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.

 

FIVE QUESTIONS: The Twin Towers and a Controlled Demonlition: HOW?

page: 27
14
<< 24  25  26    28  29  30 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 10 2011 @ 06:13 PM
link   
reply to post by septic
 


Still not going to explain yourself and what you think is wrong with that picture? You posted it......either explain it or quit making posts that you run from.




posted on Dec, 10 2011 @ 06:15 PM
link   
reply to post by Varemia
 


Had you ever tried to heat concrete you'd know the moisture in it would cause it to pop and burst. It's not like stone, it would crumble and after a certain temperature you're dealing with the melting temperatures of the components of concrete.

I believe the melting point of the sand and gravel is about 2600 which is a bit higher than steel.

Doesn't it make more sense that some dirty cops dumped their pieces in the wet concrete back in 1969?

Doesn't it make more sense that the NY Police Museum is lying?



posted on Dec, 10 2011 @ 06:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by septic
reply to post by Varemia
 


Had you ever tried to heat concrete you'd know the moisture in it would cause it to pop and burst. It's not like stone, it would crumble and after a certain temperature you're dealing with the melting temperatures of the components of concrete.

I believe the melting point of the sand and gravel is about 2600 which is a bit higher than steel.

Doesn't it make more sense that some dirty cops dumped their pieces in the wet concrete back in 1969?

Doesn't it make more sense that the NY Police Museum is lying?


I don't think it always works like that. Perhaps it pops because the heat is escaping into the air and causing pressure. Here, I'll do some quick research (though, admittedly, I'd like to leave and get Taco Bell. I'm not sure what compels me to respond to some of your stuff...)

This guy managed to melt concrete:

www.youtube.com...




posted on Dec, 10 2011 @ 06:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by vipertech0596
reply to post by septic
 


Still not going to explain yourself and what you think is wrong with that picture? You posted it......either explain it or quit making posts that you run from.


You want me to explain the question; "Can you see what's wrong with this picture by the way?"

Did I stutter?




posted on Dec, 10 2011 @ 06:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Varemia

Originally posted by septic
reply to post by Varemia
 


Concrete turned to lava. Slow-cooked. Weeks.



It didn't literally turn to lava, but yeah. That makes sense. If you continuously cook something long enough, its temperature will get hot enough to melt it. Nothing hard to understand there.



So if I put a diamond into an iron skillet, place it in an oven on the highest setting, and
cook it continuously, how long should I wait for the diamond or the iron skillet to melt?

a. six or seven hours
b. two years
c. a decade
z. until you understand the "melting point" concept

....



posted on Dec, 10 2011 @ 06:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by rival
So if I put a diamond into an iron skillet, place it in an oven on the highest setting, and
cook it continuously, how long should I wait for the diamond or the iron skillet to melt?

a. six or seven hours
b. two years
c. a decade
z. until you understand the "melting point" concept

....


Your oven doesn't get hotter than a certain temperature, and leaving it on that long will probably destroy a house. You need to have a continuous source of fuel, and more importantly, pressure. Tons and tons of debris ought to add enough pressure to let things heat up really hot.
edit on 10-12-2011 by Varemia because: fixed the quote



posted on Dec, 10 2011 @ 06:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Varemia
 


I didn't see any aggregate in that concrete, so he was probably just melting a chunk of sand mix.

The claim is the steel was encased in melted concrete. You can see the aggregate in the chunk of concrete, which means the concrete never "melted" because the aggregate is still noticeable. If the sand's melting point is about 1500-1700c, and stainless steel is about 1510c, why would the firearms not also be melted?

Could this simply be a chunk of scorched concrete that had a couple firearms encased in it decades earlier?




edit on 10-12-2011 by septic because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 10 2011 @ 06:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Varemia

Originally posted by rival
So if I put a diamond into an iron skillet, place it in an oven on the highest setting, and
cook it continuously, how long should I wait for the diamond or the iron skillet to melt?

a. six or seven hours
b. two years
c. a decade
z. until you understand the "melting point" concept

....


Your oven doesn't get hotter than a certain temperature, and leaving it on that long will probably destroy a house. You need to have a continuous source of fuel, and more importantly, pressure. Tons and tons of debris ought to add enough pressure to let things heat up really hot.
edit on 10-12-2011 by Varemia because: fixed the quote


The point is simple: to melt a substance you must meet or exceed the substance's melting point.
SO...the questions are...

At what temperature will a sample of WTC concrete melt?
Could a WTC fire (fueled by jet fuel, building materials, furniture, and office supplies) reach this temperature.

