Crushing Concrete into Dust in Mid-air

page: 3
5
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 26 2012 @ 07:22 AM
link   
reply to post by exponent
 




SPOILER they were dragged there after burning SPOILER


You gave away the governmant secret!




posted on Sep, 26 2012 @ 09:35 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Sep, 26 2012 @ 12:56 PM
link   
reply to post by exponent
 

I call it (the official story ie: absent the use of explosives) "the foot of God hypothesis" because, once initiated, the explosively ejecting debris field for the most part unloaded any sort of cumulative weight compression, leaving in effect little more than mere atmosphere above the remaining length of structure while said explosively ejecting debris field CONTINUED all the way down the remaining structure without any appreciable loss of momentum of any kind, and, to within mere seconds of absolute free fall for any freely dropped object from the same height, in nothing but air, alone, whereas in this case, the axis of destruction is through the path of maximal resistence.


Originally posted by NewAgeMan

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"..



We must remember too, as pointed on in the video above, tha NIST's entire report was a collapse initiation hypothesis only, describing what ensured thereafter as simply "inevitable" and therefore in need of no explanation whatsoever other than some sort of compaction which they called simply a progressive global collapse leaving it at that. What is observed to have occured however, in reality, is another matter altogether.

See: Building a Better Mirage: NIST's 3-Year $20,000,000 Cover-Up of the Crime of the Century

edit on 26-9-2012 by NewAgeMan because: edit



posted on Sep, 27 2012 @ 02:59 AM
link   
reply to post by NewAgeMan
 


Fifteen hundred years ago, everybody knew that the Earth was the center of the universe. Five hundred years ago, everybody knew that the Earth was flat. And fifteen minutes ago, everyone knew knew that the towers only came down via a plane or explosives. Imagine what we'll learn tomorrow. (Maybe about Dr Judy Wood energy weapon) ha ha



posted on Sep, 27 2012 @ 04:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by NewAgeMan
reply to post by exponent
 

I call it (the official story ie: absent the use of explosives) "the foot of God hypothesis" because, once initiated, the explosively ejecting debris field for the most part unloaded any sort of cumulative weight compression, leaving in effect little more than mere atmosphere above the remaining length of structure while said explosively ejecting debris field CONTINUED all the way down the remaining structure without any appreciable loss of momentum of any kind, and, to within mere seconds of absolute free fall for any freely dropped object from the same height, in nothing but air, alone, whereas in this case, the axis of destruction is through the path of maximal resistence.

I have no idea why you think this is the case but you are completely incorrect. In order to explosively eject debris out of the side of the towers we are talking about thousands of tons per level being pushed over 100ft on average. You can calculate the momentum of this material easily, I estimated it would take 0.5s to clear each floor based on your logic. I'll allow you to set your own conditions so you can describe how you think it happened more exactly.

I think that when you run the numbers you'll realise just how insanely high power you'd need explosives, it would have been obvious to everyone within a few miles as well as all the property owners that had to deal with nearly supersonic shrapnel which didn't happen.


We must remember too, as pointed on in the video above, tha NIST's entire report was a collapse initiation hypothesis only, describing what ensured thereafter as simply "inevitable" and therefore in need of no explanation whatsoever other than some sort of compaction which they called simply a progressive global collapse leaving it at that. What is observed to have occured however, in reality, is another matter altogether.

I'm not interested in other peoples words describing the investigation or collapse. I'm interested in what you think. Do you know what source they used to determine that the collapse was inevitable?
edit on 27/9/12 by exponent because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 27 2012 @ 06:05 AM
link   
reply to post by hdutton
 


Well 3000lbs/in sq concrete is around 20 n typical structural use concrete is 25/30 or above depending on what is being built.

What makes you think all the dust was concrete?

What about

sheetrock (gyproc in europe)
the fire protection
paint
dust in un cleaned areas
the smoke itself

Not all of it was turned to dust that's another 9/11 myth to push the case for explosives!!!



posted on Sep, 27 2012 @ 12:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by exponent
I'm not interested in other peoples words describing the investigation or collapse. I'm interested in what you think. Do you know what source they used to determine that the collapse was inevitable?

Point is, they (NIST) didn't describe the actual destructive event itself in terms of what actually took place once the so-called "collapse" initiation point was reached, so the entire event (tower destruction) as observed was not addressed, only assumed and that's not science.

edit on 27-9-2012 by NewAgeMan because: edit



posted on Sep, 27 2012 @ 04:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by NewAgeMan

Originally posted by exponent
I'm not interested in other peoples words describing the investigation or collapse. I'm interested in what you think. Do you know what source they used to determine that the collapse was inevitable?

Point is, they (NIST) didn't describe the actual destructive event itself in terms of what actually took place once the so-called "collapse" initiation point was reached, so the entire event (tower destruction) as observed was not addressed, only assumed and that's not science.

This is not true. This is what conspiracy websites state. In fact NIST relied upon the work of other independent scientists and cited their sources.

This is a good start that addresses most of the common claims: arxiv.org...



posted on Sep, 27 2012 @ 06:09 PM
link   



posted on Sep, 27 2012 @ 06:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
The video evidence shows visible explosions and ejections that have only been seen in controlled demolitions:



And then in this video:

www.youtube.com...

