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: 14
34
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 14 2011 @ 06:37 PM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


I haven't read the link...but my first reaction was that this is new york, wise guys and made men built the towers. I bet there are more than just a few guns encased in that concrete.





posted on Mar, 14 2011 @ 06:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Yankee451
I haven't read the link...but my first reaction was that this is new york, wise guys and made men built the towers. I bet there are more than just a few guns encased in that concrete.


They're NYPD guns though, on display at a museum.

So you think they were there when the towers were built? Shouldn't be too hard to compare the NYPD's late 1960's pistols to their 2001 pistols, even after the heat damage they suffered.



posted on Mar, 14 2011 @ 07:04 PM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


Yeah, that's my second thought...to check the make and model to get a time frame from the guns, and compare it the area where they were found to see if the guns could have been in circulation at the time the concrete was poured.

My money would be on good cops dumped in there by bad cops, or goodbad cops silenced by wise guys at the time of construction.

On second thought, just guns dropped in there. possibly to hide their use in a murder?
edit on 14-3-2011 by Yankee451 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 14 2011 @ 07:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by wmd_2008
Concrete would pop and spall from the heat of the fire because of water trapped in it , concrete is cement,sand,aggregate and water takes about 1500c to melt sand so the gun would have melted the concrete was more likely compressed around the guns by pressure.


This is what I'm talking about when I say people like you come up with imaginative and totally unscientific explanations, just whatever pops into your head first to reply to me, and you aren't actually contributing anything. How does concrete "compress" around something so as for it to become encased? "More likely" is just your cute way of admitting you're nowhere near a real investigation.


Sorry but you have some info on my post if it was melted
concrete and sand melts at around 1500c why is the gun not melted of course as you have no answer you will deflect or change the subject!!!



posted on Mar, 14 2011 @ 09:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by wmd_2008
Sorry but you have some info on my post if it was melted
concrete and sand melts at around 1500c why is the gun not melted of course as you have no answer you will deflect or change the subject!!!


First of all the guns are obviously damaged, one can only assume from heat by their appearance. Mostly you are only looking at ragged pieces of guns.

Secondly the gun doesn't have to be exposed to the same heat source that the concrete is. Especially when things melt or ablate, they tend to move away from heat sources. So that is my answer to you, and why your explanation is just another example of someone thinking off the first thing that comes to mind and then pretending that they've done an investigation. You might make a bad science fiction writer but you're not coming anywhere near a real investigation or factual explanation of what happened to the guns.
edit on 14-3-2011 by bsbray11 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 14 2011 @ 09:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Yankee451
reply to post by FDNY343
 


The wings of a 767 are swept back 35 degrees, so the story requires they sawed through the columns. Impossible.

If impossible, what is possible?

Explosives? Is there any evidence to support that? Some.


letsrollforums.com...


Um, explosives don't make flames, they make booms and bright flashes of light.

Try again.

Let's see your math, since you seem to know exactly how to do it. Don't forget the weight of the fuel, and all the componets inside the wing.



posted on Mar, 14 2011 @ 09:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
Sure, all buildings are designed with a safety factor of at least x2. This means they can hold their own weight twice over. That is the minimum. So if it can hold twice it's own weight, then it could hold itself if it lost half its ability to hold that weight. Do you really need math to understand that?


Correct. However,you do not take into account that the structure is already damaged, and holding the weight of a multi-ton airframe that plowed into the side.


Originally posted by ANOK
What critical pieces were compromised? For the upper block to be able to crush the lower block then the lower block would have to have a safety factor of less then zero, zero being it can hold only its own weight and no extra.
This would also contradict the laws of motion.



Or less than the 15 floors above it. Also consider that it is designed for a STATIC load and not a DYNAMIC load.


Originally posted by ANOK
What is that the TTC of? I didn't quote mine anything.


That is the TTC that is found in ASTM E119, and it is not that same as in the 1960's. They have changed over the years.



Originally posted by ANOK
OK but its all we have right? You have no other evidence of heat above 250d, so you have NOTHING but assumptions and opinion.


No, we have historical data on hydrocarbon fires. We also have orking knowledge that hydrocarbon fires can reach flashover point in less than 30 minutes.

See here.

www.fire.nist.gov...

Typical hydrocarbon fire.

Look at the TTC on page 13 of the PDF.

OOPS!! Way above 250 deg. C.


