“Where’s all the rubble?” 9/12/01

Originally posted by samkent

Another words, they were reporting how little debris for such a huge scale assaults weren't making sense.

What are you talking about? They were hauling debris by the truckload for months! Show me where someone ‘in the know’ states there’s not much debris.

What am I talking about?
I, is not alone so please realize, this isn't coming just from me.

And you suggest: In the know? Well, that does seems to be the root of many discrepancies through-out this whole ordeal now doesn't it?

"In the know" came via FEMA.
'nuff said on that issue.

We only got fed what the media was TOLD to report, televise and document post 9-11.

Fortunately and frustratingly, we DID get some 'real' reporting in the first few hours however and that...is what I choose to listen to.

Thank you though

I believe someone asked for that picture of debris scattered for miles at Shanksville, Well, we're still waiting. All I've seen is that hole in the ground where an entire airplane is supposed to have crashed. Why are we going over this for the 'hundreth' time? Because we're still waiting for a plausible explanation.

The problem is not with the official explanation. The problem is with your understanding of physics.

I dare say all physicists in the world have seen the pictures.
I dare say all physics professors in the world have seen the pictures.
I dare say most all physics teachers in the world have seen the pictures.
I dare say all air crash investigators in the world have seen the pictures.

Name one of the above that disagrees with the official explanation. Do you really think that the US government have put a muzzle on every one of the above experts on the entire planet? Look at the world havoc created by one rogue private and one website owner (Wikileaks). But none of the physics experts on the entire planet have uttered a peep in 9 years?

I suggest the problem lies with you and your understanding. Get a job where you attend to auto accidents. See what happens to autos that hit an immovable object at 50 mph. Then ramp it up to several hundred mph. Don’t listen to these moronic ideas coming from moronic websites.

Here's a link from Yahoo answers.
here

Do some real research away from conspiracy websites.

Originally posted by Human_Alien
reply to post by samkent

 

The volume of the buildings are made of air?
Well, whether you're right or not, we're not disputing where the 'air' went m'friend.

We're questioning where the concrete (which was enough to build a road from New York to Washington, DC) and the steel (which could've made three Brooklyn Bridges) went. Plus a host of other SOLID items.

edit on 1-12-2010 by Human_Alien because: grammar

In bold above can we see HOW you worked that out it's roughly 290 miles even 2 lanes (ONE EACH DIRECTION)at say 25ft wide would be 290 miles x5280 feet in a mile thats 1532100 ft x 25 feet wide would be 38280000 feet square, a floor of the twin towers was approx 43560 sq ft divide 38280000 by 43560 = 879 so 879 floors.

So as we can see you guys just make guesses and make a statement without even checking

Originally posted by ParkerCramer
reply to post by samkent

 

this has been brought up before, and found NOT to be fact...........

the city could not produce any documentation to prove that 100 million tons of debris was desposed off.

now, yes the buildings, according to engineers should of procuced 100 million tons of debris, that is where the figure comes from.............

but, I would love to be proved wrong, so, please provide us with proof that 100 million tons was desposed of, not someones word, but scrap recovery forms........??

100 million tons Each building was 500,000 tons max including the massive foundations IIRC so your 100 million tons is BULL COOKIES!

Those were not my words. Please do not link my name to them.

Those words belong to ParkerCramer.

I stand partially corrected.

The way you Quote someone makes it look like a different party has said the words.

A Quote from someone else’s Reply to a Quote leads to confusion.

You're barking up the wrong tree.

You don't have a calculation of what the volume of debris should be.

You don't have an estimate of the volume of actual debris.

People get mad at NIST for not using proper science, then use personal judgments not based on math to come to conclusions.

This goes for both sides.

Originally posted by wmd_2008

Originally posted by ParkerCramer
reply to post by samkent

 

this has been brought up before, and found NOT to be fact...........

the city could not produce any documentation to prove that 100 million tons of debris was desposed off.

now, yes the buildings, according to engineers should of procuced 100 million tons of debris, that is where the figure comes from.............

but, I would love to be proved wrong, so, please provide us with proof that 100 million tons was desposed of, not someones word, but scrap recovery forms........??

