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.
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.
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.
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!!!
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.
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/ba0fb175b696.jpg[/atsimg]
letsrollforums.com...
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?
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.
Originally posted by ANOK
What is that the TTC of? I didn't quote mine anything.
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.
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.
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.
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)
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.
My problem is that if they say fire melted the concrete, that's not really possible.
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
Originally posted by Yankee451
reply to post by FDNY343
Um, explosives don't make flames
I guess they do
Originally posted by bsbray11
My problem is that if they say fire melted the concrete, that's not really possible.
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
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