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.
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?
Originally posted by snowcrash911
Surely this was reported in the news?
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?
Originally posted by septic
reply to post by snowcrash911
Sorry, no calcluations...just common sense.
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.
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
Originally posted by septic
reply to post by hooper
Even with a thousand jack-hammers you won't get dust clouds like this:
Originally posted by septic
What calculations would you like?
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
If the evidence leads me to rubber dummies, then so be it. Do you only go where the evidence is comfortable?
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.
Originally posted by septic
reply to post by hooper
Even with a thousand jack-hammers you won't get dust clouds like this: