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.

 

The NYPD lied.

page: 16
24
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 22 2011 @ 09:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by septic
Should be obvious.

Contents like this can't turn to dust, and there was not enough concrete and gypsum to account for the immediate and gigantic dust cloud, so what can account for it?


Calculations?




posted on Dec, 22 2011 @ 10:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by snowcrash911

Surely this was reported in the news?


Not a chance in hell. The part of England I originate from is ridiculously macho. We don't go running off screeching just because someone tried to kill us. The first attempt didn't result in serious injury. The second attempt was much more serious but within ten days I was more or less recovered though I experienced some symptoms for about a year afterwards. Our local police force are aware and I'm pleased to say some of them have been very friendly towards me since. They know how to study evidence and they recognise a fake investigation when they see one. Like the rest of us they want to see this 9/11 thing sorted out.

Re-reading that do you mean my stunts have been covered in the news? Yes there has been some coverage but it identifies me and I'm not putting that information on ATS.



posted on Dec, 22 2011 @ 10:08 AM
link   
reply to post by snowcrash911
 


Sorry, no calcluations...just common sense. The contents like huge generator engine blocks and the i-beam supported floors of concrete, much thicker than 4 inches thick (to hold up the mechanical floors) don't spontaneously turn to dust, even with explosives.

Exotic explanations like space rays, nuclear weapons and other stretches of the imagination are deliberately distributed to confuse investigators. It's much simpler than all that...the buildings were gutted, as evidenced by the lack of contents in the rubble.



posted on Dec, 22 2011 @ 10:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by septic
reply to post by snowcrash911
 


Sorry, no calcluations...just common sense. The contents like huge generator engine blocks and the i-beam supported floors of concrete, much thicker than 4 inches thick (to hold up the mechanical floors) don't spontaneously turn to dust, even with explosives.

Exotic explanations like space rays, nuclear weapons and other stretches of the imagination are deliberately distributed to confuse investigators. It's much simpler than all that...the buildings were gutted, as evidenced by the lack of contents in the rubble.


Oh for the love of God. You have got to be kidding, right? And yes concrete does "spontaneously" turn to dust. Strike a piece of concrete with a hammer and you're going to get dust - spontaneously (don't really know what you mean there with that word) Plenty of stuff in those buildings that would turn to dust. Acres and acres of drywall. That alone was enough to create a cloud that could cover Manhattan.

And how long did you spend picking throught the rubble at Ground Zero that you can make such absolute statements about what was and was not in the rubble? Or is this another Google Images fact?



posted on Dec, 22 2011 @ 10:24 AM
link   
reply to post by hooper
 






Oh for the love of God. You have got to be kidding, right? And yes concrete does "spontaneously" turn to dust. Strike a piece of concrete with a hammer and you're going to get dust - spontaneously (don't really know what you mean there with that word) Plenty of stuff in those buildings that would turn to dust. Acres and acres of drywall. That alone was enough to create a cloud that could cover Manhattan.

And how long did you spend picking throught the rubble at Ground Zero that you can make such absolute statements about what was and was not in the rubble? Or is this another Google Images fact?


You have obviously never hit a piece of concrete with a hammer. Depending on the size of the hammer and the strength of your swing, not to mention the psi of the concrete, your hammer will probably bounce off, but you will NOT get a could of dust. Now, dry-saw and GRIND the concrete, and you'll get a neighbor-annoying cloud of dust.

The dust cloud began IMMEDIATELY. Gravity can't do that.

I see, so now you're requiring me to have personally picked through the rubble? You guys are a cartoon. I have personally picked through the images, and have found not one of the 40-some generators that should be there, not to mention the 50,000 telephones, computers and the desks they sat on.



posted on Dec, 22 2011 @ 10:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by septic
reply to post by snowcrash911
 


Sorry, no calcluations...just common sense.


You can't argue with that



posted on Dec, 22 2011 @ 10:36 AM
link   
reply to post by Kester
 


You still have not answered why you, nor anyone else, is organizing this investigation. If your reason is those alleged assassination attempts, to me is sounds like you are suffering from a delusion (those are pretty typical signs of a delusion). It doesn't sound plausible that the people who allegedly killed 3000 people in brought daylight with cameras running failed twice at killing a single person they want to get rid of.

On a side note, your tactic has changed to attacking my person, calling me a sloppy reader or questioning my motive. Do you think that contributes to a constructive debate, or do you also sense the irony here?



posted on Dec, 22 2011 @ 10:36 AM
link   
reply to post by septic
 



You have obviously never hit a piece of concrete with a hammer.

