The World Trade Center did not "turn to dust", stop repeating this lie

[1337m4n]

In these photos you can see quite a bit more than just a bunch of dust:

http://www.limitstogrowth.org/WEB-Graphics/wtc-rubble.jpg

http://www.bollyn.com/public/ParticlesRisingFromWTCrubble.jpg

http://www.prisonplanet.com/images/august2006/250806rubble1.jpg

http://bitrazor.com/content/wtc/rubble_1.jpg

http://dart2.arc.nasa.gov/Deployments/NYC-WTC2001/images/LER049.jpg

Need more; I can give you more. The point is I don't want to hear any more of this canard about the WTC "turning into dust". I forget who first brought it up; it may have been AE911, but I've seen it repeated a heck of a lot.

[twinstead]

I've studied your evidence, and I find it unconvincing and unable to stand up to scrutiny. ;)

[DaN K. StAnLeY]

I hear this crap all the time. Thanks for the pics. I'll link the hell outta them everytime I hear someone say that crap.

[DaN K. StAnLeY]

Holy Crap! Is that a person in the third one? He looks like a statue.....Whoa.......that's horrible.

[Alt+F4]

Here you go:

http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p78/altf4_photo/GroundZero.jpg

[The Silver Shadow]

That's a statue. I do recall seeing it when I went to New York when I was very young...

[Cl1mh4224rd]

My addition: http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Sep2001/200109205c_hr.jpg

Holy Crap! Is that a person in the third one? He looks like a statue.....Whoa.......that's horrible.


I'm going with statue...

[JimBenArm]

I totally agree with the sentiment. It is a ridiculous statement, and it easily disproved by a casual glance at any of these photos. However, the ones who keep saying this are immune to logic, reality, and reason, so this will have absolutely no effect on them. So, I predict a long, drawn-out fight with brain-dead morons who will never acknowledge this. Because the ones saying this are the no-brain-planers and the space-beam-cowboys. Denial to them is like oxygen to you and me.

[1337m4n]

I totally agree with the sentiment. It is a ridiculous statement, and it easily disproved by a casual glance at any of these photos. However, the ones who keep saying this are immune to logic, reality, and reason, so this will have absolutely no effect on them. So, I predict a long, drawn-out fight with brain-dead morons who will never acknowledge this. Because the ones saying this are the no-brain-planers and the space-beam-cowboys. Denial to them is like oxygen to you and me.

I just wonder what snide comment our buddies will come up with once they find this thread.

[1337m4n]

Holy Crap! Is that a person in the third one? He looks like a statue.....Whoa.......that's horrible.

That's a statue: http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0112/12/ltm.04.html

[nicepants]

I just wonder what snide comment our buddies will come up with once they find this thread.

I encountered this argument over at pffft....after posting some photos of large debris they seemed to lose interest in the discussion. (Twoofers hate being wrong.....but it's the one thing they're really good at :))

[theauthor]

The steel didnt turn to dust but virtually all the concrete did. Unless the governor of New York was lying on 9/13/01 when he said that all the concrete was pulverised.

[1337m4n]

The steel didnt turn to dust but virtually all the concrete did. Unless the governor of New York was lying on 9/13/01 when he said that all the concrete was pulverised.

I really don't think that's something the governor would know. May I see that quote (in context, please)?

[theauthor]

I really don't think that's something the governor would know. May I see that quote (in context, please)?


Really? You dont think the gvernor of New York, while standing at ground zero, wouldnt know? You know more?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MDuBi8KyOhw

[Alt+F4]

I really don't think that's something the governor would know. May I see that quote (in context, please)?

In a CNN interview that aired on September 21, 2001 George Pataki said "Concrete was pulverized." He did not use the the words "virtually" or "all".

Also from the same story:

At this point, there's about a 20-story structure, that is still leaning quite precariously off to the right. The workers down there say they're trying to get some enormous cables on top of it and pull it down to the ground.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0109/21/se.40.html

[bio]

Who said this bad thing?

The World Trade Center did not "turn to dust"

[T.A.M.]

a sixty foot high pile of "dust"? not GZ, but does the repetition of this old fable surprise you?

This is a strawman at its finest.

TAM:)

[theauthor]

In a CNN interview that aired on September 21, 2001 George Pataki said "Concrete was pulverized." He did not use the the words "virtually" or "all".

Also from the same story:



http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0109/21/se.40.html


Thats a lie. He said "There's no concrete...the concrete was pulverized."

[pomeroo]

You rationalists are all stupid shills for the gubmint. Of course everything turned to dust. It's just that it's, uh, very big dust! You gotta expect nonexistent weapons to produce unusual forms of dust.

[HeyLeroy]

*sigh* ...here we go.

Okay, theauthor; tell us, then, what was it that "pulverized" 220 acres of concrete?

[theauthor]

*sigh* ...here we go.

Okay, theauthor; tell us, then, what was it that "pulverized" 220 acres of concrete?


Umm gravity....don't you even know that?

[DaN K. StAnLeY]

That's a statue: http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0112/12/ltm.04.html

Okay, whew, I was wondering if that guy made it or not. You can't really tell because of the soot or whatever.

[Alt+F4]

Thats a lie. He said "There's no concrete...the concrete was pulverized."

Hey the people who do the transcripts over at CNN must be "in on it" because that's what the transcript says, "concrete was pulverized".