Originally posted by ANOK
In what way? Please show this, don't just make a claim, prove it.

I was under the impression that the Cardington tests proved the WTC couldn't collapse from fire. They tested steel up to 1,000°C and they couldn't get anything to collapse.

Show me otherwise.


www.mace.manchester.ac.uk...

Please go here and click on the link labeled "Test Data (Zipped folder 333KB) "

Look at some of the raw temperature data.

Also, go here
www.mace.manchester.ac.uk...

And look at page 52 under "Strain in structural elements"

Look for the word "yield".

Also, another good read is the displacements of the different steel.

Look at the raw data again. Some pieces displaced more than 2 feet off the vertical......

Also, take into consideration that this is done with steel beams simmilar to what was found in 7WTC, and not the trusses found in the WTC 1&2.

It's an interesting read that is for sure.



Originally posted by ANOK
Soft or hard it doesn't matter. You still have less mass falling on a larger mass if you want to think of it as whole blocks and not individual floors. Whichever way you look at it Newtons laws still apply.


Correct, newton's laws do still apply. However, you're treating the lower section as a whole, instead of a single floor.

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



posted on Mar, 14 2011 @ 10:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Yankee451
reply to post by bsbray11
 


Yeah, that's my second thought...to check the make and model to get a time frame from the guns, and compare it the area where they were found to see if the guns could have been in circulation at the time the concrete was poured.

My money would be on good cops dumped in there by bad cops, or goodbad cops silenced by wise guys at the time of construction.

On second thought, just guns dropped in there. possibly to hide their use in a murder?
edit on 14-3-2011 by Yankee451 because: (no reason given)


I know if you were hired after 1994, you couldn't carry a revolver as a duty weapon. However, if hired before then, you had your choice of a .38 spl. or a .357 mag. IIRC. Both of those were around in the 1960's, but the model (if you can get that info) would be the trick to figure out the possibilities.

Maybe contact the NYPD Museum for more information?



posted on Mar, 14 2011 @ 11:10 PM
link   
From the pics (the page I linked to has since crashed), check out the sign they photographed. Here's another copy:

whatreallyhappened.com...


Notice that it says that WTC6, where these were recovered, was housing a firearms arsenal. The plaque itself also suggests that fire temperatures melted the concrete. Also the guns are not whole guns like they were just thrown away into still-wet concrete.

And the icing on the cake is, even besides the facts that contradict someone throwing a gun into wet concrete in the 60s, even if what you guys are speculating about was true, you would still have absolutely no evidence anyway and would only be speculating. You have to understand that the millions of us who want a real investigation, want a REAL investigation and not play pretend time on the internet featuring WMD and FDNY.



posted on Mar, 14 2011 @ 11:22 PM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


I'd definitely want an investigation into the claims that concrete melted and then resolidified, especially if they are coming from the same folks who are trying to convince me Osama the wonder terrorist did it from his dialysis machine in Pipelinistan.
edit on 14-3-2011 by Yankee451 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 15 2011 @ 12:05 AM
link   
reply to post by FDNY343
 





Um, explosives don't make flames


I guess they do



posted on Mar, 15 2011 @ 12:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by Yankee451
I'd definitely want an investigation into the claims that concrete melted and then resolidified, especially if they are coming from the same folks who are trying to convince me Osama the wonder terrorist did it from his dialysis machine in Pipelinistan.


It's not that I automatically disbelieve everything the government said happened on 9/11; it's just that critical parts of it, have absolutely no evidence, or even evidence of something else happening instead. My problem is that if they say fire melted the concrete, that's not really possible.

The 1993 bombing of the WTC also melted concrete, though you'll have to Google to find the sources or photos for that. Also of interest is that the scientist who was investigating the type of bomb used, a Dr. Whitehurst, was approached by who he claimed were FBI agents and was told that he would report such-and-such a bomb and nothing else. Dr. Whitehurst said the evidence conflicted with a conclusion of the type of bomb the FBI claimed (but was unable to identify any other known type of bomb), but he was pressured into publishing what the "FBI" told him anyway. And he testified to this in court during the trials for the 1993 bombing and I even verified this for myself searching through online legal records.

Also Emad Salem was an FBI informant-turned-whistleblower that relates to all of that too, if you haven't heard of him yet.



posted on Mar, 15 2011 @ 12:23 AM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 





My problem is that if they say fire melted the concrete, that's not really possible.


