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.

 

Japan Skyscrapers Sway With 8.9 Earthquake but the WTC collapsed !! still beleive the 9/11 version?

page: 12
34
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 14 2011 @ 03:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Yankee451

Originally posted by FDNY343


Nice Dodge!! That thing got a Hemi in there???

Why don't you answer the questions I posed to you?

Thanks.


Here's a question for you, how fast would an aluminum wing need to fly to cut my steel wood stove in half?



My guess would be somewhere around 733 fps, but that is just a guess. And as I said, without knowing the weight of the specific part you keep referring to, we won't be able to do the calculation, now will we?




posted on Mar, 14 2011 @ 03:10 PM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


What you omit to mention is that these exhibits were recovered from below WTC 6. Truthers never seem to mention WTC 6 so what is your explanation ?

Fact is that the material encases recognisable handguns and handguns have a lower melting temperature than concrete. So the material is most likely baked gypsum/concrete dust.



posted on Mar, 14 2011 @ 03:10 PM
link   
And so what temperature does it take to melt concrete, FDNY?


Apparently you have a bunch of crazy conspiracy theorists making producing fake evidence and putting it on display at a NYPD museum display. Or maybe fire and office materials really can melt concrete now, one more "scientific" first for 9/11 I guess.





Originally posted by bsbray11
Guns recovered at WTC are encased in concrete. (That was obviously once molten, unless you believe in some exotic variety of fairy magic.)


Images here: www.archive.org...


This is no hoax but an actual exhibit at a museum for NYPD in NY.


Just one more degree of separation between those who have eyes and ears, and those who've already made it a habit to endlessly lie to themselves.



posted on Mar, 14 2011 @ 03:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Alfie1
What you omit to mention is that these exhibits were recovered from below WTC 6. Truthers never seem to mention WTC 6 so what is your explanation ?


Damn, I guess I have no explanation since WTC6 was obviously the most intense raging inferno there was on 9/11.


No, I don't think that amount of sarcasm is going to sink quite all the way through your head so: You think WTC6 was a concrete-melting facility? Have I got your "argument" yet or do you want to work on this a little more?



Fact is that the material encases recognisable handguns and handguns have a lower melting temperature than concrete. So the material is most likely baked gypsum/concrete dust.


There you have it. And we're off to another game of someone pulling an imaginative theory out of their ass to explain bizarre "collapse" anomalies that should have already been addressed by real science. If you're seriously here to argue that we don't need a real investigation then you're shooting yourself in the foot hard.



posted on Mar, 14 2011 @ 03:19 PM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


If WTC 6 was the epicentre of all that was hot at the complex on 9/11 what caused it and why do truthers routinely ignore WTC 6 ?

If the material was melted concrete why does it have unmelted handguns in it ?

You can fly off the handle all you want but these are basic questions.



posted on Mar, 14 2011 @ 03:21 PM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


Is it possible that it was compacted concrete and dust that did it, and not heat? I say this because of the paper and such that was intact within the fused concrete. It would seem to me that it was less heat and more pressure that did the work there.



posted on Mar, 14 2011 @ 03:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Alfie1
If WTC 6 was the epicentre of all that was hot at the complex on 9/11 what caused it and why do truthers routinely ignore WTC 6 ?


I'm not ignoring it was WTC6 Alf. I'm watching you begin to chase yourself in circles posting things that make no sense.

Somehow WTC6's location is supposed to make it more susceptible to this apparently, or at least that seems to be the impression you are weakly giving as you hide behind rhetorical questions and refrain from positive assertions. Why don't you just shut up until you actually know what the real explanation is for once? If you actually stop and think for a second you'll realize that the most intelligent people here are only asking questions and not the ones (on either side) who are just pulling fantasies out of their ass given the lack of real science here. And thinking that asking a bunch of rhetorical questions settles anything is just as stupid, if not stupider than thinking that making stuff up is also an answer.



You can fly off the handle all you want but these are basic questions.


I like my question better: Why are these guns apparently encased in concrete, as the exhibit itself says?

Not surprising you can't even accept my question without going off the handle yourself with a million rhetorical questions that don't even make sense.

I'm content waiting for a real scientific answer, but apparently you aren't even interested in one.
edit on 14-3-2011 by bsbray11 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 14 2011 @ 03:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
Can you explain why that matters, or are you just repeating something that you think makes sense?

If ALL the steel used to construct the towers lost half its strength it would still stand.


