+ Reply to Thread
Page 3 of 9 FirstFirst 1 3 9 LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 172

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

  1. Link to Post #41
    UK Avalon Member Star Mariner's Avatar
    Join Date
    15th November 2011
    Location
    Southwest UK
    Posts
    1,622
    Thanks
    8,660
    Thanked 10,312 times in 1,542 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
    As others have answered, only a tiny, tiny amount of steel was left behind in this destruction. I've been in these towers and up them several times, and as Paul said, they are (were, sadly) truly enormous.

    It's important to take into consideration a great deal more evidence, suggesting something very weird happened on this site. It was not a normal collapse in my opinion, or even a normal demolition. Consider Woods' theory on the 'Holes', where a series of circular voids are just punched into numerous areas of the surrounding structures. What force could have created them? These mock-ups I did shows them more clearly. (thanks to Paul for the original images)





    Could some sort of space-based energy weapon have inflicted this damage? Maybe this theory explains the absence of debris on the ground. It was zapped into oblivion and/or dustified.




    As another example, the burned out cars.

    This ambulance, burned out nearly completely on the inside rather than the outside.


    A wrecked cop car - but only partially. Why is one half of the car burned to cinders, and the rear in tact?


    A whole series of burned out and flattened cars, parked on FDR Drive, approximately half a mile away from the WTC. What caused that?


    More cars, and another police car, again half burned/crushed, half in tact. Also no where near the WTC, and presumably protected from fallout anyway, being underneath an elevated overpass.


    More evidence is presented at Judy Woods website: http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/D...WarsBeam5.html
    "When the power of love overcomes the love of power the world will know peace."
    ~ Jimi Hendrix

  2. The Following 9 Users Say Thank You to Star Mariner For This Post:

    Chuck_M (30th January 2016), Curiosity (31st January 2016), drneglector (31st January 2016), Eram (28th January 2016), Ewan (28th January 2016), Hervé (29th January 2016), M-Albion-3D (30th January 2016), Paul (28th January 2016), TargeT (28th January 2016)

  3. Link to Post #42
    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)
    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.
    Look at the section from 7 mins to 10 mins in your video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MdWeQ1aca0I, winstonsmith.

    It seems to me that is the inside of WTC 6, perhaps even after some of the south side of it, closest to WTC 1, was removed, exposing the inside of the "hole" that was punched into WTC 6 on 9/11. One can see part of the south side of WTC 6, torn down, at 3m46s in the video, more so than it was torn down on the day of 9/11.

    ===

    P.S. -- on closer examination of the higher resolution image that I linked in my Post #16, above, I see that the southwest corner of WTC 6 might have had its exterior destroyed on or soon after the day of 9/11, so that could mean that the destruction to the exterior of WTC 6 that is visible your video was originally caused on 9/11, not by subsequent demolition work.

    Sorry.

    But I do remain increasingly convinced that the 4 or 5 story pile of ruble that I see being worked in the first 10 minutes (as far as I've watched so far) of your video is the northeast corner of WTC 1, which was not leveled to the ground on 9/11 like the rest of the two towers.
    Last edited by Paul; 28th January 2016 at 18:02.

  4. The Following User Says Thank You to Paul For This Post:

    Ewan (28th January 2016)

  5. Link to Post #43
    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

    At 27:15 in your video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MdWeQ1aca0I, winstonsmith, I see the sign for the famous Stairway B, Floor 9, of the North Tower, where 16 people miraculously survived.

  6. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Paul For This Post:

    Eram (28th January 2016), Ewan (28th January 2016), TargeT (30th January 2016)

  7. Link to Post #44
    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

    In this part 2 of 4 youtubes of footage shot just before and after the event, you can see a street full of partly burnt and damaged cars.
    Starting at the beginning of the youtube.



    There's a lot of footage actually, if you follow the links to other youtubes from NIST and FDNY etc.
    Very interesting and educative (since it is not footage that is usually shown in the regular 911 truth movement) to get a bit of a feel for the context surrounding the collapses.

  8. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Eram For This Post:

    Ewan (30th January 2016), Hervé (29th January 2016), Paul (29th January 2016)

  9. Link to Post #45
    Avalon Member
    Join Date
    12th January 2016
    Posts
    26
    Thanks
    25
    Thanked 107 times in 25 posts

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

    I want to make an important point.

    To sum up.
    The argument goes: Where did the all the rubble go ?
    Looking at the pictures of the WTC site, it's clear that there should
    be hundreds of thousands of tons of rubble at the scene.
    This quantity of rubble is surprisingly absent.

