FAQ   Search   Memberlist   Usergroups   Register   Profile   Log in to check your private messages   Log in 
9/11 Audio: Twin Towers Built for Demo
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 288, 289, 290 ... 439, 440, 441  Next
 
Post new topic   This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies.    The Next Level Forum Index -> 9/11 HardCorps Specifics Investigation
  ::  Previous topic :: Next topic  
Author Message
carcdr



Joined: 05 Jul 2007
Posts: 355

PostPosted: Wed Jul 09, 2008 11:39 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Gamolon wrote:

carcdr wrote:
So when the steel outer wall panels fell, streaming "dust", are you assuming that the wallboard "would have easily been crushed by the collapse thus creating large amounts of dust at the onset of said collapse and would have been ejected outward by the air being pushed out".


Yes. Seems logical yes?


No.

If the wallboard was attached to the outer wall panels, then it is not logical that the wallboard - in close proximity to the outer walls - got crushed while the outer panels did not get crushed.

Quote:

carcdr wrote:
I'd be interested in your physical description of how such wallboard - attached to the outer walls - was crushed by the collapse, but the actual steel columns - only inches away - were not crushed and were ejected whole."


Ejected? You mean there was a whole lot of these steel beams "ejected" horizontally from each floor? Do you have video showing these said beams being "shot" or "ejected" horizontally?

carcdr wrote:
Likewise, I'd be interested in your volumetric analysis of the amount of wallboard/gypsum/whatever that was contained near the outer walls. Why did the falling walls emit "dust" "all the way down"? If the dust came from some (relatively) thin pieces of wallboard, at what point do you suggest that the material contained in the wallboard (planking / whatever) would have been exhausted? At what point should we have seen the "dust trail" stop and the remaining steel panels fall "cleanly" (without further dust emission) to the ground?.


Can you tell me what beams came from what floors to come up with that? Also, I see "items" in Chris' photo that DON'T have streaming dust coming from them. There's your answer.


Avoidance of the question (volumetric analysis) - Noted.

Quote:

carcdr wrote:
Simple physics = (a) the tilted top portion dropped a few floors and ground to a halt and stopped falling, or (b) the tilted top portion snapped off and fell to the ground, seeking a path of least resistance.


So that's what you think SHOULD have happened? Either of those two scenarios? What are you basing that on?


Physical principles.

Quote:

carcdr wrote:
Simple physics = (c) dust that was ejected stayed ejected and fell downward due to gravity..


And that didn't happen anywhere in the photos and videos?


The other way around. If it happened in any video, then it disproves that "simple collapse" physics were not at play.

The videos posted earlier clearly show something - that I called a "knob" trying to use unbiased, non-leading language - emitted dust and that this "knob" was slurped inwards.

carcdr wrote:
Unsimple physics = a knob that appeared to eject dust, but then fell inwards, sucking the dust that it ejected along with it.

Quote:

Not sure what you mean by knob, but I think it was mentioned earlier. I have to go back and read.



Good idea.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
carcdr



Joined: 05 Jul 2007
Posts: 355

PostPosted: Wed Jul 09, 2008 11:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Gamolon wrote:
carcdr wrote:
Gamolon wrote:

What we see in that cloud is most likely the gypsum planking used within the building to surround the elevators.


We see, in videos, outer wall panels falling - trailing a huge amount of "dust".

I assume that you were being imprecise in saying that the gypsum planking was used only to surround elevators. There was probably some gypsum planking (drywall, wallboard) forming the inner wall of the office space, and said wallboard might have been attached directly or indirectly to the outer steel panels.


You're right. As far as the dust is concerned, can you tell me how big the particles are that make up the dust in the clouds emanating from the towers as they collapsed? It could be many things making up the initial dust cloud.


No, I can't tell you how big the particles were, nor can any of the experts you quote. No one took samples of the "dust" clouds emitted by the falling walls, nor could they take such samples.

We CAN see that the particles were "small enough" to form voluminous, puffy clouds that trailed the wall sections. That, at least, gives an indication of their size. The particles were small enough to be suspended in air. Larger, heavier particles would have fallen straight down and would not have trailed behind the falling sections of walls.

Quote:

Pulverized concrete does not make sense that early,


Correct. But, we see voluminous dust trails, nevertheless.

Quote:

and there are many other things that it could be composed of as listed below.

What about ashes from everything that burned in the building prior to it collapsing? What was the ceiling of each floor made of? How many printers did each floor have that had toner cartridges? What about toner cartridges stored for replacement? I have about 40 stored on one floor for our printers. What about paper? newspapers, magazines, documents, reams of paper for the printers, toilet paper, paper towels, etc. What about glass? Mirrors, the glass between the perimeter columns. What about carpeting? Drywall from interior walls that separated the open space into offices. What about partitions used for cubicles. All this stuff burned. All stuff is crushable. The concrete floors fracturing would have created some dust also.


