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.

 

Lack of foundation damage puts an end to 757 impact debate at the Pentagon

page: 23
22
<< 20  21  22    24  25  26 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 20 2007 @ 05:03 PM
link   
reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT
 



The photos show lots of construction going on to "beef" up the structure. It is VERY possible that the concrete was poured post 911 to assure saftey for those working there.

There is not proof of this as of yet... but to suggest it is silly is the pot calling the kettle black.




posted on Oct, 20 2007 @ 05:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT





No offense, but asking a few quick questions and having them answered is a lot faster then reading over 20 pages of what amounts to mostly bs. If it was 4 or 5 pages, maybe. I hope I didn't strain you too much.

There are many types of foundations.

en.wikipedia.org...

In addition, the Pentagon has an extensive basement level. Furthermore, if this wasn't a plane, what are you suggesting it was? A missile and a bomb both have chances of damaging the foundation.

I guess I just don't understand how perhaps no damage to the foundation=BOMB OR MISSILE. It seems like your making assumptions that just cannot be made from the given information. There are a lot of weird things that happen in plane crash.

I'd appreciate if you left the patronizing response and treat me with the respect that I've treated you.

[edit on 20-10-2007 by ccaihc]



posted on Oct, 20 2007 @ 06:46 PM
link   
In this Photo (that i posted previously) You can clearly see the landing gear...


fire.nist.gov...

The ASCE states that the landing gear weighs 3,800 pounds..... How does that get carted around the Pentagon?? It is an OFFICE building NOT a warehouse!



posted on Oct, 20 2007 @ 08:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by CaptainObvious
In this Photo (that i posted previously) You can clearly see the landing


So its a photo of a landing gear. But the landing gear from what aircraft.

Also do you have the infomration o nt he photo.

Name of photographer.

Date and time taken.

Location taken.



posted on Oct, 20 2007 @ 08:27 PM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 


Tell me Ultima1 how would they go about matching all the parts to an individual plane?



posted on Oct, 20 2007 @ 09:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by ccaihc


No offense, but asking a few quick questions and having them answered is a lot faster then reading over 20 pages of what amounts to mostly bs. If it was 4 or 5 pages, maybe. I hope I didn't strain you too much.


Apparently it strains you too much to read it but you felt compelled to chime in with attitude and inaccurate accusations right off the bat anyway.



There are many types of foundations.

en.wikipedia.org...

In addition, the Pentagon has an extensive basement level.



Please explain how this is relevant to the point of this thread in any way.

Even if your unsupported claim is true it does not change the fact that the concrete in the images was reportedly struck with 90 tons of passenger jet at 500 mph yet shows no signs of damage from it.





Furthermore, if this wasn't a plane, what are you suggesting it was? A missile and a bomb both have chances of damaging the foundation.


A 90 ton jet slamming into it as reported would guarantee it. If it wasn't a 90 ton jet it doesn't really matter what it was not doesn't it?



I guess I just don't understand how perhaps no damage to the foundation=BOMB OR MISSILE. It seems like your making assumptions that just cannot be made from the given information. There are a lot of weird things that happen in plane crash.


No damage to the foundation = no 90 ton jet slamming into it at 500mph.

This is all that matters.

If you don't understand that then I can't help you.



I'd appreciate if you left the patronizing response and treat me with the respect that I've treated you.


You have not treated me with respect. Why would you lie about such a thing? Although this is only your second post to me here is what you said in your first post:



Your incredible patronizing attitude makes it hard for me to post in this topic, as I fully expect you to respond with some sort of smart ass reply with many smiley face emoticons and perhaps a comment telling me to "think," but here goes anyways.


THAT is how you introduced yourself.

Not very friendly or respectful is it?



posted on Oct, 20 2007 @ 09:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by wsamplet
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 


Tell me Ultima1 how would they go about matching all the parts to an individual plane?


Every part of every plane has an ID number that can be traced to the plane.

Positive ID.



posted on Oct, 20 2007 @ 09:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by CaptainObvious

The ASCE states that the landing gear weighs 3,800 pounds..... How does that get carted around the Pentagon?? It is an OFFICE building NOT a warehouse!



The Pentagon is the largest low rise structure in the entire world.

It is MUCH more than an office building OR a warehouse.

It is a virtual city.

The part of the building in question was under renovation for years.

You have no basis to suggest it's impossible for these parts to have been planted during the renovation and you have no proof that any these parts came from tail number N644AA.



[edit on 20-10-2007 by Craig Ranke CIT]



posted on Oct, 20 2007 @ 09:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by CaptainObvious
reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT
 



The photos show lots of construction going on to "beef" up the structure. It is VERY possible that the concrete was poured post 911 to assure saftey for those working there.

There is not proof of this as of yet... but to suggest it is silly is the pot calling the kettle black.


Haha!

Unbelievable.

It is not possible and it did not happen within 10 days of the worst tragedy in modern U.S. history before the clean-up effort was complete.

That is why robertz has refused to reply.

The notion is ridiculous and the fact that he asserted it and you are backing it up simply demonstrates how even YOU TWO understand that we should see damage from a 90 ton jet on the concrete in the pictures.

But we do not because the plane was on the north side of the citgo station and can not be what created the physical damage.



posted on Oct, 20 2007 @ 09:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by wsamplet

Tell me Ultima1 how would they go about matching all the parts to an individual plane?


Most aircraft parts have serial numbers (specially engine parts) to track for inspection and maintenance. It would be easy to match to a aircraft.


Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
It is not possible and it did not happen within 10 days of the worst tragedy in modern U.S. history before the clean-up effort was complete.


The FBI did not officially take over the Pentagon as a crime scene for 10 days.

[edit on 20-10-2007 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Oct, 20 2007 @ 10:02 PM
link   
reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT
 


Why is it not possible for the floor to be repaired? Did they not build a road for heavy equipment to go across the lawn??

Let me know how that Grand Jury investigation is going Craig!



posted on Oct, 20 2007 @ 10:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by CaptainObvious
reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT
 


Why is it not possible for the floor to be repaired? Did they not build a road for heavy equipment to go across the lawn??



10 days dude.

The images were taken on 9/21.

Did you miss that?

To suggest they poured concrete to replace the first floor within 10 days before completing the clean up effort is quite comical.

You can still see a ton of dirt and debris!

Are you really holding on to this absurd assumption without any evidence?

For you to assert something so ridiculous only demonstrates how compelling you really think this evidence is that no boeing hit the building.

You are searching for ANY explanation no matter how ridiculous out of desperation!

You really ought to drop this one dude.

Concede or continue to look as silly as robertz.

At least he was smart enough to disappear from the thread!

[edit on 20-10-2007 by Craig Ranke CIT]



posted on Oct, 20 2007 @ 11:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
You really ought to drop this one dude.

Concede or continue to look as silly as robertz.

At least he was smart enough to disappear from the thread!

[edit on 20-10-2007 by Craig Ranke CIT]


So do you have evidence of Flight 77 hitting the Pentgon? I would really love to see it if you do because i have been looking for a long time for any physical evidence and official reports.



posted on Oct, 21 2007 @ 12:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
Concede or continue to look as silly as robertz.

At least he was smart enough to disappear from the thread!


Craig, I disappeared from the thread because I actually have a life and prefer to spend my Saturday evenings going out with my girlfriend instead of posting on ATS. You do remember what girls are, right? You really should try to get out sometime. When you start bragging about how many stars your threads have you really need to take a break and get some perspective on life again.

Anyway, back on topic...

You have yet to prove that the concrete in the photos is relevant. My evidence that it was poured after 9/11 is as follows:

- It is too thick. The building report shows a cross-section of the floor slabs that do not match the solid, thick concrete in the photos.

- There is no evidence of any location where the steel beams would have been coming up from the concrete floor. The beams were spaced every 10 feet apart. There should be some physical evidence in the concrete where the beams were. If the rebar in the other photo is coming up through the floor, then there should be several holes in the concrete where the other beams would have come up. The holes are not there.

- The foundation as you call it is above ground level. Concrete foundations are not poured above ground level or they will freeze and crack. The photos show the concrete is poured over dirt. This is not how foundations are made.

- There are two floors beneath the first floor. The foundation is under the basement floors, not the first floor. At best this could be the first floor slab, however, it does not match the drawing for the floor slab or the thickness of the 2nd floor slab shown in the photos.

- The FEMA photos show that large equipment, including cranes, were brought in to lift other equipment to the higher floors. It would have been necessary to have a firm base for the larger cranes to operate from.

- The FEMA photos show a bobcat being used to clear debris from the second floor on 9/21/07. The second floor debris could have fallen on the the concrete below, thus explaining why there was debris on freshly poured concrete.

- The rebar shown in the photograph is coming from inside the concrete slab. The only way for this to occur is if the concrete was poured after the rebar was in place first. But if the rebar was in place first, what was it attached to? The purpose of a foundation is to support the load from the beams, not the other way around.

- It only takes about 24 hours, sometimes less, for concrete to set up. The only area in question is the relatively small area shown in the photos. I did not suggest that they re-poured the entire first floor.

- The photo shows the cross-sectional view of this concrete. Note that there is no rebar or any beams coming out of the side horizontally in this cross-section. The building report shows the floor slab to contain truss bars, which are not evident in the photo of this concrete.


Your Evidence That the Concrete is the Foundation:

- None

- You say it is.

- You do not believe there was enough time to pour this concrete.

- There is debris on top of the concrete in places.

Before your conclusion can even be discussed, you must first establish that your premise is true, i.e., that the concrete shown in the photos was there on 9/11, and that it was not damaged anywhere.

You have not even established that the concrete is the foundation, let alone that there is not damage to it that may not be shown in the photos.

Since you are the um... what did you call yourself? An investigative journalist, this should be really easy for you to figure out. There is no need to speculate about this . It is what it is. Either they poured the concrete after 9/11 or they did not.

What not do some investigating to find the real story and get back to us.



posted on Oct, 21 2007 @ 12:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by robert z
What not do some investigating to find the real story and get back to us.


Speaking of doing some investigating. How did they pour the concrete with a search and rescue effort going on for 10 days? On the 10th day the FBI took over the and made it a crime scene.

So please explain to me when they had time to pour new concrete?



posted on Oct, 21 2007 @ 12:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by robert z
What not do some investigating to find the real story and get back to us.


Speaking of doing some investigating. How did they pour the concrete with a search and rescue effort going on for 10 days? On the 10th day the FBI took over the and made it a crime scene.

So please explain to me when they had time to pour new concrete?


They could have cleared the area in question first, and poured the concrete in that limited area to provide the pad for the heavy equipment. Either way it is obvious that the area in question was cleared first, right?

I think the best evidence that it was poured after the fact is the absence of any beams, or holes where the beams should have been. The beams were 10 feet on center. Where are they? Or where is there any sign of where the beams were attached or came from? They were BIG beams.



posted on Oct, 21 2007 @ 12:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by robert z
They could have cleared the area in question first, and poured the concrete in that limited area to provide the pad for the heavy equipment. Either way it is obvious that the area in question was cleared first, right?


So they are going to just stop a search and rescue operation that is trying to save peoples lives to pour new concrete, is that what your saying?

Also wouldn't bringing in more equipment to pour the concrete mess up the crime scene that they are trying to preserve?



posted on Oct, 21 2007 @ 12:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by robert z

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
Concede or continue to look as silly as robertz.

At least he was smart enough to disappear from the thread!


Craig, I disappeared from the thread because I actually have a life and prefer to spend my Saturday evenings going out with my girlfriend instead of posting on ATS. You do remember what girls are, right? You really should try to get out sometime. When you start bragging about how many stars your threads have you really need to take a break and get some perspective on life again.


Ummmmmm...but here you are!


I live with my hot European gf of 5 years so I'm all good in that department.

But thanks for your concern.

Old boy said this thread was not going my way so I pointed out the "stats" to prove it was. Give it a rest.




Anyway, back on topic...

You have yet to prove that the concrete in the photos is relevant. My evidence that it was poured after 9/11 is as follows:

- It is too thick. The building report shows a cross-section of the floor slabs that do not match the solid, thick concrete in the photos.


That is an unsupported claim by an anonymous poster on a conspiracy forum, not evidence that the 1st floor concrete was poured and set within 10 days after 9/11.



- There is no evidence of any location where the steel beams would have been coming up from the concrete floor. The beams were spaced every 10 feet apart. There should be some physical evidence in the concrete where the beams were. If the rebar in the other photo is coming up through the floor, then there should be several holes in the concrete where the other beams would have come up. The holes are not there.



This is yet another unsupported statement by an anonymous poster on a conspiracy forum, not evidence that the first floor concrete was poured and set within 10 days after 9/11.



- The foundation as you call it is above ground level. Concrete foundations are not poured above ground level or they will freeze and crack. The photos show the concrete is poured over dirt. This is not how foundations are made.


This is also an unsupported statement that does NOTHING to prove that all the concrete in those images was poured and set within 10 days of the worst tragedy in U.S. history.

Do you not see how inconsiderate this would be to the recovery of victims remains?




- There are two floors beneath the first floor. The foundation is under the basement floors, not the first floor. At best this could be the first floor slab, however, it does not match the drawing for the floor slab or the thickness of the 2nd floor slab shown in the photos.


This is yet another unsupported statement by an anonymous poster on a conspiracy forum, not evidence that the first floor concrete was poured and set within 10 days after 9/11.