    Viewing footage of the disaster again, it's clear to see that the falling towers
    seem to be fading away before our eyes, seemingly disintegrating into dust.
    Dr Judy Wood calls this dustification.


    My contribution to this is as follows:

    My argument is: Where did all the *dust* go ?
    We know there should be hundreds of thousands of tons of rubble.
    If most of the rubble of both towers were dustified,
    then there should be hundreds of thousands of tons of dust.

    Imagine you had a "distify" gizmo that turned steel and concrete into dust within seconds.
    For example's sake, let's say the building weighed 500,000 tons.
    If we dustify the building, we expect 500,000 tons of dust.
    There should be a small mountain of dust at the scene.
    Ground Zero should caked in dust several storeys high,
    And there should be meters high of dust for hundreds of yards, all around the site.
    Remember that this is dust from the concrete and steel of two enormous buildings,
    both over 100 storeys high.

    But what we observe, is dust in the vacinity which is only several inches deep.
    Repeated for emphasis: only several inches deep.

    So where did all the dust go ?
    Are we really going to say, the two buildings blew away in the wind ?

    In order for a dust cloud containing concrete dust particles to float away
    in the wind, the density of the dust cloud must be close to that of regular air
    otherwise, it wouldn't float away, it would just sink.

    Regular concrete weighs 2,400 kg per meter cubed
    (source: http://hypertextbook.com/facts/1999/KatrinaJones.shtml )

    What is the weight of a meter of air (at sea level) ?
    Air weighs 1.3kg per cubic meter (surprisingly heavy)
    (source: http://www.faqs.org/qa/qa-5922.html)

    So in order to give concrete the same density as air, you'd have
    to expand it's volume by 1846 times (calculated via: 2400/1.3)

    If you dispersed 1 meter cubed of concrete across 1846 meters of air
    it probably still wouldn't 'float' very well since it weighs
    exactly double the weight of the air around it.
    Perhaps dispersing the concrete across 3692 meters (calculated as 2 X 1846)
    of air might allow it to float more easily.

    From this i conclude:
    If the dust of the twin towers simply blew away, then the size
    of the dust cloud would have to be in the order of 2000, or 3000
    times the volume of the Twin Towers. That's a staggering volume.
    That would have put much of New York under the dust cloud.

    Judging by eye, looking again at the 9/11 videos, the actual dust cloud
    was only 5 to 10 times the volume of the twin towers, not 2000 or 3000 times.
    So where did all the dust go ?

    I agree that the evidence supports the dustification hypothesis.

    I want to suggest that whatever tool or weapon was used,
    it not only dustifies steel and concrete, it also destroys it to nothing.

    There simply isn't hundreds of thousands of tons of dust at the scene.
    And the 'The Twin Towers blew away in the wind' theory, doesn't hold water.

    I'm suggesting the concrete and steel was actually annihilated.
    Something which modern science says is impossible.

    tom.
    Last edited by tomfellows; 29th January 2016 at 06:52.

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

    6pounder (30th January 2016), Curiosity (31st January 2016), Eram (29th January 2016), Ewan (29th January 2016), lucidity (31st January 2016), meat suit (31st January 2016)

  11. Link to Post #46
    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 tomfellows (here)
    Judging by eye, looking again at the 9/11 videos, the actual dust cloud
    was only 5 to 10 times the volume of the twin towers, not 2000 or 3000 times.
    Are you referring to this dust cloud:
    Image found on: http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/erin/erin6.html

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

    Ewan (29th January 2016), TargeT (30th January 2016)

  13. Link to Post #47
    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

    I've been able to dig into some Judy Wood material now and although much of her claims seem bizarre and even insane, she actually seems to have a case.

    She presents a load of very strange anomalies surrounding the collapse of the towers, which indeed could be explained by the Tesla technology.

    Here's a youtube in which some of this technology is shown and explained:


    And here is Woods, talking about The Hutchison Effect & 9/11

  14. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Eram For This Post:

    Ewan (30th January 2016), Hervé (29th January 2016), lucidity (31st January 2016), TargeT (29th January 2016)

  15. Link to Post #48
    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 Paul (here)
    Quote Posted by tomfellows (here)
    Judging by eye, looking again at the 9/11 videos, the actual dust cloud
    was only 5 to 10 times the volume of the twin towers, not 2000 or 3000 times.
    Are you referring to this dust cloud:
    Image found on: http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/erin/erin6.html
    Or ... maybe this one ... ? (from same site) When you think about ... either of these do not look like smoke at all ... definitely more "dust" qualities than smoke ...

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

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

    Eram (29th January 2016), TargeT (30th January 2016)

  17. Link to Post #49
    France Administrator Hervé's Avatar
    Join Date
    7th March 2011
    Location
    Brittany
    Posts
    16,621
    Thanks
    59,324
    Thanked 93,835 times in 15,331 posts

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

    Reposting from:
    Quote Posted by Hervé (here)
    [...]
    Indeed, where's/was the heat... the kind that burns car engines but spares flying pieces of paper... thata kinda tough one...

    ... yet, the answer has been staring in me face for all that time and I even wrote it down a number of times... this is a pyroclastic cloud:


    Above picture was taken from Mt.Pinatubo and that vehicle is fleeing from a pyroclastic flow







    ... you know... Pompeii, Herculaneum, etc... excepted that this one is COLD!

    Nobody got burnt...

    So, from there it's very simple:

    One only needs to find the trick that turns concrete and steel into some kind of brittle popcorn when shoved into a microwave oven since the mode of formation of "pyroclastics" is as follow:
    Quote formed when silicic magma is fragmented in the volcanic conduit, because of decompression and the growth of bubbles
    I guess that only a Carmody would be able to find a way to provoke a cold fragmentation of, and specific to, concrete and steel with the latter reacting to the process with a latent fusion or spontaneous combustion at the edge of the overall phenomenon.

    That would explain those (popcorn) "explosions" going down the floors and not quite reaching the basements...

    Which also means that I don't buy the nukes and their shell of iron oxides... because:

    No heat, no paper burnt, no flesh burnt, only concrete and steel being fragmented without bublification... kind of "frigo"-clastics" rather than "pyro" ones.


    Last edited by Hervé; 30th January 2016 at 01:55.
    "La réalité est un rêve que l'on fait atterrir" San Antonio AKA F. Dard

    Troll-hood motto: Never, ever, however, whatsoever, to anyone, a point concede.

  18. The Following 9 Users Say Thank You to Hervé For This Post:

    6pounder (30th January 2016), DeDukshyn (29th January 2016), drneglector (31st January 2016), Eram (29th January 2016), Ewan (30th January 2016), meat suit (31st January 2016), PurpleLama (29th January 2016), TargeT (29th January 2016), Tintin (14th September 2019)

  19. Link to Post #50
    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 Hervé (here)
    I guess that only a Carmody would be able to find a way to provoke a cold fragmentation of, and specific to, concrete and steel with the latter reacting to the process with a latent fusion or spontaneous combustion at the edge of the overall phenomenon.
    Or Hutchison.... I'll have to look more into this hutchison effect (high frequency resonance destabilization)... very interesting.

    I'm going to flip my position back to maybe thinking about buying her book.... the Hutchison effect is key to her entire argument; if I had seen it earlier...


    Quote Posted by Hervé (here)
    No heat, no paper burnt, no flesh burnt, only concrete and steel being fragmented without bublification... kind of "frigo"-clastics" rather than "pyro" ones.
    well, certainly SOME heat... like lots and lots and lots of heat underground at least.... so that's going to have to be approached from a different angle I suppose... perhaps thermite was used in conjunction, as the "weakened structure" would still need core columns cut to collapse in a uniform manor, since the evidence of this "beam" or what ever hutchison effect generator was clearly not very well focused.

    It makes sense that the Hutchison effect on a non-resonant structure would be very destructive (think microwave+water) but these non-heat flames are very very strange... almost like a cold plasma release after the structure is exposed to the stresses from resonance.
    Last edited by TargeT; 29th January 2016 at 17:31.
    Hard times create strong men, Strong men create good times, Good times create weak men, Weak men create hard times.
    Where are you?

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

    Eram (29th January 2016), Hervé (29th January 2016)

  21. Link to Post #51
    Avalon Member
    Join Date
    12th January 2016
    Posts
    26
    Thanks
    25
    Thanked 107 times in 25 posts

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

    Quote Posted by Paul (here)
    Quote Posted by tomfellows (here)
    Judging by eye, looking again at the 9/11 videos, the actual dust cloud
    was only 5 to 10 times the volume of the twin towers, not 2000 or 3000 times.
    Are you referring to this dust cloud:
    Image found on: http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/erin/erin6.html
    No, i'm not referring to that dust cloud.
    That dust cloud is basically the original dust cloud dispersed over a much greater area.

    I'm referring to the initially produced dust cloud.
    The one that existed within 1 minute of the towers coming down.
    That dust cloud doesn't have the volume to carry hundreds of tons of dust.
    (If there was hundreds of thousands of tons of dust in that cloud,
    there would be mountains of dust on the floor at ground zero)

    I'm saying that the original dust cloud, doesn't have enough dust
    in it to account for the mass of the buildings.