YouTube is blocked at my job, so I can't compare.

[pomeroo]

Umm gravity....don't you even know that?


Put on your thinking cap--this is deep stuff.

People here are asking you to LOOK AT THE PICTURES.

If you do this, you will notice that not all of the concrete at the WTC complex was pulverized. You can pretend not to notice, but we won't be fooled.

Trust me, you never fool us.

[DaN K. StAnLeY]

Does anyone have any pictures of large pieces of concrete being extracted from WTC 1 or 2 sites? I wan't to copy them for reference, and I know I've seen some.

[T.A.M.]

1. Most of the dust cloud was the sheetrock (you know, wall board) that the WTCs, as OFFICE BUILDINGS, were FULL OF.

2. There are pics out there that show not only large rocks of concrete, but also many other large, NON-PULVERIZED pieces of debris.

3. It is not surprising that a LARGE amount of the concrete would be turned to dust once hitting the ground, anyway.

TAM:)

[Alzke]

Does anyone have any pictures of large pieces of concrete being extracted from WTC 1 or 2 sites? I wan't to copy them for reference, and I know I've seen some.

*crickets*

[Alzke]

1
2. There are pics out there that show not only large rocks of concrete, but also many other large, NON-PULVERIZED pieces of debris.



From either of the Towers, or from the "complex" (hat tip Ron Wieck)?

[Cl1mh4224rd]

Does anyone have any pictures of large pieces of concrete being extracted from WTC 1 or 2 sites? I wan't to copy them for reference, and I know I've seen some.


Here's one: http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/docs/hanger17/meteor1.jpg

[twinstead]

Here's one: http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/docs/hanger17/meteor1.jpg

Oh, using that image is a nice touch!

[Quad4_72]

What happened to this concrete when subjected to high amounts of compression?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kl0d06dQPgE&feature=related

Or this

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WLBRugxkiT8&feature=related

Or

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4RwWimEhFUc&feature=related

They are probably NWO vids though. I am sure there were explosives planted somewhere in those slabs. How else could the concrete have been turned to dust?

[1337m4n]

Thats a lie. He said "There's no concrete...the concrete was pulverized."

Show me where he says that.

[1337m4n]

Umm gravity....don't you even know that?

You're sure it wasn't outer space laser beams or magic demolition explosives or mini-nukes?

[steve s]

The steel didnt turn to dust but virtually all the concrete did.

The only concrete was in the floor slabs. Are you suggesting that they wired up the floors with explosives? If so, what the hell for? Blowing the steel columns would have been sufficient to take down the buildings.


Steve S.

[~enigma~]

Does anyone have any pictures of large pieces of concrete being extracted from WTC 1 or 2 sites? I wan't to copy them for reference, and I know I've seen some.
Oddly enough in the picture the wooish idiots point to show that the columns were cut there is concrete chunks in the foreground...

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_132574851936179b10.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=12531)

[Mel Odious]

Here's another collection of g.z. pics which I thought might be of interest:

http://www.zombietime.com/wtc_9-13-2001/

I found this link, strangely enough, over at David Icke's forums whilst I was Stundie-hunting. Excellent pictures, though.

[gumboot]

Really? You dont think the gvernor of New York, while standing at ground zero, wouldnt know? You know more?


Well I think he wouldn't know. I think he wouldn't have a frikken clue. You expect a politician, standing at the edge of acres of debris extending multiple stories deep, would have even the most remote notion of what that debris pile contained?

Laughable.

Phillips and Jordan Inc certainly thought there was plenty of concrete in the debris pile, and they should know - they were the company responsible for managing removal of debris from the WTC and crime scene support services.

[Profanz]

Dust?

http://gulnarasamoilova.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/survivors.jpg

http://www.epa.gov/wtc/pictures/images/world_trade_center_dust_cloud.jpg

http://www.militarypilots.org/WTC_DustVictim.jpg

http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/09/11/worldtrade.crash/story.wtc.dust.jpg

What dust? I don't see any dust. Crazy twoofers.

[TheRedWorm]

Are you really that disingenuous?

[chillzero]

Is anybody arguing that there was no dust? Because I didn't think so.

I thought the discussion was whether there was anything concrete larger than dust in the debris.

[WildCat]

Dust?

http://gulnarasamoilova.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/survivors.jpg

http://www.epa.gov/wtc/pictures/images/world_trade_center_dust_cloud.jpg

http://www.militarypilots.org/WTC_DustVictim.jpg

http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/09/11/worldtrade.crash/story.wtc.dust.jpg

What dust? I don't see any dust. Crazy twoofers.
What do you think the presence of dust means in the collapse of 2 110 story buildings?

[Profanz]

Are you really that disingenuous?

Not anymore then this thread.

[Profanz]

What do you think the presence of dust means in the collapse of 2 110 story buildings?

That a whole lot of the building was turned to dust. Is that normally what happens from building content fire?

[JimBenArm]

That a whole lot of the building was turned to dust. Is that normally what happens from building content fire?
Is the fire alone what caused the dust? Or did the collapse of the buildings, crushing stuff like, oh, drywall, maybe contribute to this?

Gee, I wish there was a simple explaination for this...


:wackytwitcy:

[TheRedWorm]

That a whole lot of the building was turned to dust. Is that normally what happens from building content fire?


