Density of concrete dust at WTC - A Question

[Horatius]

We've all seen the myriad assertions by people like our friend BS5678, that the concrete in the WTC towers was "pulverized" or "disintegrated". BS has on occassion mentioned that 99% of the concrete was pulverized.

I've been thinking for a while now that some simple calculations might put the lie to that assertion, but I haven't been able to find some numbers I need to make the calcs, and was hoping someone could point me to a source.

We've seen reports such as the EPA analysis (http://www.epa.gov/wtc/panel/pdfs/meeker-20041115.pdf#search=%22EPA%20particle%20WTC%20anal ysis%22) which characterizes the makeup of the dust found near Ground Zero, but there's no information on the average density of the dust. My thought is, we have good numbers for the area over which the dust was laid, and the thickness of the dust layer. If we had a good number for the density, we could get a rough estimate of the total mass of the dust, and compare it to the known mass of the Towers.

As anyone who's done brickwork can tell you, cutting bricks or concrete produces an unexpectedly large amount of dust for the volume of solid material you cut through. I'd expect the total amount of dust to be a surprisingly small percentage of the mass of the towers.

Unfortunately, the only sources I've been able to find quote the density of solid concrete. You'd expect the dust to be significantly lower density, but I don't know by how much. So, is there anyone out there who can point me to a good cite for the average density of concrete dust in general, or the dust of the WTC in particular?

Or do I have to break out the sledgehammer and scales?

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Not sure on density, but either that EPA study, or the other one I've cited (I'll send link if you need it) does discuss the average particle size in the samples broken down in ranges (based upon their sifting methods).

[rwguinn]

We've all seen the myriad assertions by people like our friend BS5678, that the concrete in the WTC towers was "pulverized" or "disintegrated". BS has on occassion mentioned that 99% of the concrete was pulverized.

I've been thinking for a while now that some simple calculations might put the lie to that assertion, but I haven't been able to find some numbers I need to make the calcs, and was hoping someone could point me to a source.

We've seen reports such as the EPA analysis (http://www.epa.gov/wtc/panel/pdfs/meeker-20041115.pdf#search=%22EPA%20particle%20WTC%20anal ysis%22) which characterizes the makeup of the dust found near Ground Zero, but there's no information on the average density of the dust. My thought is, we have good numbers for the area over which the dust was laid, and the thickness of the dust layer. If we had a good number for the density, we could get a rough estimate of the total mass of the dust, and compare it to the known mass of the Towers.

As anyone who's done brickwork can tell you, cutting bricks or concrete produces an unexpectedly large amount of dust for the volume of solid material you cut through. I'd expect the total amount of dust to be a surprisingly small percentage of the mass of the towers.

Unfortunately, the only sources I've been able to find quote the density of solid concrete. You'd expect the dust to be significantly lower density, but I don't know by how much. So, is there anyone out there who can point me to a good cite for the average density of concrete dust in general, or the dust of the WTC in particular?

Or do I have to break out the sledgehammer and scales?
well, density is weight/volume. So which state do you measure from? Compacted, after settling? Dispersed, just prior to settling, occupying the maximum volumein air? or somewhere in between.
Technically, the density of dust = the density of its original composition...

[Horatius]

Not sure on density, but either that EPA study, or the other one I've cited (I'll send link if you need it) does discuss the average particle size in the samples broken down in ranges (based upon their sifting methods).

Yes, but without knowing the packing fraction of the particles, any estimates we get would be just guesses,and thus not useful for convincing anyone who might be on the fence. I'm hoping for something a bit more reliable.

[Horatius]

well, density is weight/volume. So which state do you measure from? Compacted, after settling? Dispersed, just prior to settling, occupying the maximum volumein air? or somewhere in between.
Technically, the density of dust = the density of its original composition...

This is why I'm hoping someone at the scene actually measured some samples for density. Anyone who's ever sifted flour can tell you that the volume of a powder can change quite a bit depending on how packed it was. I'm hoping to get some sort of typical range of densities, so we could at least get a rough estimate of maximums and minimums that doesn't depend just on our hunches....

