+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 9 FirstFirst 1 2 9 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 172

Thread: The sheer volume of concrete and steel that simply vanished on 9/11

  1. Link to Post #21
    Australia Avalon Member TigaHawk's Avatar
    Join Date
    18th March 2010
    Age
    33
    Posts
    1,042
    Thanks
    233
    Thanked 3,070 times in 740 posts

    Default Re: The sheer volume of concrete and steel that simply vanished on 9/11

    There are video's where you can see metal beams and cement turn to dust.

    Let that sink in - you are seeing metal beams and concrete - turn to dust - in seconds.

    Superweapon / New toy the PTB were playing with? I very much think so!

  2. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to TigaHawk For This Post:

    DeDukshyn (27th January 2016), Ewan (28th January 2016)

  3. Link to Post #22
    Canada Avalon Member DeDukshyn's Avatar
    Join Date
    22nd January 2011
    Location
    From 100 Mile House ;-)
    Age
    45
    Posts
    7,715
    Thanks
    24,716
    Thanked 31,977 times in 6,905 posts

    Default Re: The sheer volume of concrete and steel that simply vanished on 9/11

    Quote Posted by TigaHawk (here)
    There are video's where you can see metal beams and cement turn to dust.

    Let that sink in - you are seeing metal beams and concrete - turn to dust - in seconds.

    Superweapon / New toy the PTB were playing with? I very much think so!
    There is a higher res version of this video somewhere on youtube, but even @ 240p you can see an entire support column being vapourised ... (@45+ seconds, and again at about 1:20)

    Last edited by DeDukshyn; 27th January 2016 at 23:57.
    When you are one step ahead of the crowd, you are a genius.
    Two steps ahead, and you are deemed a crackpot.

  4. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to DeDukshyn For This Post:

    Buck (1st February 2016), Ewan (28th January 2016), Shannon (21st February 2016)

  5. Link to Post #23
    Avalon Member winstonsmith's Avatar
    Join Date
    11th November 2015
    Posts
    50
    Thanks
    23
    Thanked 184 times in 43 posts

    Default Re: The sheer volume of concrete and steel that simply vanished on 9/11

    Steel did not turn to dust.

    If it did, what was sold to China?
    What did "burners" cut up for months over in the NJ scrap yards?
    What were those acres of mountains of wreckage doing there well into April 2002?
    What was loaded onto barges crossing the Hudson?
    What was loaded onto trucks bound for barges?
    What was lifted off the rubble pile by huge cranes, loaders or grapples?
    What was cut up on the pile with acetylene torches, thermal lances and chop saws?
    What were the armies of first responders scrambling over and into for months?

    Some of the steel ended up mixed into "meteorites." The volume is unknown at this time.

    See PDF page 40 for the quantity of steel wreckage that was transported away from Ground Zero.

    http://www.911conspiracy.tv/pdf/9-11...att_Nelson.pdf

    https://www.911truthoutreach.org/557...ound-zero.html

  6. The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to winstonsmith For This Post:

    Eram (28th January 2016), Ewan (28th January 2016), seko (28th January 2016), Shannon (21st February 2016), Sunny-side-up (28th January 2016), TargeT (28th January 2016)

  7. Link to Post #24
    United States Avalon Retired Member
    Join Date
    4th January 2011
    Location
    North Texas
    Age
    71
    Posts
    27,723
    Thanks
    28,846
    Thanked 129,150 times in 20,634 posts

    Default Re: The sheer volume of concrete and steel that simply vanished on 9/11

    Quote Posted by winstonsmith (here)
    What did "burners" cut up for months over in the NJ scrap yards?
    The remaining parts of the buildings that were not dustified the morning of 9/11 .

    And how do we know how much steel was sent to China ... I am unaware of any reports on that matter that I would trust any further than I could throw Chris Christie.