    Showing me pictures of the original dust cloud dispersing is no answer to my argument.

    tom.
    Last edited by tomfellows; 29th January 2016 at 22:58.

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

    Ewan (30th January 2016)

  23. Link to Post #52
    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 tomfellows (here)
    I'm saying that the original dust cloud, doesn't have enough dust
    in it to account for the mass of the buildings.
    Note there is a difference between pulverization and vaporization. I think the argument re: the topic is mostly for the case of vaporization.
    When you are one step ahead of the crowd, you are a genius.
    Two steps ahead, and you are deemed a crackpot.

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

    Ewan (30th January 2016), TargeT (30th January 2016)

  25. Link to Post #53
    Avalon Member lucidity's Avatar
    Join Date
    16th September 2014
    Posts
    1,089
    Thanks
    1,029
    Thanked 4,746 times in 956 posts

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

    Quote Posted by DeDukshyn (here)
    Quote Posted by tomfellows (here)
    I'm saying that the original dust cloud, doesn't have enough dust
    in it to account for the mass of the buildings.
    Note there is a difference between pulverization and vaporization. I think the argument re: the topic is mostly for the case of vaporization.
    When you vaporise something, you heat it until it turns to a gas.

    Dr Judy Wood specifically considered this 'vaporisation' question.
    She rejected vaporisation because of the obvious absence of heat.

    be happy

    lucidity
    Last edited by lucidity; 30th January 2016 at 05:11.

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

    Curiosity (31st January 2016), DeDukshyn (30th January 2016), Eram (30th January 2016), Ewan (30th January 2016)

  27. Link to Post #54
    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 lucidity (here)
    Quote Posted by DeDukshyn (here)
    Quote Posted by tomfellows (here)
    I'm saying that the original dust cloud, doesn't have enough dust
    in it to account for the mass of the buildings.
    Note there is a difference between pulverization and vaporization. I think the argument re: the topic is mostly for the case of vaporization.
    When you vaporise something, you heat it until it turns to a gas.

    Dr Judy Wood specifically considered this 'vaporisation' question.
    She rejected vaporisation because of the obvious absence of heat.

    be happy

    lucidity
    Being a Canadian and having to deal with 6 months of snow, I do understand well the concept of sublimation, in the sense solid turns to vapour. A dry (on the barometer) day can "vaporize" a decent amount of snow, skipping the liquid stage altogether, especially when a wind is present. Heat is not a required factor for this process to occur.
    Last edited by DeDukshyn; 30th January 2016 at 05:33.
    When you are one step ahead of the crowd, you are a genius.
    Two steps ahead, and you are deemed a crackpot.

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

    Eram (30th January 2016), Ewan (30th January 2016), PurpleLama (30th January 2016)

  29. Link to Post #55
    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 tomfellows (here)
    I'm saying that the original dust cloud, doesn't have enough dust
    in it to account for the mass of the buildings.

    Showing me pictures of the original dust cloud dispersing is no answer to my argument.
    So you're saying that the original cloud, before dispersing even as much as Hervé shows us in Post #49 above, must already have been quite large.

    If you're asking for an -instant- big dust cloud, then I think you're asking for the impossible.

    If that's not what you're asking for, then I don't understand your comments.

  30. The Following User Says Thank You to Paul For This Post:

    TargeT (30th January 2016)

  31. Link to Post #56
    Avalon Member
    Join Date
    12th January 2016
    Posts
    26
    Thanks
    25
    Thanked 107 times in 25 posts

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

    Quote Posted by Paul (here)
    Quote Posted by tomfellows (here)
    I'm saying that the original dust cloud, doesn't have enough dust
    in it to account for the mass of the buildings.

    Showing me pictures of the original dust cloud dispersing is no answer to my argument.
    So you're saying that the original cloud, before dispersing even as much as Hervé shows us in Post #49 above, must already have been quite large.

    If you're asking for an -instant- big dust cloud, then I think you're asking for the impossible.

    If that's not what you're asking for, then I don't understand your comments.
    You clearly haven't followed my reasoning.

    In summary.

    hundreds of thousands of tons of concrete and steel, when 'dustified'
    makes hundreds and thousands of tons of dust.

    There is no evidence of hundreds of thousands of tons of dust at the scene.
    There should be dust 5 or 10 or 15 meters high at the scene. There isn't.

    In the surrounding streets there should be several feet high of dust.
    There isn't. There's inches of dust, not meters nor feet.