Wanna show some math to back up that absurd claim?



Originally posted by ANOK
Do you know why? Have you ever heard of a safety factor? All buildings must be at built to at least a x2 safety factor, which means the building can hold its own twice over.


Correct. However, when critical pieces are compromised, so is the safety factor.



Originally posted by ANOK
You obviously didn't look it up...


Of interest is the maximum value which is fairly regularly found. This value turns out to be around 1200°C, although a typical post-flashover room fire will more commonly be 900~1000°C. The time-temperature curve for the standard fire endurance test, ASTM E 119 [13] goes up to 1260°C, but this is reached only in 8 hr. In actual fact, no jurisdiction demands fire endurance periods for over 4 hr, at which point the curve only reaches 1093°C.

www.doctorfire.com...

The first tower to fall was on fire for approx an hour.


Correct. However, you've quotemined that page. Have you seen the TTC for that?

Here it is.
en.wikipedia.org...
in_iso_astm_ul_curves.JPG

Can you explain what the TTC means?



Originally posted by ANOK
Not only that room temperature does not equate to steel temperature, the steel will never reach the temp of the room.
Go learn about thermal transfer.


Maybe you should too. Trying to lecture others about the transfer of heat when it appears that you yourself do not understand it, is rather foolish.

Maybe you can tell me how much heat energy the trusses would transfer to the cores?




Originally posted by ANOK
So no the steel would not reach 1000d, and even NIST says no temps were found over 250d.


NCSTAR 1-3c also says very specifically that the sampling that they used was only 1% of the steel in the impact zone, and should not be used to determine the results from other parts of the building.



Originally posted by ANOK
No the room will not reach those temps in an hour, and the room temp will not transfer enough heat for the steel to reach critical temperatures in an hour.


They most certainly will. Look at the Cardington Fire Tests and download the raw temperature data. Take a look at some of those figures. They prove you wrong.



Originally posted by ANOK
Even if what you say is true, you still have the problem of the collapse contradicting Newtons laws of motion. There is still thousands of tons of steel that was not heated by the fire, in fact the whole lower floors that apparently were crushed by heated soft steel all the way to the ground, ignoring known physics.


Only when you ignore that it wasn't just "soft steel", and it included lots of other things.


Originally posted by ANOK
Sorry but real physics trumps opinions and misunderstandings. You should really re-think your whole opinion on this mate.


Same to you.



posted on Mar, 14 2011 @ 03:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Varemia
Is it possible that it was compacted concrete and dust that did it, and not heat?


Let me ask God. Okay. He said "no."

Seriously, why are you asking me?


I'll tell you something about myself and I'll "test" you by seeing how long you are able to remember it before screwing up. I want answers to questions, as an American. When I come here with questions, some people are so offended that they begin demanding answers from me. What I want you to remember is that I didn't come here to explain 9/11 to you. I came here because I wanted it explained to me, with actual evidence and not a lot of anonymous internet users playing pretend that they're scientists doing real investigative work.



posted on Mar, 14 2011 @ 03:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by FDNY343

Originally posted by Yankee451

Originally posted by FDNY343


Nice Dodge!! That thing got a Hemi in there???

Why don't you answer the questions I posed to you?

Thanks.


Here's a question for you, how fast would an aluminum wing need to fly to cut my steel wood stove in half?



My guess would be somewhere around 733 fps, but that is just a guess. And as I said, without knowing the weight of the specific part you keep referring to, we won't be able to do the calculation, now will we?



Why are you still guessing? You keep claiming this stuff as fact, so I want a demonstration of how you arrived at that conclusion. You should have been able to find this stuff as easily as I have, especially since I've given it to you before:

Lopi Revere Stove
Construction
5/16" to 3/16" Steel Plate

Fracture toughness and yield strength of 767 wing

Density of commmon metals



posted on Mar, 14 2011 @ 03:38 PM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


I stress that these exhibits were found below WTC 6 precisely because truthers never mention WTC 6. You are endlessly on about cd of WTC 1,2 & 7 but WTC 6 doesn't get a look in. The inference is that truthers regard WTC 6 as collateral damage, which indeed it was.

But suddenly, because of these exhibits, you want to drag WTC 6 in. So what did happen to WTC 6 ? Was it subject to some high-tec attack which raised temperatures to a point that could melt concrete ? If so, why haven't I heard of it before ?