    Here's another closer view, from a side angle, of the WTC site, shortly after 9/11. The million tons of concrete and steel that were in the main two towers are simply, almost entirely, not there. Those towers were massive. The opening post of this thread gives one an idea of their size. I have been in and around the WTC towers. Massive. What should have been perhaps a 20 story pile of debris is hardly a 1 story pile where the two towers were. Most of the remaining debris is from the other buildings in the World Trade Center.
    ===

    Here's closer up views of WTC 5 and WTC 6. A partial view of WTC 7 shows behind WTC 6, and what remained of the first few stories of WTC 1's northwest corner facade shows in front of WTC 6. These remains presumably provided most of the steel to cut up and ship off.
    Last edited by Paul; 28th January 2016 at 04:35.

  8. The Following 9 Users Say Thank You to Paul For This Post:

    Buck (1st February 2016), Chuck_M (30th January 2016), Ewan (28th January 2016), Griff (30th January 2016), seko (28th January 2016), Shannon (21st February 2016), Sierra (28th January 2016), Star Mariner (28th January 2016), Sunny-side-up (28th January 2016)

  9. Link to Post #25
    Virgin Islands Avalon Member TargeT's Avatar
    Join Date
    30th June 2011
    Location
    St. Croix
    Age
    40
    Posts
    7,515
    Thanks
    21,385
    Thanked 39,705 times in 7,043 posts

    Default Re: The sheer volume of concrete and steel that simply vanished on 9/11

    Quote Posted by Paul (here)
    I have been in and around the WTC towers. Massive. What should have been perhaps a 20 story pile of debris is hardly a 1 story pile.
    That 11 story building I posted a "controlled demo" video of left a pile almost 2 stories high.... extrapolate that to 110 stories and 20 sounds pretty damn close to me



    110 stories is not massive, it's INCONCEIVABLE to someone who has not lived in a major city... there are not that many 100+ story buildings in the US.
    Hard times create strong men, Strong men create good times, Good times create weak men, Weak men create hard times.
    Where are you?

  10. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to TargeT For This Post:

    Eram (28th January 2016), Ewan (28th January 2016), Paul (28th January 2016), Shannon (21st February 2016), Sunny-side-up (28th January 2016)

  11. Link to Post #26
    United States Avalon Retired Member
    Join Date
    4th January 2011
    Location
    North Texas
    Age
    71
    Posts
    27,723
    Thanks
    28,846
    Thanked 129,150 times in 20,634 posts

    Default Re: The sheer volume of concrete and steel that simply vanished on 9/11

    Quote Posted by TargeT (here)
    110 stories is not massive, it's INCONCEIVABLE to someone who has not lived in a major city... there are not that many 100+ story buildings in the US.
    The twin towers were build more massively than is common for such tall buildings. The lower levels were dense with concrete and steel, to hold the weight of the upper levels, and the upper levels did not taper down to something more narrow, but kept their full width all the way up.

    I had driven into Manhattan from New Jersey both before and after the towers were built. The first time I drove in after the towers were built, while still perhaps ten miles away in New Jersey, across the river, it took my breath away. Those two towers absolutely dominated the lower Manhattan skyline, the home to what had once been the world's tallest building, the Empire State building, which could hardly be seen from that distance and angle.
    Last edited by Paul; 28th January 2016 at 05:33.

  12. The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to Paul For This Post:

    bodhii71 (5th February 2016), Eram (28th January 2016), Ewan (28th January 2016), Shannon (21st February 2016), Sunny-side-up (28th January 2016), TargeT (28th January 2016), Wind (6th February 2016)

  13. Link to Post #27
    United States Avalon Retired Member
    Join Date
    4th January 2011
    Location
    North Texas
    Age
    71
    Posts
    27,723
    Thanks
    28,846
    Thanked 129,150 times in 20,634 posts

    Default Re: The sheer volume of concrete and steel that simply vanished on 9/11

    Quote Posted by Paul (here)
    Here's another closer view, from a side angle, of the WTC site, shortly after 9/11. The million tons of concrete and steel that were in the main two towers are simply, almost entirely, not there. Those towers were massive. The opening post of this thread gives one an idea of their size. I have been in and around the WTC towers. Massive. What should have been perhaps a 20 story pile of debris is hardly a 1 story pile where the two towers were. Most of the remaining debris is from the other buildings in the World Trade Center.
    Find WTC 6 in the image posted just below the above comment. See my close up of WTC 6, later in that same post, or see my "map" of where each WTC building was, that I posted above in Post #16.