[Hellbound]

Yes, but without knowing the packing fraction of the particles, any estimates we get would be just guesses,and thus not useful for convincing anyone who might be on the fence. I'm hoping for something a bit more reliable.

Well, assuming a spherical shape and figuring packing density from there would give a good first approximation, I'd think. Some irtregualr shapes will fit together well, others won't...it seems that spheres might be a good "in-between" range to start with.

Heck, you could just do the calculation assuming a 100% efficient packing, just to see the absolute maximum that it could have been.

[Spektator]

I once saw an old house collapse, all on its own. It produced an astonishing cloud of thick, choking dust.

It was orders of magnitude smaller than the Twin Towers. The sheer volume of dust it produced, however, was impressive, rolling down a residential street and completely obscuring vision for ten or fifteen minutes before it began to settle.

Could the tower collapse produce dust along with tons and tons of macro debris? Certainly it could. In fact, it did.

[Horatius]

I once saw an old house collapse, all on its own. It produced an astonishing cloud of thick, choking dust.
...
Could the tower collapse produce dust along with tons and tons of macro debris? Certainly it could. In fact, it did.

Exactly. I'm hoping such a calculation might convince someone of that.

So many of these guys base all their arguments on intuition, it'd be nice if we could show them clearly that at least one intuitive belief is seriously flawed. It might lead them into questioning others.

Yeah, I know, wishfull thinking, right?

[Horatius]

Well, assuming a spherical shape and figuring packing density from there would give a good first approximation, I'd think. Some irtregualr shapes will fit together well, others won't...it seems that spheres might be a good "in-between" range to start with.

Heck, you could just do the calculation assuming a 100% efficient packing, just to see the absolute maximum that it could have been.

I may end up doing that. By 100%, do you mean the maximum packing fraction possible for spheres, or are you suggesting just treating it as solid concrete? Solid concrete would give us a pretty definite maximum, but isn't terribly realistic. You just know that'd be the one point the Troothies would keep harping on.

[Hellbound]

I may end up doing that. By 100%, do you mean the maximum packing fraction possible for spheres, or are you suggesting just treating it as solid concrete? Solid concrete would give us a pretty definite maximum, but isn't terribly realistic. You just know that'd be the one point the Troothies would keep harping on.

I meant treat it as solid concrete. Yes, it's unrealistic, but it's the absolute maximum possible of the ejected mass. I have a suspicion it would still be a small percentage of the WTC mass.

[defaultdotxbe]

I meant treat it as solid concrete. Yes, it's unrealistic, but it's the absolute maximum possible of the ejected mass. I have a suspicion it would still be a small percentage of the WTC mass.
that would be my suggestion too, if you take absolute maximum density and find it to be 1/10th the mass of concrete at the WTC thats pretty cut and dry

[Horatius]

I meant treat it as solid concrete. Yes, it's unrealistic, but it's the absolute maximum possible of the ejected mass. I have a suspicion it would still be a small percentage of the WTC mass.

Well, if I don't get any better numbers in the next few days, I'll try it with both the solid density, and a calculated density assuming spheres of the average size in the EPA report with various common packing fractions. It's not perfect, but may be better than nothing.

[Horatius]

Well, here it is....

Start with some numbers. Of course these numbers are subject to change based on improved info input by others. We need the volume of the dust layer, and the density of the concrete, as well as the fraction of the dust that was concrete.

From the above linked EPA document, they collected one sample (USGS 4, see fig. 2) from 0.8km away. This is the maximum they report, which seemed consistent with other numbers I found.

The thickness of the dust layer was variously described as a couple of inches, with one CT site saying up to 10 cm. I went with 5.1cm (~2 inches) as the thickness.

We need to decide on a "shape" of the layer of dust to determine the volume. The true shape would be quite difficult to determine what with shadowing effects of other buildings, so I decided to just assume a uniform circular deposition out to the 0.8km=800m range, with a uniform layer thickness of 5.1cm=0.051m. This is the "poker chip" model, which is essentially a very short cylinder.

