Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Crushing Concrete into Dust in Mid-air

page: 2
6
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 25 2012 @ 07:59 AM
link   
reply to post by hdutton
 


I'm not sure who is proposing that nanothermite turned all building concrete into dust. That seems to be what you're implying, but we know that can't be the case because the article you quote indicates that a nuclear weapon would be the resultant choice.

Do you think that implying a nuclear weapon destroyed the towers is 'learned discourse' or is it idle speculation?




posted on Sep, 25 2012 @ 09:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by r2d246
I've never seen a scenario where the concrete just turns to dust. Can you show us some scenario that describes what you were refering to. I think that's what ^ concrete expert was trying to ask. I'd like to see anything similar.

Are you saying that if a plane hits a slab of concrete -- or if that concrete slab falls from hundreds of feet, hitting other concrete slabs and pieces of building steel on the way down -- that you don't think any concrete dust would be created?

edit on 9/25/2012 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 25 2012 @ 10:27 AM
link   
Let me tell y'all something about concrete. It doesn't take much for it to shed dust.
I do floors for a living. Here in Florida, most of them are installed on concrete slabs.
You can sweep a slab, and get a pile of dust. Sweep it again, you get another pile of dust.
You can blow/mop it clean, let it dry, sweep it, and you get a pile of dust. Ad infinitum.
I work in bare feet, for a number of reasons. My feet cause the concrete to shed dust.
This holds true on any slab I've ever worked on over the last 15 years or so, unless it's been sealed with additional chemicals..

If a broom, or my bare feet, can partially "dustify" (
) concrete, what chance does it stand under extreme conditions?

Additionally, I don't think the term "speed of sound" is being used properly in the OP.
edit on 25-9-2012 by subject x because:




posted on Sep, 25 2012 @ 11:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by Soylent Green Is People

Originally posted by r2d246
I've never seen a scenario where the concrete just turns to dust. Can you show us some scenario that describes what you were refering to. I think that's what ^ concrete expert was trying to ask. I'd like to see anything similar.

Are you saying that if a plane hits a slab of concrete -- or if that concrete slab falls from hundreds of feet, hitting other concrete slabs and pieces of building steel on the way down -- that you don't think any concrete dust would be created?

edit on 9/25/2012 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)


Not "any". The mystery is why ONLY dust remained. There should have beeen large chunks left in the debris pile. Instead, clean-up workers and fire fighters reported not finding ANYTHING larger than a few inches. Such complete pulverisation could never have resulted from gravity-driven impact, particularly at heights where the falling concrete had not dropped far enough to acquire enough kinetic energy to cause such a degree of destruction. This is not obvious only to those who are desperate enough to believe the official story of 9/11 that they will willingly jettison their common sense.



posted on Sep, 25 2012 @ 11:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by micpsi
Not "any". The mystery is why ONLY dust remained. There should have beeen large chunks left in the debris pile. Instead, clean-up workers and fire fighters reported not finding ANYTHING larger than a few inches. Such complete pulverisation could never have resulted from gravity-driven impact, particularly at heights where the falling concrete had not dropped far enough to acquire enough kinetic energy to cause such a degree of destruction. This is not obvious only to those who are desperate enough to believe the official story of 9/11 that they will willingly jettison their common sense.


What is the kinetic energy required to turn a concrete slab into fist-sized chunks?

The WTC floor slabs were only 4 inches thick to begin with (4 inches of lightweight concrete). I could break that up with a sledgehammer, especially if it becomes separated from the metal floor pan.

edit on 9/25/2012 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 25 2012 @ 12:05 PM
link   
reply to post by DrEugeneFixer
 


you said; "the collapses do not resemble the mushroom clouds of a nuclear explosion in the least."

au contraire..





posted on Sep, 25 2012 @ 01:23 PM
link   
reply to post by hdutton
 





posted on Sep, 25 2012 @ 02:04 PM
link   
reply to post by micpsi
 





particularly at heights where the falling concrete had not dropped far enough to acquire enough kinetic energy to cause such a degree of destruction.

While the first few floors 1-10 wouldn't have enough energy, they had another 100 floors slamming down on top of them.

Even today you can find many people busting their 4 inch thick driveway with nothing more than a 10 lb sledge.
Imagine what 800 feet of steel and concrete would do to the lower floors.



posted on Sep, 25 2012 @ 02:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by micpsi
Not "any". The mystery is why ONLY dust remained. There should have beeen large chunks left in the debris pile. Instead, clean-up workers and fire fighters reported not finding ANYTHING larger than a few inches.

A few inches is not 'dust'. Not by any stretch of the imagination. Hell 1cm debris is 'gravel' at the best of conditions. If we ignore the steel columns, the steel truss components, the aluminium exterior cladding, the exterior columns and spandrels and some of the larger mechanical equipment, then yes, debris was quite small.

The fact is though that everything I just listed above was found in huge quantities in the debris pile, and indeed in many cases concrete was found in larger chunks, however it was mostly used in very thin format for flooring so not as likely to survive.


Such complete pulverisation could never have resulted from gravity-driven impact, particularly at heights where the falling concrete had not dropped far enough to acquire enough kinetic energy to cause such a degree of destruction. This is not obvious only to those who are desperate enough to believe the official story of 9/11 that they will willingly jettison their common sense.

Common sense is just the collection of prejudices built up over your youth. The fact of the matter is that there's never been any analysis showing that the level of concrete communition was excessive and the crushing of concrete has been included in published analyses of the collapse.