    WTC 6 was (and partially remained at) 8 stories tall.

    Now find the smoking holes where WTC 1 and 2 were, in that same image posted above.

    The remains of WTC 1 and 2 are far lower than the 8 stories of WTC 6 ... not 2 or 3 times higher as would have been the case if their million tons of concrete and steel were still mostly piled up in the WTC complex.

    There is an obvious difference between a 1 or 2 story pile of debris, and a 20 story pile of debris, and the comparison with the 8 story WTC 6 makes it obvious that the WTC 1 and 2 debris pile is closer to 1 or 2 than it is to 20.

    As Judy Wood would famously ask: "Where did the towers go?"

    (Special thanks again to the anonymous donor to me of lots of FOIA data and other images. I have higher resolution versions of the above images, if someone wants them.)
    Last edited by Paul; 28th January 2016 at 05:37.

  14. The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to Paul For This Post:

    Buck (1st February 2016), Chuck_M (30th January 2016), Eram (28th January 2016), Ewan (28th January 2016), Griff (30th January 2016), Shannon (21st February 2016), TargeT (28th January 2016)

  15. Link to Post #28
    Netherlands Avalon Member Eram's Avatar
    Join Date
    19th March 2012
    Age
    46
    Posts
    1,478
    Thanks
    65,641
    Thanked 10,991 times in 1,435 posts

    Default Re: The sheer volume of concrete and steel that simply vanished on 9/11

    Quote Posted by Paul (here)
    The remains of WTC 1 and 2 are far lower than the 8 stories of WTC 6 ... not 2 or 3 times higher as would have been the case if their million tons of concrete and steel were still mostly piled up in the WTC complex.

    There is an obvious difference between a 1 or 2 story pile of debris, and a 20 story pile of debris, and the comparison with the 8 story WTC 6 makes it obvious that the WTC 1 and 2 debris pile is closer to 1 or 2 than it is to 20.

    As Judy Wood would famously ask: "Where did the towers go?"

    (Special thanks again to the anonymous donor to me of lots of FOIA data and other images. I have higher resolution versions of the above images, if someone wants them.)
    I'm not so sure that there should be a pile of ruble about 20 stories high from the ground level up Paul.
    Remember that the basement of the wtc buildings was about 45ft deep and that much of the steel columns fell outward instead of into their own footprint and ended up scattered all over the area as is clearly visible in the superb pictures that you shared here.

    I do agree that at first, it looks weird to see two massive buildings like that crumble up without a massive pile (20 stories high) of ruble as an end result, but if you add these two facts (45ft basement and outward projection of outer columns) then it becomes more of a probability no?

  16. The Following User Says Thank You to Eram For This Post:

    Ewan (28th January 2016)

  17. Link to Post #29
    Israel Avalon Member 6pounder's Avatar
    Join Date
    25th November 2015
    Location
    Israel
    Age
    28
    Posts
    267
    Thanks
    913
    Thanked 1,404 times in 253 posts

    Default Re: The sheer volume of concrete and steel that simply vanished on 9/11

    i think that will be a way to look at WHY it was done this way (dustification):

    you need a false flag event to invade some countries in the middle east and on the way make some profit BUT(and a big but) you dont want to make too much mess to take care of afterwards.... so how would you destroy such a big infrastructure without taking down 5 blocks with it?... im looking at it from a perspective of a rescue officer (my army spacialization). ive been in enough staged rubble sites of demolished buildings and i know very well how much rubble and mess can be left only from a 3 story building. when i look at the pictures that was presented by Paul i see one funny thing, and is that all you need to do to clean that kind of rubble site is a vacume cleaner and a magnet crane.

    when buildings fall there are certin types of collapse's that we in the military used to categorize the level of destruction. but this kind of site doesnt fall in to any category.... if it was what the MSM said it was then in those pictures you would see way more colleteral damage then presented.
    Last edited by 6pounder; 28th January 2016 at 06:36. Reason: mistypes

  18. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to 6pounder For This Post:

    Ewan (28th January 2016), Limor Wolf (28th January 2016), Orph (28th January 2016), Paul (28th January 2016), TargeT (28th January 2016)

  19. Link to Post #30
    United States Avalon Retired Member
    Join Date
    4th January 2011
    Location
    North Texas
    Age
    71
    Posts
    27,723
    Thanks
    28,846
    Thanked 129,150 times in 20,634 posts

    Default Re: The sheer volume of concrete and steel that simply vanished on 9/11

    Quote Posted by Eram (here)
    Remember that the basement of the wtc buildings was about 45ft deep
    That 45 ft would be about 4 stories, or about 22 stories worth of pre-collapsed material, at best, had the basements been mostly empty. We're still missing some place to put at least 88 stories worth of material.

    The proportion of concrete and steel below ground, in those basement levels, would have been even higher than above ground, to support the 110 stories above ground, so would have provided, and from all I've seen did provide, even less room for ruble from above to collapse into the basement levels than did the above ground levels.

    Everything I have ever seen of the demise of WTC 1 and 2 shows these towers dustifying.

    Nothing I have ever seen shows anything remotely resembling their million tons of concrete and steel in the resulting debris pile.

  20. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to Paul For This Post:

    Chuck_M (30th January 2016), Curiosity (31st January 2016), Ewan (28th January 2016), Shannon (22nd February 2016), TargeT (28th January 2016)

  21. Link to Post #31
    Israel Avalon Member 6pounder's Avatar
    Join Date
    25th November 2015
    Location
    Israel
    Age
    28
    Posts
    267
    Thanks
    913
    Thanked 1,404 times in 253 posts

    Default Re: The sheer volume of concrete and steel that simply vanished on 9/11

    my gf said it reminds her of this:

    Last edited by 6pounder; 28th January 2016 at 06:53.

  22. The Following User Says Thank You to 6pounder For This Post:

    TargeT (28th January 2016)

  23. Link to Post #32
    Scotland Avalon Member Ewan's Avatar
    Join Date
    24th February 2015
    Age
    57
    Posts
    1,274
    Thanks
    11,862
    Thanked 7,734 times in 1,233 posts

    Default Re: The sheer volume of concrete and steel that simply vanished on 9/11

    Quote Posted by winstonsmith (here)
    Steel did not turn to dust.

    If it did, what was sold to China?
    What did "burners" cut up for months over in the NJ scrap yards?
    What were those acres of mountains of wreckage doing there well into April 2002?
    What was loaded onto barges crossing the Hudson?
    What was loaded onto trucks bound for barges?
    What was lifted off the rubble pile by huge cranes, loaders or grapples?
    What was cut up on the pile with acetylene torches, thermal lances and chop saws?
    What were the armies of first responders scrambling over and into for months?

    Some of the steel ended up mixed into "meteorites." The volume is unknown at this time.

    See PDF page 40 for the quantity of steel wreckage that was transported away from Ground Zero.

    http://www.911conspiracy.tv/pdf/9-11...att_Nelson.pdf

    https://www.911truthoutreach.org/557...ound-zero.html
    Why was the remaining steel, and all debris, quickly gathered up and shipped off when it should have been evidence in a forensic crime scene?

  24. The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to Ewan For This Post:

    Buck (1st February 2016), Curiosity (31st January 2016), Eram (28th January 2016), Sunny-side-up (28th January 2016), TargeT (28th January 2016), tomfellows (29th January 2016)

  25. Link to Post #33
    Avalon Member Andrew's Avatar
    Join Date
    5th January 2011
    Posts
    306
    Thanks
    907
    Thanked 749 times in 224 posts

    Default Re: The sheer volume of concrete and steel that simply vanished on 9/11

    Quote Posted by Carmody (here)
    Quote Posted by TargeT (here)
    Quote Posted by Eram (here)
    btw: There is another truther/researchers who's name now escapes me (something like Dan Beagle) who used this exact scene as evidence that nukes where used, also claiming that this section of the building turned to dust.