Volume of a cylinder Vpc = pi R*R h with R=800m, h=0.051m, Vpc=102,538 cubic meters.

From the EPS report, the concrete dust made up between 19.3% and 30.5% of the dust layer, I used 25% as an average.

Assuming the density of the concrete dust was comparable to that of solid concrete, I used d = 2300 kg/m3.

Thus the mass of the concrete dust was Vpc(0.25)2300 = 58 959 350kg, round to 60 000 000 kg, or 60 000 metric tonnes.

It's unclear what the mass or volume of the concrete used in the towers was. One site listed 160 000 cubic meters for each tower, giving us 320 000 cubic meters in total. compared to Vpc(0.25) = 25, 634 cubic meters, we get about 8% of the total volume turned to dust.

Another site listed the mass as 600 000 tons (I think that's imperial, but they didn't specify). That converts to about 545 454 metric tonnes, or about 237 153 cubic meters. It's not clear if that number was for one tower or two, but in any case, it agrees to within an order of magnitude with the above value. If this is for both towers, the percentage turned to dust is about 11%, if it's just one tower, it would be half that, or 5-6%.


So we have between 5-11% of the concrete turned to dust.

Of course, changing some assumptions will alter that, but most of my assuptions were in favour of there being more mass in the dust layer rather than less. If we were to increase the volume by having a larger R or h value, this would up the mass. All other assumptions, if changed for more realistic assumptions, would lower it. A uniform cylindrical layer is almost certainly not the best model. If were were to assume a roughly ellipsoidal distribution, volume would be two thirds of Vpc, and a cone-shape would be one third of Vpc. Also, the density of the concrete dust will certainly be less than that of solid concrete. The EPA report seems to indicate that the dust particles were generally rectangular in cross section, and so would be expected to pack fairly loosely, which again lowers the final % number.

So, take that for what it's worth. Any corrections or comments are welcomed.

[Anti-sophist]

That paper incorrectly assumes there were 600,000 tons of concrete in each tower, but Russell later provided a more accurate estimate of 90,000 tons of concrete per tower,


From http://arkanwolfshade.spaces.live.com/blog/cns!9E151F6EB6C7A35D!304.entry (http://arkanwolfshade.spaces.live.com/blog/cns%219E151F6EB6C7A35D%21304.entry)

I don't believe that 90,000 is even remotely scientific either. I'm not sure there is a good estimate of how much concrete there was.

[rustytunes]

From my experience in civil engineering labs, I think if you worked on an average density of 1.600t/m3 for the loose concrete dust, you should be close enough. There are too many variables to put any kind of accurate figure on it, without doing lab tests on numerous samples of the actual material. The density of concrete say 25mPa is around 2.350t/m3, depending on the ingredients - aggregates, cement etc. Cement has an s/g of about 3.200. I would imagine that the WTC dust would include all sorts of particles, including masonry, mortar, etc etc.

[TruthSeeker1234]

Assuming your calcs are in the ballpark, this raises a great mystery. Whatever became of the other 95% of the concrete? It certainly isn't found at ground zero.
http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b108/janedoe444/trouble/21a_flattenedManhattan_1701.jpg

[eeyore1954]

Assuming your calcs are in the ballpark, this raises a great mystery. Whatever became of the other 95% of the concrete? It certainly isn't found at ground zero.
http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b108/janedoe444/trouble/21a_flattenedManhattan_1701.jpg


you can certainly tell from that picture taken a couple of thousand feet up. There are many pictures from ground zero that show lots of concrete and other materials. I sure you have seen them many times in the threads you have started. the rubble from any collapsed building I have ever seen is always a fraction of the total volume of the buildings. They are mostly air. That why we are able to walk around in them

[rwguinn]

Assuming your calcs are in the ballpark, this raises a great mystery. Whatever became of the other 95% of the concrete? It certainly isn't found at ground zero.
http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b108/janedoe444/trouble/21a_flattenedManhattan_1701.jpg

hey, boy!
That's some3 eyesight you got there, making out details atwo (rule8) ing miles distance
try those picture in the other thread, which you abandoned since you found out you were wrong--again...
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1974213#post1974213

and other places....

