It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by LaBTop
reply to post by Corruptedstructure
But those are suppose to be molten rock from an iceage 20,000 years ago
WHY DID THEY NOT EQUALIZE THAT POTHOLE AT THAT TIME,
WITH THE REST OF THAT BEDROCK LEVEL ?
Do you really think that any sane architect would not fill up that huge hole when he started to lay the foundations?
The site of the World Trade Center was located on landfill, with the bedrock located 65 feet (20 m) below grade. In order to construct the World Trade Center, it was necessary to build the "bathtub," with the slurry wall along the West Street side of the site, to keep water from the Hudson River out.
This method was used in place of conventional dewatering methods because lowering the groundwater table would cause large settlements of nearby buildings not built on deep foundations.The slurry method involves digging a trench, and as excavation proceeds, filling the space with a "slurry" mixture, composed of bentonite which plugs holes and keeps water out. When the trench was dug out, a steel cage was inserted, with concrete poured in, forcing the "slurry" out.
The "slurry" method was devised by Port Authority chief engineer John M. Kyle, Jr. Towards the end of 1966, work began on building the slurry wall, led by Montreal-based Icanda, a subsidiary of an Italian engineering firm, Impresa Costruzioni Opere Specializzate (I.C.O.S.). It took fourteen months for the slurry wall to be completed, which was necessary before excavation of material from the interior of the site could begin.
Originally posted by ProudBird
Newark to San Francisco, as well. United 93.....if it had been a Continental flight they had chosen, out of Newark, then it could have been more full....since Newark is (was) a major hub for Continental.
But, NONE of that matters, ultimately....
Originally posted by ProudBird
Where have all the "DEWs" gone, since this? (Since the complaint says they are "known to exist"?? By whom? Who "knows"??)
Why weren't they used in Iraq? Why hasn't Iran been taken down, reduced to rubble? Or North Korea? China? This magic device could destroy all of the Chinese ICBMs in their silos, one whoud imagine.
The USA would be the supreme, and completely and utterly the most powerful force to reckon with on this planet.
And somehow, these "magical weapons" did not have any collateral impact on any of the surround buildings?
The only collateral damage was from the debris, from the collapses themselves. Collapses that were self-initiated, due to the severe structural damage from airplane impacts, and uncontrolled fires.
Finally, what was the disposition of this frivolous lawsuit? Was it tossed out, much like the April Gallop nonsense?
Originally posted by AllIsOne
Unfortunately, the case was dismissed in 2010 by the SCOTUS. How come I'm not surprised ...
Originally posted by AGWskeptic
reply to post by Gestas
Where any of those buildings hit by fully fueled commercial airliners at full throttle?
Originally posted by TheOriginalGeeza
Why is it so hard to believe that Muslims hijacked planes and attacked the United States?
Originally posted by thedman
reply to post by LaBTop
Archbald Pothole is 38 feet (11.6 m) deep and 42 feet (12.8 m) wide at its maximum diameter. The pothole cuts through layers of sandstone, shale and coal. A pothole, in geologic terms, is a hole that is worn into the bedrock of a stream in strong rapids or at the base of a waterfall. The force of the water spins rock fragments, sand and gravel into a small indentation in the bedrock. After years and years of constant spinning, the stones and sands carve out an elliptical hole. Potholes are also formed by the action of glacial meltwater. Archbald Pothole is an example of just such a pothole.
remember when kid my uncle took me and my brother there........
Originally posted by burntheships
Originally posted by jeantherapy
Look at 2:16 at the upper right of the frame, you can see something appear briefly before it seems to disappear, doesn't look like an aircraft to me, more like a little missile coming down.
Thank you! I noticed that, it so quick its hard to determine anything. However
if I had to guess, I would say a missile, that would explain the speed.
Going to watch a again.
ETA: watched several times...the object at 2:16 ...I dont know what that is
however it does not appear to continue on into the second tower,
it appears to move off into another flight path.
edit on 13-3-2012 by burntheships because: (no reason given)