would have been pulverized instantly, only leaving dust to fall on fl 108? I realize that’s your example, but 1 floor falling on another doesn’t do that. It takes 6 falling on 7 on 8 on 9 on 10 etc. Why is that so hard to understand?

You apply whatever clever terms or phases you like to what practical experience & common sense brings to others. Cascading, pancaking, telescoping, whatever. I just don’t think results were that surprising or that any laws of physics were broken that day. Buildings of thay type & size had never come down, so you can not compare it to an old warehouse or a 14 story hosptal.



posted on Jul, 28 2006 @ 01:01 PM
link   
Please remember that the WTC tower floor slabs were only 4 inches thick.

How big are the chunks that you expect to get from that?

Let's reduce the scale of that a bit, for better visualization of the proportions:

Let’s assume that the average thickness of a tortilla chip is 2 mm.

Assuming the same ratio of thickness to size you would need a tortilla chip 4 feet by feet in size to have the same size to thickness ratio of the WTC floor slabs.


Now if you were to stack 110 of these chips up at 2.8 inches apart, the “World Chip Center” tower would be about 26 feet high.

How much guacamole would it take to bring that down and how chip dust would that generate?




[edit on 28-7-2006 by HowardRoark]



posted on Jul, 28 2006 @ 01:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jake the Dog Man
The dust was created from the 1st crack any of the concrete, not just at the bottom. Where did anyone claim that floor 110 & 109 would have been pulverized instantly, only leaving dust to fall on fl 108? I realize that’s your example, but 1 floor falling on another doesn’t do that. It takes 6 falling on 7 on 8 on 9 on 10 etc. Why is that so hard to understand?


Why does the massive dust cloud start so early in the collapse sequence and with such outward force?

Or, an even better question... what pulverized the roof and the top ten floors?

Should these floors have also turned to dust or should we see large chunks of the upper floors that were not subjected to the downward "crushing" vector?

Did they just disintegrate on impact? and if so, how did they have enough KE left after pulverizing all of the othe 100 floors to turn themselves to dust?

Energy is a zero sum game and it seems from many computations that the resultant pulverization and distribution of concrete, and the "crushing of the core" would require exponentially more energy than G would provide.

The official story goes:

G X mass of original falling "block" > resistance of core + energy required for pulverization + energy required to "disperse" objects outward + pulverize the original falling "block"

Though it is quite complicated, especially because of the massive particle system of the "cloud", it seems the force needed far outweiged the force available via G.



posted on Jul, 28 2006 @ 01:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
Problem is the steel columns didn't bend and buckle, the telescoped straight down...




It looks like the exterior columns are bending/ buckling inward in this picture of WTC 2.




And look, the same thing happening in WTC 1:




Is this core column bent or “telescoped?”




posted on Jul, 28 2006 @ 01:53 PM
link   
I think you have missed the point of the whole WTC Disaster. I was there from 20 minutes after the north tower went down. I lost a lot of good friends. We did a lot of good for the survivors and the rest of the CITY! I am still deciding on the (underlying) cause, but you are missing what is important. OVER 77000 Responders Went there! Many of us are now sick. We would still do it again!

That day I witnessed the meaning of being an AMERICAN and a NEW YORKER MEANS!

As a First Responder and I worked the WTC Site for three months. We Knew that there was a lot that was not known and we knew it would be dangerous. We still went! It is a shame that our government is still trying to cover a lot up.

DO NOT FORGET the RESCUE Workers!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I am sick from the Dust with Heart Problems. I am disabled now, I can't work anymore. The city which recieved 1 Billion dollars to help us, is being used to deny us Finacial help. The City of NEW YORK has spent 20 million of that money fighting our claims. while we take second mortages to have legal money for lawyers.

All I want is to get my disability pension so I know my family will be taken care of.

I am hurt by all the issues that we can bring upon ourselves. We must stand together as AMERICANS to stay strong. We have done it in the past we can do it again.

The truth will always come out, and I feel sorry for those that will be found to be traitors.



posted on Jul, 28 2006 @ 02:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Slap Nuts
Why does the massive dust cloud start so early in the collapse sequence and with such outward force?


[sarcasm=on] Oh, Gee, I don’t know. Maybe there were other materials on these floors that were being turned to dust also. Hmmm, what else was on those floors? Drywall? Ceiling tiles? Fireproofing? Soundproofing? insulation? Nah, Maybe you’re right [/sarcasm]



Originally posted by Slap Nuts
Or, an even better question... what pulverized the roof and the top ten floors?

Should these floors have also turned to dust or should we see large chunks of the upper floors that were not subjected to the downward "crushing" vector?


Well gee, after falling 1300 feet, I’d expect them to be a bit broken up, don’t you?



Originally posted by Slap Nuts
Did they just disintegrate on impact? and if so, how did they have enough KE left after pulverizing all of the othe 100 floors to turn themselves to dust?


You seem to think that the top portion alone was responsible for the total collapse. The top portion initiated the collapse, but the rest of the building contributed to the dusts as well.




Originally posted by Slap Nuts
Energy is a zero sum game and it seems from many computations that the resultant pulverization and distribution of concrete, and the "crushing of the core" would require exponentially more energy than G would provide.