[Horatius]

From http://arkanwolfshade.spaces.live.com/blog/cns!9E151F6EB6C7A35D!304.entry (http://arkanwolfshade.spaces.live.com/blog/cns%219E151F6EB6C7A35D%21304.entry)

I don't believe that 90,000 is even remotely scientific either. I'm not sure there is a good estimate of how much concrete there was.


That 90,000 figure seems to be coming from the CTist who is being debunked. Without sourcing, we can't really rely on it. My first number came from http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2004/EricChen.shtml which seems to be a site that collects numbers from other sites for comparison. That's also where I got my numbers for the concrete density. http://hypertextbook.com/facts/1999/KatrinaJones.shtml

If the 90,000 figure is accurate, our % goes way up, but still not the 99+% some people have claimed. But again, this number is seriously out of whack with other estimates.

[Horatius]

From my experience in civil engineering labs, I think if you worked on an average density of 1.600t/m3 for the loose concrete dust, you should be close enough. There are too many variables to put any kind of accurate figure on it, without doing lab tests on numerous samples of the actual material. The density of concrete say 25mPa is around 2.350t/m3, depending on the ingredients - aggregates, cement etc. Cement has an s/g of about 3.200. I would imagine that the WTC dust would include all sorts of particles, including masonry, mortar, etc etc.

Now these are the sorts of numbers I was hoping to find! So, with your value of 1.600t/m3, we get a correction factor of 16/23 for the density value I used, or 0.69. This makes my final % range about 3.5%-7.6% of the original mass turned to dust, depending on what we determine the original mass to be.

ETA: for the underlined part, that's what the 0.25 factor covers. The report linked in the first post indicated the range of concrete dust as being between 19.3 and 30.5% of the total, so I used the midpoint of 25% to get a ballpark figure.

[Horatius]

Assuming your calcs are in the ballpark, this raises a great mystery. Whatever became of the other 95% of the concrete? It certainly isn't found at ground zero.
http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b108/janedoe444/trouble/21a_flattenedManhattan_1701.jpg

Well, perhaps my value of 2 inches (5 cm) for the thickness was off. All we'd need is to find a layer of dust somewhere between 18 and 26 inches deep, and we're all set.

So, any photos showing that? No? Okay. :(

[beachnut]

I've been thinking for a while now that some simple calculations might put the lie to that assertion, but I haven't been able to find some numbers I need to make the calcs, and was hoping someone could point me to a source.

Unfortunately, the only sources I've been able to find quote the density of solid concrete. You'd expect the dust to be significantly lower density, but I don't know by how much. So, is there anyone out there who can point me to a good cite for the average density of concrete dust in general, or the dust of the WTC in particular?

Or do I have to break out the sledgehammer and scales?

you also need to know the types of concrete used in the WTC, think most floors were light weight concrete mix, and some floors were different,

plus I know that the wall board was 1.5 inch thick in most of the central core for elevators and stairwells, besides the fire proofing, the fire proofing was all over, it was like cement and those other fire retarding spray on stuff, like vermiculite or

There would be tons and tons of wall board, it sure messes up the house when you hammer it off the walls.

if you are also looking at the requirements to turn the different material into dust

[uk_dave]

I think you've set yourself an impossible task.

:boxedin:

[Horatius]

We'll never know for sure. I'm just trying to get a rough estimate, so we can show the "99.99% turned to dust" folks that they're way off base. I'm still collecting new numbers for the thickness of the dust layers, and the density of the concrete and what not, so if you've got some input, I'd appreciate it.

The better our numbers are, the better we can make our estimates. Hopefully this will also show the CTists how a real estimate is done, as opposed to just pulling a number out of thin air and claiming it's "generous".

[defaultdotxbe]

you also need to know the types of concrete used in the WTC, think most floors were light weight concrete mix, and some floors were different,

plus I know that the wall board was 1.5 inch thick in most of the central core for elevators and stairwells, besides the fire proofing, the fire proofing was all over, it was like cement and those other fire retarding spray on stuff, like vermiculite or

There would be tons and tons of wall board, it sure messes up the house when you hammer it off the walls.

if you are also looking at the requirements to turn the different material into dust
i dont think we'll ever be able to say what percentage of the dust was concrete and what was wallbaord or ceiling tile, but assumign it was all concrete we can set a realitic(e) upper limit for powedered concrete

i might have a sack of cement in my garage, maybe i can mix some up and crush it to get some density numbers

[Horatius]

i dont think we'll ever be able to say what percentage of the dust was concrete and what was wallbaord or ceiling tile, but assumign it was all concrete we can set a realitic(e) upper limit for powedered concrete

i might have a sack of cement in my garage, maybe i can mix some up and crush it to get some density numbers

Actually, if you look at the study I got a lot of my numbers from (http://www.epa.gov/wtc/panel/pdfs/meeker-20041115.pdf#search=%22EPA%20particle%20WTC%20anal ysis%22), the make up of the dust is the one thing we know pretty well.

It's getting good numbers for the area of the layer and thickness of the layer that's the real trouble. I assumed a uniform circular layer in hopes of getting an upper bound on the amount of dust, but with some more input I'm hoping to improve that.

[uk_dave]

If you dig a hole in the ground and then put the earth back in, why do you always have more earth than there is hole?

Concrete is a dense material whereas dust (obviously) is not.

So even if you could, somehow, extrapolate the amount of concrete dust from all the other debris and dust created by the collapse, and even if you could account for the total area covered by dust and the thickness over this area (was any lost over the water?) and you came up with a grand total figure of cubic metres of concrete dust, the results would still be flawed because the initial measurements of debris would not take into account the density of the concrete you are comparing it to prior to the collapse.

And the CT'ers would ask how it is that when you dig a hole.....etc etc

:D

[gumboot]

Although not useful for calculations of concrete dust volume, I found using volcano data was a good way of illustrating how much dust can expand in cloud form...

Detailed stats on Volcanic material expelled coupled with ash plume stats demonstrates this really well - for example recent Ruapehu eruptions here in NZ expelled fairly small cubic volume of material, but the ash cloud spilled over hundreds of kilometers for weeks and weeks, continuously.

-Gumboot

[Horatius]

Although not useful for calculations of concrete dust volume, I found using volcano data was a good way of illustrating how much dust can expand in cloud form...

Detailed stats on Volcanic material expelled coupled with ash plume stats demonstrates this really well - for example recent Ruapehu eruptions here in NZ expelled fairly small cubic volume of material, but the ash cloud spilled over hundreds of kilometers for weeks and weeks, continuously.

-Gumboot

Do you have any links to this? It could be quite useful.

[Horatius]

So even if you could, somehow, extrapolate the amount of concrete dust from all the other debris and dust created by the collapse, and even if you could account for the total area covered by dust and the thickness over this area (was any lost over the water?) and you came up with a grand total figure of cubic metres of concrete dust, the results would still be flawed because the initial measurements of debris would not take into account the density of the concrete you are comparing it to prior to the collapse.

Well, I used the value for the density of concrete dust that was supplied here:

From my experience in civil engineering labs, I think if you worked on an average density of 1.600t/m3 for the loose concrete dust, you should be close enough. There are too many variables to put any kind of accurate figure on it, without doing lab tests on numerous samples of the actual material. The density of concrete say 25mPa is around 2.350t/m3, depending on the ingredients - aggregates, cement etc. Cement has an s/g of about 3.200. I would imagine that the WTC dust would include all sorts of particles, including masonry, mortar, etc etc.

An order of magnitude calculation like I'm attempting might not convince the hard-core troothers, but I'm hoping it can be one more piece of info to convince fence-sitters that the troothers aren't as knowledgable as they claim.

[gumboot]

Do you have any links to this? It could be quite useful.