No argument from me there...the water in the concrete would cause it to pop and explode, but melt? Someone's having a good laugh over that one.



posted on Mar, 15 2011 @ 01:28 AM
link   
reply to post by FDNY343
 


Good video for you and anyone else who has a bone to pick with Newton. It's been linked on ATS before, but FDNY343 needs a refresher.

Newton Vs. Nist



posted on Mar, 15 2011 @ 04:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by Yankee451
reply to post by FDNY343
 


Good video for you and anyone else who has a bone to pick with Newton. It's been linked on ATS before, but FDNY343 needs a refresher.

Newton Vs. Nist




Sorry your VIDEO fails at around 12 secs READ WHAT IT SAYS JIM!!!!

Not intended to mimic the construction or model the actual collapse of the three WTC structures on Sept 11th

Next!!!



posted on Mar, 15 2011 @ 06:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by Yankee451
reply to post by FDNY343
 





Um, explosives don't make flames


I guess they do


Ahem....thermite is not an explosive.



posted on Mar, 15 2011 @ 07:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
My problem is that if they say fire melted the concrete, that's not really possible.


Do you just ignore posts that explain how concrete "melts"? Look for the word degredation on page 12.

www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Mar, 15 2011 @ 07:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by Yankee451
reply to post by FDNY343
 


Good video for you and anyone else who has a bone to pick with Newton. It's been linked on ATS before, but FDNY343 needs a refresher.

Newton Vs. Nist


I have seen this load of crap before. Just look at the disclaimer!! Cool eh?!?!?!

LOL!! It's not Newton I have a problem with, it's you butchering what Newton has said.



posted on Mar, 15 2011 @ 07:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by Yankee451
reply to post by FDNY343
 


Good video for you and anyone else who has a bone to pick with Newton. It's been linked on ATS before, but FDNY343 needs a refresher.

Newton Vs. Nist


Well I put myself through the pain of watching his video but in the end it gave me a good laugh!

WHAT he is trying to claim is the force is reduced because it seems to show less force on the scale,so I will ask you this if someone throws a reasonable weight at you say a bowling ball when you catch it does it seem heavier "YES" WHY because of its velocity.

He is trying to make out that as the upper floors fell they would exert less force he uses his block of wood on a jack on the scales to show this, HIS FIRST MISTAKE! !!!!

He is talking about Newton remember " for every action an equal and opposite reaction" when his block is at rest it shows the weight on the scale and it reduces as the block falls remember equal and opposite if a line from the block was attached to a scale above that,that was zero before the block moved what would that show as the block fell it would show the opposite of the scale below it.

SECOND MISTAKE when the block drops and the scale takes the load YOU see the needle go past the stationary value
shots himself in the foot with that.

He also seems to confuse mass with weight for example if you are 100kg on earth you weigh in newtons 100x9.81 (accel due to gravity) or 981 newtons So what would you weigh on the Moon in newtons at 1/6th the gravity 100x1.635(accel due to gravity) or 163.5 newtons MASS DOESN'T CHANGE

AS the floors fall THEIR MASS DOESN'T CHANGE or the MASS OF THE BOWLING BALL but because it has some velocity it FEELS HEAVIER when you catch it.

SO PROVE THAT NOT TRUE!!!!!!!



posted on Mar, 15 2011 @ 10:19 AM
link   
I'll make this easy.

For those new to the idea that 9-11 may have been an inside job, go and do your own research. Leave this website and go and look into it.

For those that have already made their mind up...great.

Why are you still trying to convince us of fairy tales? We are 9-11 truthers. We have already made up our minds as to what didn't happen that day. There I said it...we have already made up our minds.

So save your breath.

There is no argument here because it is a waste of time. 9-11 was an inside job. The OS story is a lie.

If you have honestly studied the situation and cannot see that, you are blind and not worth our time.

To my fellow, "infowarriors", let us not waste our time arguing with "fools and trolls". If they have made there mind up and still choose to cling to their OS fantasy then let them.

Instead let us march right through them on this historical journey to expose the government coverup. We are winning this infowar.

One day, people will look back at these message boards and wonder how people, the very people who were victims of the crimes of 9-11 and its fallout, were so gullible.

I know this will happen in my lifetime.

(here's the part where you take my post and say everything I did except switch it to your OS believing perspective).

#911truthwinning




top topics



 
34
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join