and 70% turned into dust, mostly micron size
[edit by Mick:] See a better discussion on this topic here: https://www.metabunk.org/threads/wtc-rate-of-fall-rate-of-crush.1142/page-5#post-26504
Last edited by a moderator:
WTC: The "dustification" of steel (Judy Wood's Theory)
- Thread starter muttkat
- Start date
and 70% turned into dust, mostly micron size
[edit by Mick:] See a better discussion on this topic here: https://www.metabunk.org/threads/wtc-rate-of-fall-rate-of-crush.1142/page-5#post-26504
You mean like in this picture, the pancake collapse?
https://www.metabunk.org/metamirror_cache/www.drjudywood.com_articles_DEW_dewpics_Image250.jpg
or like this one?
https://www.metabunk.org/metamirror_cache/www.drjudywood.com_articles_DEW_dewpics_Image28.jpg
Last edited by a moderator:
Theres an orange ball of fire and this WTC 1. I've got a better picture of an explosion. I'm having issues with getting more than 1 picture on this reply so I may have to reply again to you.
https://www.metabunk.org/metamirror_cache/www.drjudywood.com_articles_DEW_dewpics_Image251.jpg
Last edited by a moderator:
http://www.fotomundo.net/Galleries/Cube/9-11/2_wtc_911_explosion.htm
At the beginning of the collapses of both building there are major explosions. The jet fuel should already burned up. With WTC 2 the majority of the jet fuel exploded outside of the building so ther should be this big orange fireball again.
Last edited by a moderator:
Cairenn
Senior Member.
It isn't an explosion, the building has started to collapse and the flames are being PUSHED out by the downrushing air. Like a candle flame bends when you blow it out. If you notice the pylon on top is dropping.
Now, Back to Pres George W. Bush, he is NOT a Junior
[ex George W. Bush
George H. W. Bush[/ex]
Notice please the names are NOT the same the younger one does not have junior after his name.
Now, Back to Pres George W. Bush, he is NOT a Junior
[ex George W. Bush
George H. W. Bush[/ex]
Notice please the names are NOT the same the younger one does not have junior after his name.
Well I've got a video that shows the tower shaking and about 6 or 7 seconds the collapse starts. Many responders felt the ground shaking and then the collapse started.
This explosion looks bigger than when the plane hit it. On my newer computer I have a video that shows the building shaking and about 7 seconds later, the collapse starts but I have to wait until all the stuff gets unloaded off the old one to find the site. He will always be Jr in my heart. I need to go find a comment Jazzy made in proving my side of the debate.
Cairenn
Senior Member.
Of course the buildings shook before they collapsed, things were falling and coming apart inside of them FIRST.
Where are the seismic records of any explosion (s)?
It doesn't matter if someone here or on TV called him 'junior', that was not his name, anymore than 'shrub' was.
Where are the seismic records of any explosion (s)?
It doesn't matter if someone here or on TV called him 'junior', that was not his name, anymore than 'shrub' was.
I would like to thank you for this comment:
You said : "Steel can be turned to dust only by evaporating it in a vacuum. That isn't possible except in a supernova. Your statement is wrong."
Now we know this ISN'T a SUPERNOVA so it must be a ________?
Its still there but....
And thar she goes
and it keeps on going. vaporized steel
Last edited by a moderator:
Of course the building shook before the collapse and this happened:
http://drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/StarWarsBeam6.html
The Bankers Trust building was closer to WTC 1 than WTC 7. If you notice the pieces of the tower only goes up to a certain point from the BOTTOM.
Whoops I put the wrong picture 1st
Last edited by a moderator:
But you are not suggesting the rising smoke from the tower behind, is 'ejecta from an explosion' in the collapsing tower, are you?
Is that what Judy Wood is suggesting?[/quote]
Last edited by a moderator:
http://drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/StarWarsBeam4.html
Heres a crater picture.
Crater hole that didn't get filled up with the Hudson River.
and yet another crater hole.
Now do these craters look like a pancake collapse? There should be piles.
Heres WTC 7 pile. Why does it have a bigger pile?
Last edited by a moderator:
Cairenn
Senior Member.