Just because you don't think it's likely that falling a thousand feet can crush a filing cabinet, or a phone, or a computer doesn't mean that it isn't possible. Nobody has ever experienced events anything remotely like this before, and so trying to use common sense to deduce the likely outcome is unlikely to be very successful.



posted on Sep, 25 2012 @ 02:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by RoScoLaz
you said; "the collapses do not resemble the mushroom clouds of a nuclear explosion in the least."

au contraire..

While the image may look slightly like a mushroom cloud, the mechanism behind its creation is completely different. If you watch a video of the collapse you'll notice that the cloud is rolled over by the displacement of the upper part of the tower. It forms a depression which causes the debris cloud to be sucked down, forming a more spherical shape. However, the emission of debris occurs at the collapse front, and grows as entrained debris is ejected. If the two were represented in a video smear, the WTC collapse would be a cone, starting small and spreading out. A mushroom cloud would unsurprisingly look like a mushroom (the sheer volume of debris does the smearing for you).



posted on Sep, 25 2012 @ 03:02 PM
link   
The buildings did not "collapse" that's not what actually occured in reality (just watch the video I posted above).



posted on Sep, 25 2012 @ 03:12 PM
link   
If the towers were destroyed by a nuclear explosion then how come paper was able to survive the destruction? Also there would have be fission products and sense none where found than we can conclude that a nuclear explosion did not occur. Same thing with thermitic material how come all of the paper wasn't burnt considering the military uses thermite to burn sensitive documents in case of emergencies. Also were is the 12 story 1,000,000 ton debris pile that should have been there if this was cause by Conventional CD or Thermitic CD? Some one said in one of the post above that most of the steel was recovered and sent to china, but no one has ever come forward with proof of that statement


Besides dust paper was one of the main components of the debris.

Does any one find it strange that only cars caught on fire? Like the firers were material specific?

Also How does a fire that can melt the steel off of this emergency vehicle not burn or melt the ruber tires and the paper around it, or how a car fire would even melt the steel components of it.

And how does a car fire destroy everything in this car except the apoltsry and the plastic water bottle in the front seat? Also notice that the rubber gasket around the window isn't melted.



posted on Sep, 25 2012 @ 03:43 PM
link   
reply to post by BriGuyTM90
 





And how does a car fire destroy everything in this car except the apoltsry and the plastic water bottle in the front seat? Also notice that the rubber gasket around the window isn't melted.

Radient heat.
The same reason you cannot stand next to big bonfires after the flames have died down.



posted on Sep, 25 2012 @ 04:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by BriGuyTM90

How do the top 10 floors of the north tower act as a compactor and crush the remaining 100 stories, to within mere seconds of absolute free fall for any object dropped from the height of the towers in nothing but AIR?!

Edit to add: Absent the use of explosives, I call the official story about what happened "the foot of God hypothesis"..




edit on 25-9-2012 by NewAgeMan because: edit



posted on Sep, 25 2012 @ 05:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by NewAgeMan
How do the top 10 floors of the north tower act as a compactor and crush the remaining 100 stories, to within mere seconds of absolute free fall for any object dropped from the height of the towers in nothing but AIR?!

Edit to add: Absent the use of explosives, I call the official story about what happened "the foot of God hypothesis"..

It's actually the top 10 floors, then the top 11 floors, then the top 12 floors. The amount of falling mass increases as sections are damaged. The amount lost to the outside obviously detracts from this.

I can point you to a number of papers if you are genuinely interested in learning about the physics behind the collapse. I'd like to hear some predictions from you though. If the upper block of 10 floors was rotated by say 5° and allowed to undergo regular acceleration due to gravity, what would happen?



posted on Sep, 25 2012 @ 10:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by RoScoLaz
reply to post by DrEugeneFixer
 


you said; "the collapses do not resemble the mushroom clouds of a nuclear explosion in the least."

au contraire..









No.



That is a mushroom cloud. That is not like what happened when the towers collapsed. This is not something about which we can have a real debate about.
edit on 9/25/2012 by DrEugeneFixer because: elaboation.



posted on Sep, 25 2012 @ 10:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by samkent
reply to post by BriGuyTM90
 





And how does a car fire destroy everything in this car except the apoltsry and the plastic water bottle in the front seat? Also notice that the rubber gasket around the window isn't melted.

Radient heat.
The same reason you cannot stand next to big bonfires after the flames have died down.


Can you explain this theory? I understand what radiant heat is but I dont understand what it has to do with the question I asked.



posted on Sep, 25 2012 @ 10:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by BriGuyTM90
Can you explain this theory? I understand what radiant heat is but I dont understand what it has to do with the question I asked.


I think he and the poster he was responding to were confused about the state of the car in question. I imagine the thought process for samkent was that when heat is near another object, it will melt low-temp metal and junk, but may not reach inside or set things on fire.

Looking at the picture, however, it looks like the car with the plastic and upholstery wasn't even burned at all. It was covered in dust and debris with broken windows, but no obvious fire damage.



posted on Sep, 25 2012 @ 11:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Varemia
 


You know what I think your right I'm sorry that one is my mistake. I thought the metal on the out side looked burnt but now that I look at it it is just dust.



posted on Sep, 26 2012 @ 05:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by BriGuyTM90
reply to post by Varemia
 


You know what I think your right I'm sorry that one is my mistake. I thought the metal on the out side looked burnt but now that I look at it it is just dust.


It's not your fault, the people who are pushing you to believe these claims don't care, and have manipulated much of the evidence presented to you.

For example, I'm sure they've made claims about cars being burned a mile away from the WTC. I also bet that if you look at the pictures in detail you'll notice a key feature about these burned cars.

SPOILER they were dragged there after burning SPOILER





new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join