    In fact, most of what was left of the towers where the steel columns. This can easily be verified by some searching in the web.

    Quote Posted by Andrew (here)
    As for the Thermite, not sure about that either
    Well, dust samples that where collected at the scene contained nano particles of molten metal, which is a smoking gun for the
    presence of thermite.
    a source

    Maybe she makes a better case for the existence of a free energy device in her book, but from these vids, I can only deduct that the evidence is flawed to say the least.
    Nukes would make much more sense to me, this "particle beam" stuff is a bit fantastic for me... BUT, the lack of glass and toilets and file cabinets are pretty interesting & not as explained by nuclear explosion.

    I agree the "beams turning to dust" on video wasn't conclusive, though interesting when mixed with this "beam" idea... but definitely not proof of anything.

    "free energy" seems like a huge leap even if there is some "beam" used...

    I won't be buying the book
    Copper wire under high voltage and current loading, over time.... will lose approximately 2 percent of it's mass, and go brittle.

    Most electricians are aware of the brittleness factor of copper with a history of extreme loading... and some are aware of the loss of mass aspect. Some outside of the electrical trades are aware of this.

    Few pay attention to the seemingly 'pure anomaly' aspect of this data point.

    One of those things that is sort of quietly known by some, but never talked about.

    It IS possible for a strong enough flash of particular kinds of energy to break the bonding in the cement. MAYBE. But it would probably fry every bit of neural, chemical,and muscular (etc) structure in a biological, within many city blocks. We'd of probably heard stories of spontaneous combustion and whatnot. The radiation breaching the entire vertical building structure, is probably not going to be happening.

    We do know that the buildings were basically condemned and it would have taken more expenditure to properly remove the asbestos in the building complex -----than the building complex was worth, if it had no asbestos in it. They were collectively known as one of the (if not the) greatest money pit white elephants in all landholding-building 'for sale' history.

    Anyone touching the buildings could not even afford to have the buildings plus a billion dollars given them..to buy the complex, as the cost of asbestos removal was well into the billions of cost and it was mandated that it had to be done. IIRC the port authority had the buildings in hand an no single buyer was ever going to be found, in any part of the world..... as the entire complex was built like a bomb that would kill any company or person who ever touched it.

    And suddenly Silverstien buys the complex.

    Which is utter complete bull****, so we know ---- just from the sales angle alone, that it was an inside job.
    There was stories and some footage somewhere of sudden spontanouus combustion happening.

    John Hutchison also demonstrated this with his experiments I believe.

    I think you will find the demonstration and evidence in this video by Andrew Johnson.
    "If thou but settest foot on this path, thou shalt see it everywhere.” ― Hermes Trismegistus

  26. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Andrew For This Post:

    banafrit (1st February 2016), Eram (28th January 2016), Ewan (28th January 2016), Verdilac (31st January 2016)

  27. Link to Post #34
    Avalon Member winstonsmith's Avatar
    Join Date
    11th November 2015
    Posts
    50
    Thanks
    23
    Thanked 184 times in 43 posts

    Default Re: The sheer volume of concrete and steel that simply vanished on 9/11

    Quote Posted by Ewan (here)
    Quote Posted by winstonsmith (here)
    Steel did not turn to dust.

    If it did, what was sold to China?
    What did "burners" cut up for months over in the NJ scrap yards?
    What were those acres of mountains of wreckage doing there well into April 2002?
    What was loaded onto barges crossing the Hudson?
    What was loaded onto trucks bound for barges?
    What was lifted off the rubble pile by huge cranes, loaders or grapples?
    What was cut up on the pile with acetylene torches, thermal lances and chop saws?
    What were the armies of first responders scrambling over and into for months?

    Some of the steel ended up mixed into "meteorites." The volume is unknown at this time.