Hopefully some of this helps:

MTU Entry on Ruapehu (http://www.geo.mtu.edu/volcanoes/new.zealand/ruapehu/) (lots of links!)

NIWA (National Insititute of Water and Atmospheric Research) site on modelling Volcanic Ash Dispersal (http://www.niwascience.co.nz/rc/atmos/ash/).

American Meteorological Society (http://ams.allenpress.com/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=10.1175%2F1520-0450(2001)040%3C0056:FIVADF%3E2.0.CO%3B2) article that references same NIWA research.

As example, the October 11 eruption lasted 4 hours, produced an ash column about 10km high, and expelled 0.1 km^3 of material (enough to cover 100,000km^2 with average thickness of 1mm).

The numbers all seem really big, but you don't appreciate HOW MUCH bigger until you see the WTC put into scale with Ruapehu - all of Lower Manhattan could comfortably sit inside Ruapehu's crater. So a column of ash 10km high, is a column the size of lower manhattan, 10km high, and getting wider at the top, continuously for 4 hours.

I've heard accounts of total WTC concrete being 400,000 cubic metres. Not sure if this is true. If it is, Oct 11 eruption = 250x total volume of WTC concrete.

Seems like it might all fit together? Not really. The 11 Oct ash cloud would EASILY be thousands and thousands of times the volume of the 9/11 dust clouds. And I do mean EASILY.

-Gumboot

[TruthSeeker1234]

Guys, can you see how silly your calculation must be? If 95% of the concrete survived, then where is it? THere should be 200 acre sized slabs somewhere. Certainly they would be visible in the arial photos.

Have you guys done the hi res hunt?

It's a beautiful hi res picture of ground zero. Very large. Been all over it. Can't find any floors. Anywhere.

Big file.

http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/wtc/images/wtc-photo.jpg

[gumboot]

Guys, can you see how silly your calculation must be? If 95% of the concrete survived, then where is it? THere should be 200 acre sized slabs somewhere. Certainly they would be visible in the arial photos.


And this explains why you have such absurd notions about 9/11.

-Gumboot

[stateofgrace]

I don't do calc TS, I leave it to those who can.

I just like to say your description of this photograph shows your total lack of compassion for this event.

You do realise this photograph shows the place where thousands of innocent people lost their lives?

Your continual gloating of this event borders on sickening. Beautiful is hardly a word that springs to mind. Maybe saddening, upsetting or even deeply moving.

I feel sorry for you.

[The_Fire]

In regards to BS5678:

How many sublevels did the towers have again?

[Skibum]

THere should be 200 acre sized slabs somewhere.

Aboslutely not. I wouldn't expect to find very many large pieces. A few here and there, but most of it would be broken up.

If you have the time, go pour yourself a slab of concrete, doesn't have to be an acre, 5x5 or maybe 10x10 4-6 inches thick. Now pick that slab up and drop it 12 feet onto another slab and see what happens. But wait we aren't done yet, pick up those pieces and drop them again, then again, then again, then again keep going 85 times or so.. Let us know what you find out (hint it won't be much).

When they say 95 percent of the concrete survived, they mean not dust. They aren't saying 95 percent went unbroken.

[Crazy Chainsaw]

Let us not forget that this is reinforced concrete, the enforcement is designed to hold the concrete together to prevent its separation.
However the steel when heated will expand at a different rate than the concrete itself, also fire can weaken concrete.
Then you have the effect of sonic damage the steel can actually ring inside the concrete from exposure to high energy impacts.
I wonder after all that why the thin concrete did not survive?

[Horatius]

Guys, can you see how silly your calculation must be? If 95% of the concrete survived, then where is it? THere should be 200 acre sized slabs somewhere. Certainly they would be visible in the arial photos.

And I'll ask you again, if your "99.99%" hypothesis is correct, where is the layer of dust 18-24 inches thick? It sure doesn't show up anywhere.