Not from the fire itself, love. You must have missed the most important part of the sentence you quoted, so here it is:

What do you think the presence of dust means in the collapse of 2 110 story buildings?


It was not the fire that caused the dust, my pet. It was the fact that the collapses of these buildings disturbed a lot of settled dust, in addition to creating some with the crushing of concrete, drywall, and other building materials. But if you don't think that that was the case, where do you think that the dust came from?

[Profanz]

Not from the fire itself, love. You must have missed the most important part of the sentence you quoted, so here it is:

It was not the fire that caused the dust, my pet. It was the fact that the collapses of these buildings disturbed a lot of settled dust, in addition to creating some with the crushing of concrete, drywall, and other building materials. But if you don't think that that was the case, where do you think that the dust came from?

So much of the building was turned to dust. Thanks. Now do buildings normally collapse crush concrete, drywall, and other building materials, because of building content fire CuddleCakes?

[twinstead]

I'm confused. Is somebody actually suggesting that the huge amount of dust created when the WTCs collapsed is suspicious?

[JimBenArm]

So much of the building was turned to dust. Thanks. Now do buildings normally collapse crush concrete, drywall, and other building materials, because of building content fire CuddleCakes?
Do buildings normally not crush things when they collapse, Baggy Eyes?

[TheRedWorm]

So much of the building was turned to dust.


The hell? Where did I say that much of the building was turned to dust? Please bold the statement I made that said as much, if you don't mind.



Now do buildings normally collapse crush concrete, drywall, and other building materials, because of building content fire CuddleCakes?


I am having a difficult time parsing the statement above. Are you asking if fire + damage from airliners flying into buildings very, very quickly can cause a building (or 2) to collapse, thus destroying contents? If that is not what you are asking please clarify.

[lapman]

So much of the building was turned to dust. Thanks. Now do buildings normally collapse crush concrete, drywall, and other building materialsIn a word (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VtmwJVmBvXg&feature=related), yes (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=79sJ1bMR6VQ).
, because of building content fire CuddleCakes?Does the cause of the collapse change what happens during the collapse?

[pomeroo]

So much of the building was turned to dust. Thanks. Now do buildings normally collapse crush concrete, drywall, and other building materials, because of building content fire CuddleCakes?


This is a serious question. I honestly can't tell if you are parodying an incredibly stupid twoofer or if you are the genuine article. When fantasists would ask questions such as yours, I used to wonder if anyone alive could be that obtuse. Now I understand that the answer is, Yes. Are you actually asking if the collapse of two of the tallest buildings in the world created an immense volume of dust?

[T.A.M.]

So much of the building was turned to dust. Thanks. Now do buildings normally collapse crush concrete, drywall, and other building materials, because of building content fire CuddleCakes?

here it is in grade three english for you.

Plane hit building. Much damage occurred to structure.
Hot fires cause steel to get weak.
Weight of top section on weakened steel causes collapse to begin.
Once collapse begins, complete collapse must happen.
Collapse causes drywall to turn to dust. Same happens to much of (but not all)
of the concrete within the building.
Little in the way of large debris, outside of steel remains.

And yes, this can happen with the heat produced by an office fire, especially when fire proofing is damaged and/or removed, as NIST has shown.

Now bring on the Woo!!!

TAM:)

[theauthor]

Once collapse begins, complete collapse must happen.

TAM:)


Source?

[IDB87]

Source?

Math...?

Physics, etc.

[WildCat]

I honestly can't tell if you are parodying an incredibly stupid twoofer or if you are the genuine article.
I know how you feel pomeroo. :eye-poppi

[theauthor]

Math...?

Physics, etc.

Could you be a little more specific?

[A W Smith]

That a whole lot of the building was turned to dust. Is that normally what happens from building content fire?

Point out to us the dust that occurred During the fires and pre collapse. if you are addressing the cause of the collapse. address it in a new thread. You are off topic.

This thread is about the claim that energy weapons 'dustified' the buildings. Please try to pay attention.

[IDB87]

Point out to us the dust that occurred During the fires and pre collapse.

Perhaps what he is referring to is the smoke that is squeezed out the second the towers begin to collapse?

Any video you watch of either of the towers collapsing you can observe the smoke being forced out and very shortly after you can see the dust cloud from the concrete and drywall that is being crushed.

Easy mistake, I guess.

[T.A.M.]

given you can turn it to dust in your own hand, ya, I think the collapse almost immediately began to dustify the drywall.

TAM:)

[Quad4_72]

Check out all of the dust during this collapse. Where did it all come from? Explosives?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qq0C1IGSMNk

How about this one?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LHbC9gc_Ylo&feature=related

[Profanz]

The World Trade Center turned to dust.

[Redtail]

The World Trade Center turned to dust.

:confused: Did you miss the pics in the OP?

[Profanz]

:confused: Did you miss the pics in the OP?

Did you see mine?

[twinstead]

The World Trade Center turned to dust.

The WTC produced a crap load of dust as it collapsed. It didn't 'turn to dust'. You can say it over and over and over and over and over again, and that won't change that fact.

[Profanz]

The WTC produced a crap load of dust as it collapsed. It didn't 'turn to dust'. You can say it over and over and over and over and over again, and that won't change that fact.

Ok.