I must have hit a nerve, yes? This is a lame explanation. You're reaching.

Quote:

The dust seen in the initial collapse videos is NOT pulverized concrete in my opinion based on what I have read and posted above.


We clearly see voluminous "dust" trailing from the falling wall portions. Nothing you've said above explains why such "dust" would have trailed behind the falling wall pieces. The amount of "dust" that we see clearly outstrips any source that you've mentioned.

Quote:

The term "total pulverization" Chris uses is complete garbage and an exaggeration. I have shown you that the towers were not "totally pulverized". Why he and others use that terminology is beyond me because it didn't happen. he even goes on to refer to "sand and gravel". That's not "total pulverization". Why the two different terms?


In the rubble piles - a photo that you posted - the only non-dustified things we see are some columns sticking out of the dust, plus a few chunks of concrete. Where were the office contents? The computers, the desks, the chairs, the porcelain sinks and toilets, the elevators, etc, etc, etc?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
carcdr



Joined: 05 Jul 2007
Posts: 355

PostPosted: Thu Jul 10, 2008 12:09 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Gamolon wrote:
Here is a diagram of one of the perimeter columns:



Here is what some of the numbers denote:

36 - the steel column
38 and 39 - fire resistant plaster
40 - aluminum facade
42 - window glass
43 - the window frame.

Looks like they used plaster and not drywall.


What in your opinion, caused the plaster to "burn off" / "dustify" as the out wall panels fell? We see lots of non-plastered outer wall panels in the debris after the deconstruction. We can see that the steel panels were not crushed. We don't see any "plaster" on the panels in the debris. What made the plaster boil off?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Gamolon



Joined: 26 Sep 2007
Posts: 1408

PostPosted: Thu Jul 10, 2008 8:20 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

carcdr wrote:
Gamolon wrote:

carcdr wrote:
So when the steel outer wall panels fell, streaming "dust", are you assuming that the wallboard "would have easily been crushed by the collapse thus creating large amounts of dust at the onset of said collapse and would have been ejected outward by the air being pushed out".


Yes. Seems logical yes?


No.

If the wallboard was attached to the outer wall panels, then it is not logical that the wallboard - in close proximity to the outer walls - got crushed while the outer panels did not get crushed.


What outer walls are you talking about? The perimeter columns? I already posted something showing that it was plaster, not gypsum planking. What outer panels are you talking about that did not get crushed?

Quote:

carcdr wrote:
I'd be interested in your physical description of how such wallboard - attached to the outer walls - was crushed by the collapse, but the actual steel columns - only inches away - were not crushed and were ejected whole."


Ejected? You mean there was a whole lot of these steel beams "ejected" horizontally from each floor? Do you have video showing these said beams being "shot" or "ejected" horizontally?

carcdr wrote:
Likewise, I'd be interested in your volumetric analysis of the amount of wallboard/gypsum/whatever that was contained near the outer walls. Why did the falling walls emit "dust" "all the way down"? If the dust came from some (relatively) thin pieces of wallboard, at what point do you suggest that the material contained in the wallboard (planking / whatever) would have been exhausted? At what point should we have seen the "dust trail" stop and the remaining steel panels fall "cleanly" (without further dust emission) to the ground?.


Can you tell me what beams came from what floors to come up with that? Also, I see "items" in Chris' photo that DON'T have streaming dust coming from them. There's your answer.


Avoidance of the question (volumetric analysis) - Noted.[/quote]

No, I'm trying to clarify what you are talking about so I can answer you. Besides, I already showed you a report of dust samples taken from in and around ground zero from the USGS. The report shows that 21% of the dust sample was concrete and 63% was gypsum. So there is your volumetric concerning the composition of the dust. There was 10x the amount of concrete than gypsum planking.

So my question to you is twofold. Why, when there is 10x the amount of concrete does the USGS report show 3x the amount of gypsum dust than concrete? This PROVES that the the dust emanating from the towers may have had some concrete dust, but not NEARLY as much as gypsum.

My second question is, if the concrete was TOTALLY PULVERIZED as has been claimed, then why, being that there was 10x the amount of concrete, did the dust sample reports not show 10x the amount of concrete than gypsum?

Based on that, YOU need to provide evidence AGAINST my assertion that the dust at the onset of the collapse was indeed concrete and not gypsum. I have provided WAY more evidence that supports my claim of it being gypsum than concrete.

Balls in your court know. Please provide solid evidence that it is pulverized concrete.

Quote:

carcdr wrote:
Simple physics = (a) the tilted top portion dropped a few floors and ground to a halt and stopped falling, or (b) the tilted top portion snapped off and fell to the ground, seeking a path of least resistance.


So that's what you think SHOULD have happened? Either of those two scenarios? What are you basing that on?


Physical principles.[/quote]Nice cop out. Please explain what you mean by "Physical Principles". What does that mean? Should the top have stopped falling altogether and been supported by the rest of the tower? Should the whole tower have fallen over sideways? Should the top have come apart and fall around the lower portion of the tower? How SHOULD the perimeter panels have fallen?

You are obviously making claims based on the fact that you have seen this type of tower collapse before under the same conditions to say that it should have fallen a certain way. Please explain.

Quote:

carcdr wrote:
Simple physics = (c) dust that was ejected stayed ejected and fell downward due to gravity..


And that didn't happen anywhere in the photos and videos?


The other way around. If it happened in any video, then it disproves that "simple collapse" physics were not at play.

The videos posted earlier clearly show something - that I called a "knob" trying to use unbiased, non-leading language - emitted dust and that this "knob" was slurped inwards.[/quote]

And that proves explosives were used? It couldn't be the air between the floors being pushed outward ejecting the dust? Where is it supposed to go?

carcdr wrote:
Unsimple physics = a knob that appeared to eject dust, but then fell inwards, sucking the dust that it ejected along with it.

Quote:

Not sure what you mean by knob, but I think it was mentioned earlier. I have to go back and read.



Good idea.[/quote]

Thanks.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Gamolon



Joined: 26 Sep 2007
Posts: 1408

PostPosted: Thu Jul 10, 2008 9:03 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

carcdr wrote:
Gamolon wrote:
carcdr wrote:
Gamolon wrote:

What we see in that cloud is most likely the gypsum planking used within the building to surround the elevators.


We see, in videos, outer wall panels falling - trailing a huge amount of "dust".

I assume that you were being imprecise in saying that the gypsum planking was used only to surround elevators. There was probably some gypsum planking (drywall, wallboard) forming the inner wall of the office space, and said wallboard might have been attached directly or indirectly to the outer steel panels.


You're right. As far as the dust is concerned, can you tell me how big the particles are that make up the dust in the clouds emanating from the towers as they collapsed? It could be many things making up the initial dust cloud.


No, I can't tell you how big the particles were, nor can any of the experts you quote. No one took samples of the "dust" clouds emitted by the falling walls, nor could they take such samples.

We CAN see that the particles were "small enough" to form voluminous, puffy clouds that trailed the wall sections. That, at least, gives an indication of their size. The particles were small enough to be suspended in air. Larger, heavier particles would have fallen straight down and would not have trailed behind the falling sections of walls.


The dust settled right? The dust sample test results have been posted. 63% gypsum/21% concrete. 3x for gypsum than concrete.

carcdr wrote:
Gamolon wrote:
Pulverized concrete does not make sense that early,


Correct. But, we see voluminous dust trails, nevertheless.


So you agree that it doesn't make sense. Then what, pray tell, are you suggesting was pulverized and created that dust cloud at the inception of the collapse? Can you answer that? If we take concrete out of the equation, what's left? You admit that we can't tell what the immediate dust cloud was composed of so are admitting that you are ASSUMING, without any evidence, that the dust cloud contained pulverized office furniture. Based on what? My explanation of the composition of the dust SHOWS you what the cloud was mainly composed of. It seems to me that your main claim here is that the CONCRETE was PULVERIZED at the immediate inception of the collapse created a large dust cloud, therefore showing that EXPLOSIVES were used to PULVERIZE said concrete. Now you agree that concrete being pulverized that early does not make sense.

Again, if you agree that concrete being pulverized that early does not make sense, then what is left to create that cloud of dust?

carcdr wrote:
Gamolon wrote:
and there are many other things that it could be composed of as listed below.

What about ashes from everything that burned in the building prior to it collapsing? What was the ceiling of each floor made of? How many printers did each floor have that had toner cartridges? What about toner cartridges stored for replacement? I have about 40 stored on one floor for our printers. What about paper? newspapers, magazines, documents, reams of paper for the printers, toilet paper, paper towels, etc. What about glass? Mirrors, the glass between the perimeter columns. What about carpeting? Drywall from interior walls that separated the open space into offices. What about partitions used for cubicles. All this stuff burned. All stuff is crushable. The concrete floors fracturing would have created some dust also.