You can hear the pre-collapse and during-collapse explosions from almost 2-miles away. And from the video:



And to just corroborate the amount of explosions above from the video:

Firefighter Craig Carlsen, Ladder 8:

"I guess about three minutes later you just heard explosions coming from building two, the south tower. It seemed like it took forever, but there were about ten explosions. We then realized the building started to come down."

So, you have witnesses that corroborate the explosions that are heard 2-miles away down to the number of explosions.


Originally posted by -PLB-
and most of the witnesses.

Yeah, most of the witnesses have described that they saw, heard, and felt the explosions. Most of which were no where near the impact zones or areas of fire.




posted on Sep, 28 2012 @ 04:53 AM
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..







Not the same

AN ACTUAL mushroom cloud.




A large vertical column then it forms a mushroom type head SO guess what its not the same!!!!



posted on Sep, 28 2012 @ 05:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by micpsi

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.






Some compacted floors for you!!!!!

Even this is compacted steel and concrete!!!





posted on Sep, 28 2012 @ 03:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by exponent
This is a good start that addresses most of the common claims: arxiv.org...

Thank you for that rather meaningful contribution..



posted on Sep, 29 2012 @ 07:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by NewAgeMan

Originally posted by exponent
This is a good start that addresses most of the common claims: arxiv.org...

Thank you for that rather meaningful contribution..


Sorry about that, linked some of Google's research instead of the paper I meant:

Bazant Paper

At least you know now what kind of work I am currently doing
edit on 29/9/12 by exponent because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 29 2012 @ 05:06 PM
link   
NIST and Dr. Bezant, A Simultaneous Failure
from the Journal of 9/11 Studies


National Swindle on the World Trade Center (not the title of the upcoming peer-reviewed paper)

Peer Reviewed Paper for Publication in the Journal of Engineering Mechanics, October 2012.

Dr. Crockett Grabbe has succeeded in getting a paper successfully through peer-review with editors of the Journal of Engineering Mechanics. His paper confronts Bazant who previously published a paper supportive of the "official 9/11 narrative" in the same journal.

Sincere congratulations to Crockett for another significant peer-reviewed paper; it was accepted for publication in October 2012 in the Journal of Engineering Mechanics.

Dr. Crockett Grabbe is a physicist who received his PhD from CalTech in 1978. He received a Bachelors of Science with Highest Honors from the University of Texas in 1972.

Dr. Grabbe has also published a notable book providing his scientific analyses of the destruction of the WTC Towers and WTC7. Loaded with photographs, this is his fourth book written for the general public.
"National Swindle on the World Trade Center" challenges the official story of 9/11 with scientific data and analysis.

Initial pages are available free here:

www.amazon.com...

The book is free in Kindle form for Amazon Prime members, a generous offer IMO:
www.amazon.com...


edit on 29-9-2012 by NewAgeMan because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 29 2012 @ 09:02 PM
link   
reply to post by NewAgeMan
 


Flipped through the beginning free pages.


Same old regurgitated nonsense and virtually nothing new. Not a thing.



posted on Sep, 30 2012 @ 07:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by NewAgeMan
NIST and Dr. Bezant, A Simultaneous Failure
from the Journal of 9/11 Studies

This critique has been addressed by Bazant directly and it is unpublished for a good reason. For example, Gordon Ross just asserts that in fact Bazant's 8.4 overload should be divided by 4. It's not an honest critique, it's 'how can this be wrong?'.



National Swindle on the World Trade Center (not the title of the upcoming peer-reviewed paper)

This isn't even published yet but you are quoting it as some sort of evidence. Come on man, I might as well say that NISTs research proves that 911 was not an inside job but it hasn't been released. That's just silly.

Did you read the few pages of that book that are available? I did, and I can't believe that this is 'published'. It must be an author self publish because it is absolutely terrible quality and fairly incoherent from the start.

No editor would permit that through. We'll have to see what comes out next month in JEM. I'll try and grab a copy but if someone has a copy of the paper they could post it here. The submitter generally gets some leeway on personal copies etc. I dunno why we can't easily get a copy but I expect that it is another paper similar to "14 points of agreement".

Essentially a trojan horse that tries to slip in the criticism under the eyes of the reviewer. A very dishonest approach.



posted on Oct, 1 2012 @ 03:45 PM
link   
reply to post by exponent
 

The upcoming paper has been fully peer-reviewed.

I was just pointing it out, that it;s to come out in October.



posted on Oct, 2 2012 @ 12:09 AM
link   
reply to post by NewAgeMan
 


Peer-reviewed by whom exactly? Dr. Griffin? Richard (Boxboy) Gage? Dr. Steven (Chipman) Jones? Yeah, that is like having the Scientologists peer-reviewing a paper on why Scientology is correct and all other religions are wrong.



posted on Oct, 2 2012 @ 11:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by NewAgeMan
reply to post by exponent
 

The upcoming paper has been fully peer-reviewed.

I was just pointing it out, that it;s to come out in October.


But we don't even know what it says.

If it takes 4 or 5 attempts and a decade to get a paper published in this fashion, it's hardly the most reassuring thing. Did you read the Bazant paper? Do you need anything explaining?





top topics
 
5
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join