The World Trade Center turned to dust. Everybody knows that.

[Redtail]

Did you see mine?

Yes. The problem you're having with those is that no one said that there was no dust...

Well, that and the huge pieces of the WTC in the OP that are clearly not dust.

[Cl1mh4224rd]

Guys... Don't talk to rocks. It makes you look crazy.

[Profanz]

Yes. The problem you're having with those is that no one said that there was no dust...

Well, that and the huge pieces of the WTC in the OP that are clearly not dust.

Got some percentages? Looks mostly like dust to me.

"You have two hundred and ten story office buildings. You don't find a desk. You don't find a chair. You don't find a telephone, a computer. The biggest piece of a telephone I found was half of the keypad. The building collapsed to dust."

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/dust.jpg

[Garb]

Got some percentages? Looks mostly like dust to me.

Do you expect simple office equipment would survive a huge building falling on top of it?

[Redtail]

Got some percentages? Looks mostly like dust to me.

What are the percentages that turned to dust?

[Tomblvd]

The steel didnt turn to dust but virtually all the concrete did. Unless the governor of New York was lying on 9/13/01 when he said that all the concrete was pulverised.

Since you have now proclaimed the governor as an expert on building collapses, and since he has always supported the government version of 9-11, can we now safely say that you are acknowldeging that there was no conspiracy and the building fell due to the plane crashes?

To be, you know, consistent and stuff....

[Profanz]

What are the percentages that turned to dust?

You first.

[Tomblvd]

BTW, just what is the point of this thread?

[Sword_Of_Truth]

You know, for someone with a post count in the low 30's, I'm getting the strangest sense of deja vu from Profanz. As though we've been through this mindless tail chase before.

It's almost like my zen has been smacked and now my karma is out of alignment, leaving me feeling like a lost child.

[peteweaver]

Most of the walls in the twin towers were gypsum (drywall).

When the towers pancaked, most of that gypsum was crushed to dust.

[A W Smith]

Ok.

The World Trade Center turned to dust. Everybody knows that.


Quote:
"You have two hundred and ten story office buildings. You don't find a desk. You don't find a chair. You don't find a telephone, a computer. The biggest piece of a telephone I found was half of the keypad. The building collapsed to dust."

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/dust.jpg


drop a steel deck with a 4 inch thick concrete slab on a phone or desk or office chair from ceiling height. One hundred and ten times. what would you expect it to look like genius?

[Dog Town]

Most of the walls in the twin towers were gypsum (drywall).

When the towers pancaked, most of that gypsum was crushed to dust.

I would bet that was also, the most used construction material, in the Towers.

So What?

ETA: This is not directed at Pete.

[Profanz]

drop a steel deck with a 4 inch thick concrete slab on a phone or desk or office chair from ceiling height. One hundred and ten times. what would you expect it to look like genius?

"The building collapsed to dust."

Joseph Cassaliggi, firefighter Engine. 7


When will some people stop calling 9/11 heroes liars?

[Redtail]

You first.

Nope, you made the claim that the WTC turned to dust.

I claimed that huge pieces of the WTC were not dust.

The pics back my claim up fine. You need to get to work on that math.

[Dog Town]

When will some people stop calling 9/11 heroes liars?

Ah, these cherries are delicious, thanks for picking them!

[theauthor]

When will some people stop calling 9/11 heroes liars?


Never. They enjoy disrespecting the fallen heroes.

[Tomblvd]

Never. They enjoy disrespecting the fallen heroes.


Is that anything like you calling members of the military stupid?

[Dog Town]

Never. They enjoy disrespecting the fallen heroes.


Evidence? Nope, same as always!

[TexasJack]

Why do truthers always have trouble with metaphors and similes?

[Dog Town]

Why do truthers always have trouble with metaphors and similes?

All they see, are trees fulll of cherries!

[Whiplash]

They may or may not have trouble with the smilies.. I just see it more as people who are getting "owned" so badly, repeatedly, that they desperately latch onto and rush towards anything that even remotely gives them a sense of "victory" as some kind of compensation.

[Tomblvd]

Why do truthers always have trouble with metaphors and similes?

I was thinking more along the lines of hyperbole.

But it comes down to cherry-picking lines that sound like they support their point of view.

[A W Smith]

When will some people stop calling 9/11 heroes liars?
when did I call him a liar? Prove it or concede that you yourself are a liar.

[fullflavormenthol]

You know, for someone with a post count in the low 30's, I'm getting the strangest sense of deja vu from Profanz. As though we've been through this mindless tail chase before.

It's almost like my zen has been smacked and now my karma is out of alignment, leaving me feeling like a lost child.
I know what you are saying. I have been reading some posts lately that remind me of the argument I had with someone who believed that Ronald Reagan was a big Paul McCartney fan. It is important to research the fact as opposed to simply trying to be right.

I'm beginning to wonder if this someone is posting here lately.

[TexasJack]

The way they make it appear, the only tools they needed for the clean-up would be push brooms.

[Redtail]

When will some people stop calling 9/11 heroes liars?

When will some people learn what hyperbole is?

[Profanz]

The World Trade Center turned to dust. Just ask firefighter and 9/11 hero Joseph Cassaliggi.

[T.A.M.]

The World Trade Center turned to dust.

Are you a moron? I am not calling you one, but I am asking in all honesty. The entire building did not turn to dust...if you do not know this then you must be the local village idiot. THe "dust" was mostly the drywall, and also much of the concrete.

Your strawman BS that followed your above statement (that we are calling heroes liars) is what I would expect from a ****ing 6 year old.

TAM

Edit: welcome to ignore Profanity...the list grows long.

[TexasJack]

The World Trade Center turned to dust. Just ask firefighter and 9/11 hero Joseph Cassaliggi.

When someone says it rained cats and dogs, do you think cats and dogs fell out of the sky?

[twinstead]

When someone says it rained cats and dogs, do you think cats and dogs fell out of the sky?

I'm shocked. Do you infer that cats and dogs do NOT fall from the sky? ;)

[Profanz]

When someone says it rained cats and dogs, do you think cats and dogs fell out of the sky?

Would you call them a liar like this thread did?

[T.A.M.]

I'm shocked. Do you infer that cats and dogs do NOT fall from the sky? ;)

only when thrown from a window, or up into the air.

TAM;)

[Redtail]

The World Trade Center turned to dust. Just ask firefighter and 9/11 hero Joseph Cassaliggi.

Do you know what hyperbole means?

[Redtail]

Would you call them a liar like this thread did?

Why are you lying?

[Profanz]

Why are you lying?


"You have two hundred and ten story office buildings. You don't find a desk. You don't find a chair. You don't find a telephone, a computer. The biggest piece of a telephone I found was half of the keypad. The building collapsed to dust." - Joseph Cassaliggi firefighter and 9/11 hero


The World Trade Center did not "turn to dust", stop repeating this lie

[Mel Odious]

Profanz:

Do you believe the concrete in the towers was "pulverized" by high explosives? If so, consider this.

In his whitepaper (EDIT: I'm referring to his "collapse" paper), Gordon Ross calculated the energy required to pulverize one floor's worth of concrete to be 304 megajoules. You can find this whitepaper on the ae911truth.org website.

There were 110 stories in each tower, which implies a total energy requirement of 33.44 gigajoules per tower.

One kilogram of TNT=4.184 megajoules of energy.

So, if you believe the concrete in the buildings was pulverized by explosives, you're arguing that the equivalent of almost 9 tons of TNT was used just in destroying concrete, for each tower. And that's assuming you're getting close to one hundred percent efficiency, which you're not.

Are you comfortable with that number?

On the other hand, if you believe the collapse itself could pulverize concrete (not to mention all those acres and acres of drywall), then why are you even raising this issue?

A final question: why would the conspirators - assuming there were any - care whether the concrete in the buildings was pulverized or not? All they wanted was for the building to collapse. What happened to all that concrete would be irrelevent to them.

p.s. Did you see the pics I linked to on page one of this thread? All that wreckage sure doesn't look like a pile of dust to me.

[Whiplash]

I'm just curious.. why the concern over it being "pulverised to dust". What is this supposed to show? Is the belief that this building, if brought down by what the "official story" says, should have been raining huge boulders of concrete down that hit the ground intact? Like a big pile of childrens building blocks when toppled? Like a collapsed "Jenga" tower?

[Profanz]

Profanz:

Do you believe the concrete in the towers was "pulverized" by high explosives? If so, consider this.

In his whitepaper (EDIT: I'm referring to his "collapse" paper), Gordon Ross calculated the energy required to pulverize one floor's worth of concrete to be 304 megajoules. You can find this whitepaper on the ae911truth.org website.

There were 110 stories in each tower, which implies a total energy requirement of 33.44 gigajoules per tower.

One kilogram of TNT=4.184 megajoules of energy.

So, if you believe the concrete in the buildings was pulverized by explosives, you're arguing that the equivalent of almost 9 tons of TNT was used just in destroying concrete, for each tower. And that's assuming you're getting close to one hundred percent efficiency, which you're not.

Are you comfortable with that number?

On the other hand, if you believe the collapse itself could pulverize concrete (not to mention all those acres and acres of drywall), then why are you even raising this issue?

A final question: why would the conspirators - assuming there were any - care whether the concrete in the buildings was pulverized or not? All they wanted was for the building to collapse. What happened to all that concrete would be irrelevent to them.

p.s. Did you see the pics I linked to on page one of this thread? All that wreckage sure doesn't look like a pile of dust to me.

So you believe no explosive were used in the collapse of the towers but the only other possible way they could have collapsed is if 9 tons of TNT were used? You don't see any problem there with that argument?

[Redtail]

"You have two hundred and ten story office buildings. You don't find a desk. You don't find a chair. You don't find a telephone, a computer. The biggest piece of a telephone I found was half of the keypad. The building collapsed to dust." - Joseph Cassaliggi firefighter and 9/11 hero

I see why you hide from my earlier question "Do you know what hyperbole is?".
Are those huge pieces of the world trade center "dust"? No. You see that and yet you play this game of semantics. You call this man a hero yet you're treating his fallen friends as a joke. You're treating the mothers, fathers, siblings, sons, and daughters who died there as a game. You accuse people calling heroes liars, yet you are calling them liars, cowards or idiots.

Maybe you are just to ignorant to realize it, or maybe you really get off on playing these games. That's your problem. I'd mention something about you sleeping at night but you've already shown you could care less about the people who died that day.

[Mel Odious]

So you believe no explosive were used in the collapse of the towers but the only other possible way they could have collapsed is if 9 tons of TNT were used? You don't see any problem there with that argument?

No, I think you've misunderstood me. I was working under the assumption that you believe the pulverized concrete is evidence of a controlled demolition. I don't know why you would bring the subject up if you believed otherwise.

So why don't you tell us as specifically as you can:

What do you think happened to cause all that dust, and how are large quantities of dust evidence of a conspiracy?

[Profanz]

I see why you hide from my earlier question "Do you know what hyperbole is?".
Are those huge pieces of the world trade center "dust"? No. You see that and yet you play this game of semantics. You call this man a hero yet you're treating his fallen friends as a joke. You're treating the mothers, fathers, siblings, sons, and daughters who died there as a game. You accuse people calling heroes liars, yet you are calling them liars, cowards or idiots.

Maybe you are just to ignorant to realize it, or maybe you really get off on playing these games. That's your problem. I'd mention something about you sleeping at night but you've already shown you could care less about the people who died that day.


I wasn't the one who started a thread accusing people of lying without even remembering where some of these claims of the towers being turned to dust came from. Now I pointed out that one of these claims came from a 9/11 hero. Now does the starter of this thread and his accusation also apply to the 9/11 hero? And how about you and your question about hyperbole? Yeah what about it? Why don't you ask 1337m4n?

And don't you mean too ignorant?

[Garb]

Hyperbole is a figure of speech which is an exaggeration. Persons often use expressions such as "I nearly died laughing," "I was hopping mad," and "I tried a thousand times." Such statements are not literally true, but people make them to sound impressive or to emphasize something, such as a feeling, effort, or reaction.

Why do you believe that 9/11 heroes are infallible in their statements?

[Profanz]

Why do you believe that 9/11 heroes are infallible in their statements?

Why do you believe no one but truthers need to be?

[Cl1mh4224rd]

Seriously, guys... Rocks...

[Garb]

Why do you believe no one but truthers need to be?

1. Where did I say that?

2. What does this have to do with the thread? A 9/11 hero made an exaggeration. So what? Just because he saved lives doesn't make everything he says fact.

[l0k0]

Who said this bad thing?

The World Trade Center did not "turn to dust"

9/11 Myths is responsible for this claim. This remark is made at roughly the 3 minute mark of the film, which you can view here:
Google Video (http://video.google.com/videosearch?hl=en&rls=com.microsoft:en-us&resnum=0&q=google%20video&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wv#q=9%2F11%20mysteries&hl=en&sitesearch=)
"In a mere ten seconds, 110 stories hurdled earthward, pulverizing into dust"

The issue here, is that this is a completely unequivocal claim. The narrator doesn't specify if it was just the concrete, nor does she give a ballpark figure for the amount that was allegedly pulverized into dust. She claims all of it did, and this is an easily disprovable lie.

-One look at the debris pile shows this is not true.
Some pictures (http://forums.randi.org/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=3771813)

-Not to mention this is completely inconsistent with the clean up at Ground Zero.

"Already, working around the clock, 1,300 construction workers and other personnel -- including 160 firefighters and 90 police officers -- have removed an extraordinary volume of debris: 290,000 tons of the estimated 1.2 million at the site."
Source (http://select.nytimes.com/glogin?URI=http://select.nytimes.com/search/restricted/article&OQ=_rQ3D1Q26resQ3DF70C1EFF385B0C708DDDA90994D94044 82&OP=1c592649Q2FQ25(otQ25-SJoQ5BXcQ25kJqQ5Bmm-WQ25Q5BQ5CkQ23SromQ5C)JokJoXQ25Q5BQ5CJSkCoQ3CmQ5BO 5Q23JcC)


"17,000 tons of material were processed daily."
Source (http://www.fbi.gov/page2/nov03/nyhs112703.htm)

All of this from dust?!

It's a foolish argument and I don't see how anyone can actually contend that everything turned into dust. Nor do I see how dust is inconsistent with the collapse of a skyscaper. Is there something I'm missing here? To the people using this argument, are you contending that the volume of dust indicates the use of explosives? If so, how much dust would you expect to result from a collapse if explosives were not used? How can you possibly compare, or make such a claim, without any scientific merit/comparitive information to back it? If you do have studies/research that makes any conclusions to this matter please present it, because I am not aware of any papers which scientifically concludes the amount of dust at ground zero was inconsistent with the explanation given by NIST. Thank you.

[chillzero]

Why do you believe that 9/11 heroes are infallible in their statements?

It's the essence of 'truth'. dontcha know? Every statement ever made must be truth, or lie. There is no 'mistaken'. There is no 'said while in shock'. There is no 'said by an unqualified person'. It's black and white and nothing in between.

It's demonstrated here beautifully by the insistence, despite photographic evidence to the contrary in this very thread, that the building turned to dust. When challenged, they complain about the fact that this statement has been called a lie... which they project to in turn mean that everyone who ever made such a statement is being called a liar. They ignore who said it, under what circumstances, and the more obvious matter of the fact it is untrue.

They ignore the fact that evidence clearly shows this statement is false, and so it doesn't matter who said it, or why, or when. The simple matter is, there was more than just dust at the WTC - even if you narrow it to just concrete. The preference is to get into an argument about "you call the heroes liars" when no one has explicitly said so: because most if us recognise that people exaggerate, or can be mistaken, or make poor choices of words when under stress or with mics shoved in their faces.