I must have hit a nerve, yes? This is a lame explanation. You're reaching.


No, I'm trying to answer your question of what my have caused such a large dust cloud at the inception of the collapse. You just admitted that concrete being pulverized does not make sense. What's left?


carcdr wrote:
Gamolon wrote:
The dust seen in the initial collapse videos is NOT pulverized concrete in my opinion based on what I have read and posted above.


We clearly see voluminous "dust" trailing from the falling wall portions. Nothing you've said above explains why such "dust" would have trailed behind the falling wall pieces. The amount of "dust" that we see clearly outstrips any source that you've mentioned.


For the third time. You just admitted that pulverized concrete that early in the collapse does not make sense. What is left in the makeup of the towers then? I try to give you examples of what I think and you label them lame? Nice argument.


carcdr wrote:
Gamolon wrote:
The term "total pulverization" Chris uses is complete garbage and an exaggeration. I have shown you that the towers were not "totally pulverized". Why he and others use that terminology is beyond me because it didn't happen. he even goes on to refer to "sand and gravel". That's not "total pulverization". Why the two different terms?


In the rubble piles - a photo that you posted - the only non-dustified things we see are some columns sticking out of the dust, plus a few chunks of concrete. Where were the office contents? The computers, the desks, the chairs, the porcelain sinks and toilets, the elevators, etc, etc, etc?


That's bullcrap and you know it. Look at the photos again. Here's something else for you to chew on. If everything was totally pulverized and dustified as you claim (meaning powder), then why does Chris, the biggest proponent of pulverization in this thread, use the term "sand and gravel" when referring to some of the photos showing what was left. "Sand and gravel is a far cry from "totally pulverized" and "dustified". Care to explain?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Gamolon



Joined: 26 Sep 2007
Posts: 1408

PostPosted: Thu Jul 10, 2008 9:20 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

carcdr wrote:
Gamolon wrote:
Here is a diagram of one of the perimeter columns:



Here is what some of the numbers denote:

36 - the steel column
38 and 39 - fire resistant plaster
40 - aluminum facade
42 - window glass
43 - the window frame.

Looks like they used plaster and not drywall.


What in your opinion, caused the plaster to "burn off" / "dustify" as the out wall panels fell? We see lots of non-plastered outer wall panels in the debris after the deconstruction. We can see that the steel panels were not crushed. We don't see any "plaster" on the panels in the debris. What made the plaster boil off?


Nice assumption again. Can you show me where I said the plaster on the perimeter columns "burned off" or "dustifed" as they fell? Why are you assuming that the dust trails are from plaster "burning off"? Why couldn't it be the panels falling and the air behind the panels "sucking"the surrounding dust/debris in behind it? That's not possible though is it. Tell you what. Stand a large piece of flat cardboard on end and hold it upright. Blow some baby powder on the right side of that cardboard panel and push the top part of the cardboard to the left while the cloud of baby powder is in the air. What happens? Does the powder get "sucked" in the direction the board fell?

Do you honestly believe that the panels falling that distance and/or having all the other debris would not dislodge the plaster? Myabe when the floor trusses pulled away from the perimeter columns, they yanked the plaster off with it.

Can you show me some evidence to back your claim that the plaster "boiled off" during the fall?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Gamolon



Joined: 26 Sep 2007
Posts: 1408

PostPosted: Thu Jul 10, 2008 12:11 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Here is a photo of an engineer looking at the plaster left on the inside face of one of the perimeter column trees.

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Gamolon



Joined: 26 Sep 2007
Posts: 1408

PostPosted: Thu Jul 10, 2008 12:39 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Total pulverization huh?



If that is true, please tell me how the PAPER in that photo survived and yet concrete did not.

Let me guess. Planted evidence right?

Eyes roll
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Gamolon



Joined: 26 Sep 2007
Posts: 1408

PostPosted: Thu Jul 10, 2008 12:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

More "Totally Pulverized" paper products.

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Big Boss



Joined: 04 May 2008
Posts: 791
Location: Outer Heaven

PostPosted: Thu Jul 10, 2008 2:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hey Fintan, long time no post (for me anyway lol) but i've finished listening to the incredible audio w/ Chris Brown and wow.....lets just say it put me on even more fire to do some digging and investigating, especially concerning that hard to damn find video. Well, i think im close and i HOPE this is useful in our 3i investigation Smile. I DL'd it the other night right after i was done listening to the audio and im going to send Chris a link as well Smile. Its short (about 25 mins) and i didnt even get to finish it, so maybe it should be of some good use to us eh? Thank you (and Kathy as well of course) as always for the news reports and BFN, and thank you Chris for the incredible hardcore analysis.

[url][/url]

Building The World Trade Towers: 1983 Construction Documentary Film
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
aAzzAa



Joined: 03 Sep 2007
Posts: 1140

PostPosted: Thu Jul 10, 2008 5:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Big Boss wrote:
Hey Fintan, long time no post (for me anyway lol) but i've finished listening to the incredible audio w/ Chris Brown and wow.....lets just say it put me on even more fire to do some digging and investigating, especially concerning that hard to damn find video. Well, i think im close and i HOPE this is useful in our 3i investigation Smile. I DL'd it the other night right after i was done listening to the audio and im going to send Chris a link as well Smile. Its short (about 25 mins) and i didnt even get to finish it, so maybe it should be of some good use to us eh? Thank you (and Kathy as well of course) as always for the news reports and BFN, and thank you Chris for the incredible hardcore analysis.

[url][/url]

Building The World Trade Towers: 1983 Construction Documentary Film


Why bother downloading it from the link you provided? It's freely available on youtube is it not? Puppetmaster Grumpy posted it here about 100 pages ago. Don't recall Chris recognizing this as the video he was referring to.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aZS5a7je5Vs

First time I watched this I was reminded of the Harry Enfield piss takes of the propoganda movies back in the 50s. Like this one:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Ivsb79-h90
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
aAzzAa



Joined: 03 Sep 2007
Posts: 1140

PostPosted: Thu Jul 10, 2008 5:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Gamolon wrote:
Total pulverization huh?



If that is true, please tell me how the PAPER in that photo survived and yet concrete did not.

Let me guess. Planted evidence right?

Eyes roll


Aaaah, now I get it. When the floors above gave way, it turned them into a giant cheese grater, gnawing its way into all that was below it, munching each floor and laying it all to waste.

Mind you, saw some footage of some embassy in Africa that was bombed.
Amazing similarity to the mess one sees where the twin towers previously were.

Really, what does it matter if there was a concrete core or not? The collapse looks plain unnatural. But you don't agree Gamo "care to explain, answer me this, the balls in your court" lon?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
onlytruth



Joined: 31 Oct 2007
Posts: 119

PostPosted: Thu Jul 10, 2008 9:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

aAzzAa wrote:


Really, what does it matter if there was a concrete core or not? The collapse looks plain unnatural. But you don't agree Gamo "care to explain, answer me this, the balls in your court" lon?


aAzzAa, not only did the collapse look plain unnatural, the collapse was repeated after a 30 minute intermission.

Chris, not sure how "concrete" the core was in the following photo, but it was the core nevertheless for your reference.

-Regards



Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Big Boss



Joined: 04 May 2008
Posts: 791
Location: Outer Heaven

PostPosted: Thu Jul 10, 2008 9:30 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

aAzzAa wrote:
Big Boss wrote:
Hey Fintan, long time no post (for me anyway lol) but i've finished listening to the incredible audio w/ Chris Brown and wow.....lets just say it put me on even more fire to do some digging and investigating, especially concerning that hard to damn find video. Well, i think im close and i HOPE this is useful in our 3i investigation Smile. I DL'd it the other night right after i was done listening to the audio and im going to send Chris a link as well Smile. Its short (about 25 mins) and i didnt even get to finish it, so maybe it should be of some good use to us eh? Thank you (and Kathy as well of course) as always for the news reports and BFN, and thank you Chris for the incredible hardcore analysis.

[url][/url]

Building The World Trade Towers: 1983 Construction Documentary Film


Why bother downloading it from the link you provided? It's freely available on youtube is it not? Puppetmaster Grumpy posted it here about 100 pages ago. Don't recall Chris recognizing this as the video he was referring to.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aZS5a7je5Vs

First time I watched this I was reminded of the Harry Enfield piss takes of the propoganda movies back in the 50s. Like this one:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Ivsb79-h90


Obviously i was not aware of that. I hadn't even finished the docu. let alone know if anyone else here posted about it or made a search to see if anyone did. Thanks anyway and here is hoping that the documentary is found someday.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
rustyh



Joined: 17 Sep 2006
Posts: 458
Location: A Wonderful World

PostPosted: Thu Jul 10, 2008 9:37 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

[http://i238.photobucket.com/albums/ff290/gamolon/010913_5316.jpg[/img]

Anyone else see somehing a bit strange about this picture?
I asked a 9 year old and he spotted it straight away.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies.    The Next Level Forum Index -> 9/11 HardCorps Specifics Investigation All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 288, 289, 290 ... 439, 440, 441  Next
Page 289 of 441

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group

Theme xand created by spleen.