Even with a layer of dust 6-8 inches thick, as reported by jujigatami (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2042037#post2042037), the percentage of the Towers the observed dust layer accounts for is still only about 20-25% of the mass. That's assuming a uniform layer 6 inches deep, over an area about 800m in radius. I've had a few thoughts on why he reports such a thick layer when other reports didn't, but I haven't had time to sit down and put it all together in a coherent post yet.

So, once again, 20-25% is probably an upper limit, and a generous one at that.

Show me the dust!

[Belz...]

Assuming your calcs are in the ballpark, this raises a great mystery. Whatever became of the other 95% of the concrete? It certainly isn't found at ground zero.

Golly gosh! I must have vanished, then. No way could it be piled up on top of many floors of basement...

[Belz...]

Guys, can you see how silly your calculation must be? If 95% of the concrete survived, then where is it? THere should be 200 acre sized slabs somewhere. Certainly they would be visible in the arial photos. ]

:jaw-dropp

Not dust <> not broken.

[Hellbound]

Not to mention that "Truth-that-I-decided-on-before-I-claimed-to-be-a-"Seeker still seems unable to comprehend the sheer amount of energy that would be required to turn that much concrete to dust, whatever the method.

If explosives, it would have been utterly obvious to anyone within miles of the site that bombs went off...there'd be no hiding it. There would've been no hiding it in the building, for that matter. You'd end up with a few inches of C-4 layerd over every square inch of flooring on every floor of the building.

Using some Star-Wars type weapon you run into the same problem. Any directed energy weapon must have been far more than powerful enough to ionize the air it passed through, and would have produced a bright spear of plasma through the air (a flash similar to what lightning produces) and would have been followed by an enornmous boom as the air returned into that path (again, like thunder after lightning, but much, much, MUCH louder and more powerful). Heck, the outrushing air from such intense ionization and heating would have created a real pyroclastic flow, not just a dust cloud. Where's the melted rock, asphalt, and concrete? Any energy-based weapon would have produced a lot of slag, from both the steel and the concrete.

Sorry, it just doesn't make sense. There is no demolition scenario that makes sense outside of impacts and heat-weakened steel.

[Gravy]

Guys, can you see how silly your calculation must be? If 95% of the concrete survived, then where is it? THere should be 200 acre sized slabs somewhere. Certainly they would be visible in the arial photos.Are you feeling well? Last month you made the single stupidest post that I've ever seen on the internet. This is very close.

I wonder if you'll ever humor us and explain why you think there should be intact acre-sized slabs of 4" thick lightweight concrete in the rubble, concrete that was ten times thinner in relation to its width than a crepe (that's right, I measured some crepes.)

[gumboot]

Not to mention that "Truth-that-I-decided-on-before-I-claimed-to-be-a-"Seeker still seems unable to comprehend the sheer amount of energy that would be required to turn that much concrete to dust, whatever the method.


This is what I love about the Ninjas. Do we dismiss their ridiculous ideas out of hand?

No, we don't. Huntsman here has just considered the possibly of an ENERGY WEAPON and yet still the LC theory gets defeated by solid evidence.

-Gumboot

[Gravy]

This is what I love about the Ninjas. Do we dismiss their ridiculous ideas out of hand?

No, we don't. Huntsman here has just considered the possibly of an ENERGY WEAPON and yet still the LC theory gets defeated by solid evidence.

-GumbootI've always considered Huntsman to be an energy weapon.

[uk_dave]

I've always considered Huntsman to be an energy weapon.

After a beer and a curry

[Hellbound]

After a beer and a curry

You wanna see energy weapon, gimme a spicy bean and cheese burrito and a lighter...

:D

[uk_dave]

Yikes! :flamed:

[Horatius]

Jeez, I take an afternoon off posting and look what happens to my poor little thread :(

[Hellbound]

Jeez, I take an afternoon off posting and look what happens to my poor little thread :(

It was definately not a controlled demolition...

:D

[Horatius]

It was definately not a controlled demolition...

:D

Should I pull it then, or is that TMI?

[Gravy]

Should I pull it thenWhat do you think my mannequin-hand finger is for?