The point of the OP was to request that people stop perpetrating this lie. Because the fact of the matter is, that once you see the evidence and realise it's not the case that everything turned to dust, at that point, you are perpetuating a lie if you continue to claim otherwise. Unfortunately, some people prefer to push their own agenda regardless of facts. Even more unfortunate is the fact that this occurs repeatedly with so many other falsehoods that may begin innocently enough as mistakes, or miscalculated information, or through chinese whispers, or twisted context. Someone will always be there to ignore anything that happens afterward to clarify the truth of the matter, preferring to pretend outrage that someone is being called a liar, by implication, simply because they were wrong.

[Profanz]

All I'm getting from all these tantrums is that some people want to reserve the right to decide when someone is lying or someone is using a figure of speech. I claimed nothing more then the 9/11 hero. This is nothing more then yet another example of the flawed arguments of most around here when trying to have it both ways. Too bad for you not everyone lets you get away with it. wah wah wah

Oh yeah the WTC turned to dust.

[TheRedWorm]

Really, they turned to dust, you say? Completely, or only partially?

[chillzero]

All I'm getting from all these tantrums is ..<snip>.. wah wah wah
yup, I know tantrums when I see them.

Oh yeah the WTC turned to dust.
but still nothing to support your claim, I see?

[chillzero]

All I'm getting from all these tantrums is that some people want to reserve the right to decide when someone is lying or someone is using a figure of speech.
Then you should read more carefully.

This is nothing more then yet another example of the flawed arguments of most around here when trying to have it both ways.

And yet, the only proven dishonest person so far in this thread, was you.
Funny that.

[l0k0]

Profanz:
If the WTC complex did indeed "turn to dust" then how do you explain the photo evidence to the contrary?

How do you explain the cleanup?

-1,462,000 tons of debris had been received and processed
-35,000 tons of steel had been removed (165,000 tons were removed directly at Ground Zero)
Source (http://www.pandj.com/)

[Grizzly Bear]

Profanz:
If the WTC complex did indeed "turn to dust" then how do you explain the photo evidence to the contrary?

How do you explain the cleanup?

-1,462,000 tons of debris had been received and processed
-35,000 tons of steel had been removed (165,000 tons were removed directly at Ground Zero)
Source (http://www.pandj.com/)

Let's also not forget the damage to surrounding buildings:
http://s18.photobucket.com/albums/b108/janedoe444/ARG/Image140.jpg

Clearly something solid hit these...

[Redtail]

I wasn't the one who started a thread accusing people of lying without even remembering where some of these claims of the towers being turned to dust came from.

No, you're the one playing games with the event.

Now I pointed out that one of these claims came from a 9/11 hero.
Who was using hyperbole.

Now does the starter of this thread and his accusation also apply to the 9/11 hero?
No, because he was using hyperbole.

And how about you and your question about hyperbole?
That you're trying not to answer.

Yeah what about it?
...Answer it.

Why don't you ask 1337m4n?
Because, having read many of his posts, he does seem to recognize hyperbole when he sees it.

And don't you mean too ignorant?
Yeah I do. It's called a typo. It's similar to all of the missing commas in your post and using then instead of than.*

All I'm getting from all these tantrums is that some people want to reserve the right to decide when someone is lying or someone is using a figure of speech.
What I'm getting from that statement is that it never occurred to you that some of us are actually trained to do so. As an actor it's a big part of my job.


I claimed nothing more then the 9/11 hero.
Really? Who claimed that there was no dust? Granted I know your first post in this thread was a straw man, but still... (*don't you mean than?)

This is nothing more then yet another example of the flawed arguments of most around here when trying to have it both ways.Too bad for you not everyone lets you get away with it. wah wah wah
Wrong, wrong, and wrong, but thanks for proving my point of how this is a game to you.


Oh yeah the WTC turned to dust.
No it didn't.

[Tomblvd]

Never. They enjoy disrespecting the fallen heroes.

For anybody who missed it, theauthor started a new thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=115933) disrespecting a rescue worker for being in on the plot.

I'm guessing consistency isn't one of your strong points t.a.?

[DaN K. StAnLeY]

Never. They enjoy disrespecting the fallen heroes.

Yeah, we're the ones who claim they are in on it, right?

[DaN K. StAnLeY]

The World Trade Center turned to dust. Just ask firefighter and 9/11 hero Joseph Cassaliggi.


No, it didn't! Just ask EVERYONE ELSE that was there that day.

[BenBurch]

Is there NO lie a "truther" won't tell, NO fact that they won't ignore, NO innocent whose reputation they won't trash, NO fact or story they will not fabricate to maintain their "Official Fiction" of the events of 9/11?

[TheRedWorm]

Is there NO lie a "truther" won't tell, NO fact that they won't ignore, NO innocent whose reputation they won't trash, NO fact or story they will not fabricate to maintain their "Official Fiction" of the events of 9/11?



In a word, NO.

[pomeroo]

Oh yeah the WTC turned to dust.



Bzzzt!

Sorry, your answer is incorrect.

[BenBurch]

Bzzzt!

Sorry, your answer is incorrect.

I don't know which word I less want to hear again;

"Dustified"

or

"Mumia"

[1337m4n]

Profanz:

What is your comment on the OP photos?

Do you have any or are you just going to throw appeals to emotion at me?

Throw your pathetic "Hero Card" at me and you go on Ignore (I notice you have no problem about theauthor directly accusing a 9/11 hero of being "in on it", so your complaint is therefore not born out of any actual respect for said heros). That is a coward's tactic. How about addressing my OP instead of resorting to cowardly tactics.

[1337m4n]

And don't you mean too ignorant?

Don't you mean than:

Not anymore then this thread.

"Then" implies a relationship in time. "Than" is a comparison. Before you criticize other people's typos, learn actual grammar, otherwise you end up looking like what you are, i.e. an idiot.

[pomeroo]

I don't know which word I less want to hear again;

"Dustified"


or

"Mumia"



I'd be pleased to hear that Mumia was dustified.

[Sword_Of_Truth]

I'd be pleased to hear that Mumia was dustified.

So too would Maureen Faulkner, the widow of the police officer Mumia murdered.

Maybe then Mumias followers would stop bombarding her with hate mail and death threats.

[Tweeter]

Don't you mean than:



"Then" implies a relationship in time. "Than" is a comparison. Before you criticize other people's typos, learn actual grammar, otherwise you end up looking like what you are, i.e. an idiot.


The world trade center turned to dust!
The world trade center turned to dust!
The world trade center turned to dust!
The world trade center turned to dust!
http://www.militarypilots.org/WTC_DustVictim.jpg
^^Just ask that woman!^^
The world trade center turned to dust, idiot!
Don't personalize things with insults - attack the argument, not the person making the argument.

[Whiplash]

I don't know which word I less want to hear again;

"Dustified"

or

"Mumia"


How about pyroclastic?

3" rebar on 4' centers?

[Redtail]

The world trade center turned to dust!
The world trade center turned to dust!
The world trade center turned to dust!
The world trade center turned to dust!
http://www.militarypilots.org/WTC_DustVictim.jpg
^^Just ask that woman!^^
The world trade center turned to dust, idiot!

Those are really big dust motes in the OP then.

[pomeroo]

So too would Maureen Faulkner, the widow of the police officer Mumia murdered.

Maybe then Mumias followers would stop bombarding her with hate mail and death threats.


That poor woman's life has been turned into a living hell: first by the killer Mumia and then by the oh-so-compassionate multi-culti morons who have never shed a tear for a genuine victim.

[Sword_Of_Truth]

That poor woman's life has been turned into a living hell: first by the killer Mumia and then by the oh-so-compassionate multi-culti morons who have never shed a tear for a genuine victim.

Aye. :(

What is it about the religion of conspiracism that it seems to draw mostly self-righteous sociopathic ___holes as followers, regardless of the specific theory (in this case, the theory that "THEY" framed Mumia and somehow forced him to scream "I shot the mother @#$%er and I hope the mother @#$%er dies." in the hospital ER while he was getting his boo-boos band-aided in front of numerous witnesses)?

[pomeroo]

The world trade center turned to dust!
The world trade center turned to dust!
The world trade center turned to dust!
The world trade center turned to dust!
http://www.militarypilots.org/WTC_DustVictim.jpg
^^Just ask that woman!^^
The world trade center turned to dust, idiot!


Speaking of idiots, you are saying that the destruction of the Twin Towers produced a great volume of dust, therefore the buildings themselves were reduced entirely to dust. Logic is not your strong point, eh, kid? Incidentally, what is your strong point?

[beachnut]

The world trade center turned to dust!
The world trade center turned to dust!
...The world trade center turned to dust, idiot!
That is showing your unique analytical side.

[GregoryUrich]

Truthers take heed. Greg Jenkins, Tony Szamboti and I calculated 15% as an upper bound for the amount of concrete comminuted to dust. Greg Jenkins has shown that the lower bound for material falling inside the footprint was 65% and that no steel was dustified. See his article at Journal of 9/11 Studies.

[pomeroo]

Truthers take heed. Greg Jenkins, Tony Szamboti and I calculated 15% as an upper bound for the amount of concrete comminuted to dust. Greg Jenkins has shown that the lower bound for material falling inside the footprint was 65% and that no steel was dustified. See his article at Journal of 9/11 Studies.


"Tony Szamboti calculated..."???? Who can spot the error in this sentence?

[A W Smith]

Everyones forgetting that the spray on fire protection also crumbled to dust as well as the drywall. and also the cellulose ceiling tiles.

[GregoryUrich]

"Tony Szamboti calculated..."???? Who can spot the error in this sentence?

Pomeroo, that's very ungenerous of you. Here is an example of truthers providing results that refute common truther claims, and all you can do is cast aspersion. Shame on you.

[beachnut]

Truthers take heed. Greg Jenkins, Tony Szamboti and I calculated 15% as an upper bound for the amount of concrete comminuted to dust. Greg Jenkins has shown that the lower bound for material falling inside the footprint was 65% and that no steel was dustified. See his article at Journal of 9/11 Studies.
It is true, as you and other engineers in 9/11 truth (who have signed a petition which lies) gain engineering skills, you will refute all that is 9/11 truth!

[BenBurch]

I'd be pleased to hear that Mumia was dustified.

You and me both.