Yes I have.

Depending on the size of the hammer and the strength of your swing, not to mention the psi of the concrete, your hammer will probably bounce off, but you will NOT get a could of dust.

Who said cloud? Strike a piece of concrete with a hammer and you will get dust. Don't care what kind of hammer or what kind of concrete. This notion is too simple to debate. Its like arguing about whether or not water is wet. Break concrete mechanically and its going to produce dust.

Now, dry-saw and GRIND the concrete, and you'll get a neighbor-annoying cloud of dust.

Whatever. How about rub two pieces of concrete togeter? Will that produce dust? Pretty sure it will. Now what if I rub two million pieces of concrete together - think that may produce dust?

The dust cloud began IMMEDIATELY. Gravity can't do that.

Don't even know what that means. Immeadiately? You know you keep confusing facts with just anything that pops in to your head. They are not the same thing.

I see, so now you're requiring me to have personally picked through the rubble?

When you make absolute factual statements, yes.

You guys are a cartoon.

I'll bet the whole world kind of looks like a cartoon to you, doesn't it.

I have personally picked through the images, and have found not one of the 40-some generators that should be there, not to mention the 50,000 telephones, computers and the desks they sat on.

So why not just say that you looked at some images on the internet and didn't see any telephones? Why do you jump right to conspiracy and calling people liars and wahcky conclusions that the buildings must have been gutted because you can't find a clear image on the internet of a telephone at Ground Zero?





signature:



posted on Dec, 22 2011 @ 10:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by snowcrash911

Originally posted by septic
reply to post by snowcrash911
 


Sorry, no calcluations...just common sense.


You can't argue with that


What calculations would you like? Can anyone estimate how much concrete and gypsum was on the top 30 floors when they turned to dust? I have worked with concrete extensively, and it doesn't "dustify" like that. Nor do 8 foot tall generators, nor do i-beams. If the contents were there at the time of eruption, we would see generators, toilets, refrigerators, elevators, miles of cables, acres of carpets and bodies flying. Not dust and steel.



posted on Dec, 22 2011 @ 10:45 AM
link   
reply to post by hooper
 


Even with a thousand jack-hammers you won't get dust clouds like this:




posted on Dec, 22 2011 @ 10:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by septic
reply to post by hooper
 


Even with a thousand jack-hammers you won't get dust clouds like this:


Why not? Again, just because something pops into your head doesn't mean its true. So please tell me why that photo is impossible. Don't forget that was seen by millions of people. Do you think this photo is fake?

As for calculations - lets do a little ballparking - 30 floors of about an acre apiece and 4 inches thick. So that would be 30x(208 x 208) x 0.333 = 432,207 cubic feet of concrete. That's about 16,000 cubic yards. Or about a thousand mixer trucks. That doesn't include that acres of drywall.



posted on Dec, 22 2011 @ 11:04 AM
link   
reply to post by hooper
 


Turn just one floor to dust all at once. Take this one, with the generators...are you saying these monsters are sitting on 4 inch concrete held up with trusses? Turn them to dust in your calculations.



Are these i-beams or trusses?






posted on Dec, 22 2011 @ 11:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by septic
What calculations would you like?


Communition...


Originally posted by septic
Can anyone estimate how much concrete and gypsum was on the top 30 floors when they turned to dust? I have worked with concrete extensively, and it doesn't "dustify" like that.


Well, I'm not taking your word for it, sorry.


Originally posted by septic
Nor do 8 foot tall generators, nor do i-beams. If the contents were there at the time of eruption, we would see generators, toilets, refrigerators, elevators, miles of cables, acres of carpets and bodies flying. Not dust and steel.


Are you one of those who claim the jumpers were rubber dummies?



posted on Dec, 22 2011 @ 11:18 AM
link   
It's simply doesn't work, because the witnesses who evacuated the WTC would have reported it. Therefore, yes, the building contents you discuss do get mangled into an unrecognizable mess. It's your absurd leaps of logic based on insufficient data which get you. You make many bare assertions, without evidence.

If you can't recognize those generators in the debris, that's your problem. If you can't produce witnesses for your WTC stripping theory, that's even more your problem. If you can't do the calculations and physical experiments to support your claims, you have zilch.

Your claims are essentially lazy.



posted on Dec, 22 2011 @ 11:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by snowcrash911

Originally posted by septic
What calculations would you like?


Communition...


