Dustification

watch a building turn to dust--

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qyNKZyONh24



Any one who thinks this is just a collapse????

There is also the significant point that the antenna tilts the wrong way as the tower goes down-- it tilts south!!!

If the building started collapsing from structural failure from the plane and fire damage, the north side should have caved in (where the worst damage was)-- causing the antenna to lean to the north.

...tell me, spooked, how does a hole burn?

Do you actually believe this crap?

Or to you just post it for our entertainment?

If the former:

1. Yes, I believe it is "just a collapse".

2. Having no idea what's going on inside the bloody thing, I have no idea which direction the antenna should fall. And neither do you.


You -----STILL---- haven't read the NIST report, have you?

Now we really know what happened to Andy Kaufman. He faked his death and became spooked911. I'm just waiting for the videos of spooked wrestling women in a bunnycage!

They admit this on page 82 in the footnote. So anyone using the NIST report as a source to determine what happened is not a clear thinker.

Besides, the towers did not "collapse". If they did, there would be enough steel at GZ to account for two 1/4 mile high towers. There is not. Therefore, they did not collapse. They were pulverized.

Once the mass at the top got started, there was no stopping it. It's been calculated that the upper sections provided up to 31 times the force necessary to overwhelm the lower structure. The buildings were designed to support the dead weight, not to arrest that kind of mass in motion. It might as well have been air the upper sections were falling through.

If that were the case, why not say so--and substantiate it for the "dummies" who just don't seem to "get it"?

They merely assert: "Once the upper building section began to move downwards, the weakened structure in the impact and fire zone was not able to absorb the tremendous energy of the falling building section and global collapse ensued." This is an unproven assertion.

They just assert it, like it's a "given": "global collapse ensued". They don't explain it. They don't prove it. They just state it.

The building collapsed, and therefore collapse ensued.
Post hoc, ergo propter hoc. Open and shut case. :sarcasm:

:rofl: Now that was funny. Good point.

when they've been designed to be load-bearing struts. And when concrete fails, it crumbles.

One would expect "crumbs" and pieces, small and large - not for most of it to turn to dust.

the structural elements were steel

to provide the force you are writing about.

If there were 10 tons of building turned to dust then you would have ten tons of dust. Changing the arrangement of the molecules do not change the mass of the molecules.

That being said, to say that the upper sections were turned to dust is a nonsensical statement in its' own right.

of concrete. Try it sometime. Unbelievable refutation for your pancaking theory.

this is true. So how did your 31 times mass collapse the lower part of the
tower after it fell off?

as few words as you do, we'd be way ahead of where we are now.

:hi: :yourock:

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

The hat trusses are central to the "probable collapse sequence" described by NIST's Final Report on the Twin Towers. It blames the hat truss for transferring "column instability" between the core structures and the perimeter walls. If the hat truss could do that, why would it not support the antenna?

Fascinating, who is they?

wanted only one-handed economists, because the ones he got were
always invoking the other hand.

I've heard

"if you want three opinions on anything, ask two lawyers, metallurgists, engineers, economists, professors, etc." Typically vocations that offer advice. Never have I heard it applied to a race or religion.

Your comment seems slightly insensitive if not outright bigoted. Given the odd relationship between the CT community and antisemitism it made me wonder where you are coming from.

Maybe it's just me being to sensitive.

Google ...three opinions two jews... and you'll get 6,700,000 hits.

"Israel founding father David Ben Gurion... observed that for every two Jews
there are three opinions."

http://www.jewishaz.com/jewishnews/990226/edit.shtml

isn't that where the "plane" hit?

Or are you under the impression that a hole can burn?

but okay, so you're saying the fire weakened the structure on the south side much more than the structural damage plus the fire on the north side weakened the structure?

Is that what you are saying?

than the loss of floors and core columns on the North side?

Really?

The massive fires moved, as all fires do. This fire was started over a wide area and met on several floor over on the south side. The fires caused the floors to sag. As the floors sagged, they pulled in on the perimeter columns. Eventually, the perimeter columns buckled. This damage, combined with the loss of structural strength from the original damage, initiated collapse.

That is what I am saying.

answer my question

I've answered every question you've put forward, spooked. Don't be silly.

Are you saying 20 minutes of fire on undamaged columns was WORSE than the loss of floors, core columns and other support structures on the North side-- such that 20 minutes of fire on undamaged columns led to complete collapse on the south side?

All of it together brought down the towers. 2 plus 2 equals 4. 2 is not worse or better than 2.

either you think the structural damage on the north side plus fire was worse than the fire weakening on the south side or you don't.

It's not really a trick question, although if you think you think the overall weakening from structural damage on the north side plus fire was worse than the fire weakening on the south side, then it is not at all clear why the top tipped to the south.

If you you the overall weakening from structural damage on the north side plus fire was NOT worse than the fire weakening on the south side, then that seems a bit implausible.

Hmmm, not supporting the official story, versus supporting something implausible.

What WILL YOU CHOOSE???

My answer is: the two damages you are isolating actually worked together to bring the north tower down. Your insistence that one or the other is worse is just a stupid game.

The answer would seem to be that the damage was worse on the south side. I am simply wondering how fire on the south side was worse than fire plus structural damage (severed columns) on the north side.

There is nothing false about this question. It is a basic issue relating to what made the tower go down.

Your failure to address the issue suggests you are having trouble admitting that the antenna tipping southwards is odd.

Why is it such a hard question?

The reason the building (including the antenna) tilted to the south is because the south face is where the perimeter columns were finally pulled in by the fire-inducing sagging of the floor assemblies. Get it?

Fire on top of southern floors -- floors sag, putting pressure on southern perimeter columns -- perimeter columns finally buckle, initiating collapses -- top section of building tilts to south first before crashing down through building.

In any case, I believe on the north side, there were collapsed floor sections, pushed in outer columns and several severed core columns-- plus fires!

I find it hard to believe that the floor sagging and dropping on the south side led to more of a structural failure on that side than on the north side-- even if it did pull some outer columns inwards.

You sort of glossed over what happened to the core section, which is what the antenna was anchored on anyway.

Of course, the point of this post was to note how the the tower how much thick dust was produced as the tower went down-- just an incredible amount that cannot be produced by simple collapsing.

The floor system pulled them ALL in, on the south side. The result was catastrophic.

Gloss over, right. The upper section falling delivers enough force to overwhelm any load-bearing capacity below by orders of magnitude. You are the one glossing over this force.

not to mention the core was still unaffected on the south.

I know you will defend this crap to your end days, but jesus, don't you even see the slightest problem with the floor collapse model?

caused the core to collapse too? And the building started collapsing on the side opposite from where the "plane" hit? And this caused the whole building to fall apart in 15 seconds and caused the concrete to be pulverized?

It's a theory, I guess.

I prefer the demolition explanation.

It makes more sense.

The core, remember, wasn't designed to withstand lateral forces. It was strictly load-bearing. The perimeter columns were load-bearing AND lateral-force resistance. Once they were completely compromised on the south side, the ensuing collapse of the exterior and floors was enough to drag down the core.

There are videos of the south side buckling - being pulled in by the floor assemblies. The NIST report makes a point of saying the floor assembly didn't fall, because the FEMA report posited that they did. In fact, the actual collapse initiation relies on the floor assemblies holding firm and pulling the perimeter columns in to the point of failure and collapse initiation.

cheated on the quality of steel for that to happen.

Because CTers need strawmen to keep believing what they believe.

on the outer wall and core columns, the tower should have gone down right after the "plane" crash

you're kidding, right?

100 mph winds aren't lateral forces?

All of the lateral force resistance in the WTC towers was in the perimeter columns. The core was designed to carry gravity loads only.

Please go read the NIST report. You might learn something.

What happened to all that squashed floor?

This isn't that hard to understand.

seems like they might get caught in the "cross-fire"

...I got a problem with this sliding floor idea.

3 feet sway!! But the core doesn't move laterally?

I think this is coming from the same place as False Flag Anthrax Attacks and Flight 93 Estimations.

Then why did the core have 5" concrete floors when the 60' trussed floors
had 4"?

Surely that 5" of concrete was not needed to damp floor springiness, as
the 4" was.

What is your evidence that the core was not designed for lateral loads?

and the tilting came later.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qRakw3hwPls

How does this square with the floor collapse on the south side hypothesis?

I'll wait right here.

Here you go... get your red hot sagging floors here:

perimeter columns, and thus exert no buckling pressure on those columns.

Where is the evidence of the saggy floors that remained connected to the
perimeter columns, which is NIST's putative mechanism for buckling the
columns and initiating collapse?

NIST supposes that these floors sagged several feet, but according to
Kevin Ryan NIST's fire tests produced sags of only a few inches.


I've got a modest proposal:

Why doesn't NIST build a fullscale model--60 foot trusses, four stories
tall, maybe 40 feet wide. They can put in their 5000 gals of jet fuel
and a bunch of desks and computers and carpeting. Set it on fire and
show us how the floors sag. How much could that cost? $1 million?

Come on guys, let's see it!

It sure looks as though it's being blown to bits to me! :shrug: But hey, fall for the bullshit if you want to guys.

So much dust.

You'd think those pancaking floors whould be trapping it all between layers wouldn't you.