    2 possibilities.
    1. The buildings simply 'blew away' as a dust cloud.
    2. The weapon/tool used to dustify the buildings is capable of annihilating matter.

    My argument is that, for the concrete to have blown away in a dust cloud, that
    dust cloud would have needed to be many thousands of times the volume of the
    destroyed concrete and steel. But when you look at the initial dust cloud as it 'floats'
    around the nearby buildings... that cloud is clearly nothing like N thousands of times
    the volume of the trade towers.

    It's only an estimate, but it seems to me that only about 5 or 10% of the matter
    in the twin towers has been dustified.

    So my conclusion is, this tool/weapon is capable of destroying matter.

  32. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to tomfellows For This Post:

    6pounder (30th January 2016), Eram (30th January 2016), Ewan (30th January 2016)

  33. Link to Post #57
    Avalon Member
    Join Date
    4th December 2014
    Posts
    1,442
    Thanks
    2,127
    Thanked 8,735 times in 1,354 posts

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


  34. The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to WhiteLove For This Post:

    6pounder (30th January 2016), Buzzie (30th January 2016), Ernie Nemeth (30th January 2016), justntime2learn (30th January 2016), lucidity (30th January 2016), mpennery (30th January 2016), toppy (30th January 2016)

  35. Link to Post #58
    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 tomfellows (here)
    [

    2 possibilities.
    1. The buildings simply 'blew away' as a dust cloud.
    2. The weapon/tool used to dustify the buildings is capable of annihilating matter.

    My argument is that, for the concrete to have blown away in a dust cloud, that
    dust cloud would have needed to be many thousands of times the volume of the
    destroyed concrete and steel. But when you look at the initial dust cloud as it 'floats'
    around the nearby buildings... that cloud is clearly nothing like N thousands of times
    the volume of the trade towers.

    It's only an estimate, but it seems to me that only about 5 or 10% of the matter
    in the twin towers has been dustified.

    So my conclusion is, this tool/weapon is capable of destroying matter.
    I think I am following your argument ... to a point.

    I am not claiming possibility 2, matter annihilation.

    I am claiming possibility 1, the dust cloud.

    You observe that the dust clouds seen spreading from the collapsing towers are not, by your estimation, big enough.

    I am asking you, what would you expect to be happening, between the last moment that the towers still looked like towers, and the first moment that this hypothesized dust cloud was big enough to match your expectations.

    I am observing, finding it rather obvious, that we would not see a tower transform instantaneously into a mile wide dust cloud. There would be visible intermediate states, during which I would expect to be a smaller, denser, dust cloud, briefly driven outward from what had been the tower, every which way, up, down and sideways, by the same immense energy that broke the bazillions of chemical bonds in the concrete and steel, with sufficient kinetic energy to keep that cloud from instantly falling to the ground. If I hold a brick over the floor in my kitchen and let go, it drops straight down. If I put some fine ground salt on my hand and blow on it, it blows outward in a brief "cloud", before losing sufficient horizontal energy that it falls down to the floor.

    Lower Manhattan was coated with dust after 9/11, inches thick in places, and the lighter dust particles were small enough to remain floating in the air, like smoke, and blowing out to sea in the wind, looking like a cloud.
    Last edited by Paul; 30th January 2016 at 21:07.

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

    Eram (30th January 2016), TargeT (30th January 2016)

  37. Link to Post #59
    France Administrator Hervé's Avatar
    Join Date
    7th March 2011
    Location
    Brittany
    Posts
    16,621
    Thanks
    59,324
    Thanked 93,835 times in 15,331 posts

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















    Last edited by Hervé; 30th January 2016 at 16:32.
    "La réalité est un rêve que l'on fait atterrir" San Antonio AKA F. Dard

    Troll-hood motto: Never, ever, however, whatsoever, to anyone, a point concede.

  38. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to Hervé For This Post:

    Buck (1st February 2016), drneglector (31st January 2016), Eram (30th January 2016), Ewan (30th January 2016), Paul (30th January 2016)

  39. Link to Post #60
    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 Hervé (here)








    in my estimation it's clearly big enough, the volume of matter missing from the site is explained by the dust cloud... if the debris were NOT missing I'd wonder where the hell that dust cloud came from.
    Hard times create strong men, Strong men create good times, Good times create weak men, Weak men create hard times.
    Where are you?

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

    Buck (1st February 2016), drneglector (31st January 2016), Eram (30th January 2016), Ewan (30th January 2016), Hervé (30th January 2016), Paul (30th January 2016)

+ Reply to Thread
Page 3 of 9 FirstFirst 1 3 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