Originally posted by septic
Can anyone estimate how much concrete and gypsum was on the top 30 floors when they turned to dust? I have worked with concrete extensively, and it doesn't "dustify" like that.


Well, I'm not taking your word for it, sorry.


Originally posted by septic
Nor do 8 foot tall generators, nor do i-beams. If the contents were there at the time of eruption, we would see generators, toilets, refrigerators, elevators, miles of cables, acres of carpets and bodies flying. Not dust and steel.


Are you one of those who claim the jumpers were rubber dummies?


I'm not taking your word an acre of at least 6 inch thick concrete supported by i-beams can completely turn to dust.

If your claim is the dust cloud is due to concrete and gypsum, you'll need to prove to me how much was there to begin with, and then explain how it all turned to dust.

If the evidence leads me to rubber dummies, then so be it. Do you only go where the evidence is comfortable?



posted on Dec, 22 2011 @ 11:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by snowcrash911
It's simply doesn't work, because the witnesses who evacuated the WTC would have reported it. Therefore, yes, the building contents you discuss do get mangled into an unrecognizable mess. It's your absurd leaps of logic based on insufficient data which get you. You make many bare assertions, without evidence.

If you can't recognize those generators in the debris, that's your problem. If you can't produce witnesses for your WTC stripping theory, that's even more your problem. If you can't do the calculations and physical experiments to support your claims, you have zilch.

Your claims are essentially lazy.



My claim that the police lied is lazy?

So you believe concrete melted in WTC6, and the contents of the towers turned to dust, and you call me lazy.



posted on Dec, 22 2011 @ 11:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by septic
I'm not taking your word an acre of at least 6 inch thick concrete supported by i-beams can completely turn to dust.


http:///WrCum78q (Greening)



If the evidence leads me to rubber dummies, then so be it. Do you only go where the evidence is comfortable?


I go where the evidence is rational.

Claiming the WTC towers were stamped to the ground by an invisible Godzilla is equally reasonable in your universe. If you have no capacity to exclude the patently absurd from your reasoning process, you are, quite literally, insane. I'm going to have to leave it there, because if I engaged in this exchange, where WTC jumpers are possibly rubber dummies, I'd be just as delusional.
edit on 22-12-2011 by snowcrash911 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 22 2011 @ 11:38 AM
link   
reply to post by snowcrash911
 


Not sure if this is worth the effort, but from your link, here is what a particular ATS member might be able to at least understand and take away from that (daunting to some) technical report that you linked:


A study of the growth of the kinetic energy of the upper section of WTC 1 as the Tower collapsed shows that the mass specific impact energy of the first four collisions increased from 3.4 J/g (1st impact), to 6.4 J/g (2nd impact), to 8.7 J/g (3rd impact), to 11.7 J/g (4th impact) - See Greening’s “Energy Transfer in the WTC Collapse Events of September 11th 2001” and subsequent Addendum. Hence, by the 4th impact, the energy supplied to the concrete was sufficient to cause it to fragment to the limiting size distribution noted above. At this point, and for all subsequent impacts, the energy consumed in pulverizing the WTC 1 concrete was essentially constant and progressively less than 15 % of the available impact kinetic energy.

Thus we conclude that 50 % of the WTC 1 concrete was pulverized to particles less than 1 mm in diameter, (and 30 % was smaller than 100 microns). For all impacts of the upper section of WTC 1, less than 15 % of the available impact kinetic energy was dissipated in pulverizing the concrete.


This is about the so-called "dustification" of the materials in WTC 1 Tower.....in fact, it specifically relates to just the concrete!! SO, does not include the vast more materials (such as, just to name one...the drywall) that was part of the many components.


But, although perhaps a few individuals will never grasp the significance of it, surely a few who may read this one day will understand it.......



posted on Dec, 22 2011 @ 11:41 AM
link   
reply to post by snowcrash911
 


You brought up rubber dummies, I did not. You claim the "light" concrete supporting the multi-ton generators can "completely" turn to dust, evidently due to the old wives' tale that the top 15 floors crushed it, based on pure faith and your judgement of what is believable.

I am quite used to being called insane on these boards, and then having my posts deleted when I retaliate.

This thread is regarding the NYPD's claim the fires were so intense they melted concrete, yet I'm the insane one, check.



posted on Dec, 22 2011 @ 11:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by septic
reply to post by hooper
 


Even with a thousand jack-hammers you won't get dust clouds like this:





What do you suppose produced the dust clouds generated by this collapse ?

www.youtube.com...




top topics



 
24
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join