- The FEMA photos show that large equipment, including cranes, were brought in to lift other equipment to the higher floors. It would have been necessary to have a firm base for the larger cranes to operate from.


So why didn't you post the image?

I'll tell you why....

because the crane is NOT EVEN ON THE CONCRETE.



- The FEMA photos show a bobcat being used to clear debris from the second floor on 9/21/07. The second floor debris could have fallen on the the concrete below, thus explaining why there was debris on freshly poured concrete.


Talk about reaching. That is evidence that more debris could have fallen.

Not evidence that the first floor concrete was poured and set within 10 days after 9/11.



- The rebar shown in the photograph is coming from inside the concrete slab. The only way for this to occur is if the concrete was poured after the rebar was in place first. But if the rebar was in place first, what was it attached to? The purpose of a foundation is to support the load from the beams, not the other way around.


This is evidence that an anonymous poster on a conspiracy forum is not familiar with the intricate details of the construction of the Pentagon. It is not evidence that the first floor concrete was poured and set within 10 days after 9/11.



- It only takes about 24 hours, sometimes less, for concrete to set up. The only area in question is the relatively small area shown in the photos. I did not suggest that they re-poured the entire first floor.


Well we have images from the first floor going all the way back to the c-ring hole and there is no visible damage.

You have no evidence that ANY concrete was poured let alone all of it.



- The photo shows the cross-sectional view of this concrete. Note that there is no rebar or any beams coming out of the side horizontally in this cross-section. The building report shows the floor slab to contain truss bars, which are not evident in the photo of this concrete.


This is yet another unsupported statement by an anonymous poster on a conspiracy forum, not evidence that the first floor concrete was poured and set within 10 days after 9/11.



Your Evidence That the Concrete is the Foundation:

- None

- You say it is.

- You do not believe there was enough time to pour this concrete.

- There is debris on top of the concrete in places.


I am being logical and you are making unsupported WILD assertions.

It's cool man....keep it up!

You are digging your hole deeper with every pathetic attempt you make to assert this nonsense.

You will not get anyone or anything to ever support it because you made it up and it is a ludicrous assertion that is simply not true.



Before your conclusion can even be discussed, you must first establish that your premise is true, i.e., that the concrete shown in the photos was there on 9/11, and that it was not damaged anywhere.

You have not even established that the concrete is the foundation, let alone that there is not damage to it that may not be shown in the photos.


You are in denial and are simply asserting unsupported claims in desperation.




Since you are the um... what did you call yourself? An investigative journalist, this should be really easy for you to figure out. There is no need to speculate about this . It is what it is. Either they poured the concrete after 9/11 or they did not.

What not do some investigating to find the real story and get back to us.


Wow.

It's your ridiculous claim.

Prove it, concede, or continue to look silly.








[edit on 21-10-2007 by Craig Ranke CIT]



posted on Oct, 21 2007 @ 12:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by robert z
They could have cleared the area in question first, and poured the concrete in that limited area to provide the pad for the heavy equipment. Either way it is obvious that the area in question was cleared first, right?


So they are going to just stop a search and rescue operation that is trying to save peoples lives to pour new concrete, is that what your saying?

Also wouldn't bringing in more equipment to pour the concrete mess up the crime scene that they are trying to preserve?


The area in question is the area where the roof collapsed. This was cleared out first. Obviously the entire collapse and debris under the collapse was already cleared out. The crime scene aspect was not an issue at this point since it was already cleared out as evidenced by the photos.

And keep in mind, the number one priority would have been to make sure the rest of the building did not collapse. The search and rescue beneath the collapse was already done. That area was empty.

Again, if this concrete was the original concrete, then where are the beams? Where are the spots where the beams used to be? The entire concrete slab in the photo is smooth.

Also, look closely at this photo from inside the area looking out. It looks like the area around the center beam that is shored up with wood is surrounded by poured concrete with a gap between the concrete and the wood. To me this looks like the put the wood in place to shore up the building, and then poured the concrete slab, boxing in an area around the wood shoring.




posted on Oct, 21 2007 @ 12:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by robert z Also, look closely at this photo from inside the area looking out. It looks like the area around the center beam that is shored up with wood is surrounded by poured concrete with a gap between the concrete and the wood. To me this looks like the put the wood in place to shore up the building, and then poured the concrete slab, boxing in an area around the wood shoring.


Gee, and people talk about CT's reaching for any theory.

But since the FBI will not release any photos or videos we wont know if your theory is right or not.



new topics

top topics



 
22
<< 20  21  22    24  25  26 >>

log in

join