Just because you CAN'T see the pile of steel behind a building doesn't mean it was 'vaporized'. Please explain ALL the steel that was found at ground zero? Millions of TONS of steel. It wasn't vaporized.
Are you saying that that that sort of vertical smoke plume is the 'vaporized steel'?
http://www.apwa.net/Resources/Reporter/Articles/2004/3/Clearing-the-way-for-recovery-at-Ground-Zero
I am also noticing that you are not addressing the seismic issue, again.
Are you saying that that that sort of vertical smoke plume is the 'vaporized steel'?
http://www.apwa.net/Resources/Reporter/Articles/2004/3/Clearing-the-way-for-recovery-at-Ground-Zero
Only pieces of the building facade fell, remember that a lot of it had a big hole in it?External Quote:
I am also noticing that you are not addressing the seismic issue, again.
Met Watch
Moderator
I would like to thank you for this comment:
You said : "Steel can be turned to dust only by evaporating it in a vacuum. That isn't possible except in a supernova. Your statement is wrong."
Now we know this ISN'T a SUPERNOVA so it must be a ________?
Its still there but....
And thar she goes
and it keeps on going. vaporized steel
The frame did not vaporize, it collapsed. Mick made an excellent post about this in either this thread or another one - I will try and find a link to it tomorrow.
Last edited by a moderator:
Cairenn
Senior Member.
The buildings had basements, with several floors in them. That is your 'craters'.
Of course it didn't fill with water, there was no bomb buried below the building. The COLLAPSE started from the top. Please find a picture that shows the building collapsing from the bottom. That is if you are still on the buried nuke bomb theory.
I have NOT seen a single picture that even vaguely looks like an atomic blast, and ZERO evidence of one.
I can find other pictures that fit that definition better like this one.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,331039,00.html
Of course it didn't fill with water, there was no bomb buried below the building. The COLLAPSE started from the top. Please find a picture that shows the building collapsing from the bottom. That is if you are still on the buried nuke bomb theory.
I have NOT seen a single picture that even vaguely looks like an atomic blast, and ZERO evidence of one.
I can find other pictures that fit that definition better like this one.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,331039,00.html
So you're saying these pictures and video above with the frames are collapsing & not turning into dust? Why do I need to read another post when these pictures clearly show steel turning into dust?
Cairenn
Senior Member.
Steel cannot go from a solid into a dust. The laws of physics and chemistry prevent that. It has a crystal structure, the bonds that form those crystals would need to be broken and that takes a HUGE amount of energy.
You are misinterpreting what you are seeing. Have you watched the video that those pictures come from?
Look at the pictures from Hiroshima. Look at all the steel that remains. The building with the dome was directly under the bomb blast. Yes a lot of building are gone, but wood and even paper is used in a lot of construction in Japan
http://www.icp.org/museum/exhibitions/hiroshima-ground-zero-1945
You are misinterpreting what you are seeing. Have you watched the video that those pictures come from?
Look at the pictures from Hiroshima. Look at all the steel that remains. The building with the dome was directly under the bomb blast. Yes a lot of building are gone, but wood and even paper is used in a lot of construction in Japan
http://www.icp.org/museum/exhibitions/hiroshima-ground-zero-1945
See discussion starting here:
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/wtc-rate-of-fall-rate-of-crush.1142/page-5#post-26504
Basically it just fell, leaving a cloud of dust. The photos are deceptive.
In perspective:
Last edited:
ManicSpartan
New Member
Fantastic! You're so sure of yourself "Steel CANNOT go from a solid into a dust" brilliant, simply brilliant. As Holmes says, once you rule out the impossible,then what remains however improbable, must be the truth. If you examine carefully the well documented evidence it's fairly clear we're dealing with an effect hitherto unknown to science i.e if steel really can't be turned to dust then where the hell did the towers go?
That's where the towers went. There they are, covering the entire tip of Manhattan and beyond.
Last edited:
Fantastic, you're so sure of yourself "Steel CANNOT go from solid into dust" brilliant, simply brilliant. As Holmes says, once you rule out the impossible,then what remains however improbable, must be the truth. If you look at the documented evidence it's fairly clear we're dealing with an effect hitherto unknown to science i.e if steel really can't be turned to dust then where the hell did the towers go?
That's where the towers went. There they are covering the entire tip of Manhattan.
When building collapse, even when no explosives are used, they turn into a pile of rubble and the collapse generates a lot of dust. Like:
The WTC collapses were just bigger.
The "pyroclastic flow" thread has many more examples.
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/de...s-pyroclastic-flow-collapse-dust-clouds.1823/
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/de...s-pyroclastic-flow-collapse-dust-clouds.1823/
ManicSpartan
New Member
That video is shot from very close up for one, so any dust cloud is going to look large.
Secondly "collapse" and "pile of rubble". It's estimated that the pile of rubble from a 500,000 ton building should have been roughly 17 storeys high.
Where was it?
Thirdly, no dust cloud from a demolition is ever expected to go higher than the original structure.
Why was this one special?
Secondly "collapse" and "pile of rubble". It's estimated that the pile of rubble from a 500,000 ton building should have been roughly 17 storeys high.
Where was it?
Thirdly, no dust cloud from a demolition is ever expected to go higher than the original structure.
Why was this one special?
Perhaps you could back up those claims?
ManicSpartan
New Member
I'm not "claiming" anything 
It's simply scientific fact based on empirical evidence. A quick google search on actual, run of the mill controlled demolition and what happens, or indeed a background in civil engineering and basic quantity surveying will verify the simple fact that two half a million ton buildings apparently "collapsing" will leave an absolutely massive pile of rubble and steel, which is conspicuously absent from any after picture of ground zero.
[img=http://s29.postimg.org/x0v7c7s93/911_ground_zero_high_resolution_desktop_4130x411.jpg]
imgurl
It's simply scientific fact based on empirical evidence. A quick google search on actual, run of the mill controlled demolition and what happens, or indeed a background in civil engineering and basic quantity surveying will verify the simple fact that two half a million ton buildings apparently "collapsing" will leave an absolutely massive pile of rubble and steel, which is conspicuously absent from any after picture of ground zero.[img=http://s29.postimg.org/x0v7c7s93/911_ground_zero_high_resolution_desktop_4130x411.jpg]
imgurl
Efftup
Senior Member.
The dust cloud did NOT go higher than the original structure. Look properly at the video evidence.
For the second tower collapse, it is on fire and belching smoke. Then when the tower collapses, the smoke from the fire is still there but the dust cloud from the collapsing building does not go higher, any grey clouds are smoke from the fires which are basically unchanged as the collapse happens. there is no extra dust adding to that cloud once the collapse starts.
For the second tower collapse, it is on fire and belching smoke. Then when the tower collapses, the smoke from the fire is still there but the dust cloud from the collapsing building does not go higher, any grey clouds are smoke from the fires which are basically unchanged as the collapse happens. there is no extra dust adding to that cloud once the collapse starts.
WeedWhacker
Senior Member
They collapsed. ALL of the original structure is accounted for. Please do some research into where the 9/11 debris was taken....on Staten Island. (I could give you the source, but I think that YOU need to do the research yourself. Will help.)
Pete Tar
Senior Member.
Well perhaps because the collapse started 90 stories up, and it wasn't prepped for demolition (extraneous material removed before the actual demolition). There was nothing 'expected' about it because it wasn't a controlled demolition, to state the extreme obvious. Of course it was special, it was a unique event of unique size.
Can you give some examples of steel dustifying?
And there was thousands of tons of steel.
Last edited:
Hevach
Senior Member.
My favorite part of the buried numeric theory is that you can use the elements supposedly present (like strontium) to calculate the yield of the bomb that produced it. It would take a 291 GIGATON (link goes to another forum user who already did the math) blast to produce the concentration of fission products the theory claims were present at ground zero.
That's nearly six thousand Tsar Bombs, over ten times the historic maximum of the combined global arsenal, or nearly four times the torpedo capacity of the Starship Enterprise 1701-D.
Ignoring that a pure fission weapon that strong is basically impossible and wouldn't leave all its fallout right there in the rubble, even if detonated under ground, this size of bomb would glass half the eastern seaboard and ignite firestorms over nearly a third of the continent, and the flash would be bright enough to bind astronauts on the moon.
It would have been just a little hard to cover up.
That's nearly six thousand Tsar Bombs, over ten times the historic maximum of the combined global arsenal, or nearly four times the torpedo capacity of the Starship Enterprise 1701-D.
Ignoring that a pure fission weapon that strong is basically impossible and wouldn't leave all its fallout right there in the rubble, even if detonated under ground, this size of bomb would glass half the eastern seaboard and ignite firestorms over nearly a third of the continent, and the flash would be bright enough to bind astronauts on the moon.
It would have been just a little hard to cover up.
Last edited:
Efftup
Senior Member.
but, but , it must be a new kind of Nano-nuke!!
No hang on, Nano Quantum nuke!!!
Better still, a Nano-Quantum Homeopathic Stealth nuke.
The reason there was no flash is that there wasn't actually any nuclear material left after it had been diluted so many times. but it had a quantum memory so it could do the necessary damage because it remembered what nuclear bombs can do and it was programmed to only take down certain buildings.
and of course the buildings immune systems were weakened by all the chemtrail spraying.
Hey, this is fun!!! Do you think I could make money writing explanations for the twoofer/chemtrail crowd?
No hang on, Nano Quantum nuke!!!
Better still, a Nano-Quantum Homeopathic Stealth nuke.
The reason there was no flash is that there wasn't actually any nuclear material left after it had been diluted so many times. but it had a quantum memory so it could do the necessary damage because it remembered what nuclear bombs can do and it was programmed to only take down certain buildings.
and of course the buildings immune systems were weakened by all the chemtrail spraying.
Hey, this is fun!!! Do you think I could make money writing explanations for the twoofer/chemtrail crowd?
Efftup
Senior Member.
Judy Woods of course claimed some kind of DEW did it.
She made up the word dustification as to way to try and hand wave the fact that to actually break all those bonds to pulverize the steel into tiny individual dust particles would take a lot of energy.
according to DR Greg Jenkins,:
That seems quite a bit.
She made up the word dustification as to way to try and hand wave the fact that to actually break all those bonds to pulverize the steel into tiny individual dust particles would take a lot of energy.
according to DR Greg Jenkins,:
http://www.journalof911studies.com/...ergy-Beam-Demolish-WTC-by-Gregory-Jenkins.pdfExternal Quote:
That seems quite a bit.
SR1419
Senior Member.
That is some funny looking dust.
Dont forget that the bottom of the rubble pile is seven stories down in the basement.
External Quote:
As for "dustifying" steel...here is a rather rigorous analysis:
https://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/pseudosc/911NutPhysics1.HTM
External Quote:
Keith Beachy
Senior Member
The WTC towers were 95 percent air. That means the pile of steel would be 5 percent of the height of the WTC if stacked up neatly. However, the two acres of WTC towers, 220 floors (aka 220 acres of office junk) above ground were spread over 19 acres. Your photo shows wallboard, ceiling tiles, insulation, and concrete dust, aka "glass fibers, gypsum wallboard, concrete, paper, window glass, and miscellaneous materials used in buildingFantastic! You're so sure of yourself "Steel CANNOT go from a solid into a dust" brilliant, simply brilliant. As Holmes says, once you rule out the impossible,then what remains however improbable, must be the truth. If you examine carefully the well documented evidence it's fairly clear we're dealing with an effect hitherto unknown to science i.e if steel really can't be turned to dust then where the hell did the towers go?
That's where the towers went. There they are, covering the entire tip of Manhattan and beyond.
construction or found in office buildings - dust".
Need the approximate percentage - look up "Environmental Studies of the World Trade Center", for a reality check.
Steel does not turn to dust except in Judy Wood's mind.
http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/fs-0050-02/fs-050-02_508.pdf
http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2001/ofr-01-0429/
Wait, it has a name, it is called fantasy. You realize Sherlock Holmes is fiction, as is Judy's dustification of steel.
The dust cloud is big because E=mgh was released, it was equal to 130 tons of TNT in each tower. The energy due to gravity was massive, and released during the collapse. The energy of collapse crushed wallboard, insulation, glass, ceiling tiles and 220 acres of office space; the dust seen. It is hard to comprehend the energy equal to 260 2,000 pounds bombs is in the collapsing building.
The buildings are mostly air...
Last edited:
Similar threads
- Sticky