And you still have no answer for the basic question. If it is molten concrete why does it have unmelted guns in it of a lower melting temperature ? Who is ignoring the science ?



posted on Mar, 14 2011 @ 03:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Cobaltic1978
No dodge here pal. You have chosen to ignore my question about the BBC announcing that WTC7 had collapsed a full twenty minutes before it was pulled.


Outside of Manhattan pre-911, hardly nobody even KNEW what 7WTC was, let alone that there were more than 2 WTC buildings. The fact that they got it wrong is not suprising.

Media get stuff wrong all the time. Especially on a confusion filled day such as 9/11.


Originally posted by Cobaltic1978
All I will say that getting so angry about things will bring on stress, stress leads to all types of illness, so if you believe you are right, who do you need to convince?


Thanks. I didn't know that stress can be harmful to your health.....


I am here because of boredom, and my severe hatered of liars.


Originally posted by Cobaltic1978
The building was pulled a term used in the demolition business, gee even the lease holder admitted a decsion to 'pull it' was made. This couldn't be done in the period of time involved unless there were explosives already in place. Peace.


"Pulled" in CD's is when they literally PULL the building down with large cables and heavy machinery.

Not to mention that explosives have a shelf life when exposed to open air that is measured with a clock, and not with a calender, but hey, it's cool.



posted on Mar, 14 2011 @ 03:41 PM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


I was just throwing ideas out there that might explain it. Jeez, this is a public forum for opinions and ideas, not a scientific panel of experts.



posted on Mar, 14 2011 @ 03:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Alfie1
 


If you want to have an intelligent discussion we have to have some sort of order here.


When we both ask a question, whose question gets addressed first and why: the person who asks first, or the person who comes along and starts asking a million of his own, without any of them answering the 1st question?

I can't get my hopes up though because I have a feeling more stupidity is on the way.



posted on Mar, 14 2011 @ 03:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Yankee451
A much smaller volume of aluminum wing with a density rating of 2.8 can't slice through a much larger volume of laterally reinforced structural steel with a density rating of 7.8. KE would be equally distributed between the two bodies, relative to their density and mass.


Only when you forget about the KE involved.....



posted on Mar, 14 2011 @ 03:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Varemia
I was just throwing ideas out there that might explain it. Jeez, this is a public forum for opinions and ideas, not a scientific panel of experts.


If you were always that humble then discussions around here would be very much more straightforward.

You'll never see me telling anyone exactly what caused any of those buildings to fall.

Neither will you see anyone else prove why they fell, or at least not yet.



posted on Mar, 14 2011 @ 03:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ben81
fly a plane in the top of the Eiffel tower
what do you think it will do ??

nothing
not even a scratch
edit on 3/14/2011 by Ben81 because: (no reason given)


You think the Eiffel Tower will repel the impact of a plane??

WTF?!?!? You're not serious, are you? Please tell me you're joking.....right? Right???

Oh damn.........



posted on Mar, 14 2011 @ 03:47 PM
link   
reply to post by Varemia
 


All opinions are welcome, we just want to be sure everyone knows which opinions are reality-based.



posted on Mar, 14 2011 @ 03:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
reply to post by Alfie1
 


If you want to have an intelligent discussion we have to have some sort of order here.


When we both ask a question, whose question gets addressed first and why: the person who asks first, or the person who comes along and starts asking a million of his own, without any of them answering the 1st question?

I can't get my hopes up though because I have a feeling more stupidity is on the way.


What questions have you asked of me ? I will endeavour to answer them.

I have asked you what was so special about WTC 6 that temperatures reached were enough to melt concrete but truthers never mention it ? and how come guns of a lower melting temperature were encased in the alleged molten concrete ?



posted on Mar, 14 2011 @ 03:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by finalword
What temperature does concrete melt at? Will anyone be so foolish as to tell me an office fire could have done that? wmd_2008, you also keep talking about kinetic energy, as if that proves anything. I don't see disparate elements fusing together in your videos from "kinetic energy".




It doesn't melt in the sense that ice melts, or steel melts, or copper.
It's more of a degredation, and it occurs above 600 deg. C, but closer to 900 deg. C. Ths process (in my experiences anyway) is very rare, and takes some time. My guesstimation is around 24-48 hours of continuous heat, which would have been easily attained in the rubble piles after the collapses.

en.wikipedia.org...

edit on 14-3-2011 by FDNY343 because: Clarify




top topics



 
34
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join