|
reply posted on 1-8-2005 @ 01:39 PM by ashmok
|
I think we've made our points; there's no use continuing to go in circles.
Fair enough & just what I was about to say, actually. I'm sure everyone else has read enough to decide who they think has made the best case - time
to move on.
[edit on 1-8-2005 by ashmok]
|
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 1-8-2005 @ 02:25 PM by msdos464
|
This is no explanation whatsoever for why all the concrete in both building was turned into powder. You could expect some dust from the buildings, of
course, but every freaking piece of it gone? You're going to have to prove that contention with something other than a hammer.
How do you know that ALL concrete was pulverized? There might have been large concrete pieces in tower remains. I don't know was there or not.
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 1-8-2005 @ 05:30 PM by bsbray11
|
Originally posted by msdos464
This is no explanation whatsoever for why all the concrete in both building was turned into powder. You could expect some dust from the buildings, of
course, but every freaking piece of it gone? You're going to have to prove that contention with something other than a hammer.
How do you know that ALL concrete was pulverized? There might have been large concrete pieces in tower remains. I don't know was there or not.
Check pics of ground zero, or even of the collapse itself, and see if you can find any concrete not in the form of dust. If you can find some, post
it. As far as I know, all concrete slabs between floors in those buildings were pulverized into powder. The only potential exemption to this would be
in the basement floors, and I don't even know of the material there being intact.
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 2-8-2005 @ 10:54 PM by HowardRoark
|
Originally posted by bsbray11
My words were "utterly destroy," not simply harm. You're suggesting the utter destruction was not from the collapse, despite the fate of the
concrete slabs, which were completely and thoroughly turned to dust during the collapses.
It wasn't all pulverized. The drywall was, certainly, but the floor slabs were only 4" thick and consisted of lightweight concrete.
110 stories, x 4" = 36' 8"
Add to this, the fact that the debris collapsed down into the basement and you will realize that most of the concrete was still there in the "pile."
|
copyright & usage
|
|
AboveTopSecret.com is advertising supported.
|
reply posted on 3-8-2005 @ 12:21 AM by billybob
|
Originally posted by HowardRoark
Originally posted by bsbray11
My words were "utterly destroy," not simply harm. You're suggesting the utter destruction was not from the collapse, despite the fate of the
concrete slabs, which were completely and thoroughly turned to dust during the collapses.
It wasn't all pulverized. The drywall was, certainly, but the floor slabs were only 4" thick and consisted of lightweight concrete.
110 stories, x 4" = 36' 8"
Add to this, the fact that the debris collapsed down into the basement and you will realize that most of the concrete was still there in the "pile."
the "concrete slabs" were actually "concrete and steel slabs". the concrete was poured onto the steel, remember? it can't just end up in a pile
of just concrete. unless of course there was some kind of super duper centrifuge caused by the elevator shaft's static pressure, which seperated the
concrete from the steel.
how DID the concrete get seperated from the steel? must have been the explosives they poured in with the concrete when the towers were built.
something about seawater being used to increase the shelf life of the c4?
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 3-8-2005 @ 10:41 AM by bsbray11
|
Add to this, the fact that the debris collapsed down into the basement and you will realize that most of the concrete was still there in the
"pile."
Anything to verify this?
From the looks of the collapse, I think I know exactly what happened to most, if not all, of the concrete in all of those floors..
I wonder what all that whitish, powdery-looking stuff flying around the steel shards is. 
Maybe this..?
That's certainly a very fine powder for concrete.
[edit on 3-8-2005 by bsbray11]
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 3-8-2005 @ 11:30 AM by Conspicuouz
|
it's so freaking obvious it's scary how people still believe the official story
good post of photos 
can anyone claim that fine of dust/concrete/whatever you want to call it came from the whole pancake theory?
come on
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 1-7-2008 @ 05:29 AM by Anonymous ATS
|
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 26-8-2008 @ 04:21 PM by Anonymous ATS
|
|
copyright & usage
|
|
AboveTopSecret.com is advertising supported.
|