    See PDF page 40 for the quantity of steel wreckage that was transported away from Ground Zero.

    http://www.911conspiracy.tv/pdf/9-11...att_Nelson.pdf

    https://www.911truthoutreach.org/557...ound-zero.html
    Why was the remaining steel, and all debris, quickly gathered up and shipped off when it should have been evidence in a forensic crime scene?
    What would you have them do? Leave everything in place and dissect it surgically? The engineers didn't get into gear until OCT 5th, save for a couple who were called in to determine where giant cranes could set up safely.

    The steel was cut up into manageable lengths and wholesale carting began almost immediately, even before WTC7 fell at 5:20.

    I think everyone reading this thread should watch the NIST videos that show the scene immediately after the towers collapsed. You will see piles four or five stories above grade. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MdWeQ1aca0I

    One must consider that the subgrade levels were at least 70 feet deep, so large quantities could have been crushed down into that space that used to be the plaza, concourse and underground parking. The point is that the towers were EXploded, sending debris upwards of 300 feet away from the footprint in some locations.

    The concrete slabs did not provide structural support for the towers, aside from some limited amount of lateral stability. The steel was raised many floors above where the first concrete was poured for office or mechanical floors.

    The steel was thickest near the foundation and was much thinner near the roof. The plates that were welded together to create the exterior panels also varied considerably in thickness. The core columns near the base had plates 4"
    thick and were box shaped, while the upper core structure were thinner I or H shapes.

    All of the specifications for floor elevations in the subgrade can be found on-line. You can view the floors of the towers as well. See here.
    http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evid...ns/frames.html

    I agree that more could have been done to save interesting pieces from the scrap yards. A few did attract attention, thankfully.

  28. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to winstonsmith For This Post:

    Eram (28th January 2016), Ewan (28th January 2016), M-Albion-3D (30th January 2016), TargeT (28th January 2016)

  29. Link to Post #35
    Scotland Avalon Member Ewan's Avatar
    Join Date
    24th February 2015
    Age
    57
    Posts
    1,274
    Thanks
    11,862
    Thanked 7,734 times in 1,233 posts

    Default Re: The sheer volume of concrete and steel that simply vanished on 9/11

    Wow! I never knew they began moving debris so quickly. That fact in itself seems amazing, I wouldn't expect that to be one of the first things they'd decide to do.

    Here's a picture showing that there really wasn't much volume to upper floors.



    That does not detract from a video showing what appears to be a steel beam turning to dust. I don't buy the beam weapon, but given various accounts of paint blistered cars and molten steel underground i wouldn't rule out other technologies.

  30. The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to Ewan For This Post:

    Akasha (2nd February 2016), Eram (28th January 2016), M-Albion-3D (30th January 2016), Shannon (22nd February 2016), TargeT (28th January 2016), Wind (6th February 2016)

  31. Link to Post #36
    United States Avalon Retired Member
    Join Date
    4th January 2011
    Location
    North Texas
    Age
    71
    Posts
    27,723
    Thanks
    28,846
    Thanked 129,150 times in 20,634 posts

    Default Re: The sheer volume of concrete and steel that simply vanished on 9/11

    Quote Posted by winstonsmith (here)
    I think everyone reading this thread should watch the NIST videos that show the scene immediately after the towers collapsed. You will see piles four or five stories above grade. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MdWeQ1aca0I
    Would that four or five story pile (still not the 22 expected) be the southwest corner of WTC 3, and/or the northeast corner of WTC 1, a few stories of each of which remained partially standing, in one corner each.

    I can't say for sure, of course, but the opening few minutes of that video might be of the northeast corner of WTC 1, after they had partially knocked out the side of WTC 6 closest to WTC 1. If so, the workers watching the cranes work would be standing at roughly street level, where the primary WTC 1 debris pile would have been, had the building collapsed, mostly in place.

    Quote Posted by winstonsmith (here)
    The point is that the towers were EXploded, sending debris upwards of 300 feet away from the footprint in some locations.
    Yes - some debris exploded sideways. That's one of the complexities of this analysis. It seems that several mechanisms were used to put on this show. We should not ask whether it was mechanism A, B, or C that destroyed the towers, but rather which mechanism provided the most substantial portion of the destructive energy.
    Last edited by Paul; 28th January 2016 at 16:35.

