| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628
|
 Posted: Sun Jan 14, 2007 5:52 pm Post subject: Interesting photographs from ground zero |
 |
|
I came across these photographs taken by someone on a visit to the clearing-up operation on 15.12.01. Some interesting things can be seen:
* A great mass of twisted metal, not the neat 30 foot lengths we are sometimes told about.
* All the vertical columns that have been cut have been cut at an angle, and you can see the cutting torches being used.
* In these shots, particularly the third, fourth and last, you can clearly see the chunks of broken concrete from the floors that you would naturally expect. This shows that the talk of all the concrete being turned to fine powder is so much rubbish, and the calculations of energy used to that are irrelevant. Also of course it has not been vapourised by some beam weapon.
* The eighth shot shows the pancaked floors that someone (was it marky?) was asking to see.
Have fun trying to find an interpretation of these pictures to suit your various agendas!
_________________
".......some partial collapse [of WTC7] would not have been suspicious......." - chek |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
marky 54
Mega Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
marky 54
Mega Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 14, 2007 6:31 pm Post subject: Re: Interesting photographs from ground zero |
|
|
| Bushwacker wrote: | I came across these photographs taken by someone on a visit to the clearing-up operation on 15.12.01. Some interesting things can be seen:
* A great mass of twisted metal, not the neat 30 foot lengths we are sometimes told about.
* All the vertical columns that have been cut have been cut at an angle, and you can see the cutting torches being used.
* In these shots, particularly the third, fourth and last, you can clearly see the chunks of broken concrete from the floors that you would naturally expect. This shows that the talk of all the concrete being turned to fine powder is so much rubbish, and the calculations of energy used to that are irrelevant. Also of course it has not been vapourised by some beam weapon.
* The eighth shot shows the pancaked floors that someone (was it marky?) was asking to see.
Have fun trying to find an interpretation of these pictures to suit your various agendas! |
if anyone can find pancaked floors in the photos please show me. i can only see an outerwall with a few beams in front making it appear like a few tiers of floors.
yes there was twisted metal but the 30ft lenghts refer to the steel beams, where were the twisted steel beams?
at least 95% of the concrete was turned to dust. eitherway the concrete was still turned to dust. beam weapons isnt what the majority here believe and you know it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
James C
Major Poster
Joined: 26 Jan 2006
Posts: 1046
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 14, 2007 7:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I see no pancaking of floors either. Where are they exactly?
The floors were constructed of poured concrete, did they have reinforcement? 4" screeds don't usually. You are no doubt getting mixed up with the reinforced concrete used in the underground sections of the WTC as a whole, but these were not part of the twin towers. Of course, these show the aftermath. Please refer to the video footage of the collapses to see just how much dust is in the air. Perhaps it just happened to snowing rocks when the Naudet brothers were filming whilst cowering under a car?
I'm not a beam weapon supporter.
Looks like you've already had fun twisting what you see to suit your own logic so I won't bother adding anything else.
When has MI5 booked your holiday for this year Bushwacker? I think you need it now. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Stefan
Banned
Joined: 29 Aug 2006
Posts: 1219
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 14, 2007 7:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
You contradict the article.
They say the remains of the outerwall was being cut away with cutting torches- the angled cuts we see are on the core collumn stubs in the foreground.
_________________
Peace and Truth |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 14, 2007 8:22 pm Post subject: Re: Interesting photographs from ground zero |
|
|
| marky 54 wrote: | | Bushwacker wrote: | I came across these photographs taken by someone on a visit to the clearing-up operation on 15.12.01. Some interesting things can be seen:
* A great mass of twisted metal, not the neat 30 foot lengths we are sometimes told about.
* All the vertical columns that have been cut have been cut at an angle, and you can see the cutting torches being used.
* In these shots, particularly the third, fourth and last, you can clearly see the chunks of broken concrete from the floors that you would naturally expect. This shows that the talk of all the concrete being turned to fine powder is so much rubbish, and the calculations of energy used to that are irrelevant. Also of course it has not been vapourised by some beam weapon.
* The eighth shot shows the pancaked floors that someone (was it marky?) was asking to see.
Have fun trying to find an interpretation of these pictures to suit your various agendas! |
if anyone can find pancaked floors in the photos please show me. i can only see an outerwall with a few beams in front making it appear like a few tiers of floors.
yes there was twisted metal but the 30ft lenghts refer to the steel beams, where were the twisted steel beams?
at least 95% of the concrete was turned to dust. eitherway the concrete was still turned to dust. beam weapons isnt what the majority here believe and you know it. |
Right, of course what looks like pancaked floors must be something else.
That same picture has twisted beams in it, and there some are also in picture 5. How on earth do you know that 95% of the concrete turned to dust?
_________________
".......some partial collapse [of WTC7] would not have been suspicious......." - chek |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 14, 2007 8:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| James C wrote: | I see no pancaking of floors either. Where are they exactly?
The floors were constructed of poured concrete, did they have reinforcement? 4" screeds don't usually. You are no doubt getting mixed up with the reinforced concrete used in the underground sections of the WTC as a whole, but these were not part of the twin towers. Of course, these show the aftermath. Please refer to the video footage of the collapses to see just how much dust is in the air. Perhaps it just happened to snowing rocks when the Naudet brothers were filming whilst cowering under a car?
I'm not a beam weapon supporter.
Looks like you've already had fun twisting what you see to suit your own logic so I won't bother adding anything else.
When has MI5 booked your holiday for this year Bushwacker? I think you need it now. |
Chunks of concrete about 4 inches thick are nothing to do with floors then? Whatever, this shows that clearly that not all the concrete, wherever it was from, was pulverised, as assumed in the energy calculations. The dust is much more likely to have been gypsum dust, since plaster crumbles very easily.
_________________
".......some partial collapse [of WTC7] would not have been suspicious......." - chek |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 14, 2007 8:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Stefan wrote: | You contradict the article.
They say the remains of the outerwall was being cut away with cutting torches- the angled cuts we see are on the core collumn stubs in the foreground. |
No I do not, read what I wrote again.
_________________
".......some partial collapse [of WTC7] would not have been suspicious......." - chek |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Stefan
Banned
Joined: 29 Aug 2006
Posts: 1219
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 14, 2007 8:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
In that case, you still contradict the article- it specific states the men with cutting torches are removing the remaining standing outer perimeter beams.
The angled cuts we see are on the foreground core columns, which there is no mention of them cutting.
_________________
Peace and Truth |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 14, 2007 10:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Stefan wrote: | In that case, you still contradict the article- it specific states the men with cutting torches are removing the remaining standing outer perimeter beams.
The angled cuts we see are on the foreground core columns, which there is no mention of them cutting. |
I did not say you can see the cutting torches being used on core columns, of course they are being used on the North wall perimeter columns at the time the photo was taken.
My point was that every vertical column that has been cut, has been cut at an angle. It is clearly not something strange or unusual. Those cuts were clearly made by the clean-up workers.
_________________
".......some partial collapse [of WTC7] would not have been suspicious......." - chek |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Stefan
Banned
Joined: 29 Aug 2006
Posts: 1219
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 14, 2007 10:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Bushwhacker-
You miss my point, I'll break it down for you.
There is only one mention in the article of people cutting beams with torches- they are talking about the perimeter columns remaining.
The only cut perimeter columns we can see are not cut at an angle (see red circles on image below)
The only columns we can see which are cut at an angle are the core columns (see green circles). There is no mention of these being cut by the men with torches.
Therefore this is evidence for controlled demolition- not against it.
_________________
Peace and Truth |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 15, 2007 1:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
You may have missed the comment about the perimeter columns they were cutting, "While we were there they were cutting notches in the bottom to facilitate its felling" so they were in fact cutting into those at an angle. Once felled, the stumps would appear cut at an angle. That may well have been what happened to the core columns as well. See in particular in the photo below, the stump of a core column in front of the yellow digger.
These columns have clearly been carefully and neatly cut through, there is no sign of explosive force, there is no sign of any filling of the column with thermite, they give every appearance of being cut through with a cutting torch. Even if you could manage to hold thermite against the side in a straight line, having gained full access to all sides, the thermite would not cut cleanly across the thickness of the metal in the way we see.