100 million tons

Each building was 500,000 tons max including the massive foundations IIRC so your 100 million tons is BULL COOKIES!

500,000,000 kg = 500,000 tons

It was probably a typo or misprint. Cut 'em some slack.

If you sneer, laugh and poke fun at others, your credibility as a mature contributor to this thread automatically gets reduced and you won't be taken seriously.
Just a bit of advice.

reply to post by samkent
Guess what, Sam? I clicked on your links that you provided and they're assinine. If anything they help to convince me that we were not told the truth about what happened that day. Do me a favor and don't insult my intelligence anymore with your 'tips'. You need a check up from the neck up.

Originally posted by dillweed
reply to post by samkent

 

Guess what, Sam? I clicked on your links that you provided and they're assinine. If anything they help to convince me that we were not told the truth about what happened that day. Do me a favor and don't insult my intelligence anymore with your 'tips'. You need a check up from the neck up.

The links are asinine? Really? Please, explain how. I want to hear to your logic of why you said what you said about them. I'm willing to bet you have no clue what you are reading, and reading comprehension is a must when trying to argue something. Do you have a problem understanding something in those links? Or is your personal incredulity more than enough to handwave away facts?

reply to post by GenRadek
If this is what you think is proof of what the official story told us about what happened that day, then I guess we are worlds apart. Do me a favor, don't pee on my leg and tell me it's raining. Why you guys are so vehement against anyone who questions the OS is puzzling to me.

Originally posted by Cassius666
I read somewhere that it has been bought up by somebody and sold and shipped to china as scrap for a profit.

www.china.org.cn...

edit on 1-12-2010 by Cassius666 because: (no reason given)

Maybe China used the WTC steel to build the Bird's Nest Olympic Stadium?

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/47633f391115.jpg[/atsimg]

reply to post by wmd_2008


Don't you know? That's how the entire TM works! Makes guesses, pulls things out of thin air, and then pats itself on the back for a job well done of refuting facts, no matter how asinine or ridiculous!

100 million tons? That's a little much!

reply to post by dillweed


I asked you what in those links do you disagree with? What do you know that is wrong in those links? Who said anything about proof? Its what happened. What is wrong in those links? Not because you say so but give me actual facts or reasons why those links are wrong. Your incredulity is not welcome in a debate with facts. You want to use incredulity? Go to any of the TM websites, like Infowars or the LC forums. Here at ATS, personal incredulity will get you nowhere when dealing with facts.

Guess what, Sam? I clicked on your links that you provided and they're assinine. If anything they help to convince me that we were not told the truth about what happened that day. Do me a favor and don't insult my intelligence anymore with your 'tips'. You need a check up from the neck up.

So you don’t like my links to real world ‘official’ sites? Sites that give facts from reliable sources. Sites where peoples professional reputation are at stake. Out right lying on these sites could mean someone loses their job.

Lets see your links. Make them credible ones, not one to LC or other conspiracy sites. Not a site where the more you talk about them the more money they make.

You are the one claiming there is something wrong with the tower debris.
Now it’s up to you to prove it.

reply to post by samkent
It's not up to me to prove anything. Why you think it's your job to prop up a weak explaination is troubling to me. How can you be so bold as to call suppositions 'facts'? There are more holes in the OS than rainman could keep track of, and they increase with each day. I'm not interested in insulting you but you beg for it by your attitude of superior intelligence, NOT! You keep flogging your horse and I'll keep flogging mine and we'll see who gets to the truth first.

How can you be so bold as to call suppositions 'facts'?

Prove them not to be factual. You can’t. All you have are feelings and hunches. There is nothing behind your hand waving.

reply to post by dillweed


What weak explanation? Why? I guess fire and impact induced collapse doesnt sound sexy enough for you? Nothing too, James Bond-ish about it?