  32. The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to Paul For This Post:

    6pounder (30th January 2016), Chuck_M (30th January 2016), Curiosity (31st January 2016), Ewan (28th January 2016), Shannon (22nd February 2016), TargeT (28th January 2016)

  33. Link to Post #37
    Canada Avalon Member DeDukshyn's Avatar
    Join Date
    22nd January 2011
    Location
    From 100 Mile House ;-)
    Age
    45
    Posts
    7,715
    Thanks
    24,716
    Thanked 31,977 times in 6,905 posts

    Default Re: The sheer volume of concrete and steel that simply vanished on 9/11

    Quote Posted by winstonsmith (here)
    Steel did not turn to dust.
    Mainstream media even disagrees with you ...

    When you are one step ahead of the crowd, you are a genius.
    Two steps ahead, and you are deemed a crackpot.

  34. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to DeDukshyn For This Post:

    Curiosity (31st January 2016), Ewan (28th January 2016), Paul (28th January 2016), Shannon (22nd February 2016), TargeT (28th January 2016)

  35. Link to Post #38
    United States Avalon Retired Member
    Join Date
    4th January 2011
    Location
    North Texas
    Age
    71
    Posts
    27,723
    Thanks
    28,846
    Thanked 129,150 times in 20,634 posts

    Default Re: The sheer volume of concrete and steel that simply vanished on 9/11

    Quote Posted by Paul (here)
    Yes - some debris exploded sideways.
    Of course, even that explosive power, that sent large steel beams sideways at high velocity, might not have been generated by conventional explosives.

    Anyway you look at it, the amount of energy that it takes to generate that much fine dust, from that much steel and concrete, that fast (10 or 11 seconds per tower) is immense ... truly immense.

    Try breaking a concrete block into talcum powder fine dust with a sledge hammer. The finer you try to get the dust, the more energy you will expend, and the more chemical/molecular bonds you will need to break.

    Whatever generated those two massive dust clouds did an awesome amount of work (in the physics sense of "work" -- energy expended) in a very short period of time.

  36. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Paul For This Post:

    Curiosity (31st January 2016), Ewan (28th January 2016), Shannon (22nd February 2016), TargeT (28th January 2016)

  37. Link to Post #39
    Virgin Islands Avalon Member TargeT's Avatar
    Join Date
    30th June 2011
    Location
    St. Croix
    Age
    40
    Posts
    7,515
    Thanks
    21,385
    Thanked 39,705 times in 7,043 posts

    Default Re: The sheer volume of concrete and steel that simply vanished on 9/11

    Quote Posted by Paul (here)
    Whatever generated those two massive dust clouds did an awesome amount of work (in the physics sense of "work" -- energy expended) in a very short period of time.
    I'm not very deep into the Dr Wood material, how does she account for the explosions?
    Hard times create strong men, Strong men create good times, Good times create weak men, Weak men create hard times.
    Where are you?

  38. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to TargeT For This Post:

    Curiosity (31st January 2016), Ewan (28th January 2016), Paul (28th January 2016)

  39. Link to Post #40
    United States Avalon Retired Member
    Join Date
    4th January 2011
    Location
    North Texas
    Age
    71
    Posts
    27,723
    Thanks
    28,846
    Thanked 129,150 times in 20,634 posts

    Default Re: The sheer volume of concrete and steel that simply vanished on 9/11

    Quote Posted by TargeT (here)
    I'm not very deep into the Dr Wood material, how does she account for the explosions?
    I don't recall, to be honest. Her focus is on documenting the primary effect visible in photographs taken that day, one of immense energy and strange effects, over several parts of southern Manhattan.

    My view is that other, secondary, mechanisms were also used, from the time the planes (whatever they were) impacted the towers, until the towers were destroyed.

  40. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Paul For This Post:

    Chuck_M (30th January 2016), Curiosity (31st January 2016), Ewan (28th January 2016), TargeT (28th January 2016)

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 9 FirstFirst 1 2 9 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts