+ Reply to Thread
Page 5 of 9 FirstFirst 1 5 9 LastLast
Results 81 to 100 of 172

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

  1. Link to Post #81
    France Administrator Hervé's Avatar
    Join Date
    7th March 2011
    Location
    Brittany
    Posts
    16,766
    Thanks
    60,316
    Thanked 95,033 times in 15,475 posts

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

    Quote Posted by Star Mariner (here)
    [...]

    Compare it with WTC7, a building half the size of just one of the WTC towers.
    Here's the wreckage of it. It is four or five storeys high.
    [...]
    Yep! The difference between conventional controlled demolition and unconventional controlled demolition...
    "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.

  2. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Hervé For This Post:

    Eram (31st January 2016), Paul (31st January 2016), Star Mariner (1st February 2016)

  3. Link to Post #82
    United States Avalon Retired Member
    Join Date
    4th January 2011
    Location
    North Texas
    Age
    72
    Posts
    27,723
    Thanks
    28,846
    Thanked 129,173 times in 20,635 posts

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

    Quote Posted by winstonsmith (here)
    Steel wasn't turned to powder. It was scattered all over the site, up to 300 foot radius.

    Here is a photo with a large portion of the exterior panels circled,
    Yes - there was some such debris - but not nearly enough. The debris pile should be over twice the height of Bldg 6, not a small fraction of its height.

    Quote Posted by winstonsmith (here)
    demolition charges being set off
    Yes, I've little doubt that various conventional demolition charges, thermite, pyrotechnic, and other such were set off ... in addition to the dominant source of energy used to dustify most of the towers.

    ===

    P.S. -- In short -- yes there were conventional explosives and ordinary debris -- but not nearly enough, not even close.
    Last edited by Paul; 31st January 2016 at 22:28.

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

    Eram (31st January 2016), Ewan (1st February 2016), Star Mariner (1st February 2016)

  5. Link to Post #83
    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

    Nobody in this thread is denying that the towers dustified.
    It's quite obvious to anyone who studies the collapses that there was major dustifcation going on.
    It's only the metal part that winstonsmith and me (maybe others) have problems with.

    WTC 7 fell into its own footprint whereas the WTC 1 and 2 got blown up.
    Debris (mostly metal parts) falling hundreds of meters away.

    for arguments sake: Lets say that the pile of ruble from WTC 7 was 8 storeys high.
    If that same ruble was scattered on only an extra width and breadth in every direction of the building, that same pile of ruble would only be just less under 1 storey high.

    WTC 1 and 2 did not fall into their own footprint. At all! They got blown up.
    You simply cannot expect to see a pile of ruble up to 22 storeys, since most of the material got ejected by fierce force in all directions.

    It should be possible to make some calculations to make an estimation on how high the pile of debris should be if only the steel work and 10% of other materials did not get dustified and landed in the area that is visible in the photo's over ground zero.
    I'm sure that if I was to try to make such calculations that I would make a big mess of things, so I will not bother.
    but... I'm pretty confident that the steel work that lays scattered all over the area near ground zero would account for most if not all the steel work that was used in WTC 1 and 2.

    I'm not saying that I understand the big hole in building 6 and the flattened part of building 4, but there might be an explanation, other then the use of a DEW for that as well.
    Last edited by Eram; 31st January 2016 at 23:14.

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

    Star Mariner (1st February 2016), winstonsmith (1st February 2016)

  7. Link to Post #84
    France Administrator Hervé's Avatar
    Join Date
    7th March 2011
    Location
    Brittany
    Posts
    16,766
    Thanks
    60,316
    Thanked 95,033 times in 15,475 posts

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

    Sure

    Let's take it one step at a time... where are those 45,000 filing cabinets?
    "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.

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

    Eram (31st January 2016), lucidity (1st February 2016), Star Mariner (1st February 2016)

  9. Link to Post #85
    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 Hervé (here)
    Sure

    Let's take it one step at a time... where are those 45,000 filing cabinets?
    You made them magically disappear


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

    Curiosity (1st February 2016)

  11. Link to Post #86
    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

    The source for Judy Woods claim that all the filing cabinets disappeared.

    please note that the person in the footage says that he gave up looking for intact filing cabinets.
    He does not say anything about little peaces of filing cabinets.

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

    Hervé (1st February 2016)

  13. Link to Post #87
    Canada Avalon Member Ernie Nemeth's Avatar
    Join Date
    25th January 2011
    Location
    Toronto
    Age
    61
    Posts
    3,562
    Thanks
    15,214
    Thanked 20,868 times in 3,325 posts

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

    I've read through the entire thread and not once did I see the pan-cake argument brought up in comparison. When I first heard of the pan-cake theory I immediately went, "aha, that's it!". It made perfect sense. It was only after more careful consideration that I rejected it. Many people still hold this position. It is the official story as well.

    The pancake effect explains pulverization and dustification of material directly in the path of the main thrust of the collapsing building. You would have both crushing pressures and heat forcing molecular bonds apart and secondary particle collisions resulting in fine dust. But although you would have most of the debris in a neat pile in the sub floors and above, there would be significant side impacts that would logically expel material laterally and in parabolic or even hyperbolic arcs. That didn't seem to happen, at least not to any great extent.

    By this process, there would be missing mass, as evidenced by the massive debris cloud. Is it enough to account for the observed missing debris, I don't know.

    What I am saying is that , without looking too close at the dynamics of a pancake effect, it is a satisfying explanation.

    It is these anomalies that leave us wondering: the giant holes in the buildings, the melted cars, the bizarre disappearing steel beams, the filing cabinets, the almost perfect destruction of seven high rise buildings, each coming down in their own footprints, all ostensibly by co-incidence and luck, no seismic correspondence to the collapses, and other strange occurances.

    No known effect can account for these discrepancies.

    So as Sherlock Holmes is quoted as saying (paraphrased and generalized), in the absence of the possible, the impossible must be considered.

    It must have been exotic weaponry, probably space-based, in concert with conventional methods, that brought those towers down.

    One thing is for sure, it was intentional - and it was not brought about solely by 19 hijackers with box cutters.

  14. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Ernie Nemeth For This Post:

    Eram (1st February 2016), Hervé (1st February 2016), Star Mariner (1st February 2016)

  15. Link to Post #88
    France Administrator Hervé's Avatar
    Join Date
    7th March 2011
    Location
    Brittany
    Posts
    16,766
    Thanks
    60,316
    Thanked 95,033 times in 15,475 posts

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

    OK, now consider the "shape" that thing is in when located in an adjacent, small store basement... nothing fell on it... that store was not set on fire... yet, that thing, suffered a similar fate as some cars parked ways away from those towers... getting the picture, yet, that something very unconventional took place there that affected metal while leaving papers unscathed?
    "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.

  16. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Hervé For This Post:

    Eram (1st February 2016), Ernie Nemeth (1st February 2016), Star Mariner (1st February 2016)

  17. Link to Post #89
    United States Avalon Retired Member
    Join Date
    4th January 2011
    Location
    North Texas
    Age
    72
    Posts
    27,723
    Thanks
    28,846
    Thanked 129,173 times in 20,635 posts

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

    Quote Posted by Eram (here)
    It's only the metal part that winstonsmith and me (maybe others) have problems with.
    There was no where near enough steel left visible, as steel, anywhere near the WTC, after the towers crashed.

    And even the energy required to dustify the concrete that finely was far more energy, applied much more quickly (10 seconds per tower), than conventional mechanisms can explain.

    As I've noted before, the finer the powder you make, the more energy it takes, as more and more chemical bonds must be broken. Try pounding a cinder block or a brick into talcum powder with a sledge hammer ... you'll be one tired body well before you're done.

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

    Eram (1st February 2016), Mike (1st February 2016), Star Mariner (1st February 2016)

  19. Link to Post #90
    United States Avalon Member Curiosity's Avatar
    Join Date
    21st November 2015
    Age
    63
    Posts
    281
    Thanks
    843
    Thanked 868 times in 225 posts

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

    Quote Posted by Hervé (here)
    OK, now consider the "shape" that thing is in when located in an adjacent, small store basement... nothing fell on it... that store was not set on fire... yet, that thing, suffered a similar fate as some cars parked ways away from those towers... getting the picture, yet, that something very unconventional took place there that affected metal while leaving papers unscathed?
    Hi Herve,
    Every time I hear the paper unscathed and metal melting I flash back to the times I've tried to throw paper into a camp fire. If you don't wad it up it flies away from the fire unscathed. Food for thought.

  20. The Following User Says Thank You to Curiosity For This Post:

    Eram (1st February 2016)

  21. Link to Post #91
    France Administrator Hervé's Avatar
    Join Date
    7th March 2011
    Location
    Brittany
    Posts
    16,766
    Thanks
    60,316
    Thanked 95,033 times in 15,475 posts

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

    Well, all right.

    Then think of the normal, conventional temperature that's needed to melt the metal of a filing cabinet, overall, without triggering a spontaneous combustion of the paper it contains. Even better: try it
    "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.

  22. Link to Post #92
    United States Avalon Member Curiosity's Avatar
    Join Date
    21st November 2015
    Age
    63
    Posts
    281
    Thanks
    843
    Thanked 868 times in 225 posts

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

    Well I'm sure any paper that was in any cabinet that melted turned to ash, and any paper that was thrown lose was found unscathed.

    There was simply too much conventional heat involved to say ALL paper was unscathed. I can see where a lot of paper got tossed around by air pressure, wind and heat without ever catching fire.

  23. Link to Post #93
    France Administrator Hervé's Avatar
    Join Date
    7th March 2011
    Location
    Brittany
    Posts
    16,766
    Thanks
    60,316
    Thanked 95,033 times in 15,475 posts

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

    Then, why is the paper in THAT filing cabinet NOT burnt?
    "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.

  24. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Hervé For This Post:

    lucidity (1st February 2016), Mike (1st February 2016), TargeT (1st February 2016)

  25. Link to Post #94
    United States Avalon Member Curiosity's Avatar
    Join Date
    21st November 2015
    Age
    63
    Posts
    281
    Thanks
    843
    Thanked 868 times in 225 posts

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

    Quote Posted by Hervé (here)
    Well, all right.

    Then think of the normal, conventional temperature that's needed to melt the metal of a filing cabinet, overall, without triggering a spontaneous combustion of the paper it contains. Even better: try it
    You can throw a whole newspaper or a stack of paper into a fire and the center will remain unburdened. I'm talking about fire hot enough to melt glass and tin cans etc. but not cause spontaneous combustion of a thick stack of paper. I've seen it burning piles of trash. I've had to restart the fires with kerosene to get the paper to burn and even separate the paper. So I'm not surprised at all from finding paper in the conditions at ground zero. I don't think that alone holds enough water to prove exotic weaponry was used.

  26. The Following User Says Thank You to Curiosity For This Post:

    Eram (1st February 2016)

  27. Link to Post #95
    United States Avalon Member Curiosity's Avatar
    Join Date
    21st November 2015
    Age
    63
    Posts
    281
    Thanks
    843
    Thanked 868 times in 225 posts

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

    Quote Posted by Hervé (here)
    Then, why is the paper in THAT filing cabinet NOT burnt?
    If you do some research I think you will find that this common. Metal Cabinets melting, small metal file boxes melting from extreme heat and the paper and other contents inside unscathed.

  28. Link to Post #96
    United States Avalon Member Curiosity's Avatar
    Join Date
    21st November 2015
    Age
    63
    Posts
    281
    Thanks
    843
    Thanked 868 times in 225 posts

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

    Another thing you have to consider is, this file cabinet being presented as the only one found. Should we believe this?

  29. The Following User Says Thank You to Curiosity For This Post:

    Eram (1st February 2016)

  30. Link to Post #97
    United States Avalon Retired Member
    Join Date
    4th January 2011
    Location
    North Texas
    Age
    72
    Posts
    27,723
    Thanks
    28,846
    Thanked 129,173 times in 20,635 posts

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

    It is often true that some specific detail of a larger event, when reduced to a few specifics and a handful of words or images, can apparently be explained in multiple ways.

    I challenge those who are claiming that conventional means might entirely explain the destruction of the WTC towers (and the inner half of WTC 6) to closely examine the images collected by Judy Wood in her "Where did the towers go?" book, and then claim that conventional means explain all that those images show.

    Rather than tossing words about ... well, "it" (some specific detail) could be caused, give or take, by conventional means ... instead please first actually examine a substantial body of the evidence, and then tell us if you really believe that only conventional means were used.

    Also, for that matter, even if only conventional demolition means were used for all the WTC destruction ... still that's a lot of conventional demolition ... requiring a lot of preparation ... and putting the lie to the official story.

    We risk not only playing games with "well, this specific could be explained some other way" word games, but also getting distracted by whether the means were conventional or not. Either way, we lose focus on a larger problem: 9/11 was a major false operation ... big time., anyway you look at it.

    (Though what I would claim is the evident, to those who look with an open mind, use of non-conventional means is itself another big problem for the bastards in power ... if only most people realized it.)
    Last edited by Paul; 1st February 2016 at 06:20.

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

    Eram (1st February 2016), Ewan (1st February 2016), M-Albion-3D (1st February 2016), Star Mariner (1st February 2016), TargeT (1st February 2016)

  32. Link to Post #98
    United States Avalon Member Curiosity's Avatar
    Join Date
    21st November 2015
    Age
    63
    Posts
    281
    Thanks
    843
    Thanked 868 times in 225 posts

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

    Quote Posted by Paul (here)
    It is often true that some specific detail of a larger event, when reduced to a few specifics and a handful of words or images, can apparently be explained in multiple ways.

    I challenge those who are claiming that conventional means might entirely explain the destruction of the WTC towers (and the inner half of WTC 6) to closely examine the images collected by Judy Wood in her "Where did the towers go?" book, and then claim that conventional means explain all that those images show.

    Rather than tossing words about ... well, "it" (some specific detail) could be caused, give or take, by conventional means ... instead please first actually examine a substantial body of the evidence, and then tell us if you really believe that only conventional means were used.

    Also, for that matter, even if only conventional demolition means were used for all the WTC destruction ... still that's a lot of conventional demolition ... requiring a lot of preparation ... and putting the lie to the official story.

    We risk not only playing games with "well, this specific could be explained some other way" word games, but also getting distracted by whether the means were conventional or not. Either way, we lose focus on a larger problem: 9/11 was a major false operation ... big time., anyway you look at it.

    (Though what I would claim is the evident, to those who look with an open mind, use of non-conventional means is itself another big problem for the bastards in power ... if only most people realized it.)
    Paul it took some of the best experts in the world a long time to prove that jets , jet fuel, office fires and so called pancake theory could not explain how these building fell. Then it took years to prove that certain types of conventional demolitions were involve.. I don't think any of those experts claim that conventional demolitions,(what they have proven with physical evidence), alone, brought those buildings down??

    In order to disprove something you need process of elimination through physical experimentation. To prove something you need to recreate the same results with the same materials under similar conditions.

    The problem we face is the perpetrates of this crime know nobody can prove they used a non conventional weapon simply because nobody has access to that weapon to recreate the same results. It doesn't mater how many things you come up with that can or can not explain what you see in pictures.

    A good point that you make Paul is they will keep throwing things on the table to keep us eating so we look nowhere else.

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

    Eram (1st February 2016), Ewan (1st February 2016)

  34. Link to Post #99
    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)
    I challenge those who are claiming that conventional means might entirely explain the destruction of the WTC towers (and the inner half of WTC 6) to closely examine the images collected by Judy Wood in her "Where did the towers go?" book, and then claim that conventional means explain all that those images show.
    First of all, I don't claim that it must have been conventional means per se.

    I have not yet read her book.
    Only several presentations, interviews and her website.

    So far, a strong argument in favor of a low heat DEW system case that she makes (imo) are the elevated levels of Tritium.

    Yet, I find that many aspects of her case building are disturbing to say the least.
    You can not simply pick and choose the evidence to build a case with and deny all evidence that is not in favor of your theory, which she does.

    For instance: The evidence that there was a large body of intense heat involved in the destruction is overwhelming and is imo one of the strongest points of evidence that the official explanation is a big cover up.
    - NASA photo's of intense heat spots, weeks after the destruction
    - Many buildings with raging fires right after the collapses of WTC 1 and 2 (go watch all the NIST and FDNY footage)
    - eye witness accounts from fire men who reported pools and rivers of molten steel.
    - burning cars

    Woods response:
    - NASA photo's: "Nehh, these are not hot spots. It must be something else"
    - Buildings on fire: She seems to total ignore this.
    - Rivers and pools of molten steel: "these poor men don't know what they are looking at, so their brain invents a story around it. This was cold liquid steel, not hot".
    - burning cars: footage of two firemen who walk between a row of cars on fire, so it must be cold fire like effects of the DEW and not hot flames.

    These are just a few examples, but i could go on and on in this fashion.

    Am I the only one who thinks that this is a disturbing and irresponsible way of building a case?

    Quote Posted by Paul (here)
    We risk not only playing games with "well, this specific could be explained some other way" word games, but also getting distracted by whether the means were conventional or not. Either way, we lose focus on a larger problem: 9/11 was a major false operation ... big time., anyway you look at it.
    I'm not distracted Paul.
    9-11 is the biggest magic trick that has been pulled on humanity in recorded history and almost every shot that is fired today between nations and factions of nations is a direct result of this trick. Not to mention the emerging totalitarian police state(s).

    Still, it is also important to try and find out what exactly happened to the WTC complex and even though I think that it might be near to impossible to find the answers, I will never give up trying.

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

    Curiosity (1st February 2016), Ewan (1st February 2016), TargeT (1st February 2016), winstonsmith (1st February 2016)

  36. Link to Post #100
    United States Avalon Retired Member
    Join Date
    4th January 2011
    Location
    North Texas
    Age
    72
    Posts
    27,723
    Thanks
    28,846
    Thanked 129,173 times in 20,635 posts

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

    Quote Posted by Eram (here)
    Am I the only one who thinks that this is a disturbing and irresponsible way of building a case?
    If someone is trying to make the case that one particular mechanism, be it explosives, thermite, micro-nukes, sub-basement nukes, directed energy or jet fuel, caused all the destruction to the WTC buildings, then I just ignore that part of what they are saying.

    If someone is trying to make the case that some particular mechanism was used (perhaps not exclusively) in the destruction of the WTC buildings, then I consider the evidence they present for that.

    I read Judy Wood as making the case that some highly non-conventional mechanism was used at the WTC on 9/11. She makes an excellent case for that, in my view. This includes making the case that it could not have been -just- conventional mechanisms that caused that destruction. I agree. I do not find her positions on that at all disturbing or irresponsible.

    If she goes further and claims that no conventional mechanisms were present, then ... well for the most part, I so routinely ignore any such claims that I wouldn't even notice such.

    The one place I recall that I disagree with Judy Wood is in her claim that there were no "nuclear or atomic" bombs used, because, in her view (as I understand it), such bombs have too obvious blast radii and effects. In my view, there are likely micro-nukes with finely engineered blast radii, that could for example have been used every few floors within the core columns of the two main WTC towers, to destroy their structural integrity, prior to a more exotic "directed energy" weapon being used to convert the resulting steel (and concrete) fragments and particles into the fine dust that created that immense dust cloud and that resulted in a one story rubble pile instead of a twenty story rubble pile. Such micro-nukes could have been engineered to not even cause noticeable effects at the exterior walls of the towers ... just wreck the core columns.

    Roughly speaking, what I presently figure is that:
    • Conventional pyrotechnics were used to make an impressive sight when the "planes" hit,
    • Conventional explosives were used at the same time, to cut the plane shaped holes in the exterior walls where the "planes" supposedly hit.
    • Either large conventional or micro-nukes were used in the basement, at the same time as the planes hit, to destroy the towers sprinkler systems.
    • Various thermite cutter charges were used, during the subsequent hour, to weaken the towers.
    • Other bombs went off here and there, to take out specific targets within the towers during that hour.
    • Micro-nukes pulverized the core columns to start the "collapse" of the towers.
    • Directed energy then immediately dustified the "collapsing" towers, before they had a chance to fall.
    Last edited by Paul; 2nd February 2016 at 01:13.

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

    Curiosity (1st February 2016), DeDukshyn (1st February 2016), Eram (2nd February 2016), Wind (6th February 2016)

+ Reply to Thread
Page 5 of 9 FirstFirst 1 5 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