Debunked: WTC Blanketing Lower Manhattan in 4" to 12"of Dust

[Mick West]

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?...79243506268.164274.59185411268&type=1&theater

This one debunks itself. The dust here is clearly less than an inch deep. And yet this is the best photo they could find to illustrate their claim.

 

[Mark Barrington]

I believe that location is probably Fulton and Nassau St, which is 2 blocks away from the WTC.

 

[Mick West]

Is there any evidence of thicker dust?

 

[Jeffrey Orling]

No... this is about as thick as it gets and why I told Gage to retract it. He repeats it.

 

[Mark Barrington]

Is there any evidence of thicker dust?

I moved away from Manhattan in '89, so I don't have first-hand knowledge of the 9-11 aftermath. However, I'm fairly familiar with the area as I used to go down there and take photographs a lot. I agree with you, that dust looks like 1" thick or less in that photo. Seeing as how you can clearly see the contours of the curbs, it can't be much more. NYC curbs in that area of town are just 3-4" high. It would be nice to see something quantitative, like a ruler stuck in the dust.

 

[Svartbjørn]

It looks like they may have cherry picked it from here Mick..or sites like it. I just did a quick cursory search for the thickness of dust in 9/11 and this was on the top of the list:

http://scienceof911.com.au/images/

AFTER COLLAPSE
On the Home page are photos which show the enormous dust clouds which rolled out from the collapsing buildings, eventually settling inches deep over a wide area. The question asked there was: is this the concrete? There was of course a lot of concrete in the buildings, about 100 acres, 4 inches thick, in each tower, and it had to go somewhere, as very little can be found in photographs of the base of the towers after collapse. One has to ask why a building falling due to gravity would pulverize so much concrete so finely as to turn most of it into dust. The huge volume of dust produced would require energy input far greater than can could be provided by the gravitational collapse.

They're talking about the thickness of the concrete, but depending on how you choose to read it, it MIGHT be construed as dust thickness. Take a look and see if you concur.

 

[Mick West]

Even in the actual building footprint there was no such thing as inches of dust. Notice here that there are large chunks of concrete, and his boots are not sinking in at all.

 

[Mark Barrington]

Correction, the location is probably John Street and Nassau, which one block south of my previous guess:

https://maps.google.com/maps?q=broa...d=Yjco2OA8fshaqn2yn4hIMw&cbp=12,306.84,,0,1.4

 

[Jeffrey Orling]

Using the curb ht will tell you nothing as the dust would raise the street and the side walk "height" the same amount. Of course if you scraped the curb clean you could have a better understanding of the depth. But its clearly nothing like 4-12".

 

[Mark Barrington]

Using the curb ht will tell you nothing as the dust would raise the street and the side walk "height" the same amount. Of course if you scraped the curb clean you could have a better understanding of the depth. But its clearly nothing like 4-12".

True enough, but if the dust were thicker than the curb height, it would not be possible to clearly see the contour of the curb through the dust, it would have a less curb-like shape, more like a ramp.