Concrete is normally excellent at breaking up into lumps... but complete dust... you have to wonder.

There are hundreds of people dying in that picture, right in front of our eyes, being trapped between those layers.

Hundreds of people, obliterated in a few seconds. It is shocking.

We all have emotions...Thank you for pointing it out.

There is no mechanism for expelling the dust. If you put oyster crackers in
your palm, and slap your other hand down on it, you get captive dust. You don't
blow dust all over the room.

Had us going for a while, though, didn't he?

One of these days I am going to return as a Sock Puppet and post some theory so utterly insane, impossible and idiotic that a complete cretin without formal schooling would not believe it.

I'll bet the usual crew will buy in and defend that theory.

Strawman.

But hey... what's new in the world of OCT defence?

Because of the flow of discussion, it's not quite any kind of an argument, just poignant commentary.

That said, the support this thread is getting is evidence that Mervin is on to something.
You should also check out the NJ EMT says workers told WTC7 was going to be "pulled"! thread for more evidence of "the usual crew" voraciously gobbling dubious stories cloaked in the twoof movement flag.

Maybe you're right. I meant just plain boll*cks instead.

just poignant commentary

... ahh.. you're definitely right.. boll*cks is more correct.

I can't take you seriously.

...OCTers suggesting that they can make up any old cobblers - say like the CIA secretly think the sun tastes of vanilla and plan to use it to conquer Venus - and "conspiracy therorists" will believe it.

It's just rubbush.

It's BS.

It's pointless saying stuff like that. Don't bother.

Some conspiracy facts - were once conspiracy theories - that is a fact!

That's your only criteria for the word bollocks, is that right?

Because, that, dear boy, is BOLLOCKS.

So anything stated by an "OCTer" is bollocks - that's your personal definition

Where did I say that?

It bollocks when they try to make that "conspiracy theroists" will believe any old tosh.

But you knew that.

OK, you say that "OCTers" think that they can cobble together any old tosh and "conspiracy theroists (sic)" will believe it, and that is the definition of bollocks.

I am trying my best to use your words here. This is what you are saying, right?

If that's the case, why are you bringing it up in reference to Beam Weapons theories? Are you saying that the Beam Weapons theories are something "OCTers" cobbled together in order to get "conspiracy theroists (sic)" to believe it?

Because I think you need to produce some evidence besides your own assertion of this specific claim.

...and OCTer said he could come back here as a "sock puppet" and make up a conspiracy theory and the "usual crew" would lap it up.

You have failed to grasp what is going on here.

The suggestion that "conspiracy theorists" will believe anything is bollocks.

Got it yet?

I then provided evidence that he was on to something, and you've ignored it.

Why should we take you seriously?

...name one "conspiracy theorist" that you ever took seriously.

He said he would bet on it, not that it was an unmitigated certainty.

Ooowwwuuuuh. I can't argue with that. (I don't know how to for a start).

This could be interesting.

Greyl, when did you take Petgoat seriously?

and a verifiable claim of that single person.

You see? You painted with too broad a brush and caused confusion. However, your restatement of your premise makes it a lot clear what you're trying to say. Precision in expression is something we all need here at the September 11 Forum. Precision would eliminate a lot of confusion and misunderstanding.

I hope you've resolved to be more precise from now. I thank you for this in advance.

But I'm sure you've seen it before as well. You've been here long enough.

"Conspiracy theorists" will believe anything you tell them is an old claim.

Its bullshit.

You see they apparently have some psychological needs, conspiracy psychology, you or Greyl might have even spawned a thread about it... blah blah... recognise it?

If "dustification" gets defenders, what, fer-Gawd's-sake, would not?

Honestly, I cannot think of a more stupid insane and unsupportable 'theory'. I flippantly offered to try, but it is doubtful I am up to the task.

The "Truth Movement" has become ridiculous -because- it is unable to reject even the most preposterous theories. Beginning with Controlled Demolition and proceeding inexorably to "Dustification" and No Planes and onward to whatever fantasy some deranged professor can think up.

Wondering how so much concrete dust and so little concrete rubble was produced is not a legitimate concern?

Have you seen all that dust?

Concrete is great at breaking into lumps.. but dust?

it is unable to reject even the most preposterous theories

Yeah.. that's right, all "conspiracy theorists" believe every theory.

Or is it yet another BS mantra thrown out by the OCTers?

debris 37 feet high. That's without steel beams interpolated
between the floors.

The "Pennies from Heaven" video shows a pile approximately
37 feet high--this without the concrete floors.

So where'd the concrete go?

turn into dust? Weird.....

Carpets should have been a real pain in taking the debris pile
apart. There were about 50 acres of the stuff.