_________________
".......some partial collapse [of WTC7] would not have been suspicious......." - chek |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
marky 54
Mega Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 15, 2007 6:24 am Post subject: |
|
|
and of course bushwacker has avoided this in two threads now.
is he trying to steer away from the contents? is he a lier helping to cover-up ? or did he geniunly not see it twice?
the link proves at minimum that noone has managed to come up with an explanation as to why the towers fell and as bushwacker qoutes these guys(in the link) alot you have to wonder if he knows or how he could know.
my main problem is the offical storey which is untrue. CD, beam, NPT
what ever people believe dosnt change the fact the offical storey is either a lie or wrong. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
marky 54
Mega Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 15, 2007 6:57 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Bushwacker wrote: | You may have missed the comment about the perimeter columns they were cutting, "While we were there they were cutting notches in the bottom to facilitate its felling" so they were in fact cutting into those at an angle. Once felled, the stumps would appear cut at an angle. That may well have been what happened to the core columns as well. See in particular in the photo below, the stump of a core column in front of the yellow digger.
These columns have clearly been carefully and neatly cut through, there is no sign of explosive force, there is no sign of any filling of the column with thermite, they give every appearance of being cut through with a cutting torch. Even if you could manage to hold thermite against the side in a straight line, having gained full access to all sides, the thermite would not cut cleanly across the thickness of the metal in the way we see. |
i aint being funny bushwacker but i do think these are poor photos to prove anything.
firstly we would expect 1 or 2 steel beams to be bent with the destruction that was taking place. the question is how much steel wasnt bent? there is a very very high percent of beams that are not bent, would this be expected from a pancaking collapse? also there are two diggers in the picture above, i bet they have been riding around on all the debris we see crushing and twisting it over months.
the photos are taken when the vast majority of the debris have been removed so these photos only show a very small amount of the debris.
so although these photos can be taken into account as "evidence" if you like they dont give the full picture and in that case a true picture of the "evidence" that was laying around at CZ after collapse.
and like it or not there are no pancaked floors in those photos. so it seems every floor was shattered into many small pieces.
my comment above about at least 95% of the concrete was vapourised is via observation of the collapse and aftermath. so it obviously isnt an accurate figure and it wasnt intended to be because my point above was that concrete was pulverised. a very high percentage was pulverised so i dont think my estimate would be far of any real calculation done.
either way concrete turned to dust regardless of if a photo showing 0.1% of the amount of concrete in wtc exsists that isnt pulverised.
or are you denying the pulverisation of the majority of the concrete alltogether? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
marky 54
Mega Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 15, 2007 7:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Bushwacker wrote: | You may have missed the comment about the perimeter columns they were cutting, "While we were there they were cutting notches in the bottom to facilitate its felling" so they were in fact cutting into those at an angle. Once felled, the stumps would appear cut at an angle. That may well have been what happened to the core columns as well. See in particular in the photo below, the stump of a core column in front of the yellow digger.
These columns have clearly been carefully and neatly cut through, there is no sign of explosive force, there is no sign of any filling of the column with thermite, they give every appearance of being cut through with a cutting torch. Even if you could manage to hold thermite against the side in a straight line, having gained full access to all sides, the thermite would not cut cleanly across the thickness of the metal in the way we see. |
no evidence of explosive force? are we ignoring the beam that is bowed outward? if a explosion had taken place to the side of the beam that is exactly what we would expect to see. so there is evidence an explosion could of taken place near that beam, but its a question of it did or not.
i just disagree with your statement there is no evidence of an explosion when one beam is bowed outward. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
marky 54
Mega Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 15, 2007 9:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
so my basic point is this, the one bent beam we see could of been caused by anything and isnt proof of anything unless there are numerous examples thoughout the debris recovered. the majority were straight steel beams almost all in percentage terms. pancaking floor by floor would surley of bent the majority of beams.
infact there are very few bent beams and certainly havent seen a buckled beam yet(dunno if they exsist though). the beams that are bent could also of been caused by explosions, so the amount of bent beams should tell us if pancaking happened how stated cos one floor landing on another all the way down would surely cause the majority of beams to bend or buckle before becoming detatched.
there are only a small amount of beams that are not straight and the majority that are not straight are only bent, which either happened from debris landing on them and bending them like a big hammer hitting a nail, or those beams may point to areas or came from areas explosions took place. but there are to few to suggest pancaking. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 15, 2007 11:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
| marky 54 wrote: |
and of course bushwacker has avoided this in two threads now.
is he trying to steer away from the contents? is he a lier helping to cover-up ? or did he geniunly not see it twice?
the link proves at minimum that noone has managed to come up with an explanation as to why the towers fell and as bushwacker qoutes these guys(in the link) alot you have to wonder if he knows or how he could know.
my main problem is the offical storey which is untrue. CD, beam, NPT
what ever people believe dosnt change the fact the offical storey is either a lie or wrong. |
marky, I saw it perfectly well, but did not reply firstly because this thread is about the photgraphs, and secondly I am fed up with you simply going through YouTube and posting every clip that attracts your attention, wanting a detailed debunking, which you then ignore and post another video clip. If you have something to say, some point from the clip you want comment on, then say so. I am just not going to wade through all this turgid nonsense for no reason.