Fact is that fire and impact caused the collapses. It is a FACT that steel only needs to be heated up to higher temps to lose strength, and adding extra stresses and loads will help cause failure. Also the floors were not designed to take a vertically moving mass impact onto them. Maybe if you bothered to research the designs and the curious methods of construction of the WTCs, it may help you figure out the facts from lies.

The "OS" is full of holes? What is the "OS" exactly? I havent heard a signle straight answer. Is it the events where AQ terrorists piloted aircraft into three buildings, causing two to collapse from fires and impact damage, while setting another on fire from impact and unfought fires causing a third collapse after burning for 7 hours? Huh, sounds solid to me. Hell the TM cant even decide between bombs, silent bombs, thermite, thermate, nano thermite, paint on nanothermite, paint on nanothermite as fuse for something else. Geeze one day it's demo charges that are supposedly turning steel and concrete into dust from thunderous detonations placed and crammed onto every floor that are not heard, then it's thermite melting steel columns and somehow cutting columns horizontally causing collapse, then it's magic paint on nanothermite that somehow melts and is suppose to explode at the same time, all silently and randomly. Can you guys get at least that figured out?

By the way, what "holes" are there in the so called "OS" ? Are you sure they are not in the TM? I could use the TM's theory as a colander.

reply to post by Human_Alien


Well what about my replies to a couple of your posts with your guestimates that I see you have not replied to because they show you are wrong. If you are going to state something as if its a fact WHY DONT YOU WORK IT OUT FIRST THEN!!!!!!!

you said

Originally posted by Human_Alien
reply to post by Chadwickus

 

Yes. We see the photos and to us, (who aren't used to seeing what the aftermath of two 110-story buildings would ordinary look like after being blown up) it does look devastating.

But the reports that came in that day and the following days all reported basically the same thing (in all three cities) and that was in light of the tremendous 'hits' these structures took, there was hardly any noticeable debris (in NYC, Shanksville or Washington) or airplane parts.

You can't argue what was said Chadwickus. You can argue after the fact all you want but I am more interested in the 'fresh' reports before the MSM got a big fat muzzle placed over their news stations.

My reply

Originally posted by wmd_2008
Lets see the vast dust cloud on collapse how much was concrete probably not as much as you think how much was SHEETROCK DUST, MOST OF IT, lets see 110 concrete floors, concrete was 4" thick so 110x4 = 440 inches or 37 foot approx if neatly stacked on each other if no damge to concrete NOT VERY HIGH THEN! when compared to the 1360 FT height of the buildings.

I bet you didn't think that way when you spoke about the dust and rubble pile, I DID but then I have worked in the construction industry for 30+ years and my first job was in the DESIGN/ DRAWING OFFICE of a STRUCTURAL STEELWORK COMPANY.

This was reported as a lump of molten metal



But if you look closer PAPER WORK

What it is, concrete steelwork paperwork etc compressed together you know like the pancake collapse that didn't happen

You said

We're questioning where the concrete (which was enough to build a road from New York to Washington, DC) and the steel (which could've made three Brooklyn Bridges) went. Plus a host of other SOLID items.


My reply

Originally posted by wmd_2008
In bold above can we see HOW you worked that out it's roughly 290 miles even 2 lanes (ONE EACH DIRECTION)at say 25ft wide would be 290 miles x5280 feet in a mile thats 1532100 ft x 25 feet wide would be 38280000 feet square, a floor of the twin towers was approx 43560 sq ft divide 38280000 by 43560 = 879 so 879 floors.
So as we can see you guys just make guesses and make a statement without even checking

So come on how high should the rubble pile be and HOW did you work out it was enough concrete to build a road from NYC TO W(DC) or did you see that on another site

This is the trouble with the internet it gives a voice to people who talk about subjects they have NO experience with like they are experts on it, some simple maths above shows how wrong you can be I am just trying to educate people like YOU

reply to post by wmd_2008


I'm sorry I didn't get back to you in a more timely manner and right now, I am too tired to type a cohesive sentence let alone debate ya but I think I obtained some information from here

If that's not the correct page, I'll look for it tomorrow in my bookmarks.