If yes to question two...end of discussion
If no...???



posted on Dec, 10 2011 @ 07:01 PM
link   
reply to post by septic
 


And I said, no, I wanted to hear what YOU think is wrong. Whether you stutter or not isn't the issue.



posted on Dec, 10 2011 @ 07:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by vipertech0596
reply to post by septic
 


And I said, no, I wanted to hear what YOU think is wrong. Whether you stutter or not isn't the issue.


Well once again we see the OS faithful are the only ones who can ask the questions around here.

For the readers:

It's a wheel stuck in the exterior panel from the north tower of the WTC. The same NYPD who gives us melting concrete with non-melting guns encased therein, gives us this example of evidence of a plane. The wheel passed through the opposite wall of the WTC, through the fuselage (they were retracted), through the building, and punched one of these panels out of the wall by snapping all the bolts and trusses:



These panels weighed somewhere around 6 tons each, and this wheel pushed it out of the wall, and it flew horizontally almost 100 feet as it fell about 1/5 of a mile:



So since I've obviously stumped my opponent, can anyone else tell me what's wrong with this picture?



posted on Dec, 10 2011 @ 07:24 PM
link   
reply to post by septic
 


You havent stumped me at all. I merely wanted to see what idea was floating around in your head about it. And true to form, you gave us a partial explanation that ignores the facts. The wheel did not just pop out all by its little bitty self and hit that piece. The only thing wrong with that picture is your assumptions about it.



posted on Dec, 10 2011 @ 07:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by vipertech0596
reply to post by septic
 


You havent stumped me at all. I merely wanted to see what idea was floating around in your head about it. And true to form, you gave us a partial explanation that ignores the facts. The wheel did not just pop out all by its little bitty self and hit that piece. The only thing wrong with that picture is your assumptions about it.


Then by all means set me straight.



posted on Dec, 10 2011 @ 07:30 PM
link   
reply to post by rival
 


Well, since under the right conditions, a jet fuel fire can melt steel......( I cannot WAIT for the nay sayers to jump on that...and they will). An underground fire, with constant fuel and constant air, can reach the temps needed. Heck, carbon becomes diamonds with just pressure and heat (not a full fledged fire)



posted on Dec, 10 2011 @ 07:34 PM
link   
reply to post by septic
 


See, that wheel, used to be encased in the nose gear bay of an airliner. An airliner that impacted a building at high speed and in which, a large section of the nose traveled through with quite a bit of momentum from both the speed of the airliner and the resultant explosion and OUT the other side....taking said steel member with it. Get some better photos, you can find pieces of airliner nose section around that.



posted on Dec, 10 2011 @ 09:49 PM
link   
reply to post by v1rtu0s0
 



Considering the evidence was shipped away at lightning speed, it's hard to justify your claims. Also, you can't prove that these people found nothing. I'm sure whatever they found was immediately handed over to 'authorities'.


Shipped to where....????

Another idiotic lie

All the debris was sent to landfill at Fresh Kills in Staten Island by barge

It was then sorted and examined.. Structural beams and members were separated for examination. The
beams from the impact floors and other areas of interest were saved for study. Rest was recycled

Other debris was closely examined for body parts, personal effects and other evidence


Fresh Kills Crime Scene Info
The site covered 175 acres. • 24 local, state, and federal agencies participated, with as many as 1,000 workers a day

• 17,000 tons of material were processed daily. • 55 FBI Evidence Response Teams worked the site -- over 1,000 agents -- plus FBI medics, safety officers, and other specialists.

• New York Evidence Response Team members worked over 8,000 hours at the site, at the morgue, and at Ground Zero.

There are currently 600 NYPD detectives, 50 FBI personnel...working tirelessly at Fresh Kills landfill. Source
Number of U.S. Customs Agency volunteers working search and inspection at Fresh Kills Landfill: at least 193.

Recovered at Staten Island: 4,257 human remains helped bring closure to hundreds of families; 54,000 personal items and 4,000 photographs, many returned to their owners; 1,358 personal and departmental vehicles; and thousands of tons of steel. [And not a single trace of an explosive device or its effects on steel.]

At the close of the Staten Island Landfill mission:

• 1,462,000 tons of debris had been received and processed

• 35,000 tons of steel had been removed (165,000 tons were removed directly at Ground Zero)

• 806,000 tons of debris had been screened, an average of 75 tons per hour

• 14,968 workers had been through the PPE process

• 43,600 people (39,795 NYPD, 6,212 non-NYPD) had been through the Site Specific Indoctrination

• Over 1.7 million man hours had been worked • Over 55,000 discrete pieces of evidence had been recovered

• 4,257 body parts had been recovered

• 209 victims had been positively identified.