_________________
".......some partial collapse [of WTC7] would not have been suspicious......." - chek |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 15, 2007 11:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
marky, so what you are saying is that you want to see photographs of bent and twisted beams, but if you are shown such photographs you will think of some other explanation, like they have been bent by the diggers. You think, with no evidence at all, that 95% of the concrete was pulverised, because there were big dust clouds, and if you are shown large chunks of concrete, they must be exceptional. You simply want to believe a fairy tale with no evidence to support it, and you will find any explanation whatever to explain away all the many things that show it is not true. OK, that is your absolute right, enjoy yourself doing it, but do not pretend you are interested in the truth, because you are not.
_________________
".......some partial collapse [of WTC7] would not have been suspicious......." - chek |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
marky 54
Mega Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 15, 2007 11:55 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Bushwacker wrote: | | marky, so what you are saying is that you want to see photographs of bent and twisted beams, but if you are shown such photographs you will think of some other explanation, like they have been bent by the diggers. You think, with no evidence at all, that 95% of the concrete was pulverised, because there were big dust clouds, and if you are shown large chunks of concrete, they must be exceptional. You simply want to believe a fairy tale with no evidence to support it, and you will find any explanation whatever to explain away all the many things that show it is not true. OK, that is your absolute right, enjoy yourself doing it, but do not pretend you are interested in the truth, because you are not. |
well thats funny because everything you just said i was thinking about you, especially when you cannot bring yourself to watch somebody prove nist didnt have a clue and a lot of what they put out was fabricated. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 15, 2007 3:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
marky, old chap, if Kevin Ryan could prove that, don't you think we would both have heard about it long since?
_________________
".......some partial collapse [of WTC7] would not have been suspicious......." - chek |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
marky 54
Mega Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 15, 2007 4:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Bushwacker wrote: | | marky, old chap, if Kevin Ryan could prove that, don't you think we would both have heard about it long since? |
what rubbish. how exactly are we meant to hear about this? you think fox news and the bbc are gonna broadcast it? if the majority of the population saw it they would know so its in there intreast not to let that happen isnt it. and we "have heard about this".
what a useless counter arguement, it carnt be true because we havnt heard about it. in that case WTC7 never fell down! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
James C
Major Poster
Joined: 26 Jan 2006
Posts: 1046
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 15, 2007 9:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Bushwacker,
4" concrete slabs do not use reinforcing especially when poured upon steel corrugated sheeting as used. The bits of concrete you are desperate to use as evidence are hard to place within the building. These bits could easily have come from the reinforced concrete structures within the bathtub, possibly even from the underground system itself, It's hard to tell because these pictures show the scene after plenty of clearing work has taken place.
So what was that massive dust cloud which engulfed Manhatten as the towers fell and was seen raining down in the Naudet brothers film. Very probably concrete and gypsum. Since there were 110 floors in each tower and I see not one intact floor, I reckon most of the concrete must have been pulverized, wouldn't you? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 15, 2007 11:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| marky 54 wrote: | | Bushwacker wrote: | | marky, old chap, if Kevin Ryan could prove that, don't you think we would both have heard about it long since? |
what rubbish. how exactly are we meant to hear about this? you think fox news and the bbc are gonna broadcast it? if the majority of the population saw it they would know so its in there intreast not to let that happen isnt it. and we "have heard about this".
what a useless counter arguement, it carnt be true because we havnt heard about it. in that case WTC7 never fell down! |
No, marky, we would have heard about it on this site, the premier site for 9/11 news, the posters here would have been wetting themselves with excitement, and it would be a conclusive counter to any argument. They aren't, it isn't, so he hasn't.