Got some data/ numbers/ calculations to back that up?



posted on Jul, 28 2006 @ 07:49 PM
link   
Oh jeez not the old exterior columns again, still peddling that I see Howard?


I think the circle is complete??...



posted on Jul, 28 2006 @ 10:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
Oh jeez not the old exterior columns again, still peddling that I see Howard?


I think the circle is complete??...


Still peddling stupidity I see, Hh ANOK?



posted on Jul, 29 2006 @ 04:04 AM
link   
I agree with Howard that it would appear the outer columns were bowing.

I can't really say for sure. For all I know NIST could of manipulated those images (wouldn't put it past them.) Although I am NOT accusing them of doing it.

I am sort of sitting on the fence on the idea.
But from the photo's it does appear the exterior columns are bowing inwards.



posted on Jul, 29 2006 @ 04:33 AM
link   
You are not looking at exterior collumns, they are the aluminum facade.


In its final report the government asserts multiple times that fires weakend and "bowed" columns. On page 148, "The south perimeter wall was first observed to have bowed inward at 10:23 a.m. [5 minutes before collapse] The bowing appeared over nearly the entire south face of the 94th to100th floors. The maximum bowing was 55 in.[1.4 m] on the 97th floor." Take a look at the picture on page 33 of the final report. This the government's best evidence. Can you corroborate the government's findings about "bowing"? Of the 59 columns of the south face, one can only see about 16 columns that appear to be "bowed". And this "bowing" phenomenon is only seen on 3, maybe 4 floors (98-95), not the 7 floors asserted. The government's overstatements amount to 800% reality. Why? In addition, it cannot be determined beyond speculation that the steel columns were "bowed" and not be an aberration, such as optical distortion from fire and heat, from picture enhancement, or from the aluminum facade covering the columns.


Source; 911research.wtc7.net...



posted on Jul, 29 2006 @ 08:59 PM
link   
Please explain to me, then how the facade bent inward that far without the columns bucking inward also ?

The column covers were attached to the exterior columns.



posted on Jul, 29 2006 @ 09:12 PM
link   

In its final report the government asserts multiple times that fires weakend and "bowed" columns. On page 148, "The south perimeter wall was first observed to have bowed inward at 10:23 a.m. [5 minutes before collapse] The bowing appeared over nearly the entire south face of the 94th to100th floors. The maximum bowing was 55 in.[1.4 m] on the 97th floor." Take a look at the picture on page 33 of the final report. This the government's best evidence. Can you corroborate the government's findings about "bowing"? Of the 59 columns of the south face, one can only see about 16 columns that appear to be "bowed". And this "bowing" phenomenon is only seen on 3, maybe 4 floors (98-95), not the 7 floors asserted. The government's overstatements amount to 800% reality. Why? In addition, it cannot be determined beyond speculation that the steel columns were "bowed" and not be an aberration, such as optical distortion from fire and heat, from picture enhancement, or from the aluminum facade covering the columns.


Source; 911research.wtc7.net...




posted on Jul, 29 2006 @ 09:19 PM
link   
Yeah. it can't be determined, other than the fact it makes sense ! Come on the picture shows it!! BTW anyone see the Scholars , help the real " truthers " , tonite ?That was fantastic !!!!



posted on Jul, 31 2006 @ 09:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

In addition, it cannot be determined beyond speculation that the steel columns were "bowed" and not be an aberration, such as optical distortion from fire and heat, from picture enhancement, or from the aluminum facade covering the columns.


Source; 911research.wtc7.net...





The column covers (40) were attached to the exterior column structure.

Please explain how the aluminum column covers could have bowed inward without the exterior wall columns moving also.





[edit on 31-7-2006 by HowardRoark]



posted on Jul, 31 2006 @ 09:42 AM
link   
Again, I will post the same challenge to HowardRoark:


Show us sufficient buckling to justify the initiation of collapse on a single floor.

Buckling allegedly compromised a lot of structural integrity. Enough to make a whole floor give way, support columns and all, and fall straight down. For buckling to cause such a monstrous failure, there would have to be a very large number of buckled perimeter columns on any given floor.

NIST shows a small handful per floor at best per floor, and this is even in regards to the photos that are dubious in their portrayal of heat-related sagging or etc., which NIST never properly (scientifically) links to the buckling in the first place.



posted on Jul, 31 2006 @ 09:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

In addition, it cannot be determined beyond speculation that the steel columns were "bowed" and not be an aberration, such as optical distortion from fire and heat, from picture enhancement, or from the aluminum facade covering the columns.


Source; 911research.wtc7.net...



This is pretty much the stupidest excuse that I have heard yet. It is totally lacking in any scientific validity.

I’ll tell you what. The principles and mathematics behind refraction and diffraction are pretty well known and easy to understand.

Please provide some calculations to back up this assertion. You can make whatever assumptions that you feel are reasonable, as long as you can list them.

(i.e. density of the ambient air, density of the :heated” air, index of refraction for the ambient air, index of refraction for the “heated” air, the shape of the “heated” air/ambient air interface, etc.)

Go ahead, I dare you.

I double dog dare you.

What’s the matter, your not afraid of a little math, are you?




[edit on 31-7-2006 by HowardRoark]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join