Description of sorting process

www.nysm.nysed.gov...

americanhistory.si.edu...



posted on Dec, 10 2011 @ 10:41 PM
link   
reply to post by septic
 


That was my concern as well. The firearm should be melted, and the concrete does not look like it fully melted. It certainly underwent a chemical recomposition, so there was a lot of heat and a lot of pressure. It likely creeped over the firearm at a high temperature that wasn't quite enough to melt the gun.

Your willingness to believe extremely outlandish imaginings is worrying. I mean, you just make this stuff up as you go, because you think it fits your perception of it, no matter how ridiculously difficult it would be to plan out and execute in the long run. It's almost as bad as those people who think the towers had demolitions built into them, even though that makes no sense. Buildings smaller than the towers had to be deconstructed floor by floor to demolish them.



posted on Dec, 10 2011 @ 11:17 PM
link   
reply to post by Varemia
 





That was my concern as well. The firearm should be melted, and the concrete does not look like it fully melted. It certainly underwent a chemical recomposition, so there was a lot of heat and a lot of pressure. It likely creeped over the firearm at a high temperature that wasn't quite enough to melt the gun.

Your willingness to believe extremely outlandish imaginings is worrying. I mean, you just make this stuff up as you go, because you think it fits your perception of it, no matter how ridiculously difficult it would be to plan out and execute in the long run. It's almost as bad as those people who think the towers had demolitions built into them, even though that makes no sense. Buildings smaller than the towers had to be deconstructed floor by floor to demolish them.



Cough, cough, cough...medic!

I'm dying over here....




Your willingness to believe extremely outlandish imaginings is worrying.



I just showed you the melting temperatures of steel and sand which easily disproves the stupid claim that the concrete turned to freaking lava....this is the very "science" proof you boneheads are always crying about and you say what?

"It certainly underwent a "chemical recomposition"???

O' do tell.



Your willingness to believe extremely outlandish imaginings is worrying.




Your willingness to believe extremely outlandish imaginings is worrying.




Your willingness to believe extremely outlandish imaginings is worrying.



posted on Dec, 10 2011 @ 11:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by vipertech0596
reply to post by septic
 


See, that wheel, used to be encased in the nose gear bay of an airliner. An airliner that impacted a building at high speed and in which, a large section of the nose traveled through with quite a bit of momentum from both the speed of the airliner and the resultant explosion and OUT the other side....taking said steel member with it. Get some better photos, you can find pieces of airliner nose section around that.


Wait...one at a time here.

The airliner was hit by a 500,000 ton steel building at high speed? Damn. Poor plane. How'd that turn out?



posted on Dec, 10 2011 @ 11:30 PM
link   
reply to post by vipertech0596
 


Okay so jet fuel can melt steel, yes! Under ideal conditions, sure. How quickly would the airborne and atomized jet fuel have burned off, 'bout 40 percent in the initial blast, right? The other 60 percent took the first elevator to the lobby, isn't that about the size of it?

Steel wood stoves are great...though they take a bit longer to heat-up than the cast iron ones, I have a 1/4 inch thick steel wood stove...bout the same thickness as the steel in the towers. Lopi wood stoves are great. It would cut a jet in half if a jet hit it at 500 mph. Anyone can go to a wood stove show room to see a wood stove, even a cast iron one, and know a plane wing could never cut it in half.

Ever see a heat sink on a computer processor? The idea is to spread the heat over a lot of metal "fins"...this helps keep the processor from melting. The twins were simply aluminum coated heat sinks. The idea that they "weakened" the steel in an hour is laughable. 500,000 tons of steel makes a godallmighty heat sink.



posted on Dec, 11 2011 @ 12:10 AM
link   
reply to post by septic
 


And he takes the off ramp.....I knew the jet fuel comment would snag someone....

I don't attempt to quantify exactly how much jet fuel vaporized and how much flowed into elevator shafts. Yes, the investigators made a semi-educated guess, but I don't necessarily agree with them. Not to mention, it's rather irrelevant if it was 60-40, 55-45 etc.. We know that not all the jet fuel was consumed in the initial fireball.

Anyway, your analogy comparing the Towers to a computer heat sink is laughable. I will leave it to you to figure out why.




top topics



 
14
<< 24  25  26    28  29  30 >>

log in

join