_________________
".......some partial collapse [of WTC7] would not have been suspicious......." - chek |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Busker
Moderate Poster
Joined: 13 Jun 2006
Posts: 374
Location: North East
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 15, 2007 11:32 pm Post subject: Re: Interesting photographs from ground zero |
|
|
| Bushwacker wrote: | | Have fun trying to find an interpretation of these pictures to suit your various agendas! |
Posted link instead of image to avoid bandwidth theft http://home.hiwaay.net/~langford/wtc/01121617m.jpg
Randomness of collapse of WTC6 in the background.
Nice neat cut-off verticles of WTC1 in foreground / middle distance.
Quad erat demonstrandum? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 16, 2007 12:01 am Post subject: |
|
|
| James C wrote: | Bushwacker,
4" concrete slabs do not use reinforcing especially when poured upon steel corrugated sheeting as used. The bits of concrete you are desperate to use as evidence are hard to place within the building. These bits could easily have come from the reinforced concrete structures within the bathtub, possibly even from the underground system itself, It's hard to tell because these pictures show the scene after plenty of clearing work has taken place.
So what was that massive dust cloud which engulfed Manhatten as the towers fell and was seen raining down in the Naudet brothers film. Very probably concrete and gypsum. Since there were 110 floors in each tower and I see not one intact floor, I reckon most of the concrete must have been pulverized, wouldn't you? |
I accept what you say about the floors not containing reinforcement, so concrete with reinforcement is not from the floors. However, I have never understood why the concrete should be turned to dust, regardless of why the towers collapsed. Plaster crumbles easily, concrete does not, and I would expect it mostly to remain in chunks. So I think that the dust clouds were mostly plaster dust. Some of the few survivors pulled from the rubble describe concrete remaining intact. For instance, page two of this account and this survivor's story.
_________________
".......some partial collapse [of WTC7] would not have been suspicious......." - chek |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 16, 2007 12:07 am Post subject: Re: Interesting photographs from ground zero |
|
|
| busker wrote: | | Bushwacker wrote: | | Have fun trying to find an interpretation of these pictures to suit your various agendas! |
Posted link instead of image to avoid bandwidth theft http://home.hiwaay.net/~langford/wtc/01121617m.jpg
Randomness of collapse of WTC6 in the background.
Nice neat cut-off verticles of WTC1 in foreground / middle distance.
Quad erat demonstrandum? |
WTC6, although very badly damaged, was still standing, the towers had collapsed, and the clear-up crews are indeed cutting off the remaining verticals quite neatly. What is your point, exactly?
_________________
".......some partial collapse [of WTC7] would not have been suspicious......." - chek |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
marky 54
Mega Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 16, 2007 12:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Bushwacker wrote: | | marky 54 wrote: | | Bushwacker wrote: | | marky, old chap, if Kevin Ryan could prove that, don't you think we would both have heard about it long since? |
what rubbish. how exactly are we meant to hear about this? you think fox news and the bbc are gonna broadcast it? if the majority of the population saw it they would know so its in there intreast not to let that happen isnt it. and we "have heard about this".
what a useless counter arguement, it carnt be true because we havnt heard about it. in that case WTC7 never fell down! |
No, marky, we would have heard about it on this site, the premier site for 9/11 news, the posters here would have been wetting themselves with excitement, and it would be a conclusive counter to any argument. They aren't, it isn't, so he hasn't. |
there may be a reason for that. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 16, 2007 5:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Bushwacker wrote: | | James C wrote: | Bushwacker,
4" concrete slabs do not use reinforcing especially when poured upon steel corrugated sheeting as used. The bits of concrete you are desperate to use as evidence are hard to place within the building. These bits could easily have come from the reinforced concrete structures within the bathtub, possibly even from the underground system itself, It's hard to tell because these pictures show the scene after plenty of clearing work has taken place.
So what was that massive dust cloud which engulfed Manhatten as the towers fell and was seen raining down in the Naudet brothers film. Very probably concrete and gypsum. Since there were 110 floors in each tower and I see not one intact floor, I reckon most of the concrete must have been pulverized, wouldn't you? |
I accept what you say about the floors not containing reinforcement, so concrete with reinforcement is not from the floors. However, I have never understood why the concrete should be turned to dust, regardless of why the towers collapsed. Plaster crumbles easily, concrete does not, and I would expect it mostly to remain in chunks. So I think that the dust clouds were mostly plaster dust. Some of the few survivors pulled from the rubble describe concrete remaining intact. For instance, page two of this account and this survivor's story. |
Here is another picture showing concrete in lumps on the bottom left, with no reinforcement, and clearly not from the basement area:
_________________
".......some partial collapse [of WTC7] would not have been suspicious......." - chek |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
James C
Major Poster
Joined: 26 Jan 2006
Posts: 1046
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 17, 2007 10:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Bushwacker wrote: | | Bushwacker wrote: | | James C wrote: | Bushwacker,
4" concrete slabs do not use reinforcing especially when poured upon steel corrugated sheeting as used. The bits of concrete you are desperate to use as evidence are hard to place within the building. These bits could easily have come from the reinforced concrete structures within the bathtub, possibly even from the underground system itself, It's hard to tell because these pictures show the scene after plenty of clearing work has taken place.
So what was that massive dust cloud which engulfed Manhatten as the towers fell and was seen raining down in the Naudet brothers film. Very probably concrete and gypsum. Since there were 110 floors in each tower and I see not one intact floor, I reckon most of the concrete must have been pulverized, wouldn't you? |
I accept what you say about the floors not containing reinforcement, so concrete with reinforcement is not from the floors. However, I have never understood why the concrete should be turned to dust, regardless of why the towers collapsed. Plaster crumbles easily, concrete does not, and I would expect it mostly to remain in chunks. So I think that the dust clouds were mostly plaster dust. Some of the few survivors pulled from the rubble describe concrete remaining intact. For instance, page two of this account and this survivor's story. |
Here is another picture showing concrete in lumps on the bottom left, with no reinforcement, and clearly not from the basement area:
|
Give me a break!
So you know for sure that these are lumps of concrete do you? Could it be because you think they look like concrete? Now you might be correct; I have never said that all the concrete would be pulversized, just most. Then again, you could be wrong; many materials were used in each tower ranging from wall and floor tiles to marbles, ceramics, multi-layered plasterboard (for stiffness) and asbestos. Those lumps could be any one of those. When a building collpases, especially a tall one, all materials start to look like one another.
Haven't you got anything better to do other than shift through these photos in an attempt to catch us out? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 18, 2007 2:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
| James C wrote: | | Bushwacker wrote: | | Bushwacker wrote: | | James C wrote: | Bushwacker,
4" concrete slabs do not use reinforcing especially when poured upon steel corrugated sheeting as used. The bits of concrete you are desperate to use as evidence are hard to place within the building. These bits could easily have come from the reinforced concrete structures within the bathtub, possibly even from the underground system itself, It's hard to tell because these pictures show the scene after plenty of clearing work has taken place.
So what was that massive dust cloud which engulfed Manhatten as the towers fell and was seen raining down in the Naudet brothers film. Very probably concrete and gypsum. Since there were 110 floors in each tower and I see not one intact floor, I reckon most of the concrete must have been pulverized, wouldn't you? |
I accept what you say about the floors not containing reinforcement, so concrete with reinforcement is not from the floors. However, I have never understood why the concrete should be turned to dust, regardless of why the towers collapsed. Plaster crumbles easily, concrete does not, and I would expect it mostly to remain in chunks. So I think that the dust clouds were mostly plaster dust. Some of the few survivors pulled from the rubble describe concrete remaining intact. For instance, page two of this account and this survivor's story. |
Here is another picture showing concrete in lumps on the bottom left, with no reinforcement, and clearly not from the basement area:
|
Give me a break!
So you know for sure that these are lumps of concrete do you? Could it be because you think they look like concrete? Now you might be correct; I have never said that all the concrete would be pulversized, just most. Then again, you could be wrong; many materials were used in each tower ranging from wall and floor tiles to marbles, ceramics, multi-layered plasterboard (for stiffness) and asbestos. Those lumps could be any one of those. When a building collpases, especially a tall one, all materials start to look like one another.
Haven't you got anything better to do other than shift through these photos in an attempt to catch us out? |
Oh, I didn't find this photo, it was posted on another thread and is supposed to show a hole caused by a beam weapon or something. Why do you think most of the concrete was pulverised? That seems most unlikely to happen to me. Crack into chunks certainly, and some powder from that, crushed into granules and powder when trapped directly between steel surfaces, but concrete resists compression well, unlike of course many of the other substances you mention, which seem unlikely to survive when concrete does not.
_________________
".......some partial collapse [of WTC7] would not have been suspicious......." - chek |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Chat
Usergroups
Calendar
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
