WTC dust

[triforcharity]

You must be joking. Burning plant material isn't orange, anyway.

It most certainly can. But hey, whatever makes you sleep better at night....

 

[triforcharity]

BUSTED YA, TRIFORCHARITY!!!!

The PATH train stations were not destroyed.

The PATH trains terminated underneath the WTC Towers, with transfers to the MTA for NY riders.


Really? So they were up and running the next day? How about a week later? A month? Try this. 2 YEARS later! November 19th, 2003.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/sept11/2003-11-19-wtc-subway_x.htm

So, what were you saying?

 

[Andy_Ross]

Well, if you will insist on quoting Facts and supplying evidence ...

 

[The Big Dog]

Is this thread still going?

The one in which the original poster claimed that "steel" was reduced to elemental dust?

That **** was HILARIOUS!

 

[WTC Dust]

Well, let us rephrase the question: how do you know the dust had been steel?

Because of two reasons.

1. Nothing about an airplane crash is sufficient to destroy a steel building.
2. Dust appeared where a steel building was moments before, at least 3 times on 9/11.

 

[WTC Dust]

Nevertheless, overall, there would be anomalously large amounts of iron. If you want to show your hypothesis to be correct, you should show how the data taken is consistent with your hypothesis. Not one or two samples, but all the data available.

You are making restrictions that I don't agree with. For instance, there was a heavy amount of fumes. If the dust that had previously been steel had left NYC in those fumes, the proportions of iron in the dust might be different if you scooped stuff off of the ground.

Unless you know of a paper I haven't found yet, nobody sampled the fumes that went high up into the atmosphere.

 

[twinstead]

Why on Earth would anybody "sample the fumes that went high up into the atmosphere"?

 

[twinstead]

Because of two reasons.

1. Nothing about an airplane crash is sufficient to destroy a steel building.
2. Dust appeared where a steel building was moments before, at least 3 times on 9/11.

1. Airplane crash AND huge, unfaught fires, you mean, right? You are in the abject minority opinion about this. What exactly are your qualifications again?
2. and that dust temporarily hid hundreds of tons of intact steel, until of course it cleared and the steel could be salvaged.

 

[dtugg]

Because of two reasons.

1. Nothing about an airplane crash is sufficient to destroy a steel building.

Agreed. Fire was also necessary.

2. Dust appeared where a steel building was moments before, at least 3 times on 9/11.

Yeah, so? There was tons of stuff in the buildings that sane people recognize can turn to dust much easier than steel.


You have come nowhere near proving that any steel whatsoever was dustified. You fail, nutjob.

 

[WTC Dust]

God, this is idiotic. Of course the collapses kicked out a load of dust. Of course that's all you can see after a while, because you can't see through the dust to what's inside it.

Now look at the photos taken after the dust settled. Scene 3: Huge girders lying around everywhere with lumps of concrete all around them. Your theory, whatever bizarre fantasy it may turn out to be, is trivially refuted.

Dave

Nope. You're wrong. Dust appeared before the building was moving fast. At the moment the building began to fail, dust appeared in large amounts. Floors crashing down on one another would have had very little kinetic energy at that point.

The lobby of my apartment building filled up with dust and fumes before any of the WTC buildings were destroyed. Concrete floors crashing down has nothing to do with it.

 

[dtugg]

Nope. You're wrong. Dust appeared before the building was moving fast. At the moment the building began to fail, dust appeared in large amounts. Floors crashing down on one another would have had very little kinetic energy at that point.

The lobby of my apartment building filled up with dust and fumes before any of the WTC buildings were destroyed. Concrete floors crashing down has nothing to do with it.

Wait so you think that the steel in the WTC was dustifed before the buildings were destroyed? I think that idea might be even crazier than the idea that some imaginary beam weapon was used to destroy the WTC.

 

[WTC Dust]

Now I'm confused. WTC Dust are you claiming that the very presence of dust is evidence the buildings were 'dustified'? How much dust from other sources besides 'dustified steel' did you expect to see when they collapsed compared to what was observed?

I don't understand the question.

 

[triforcharity]

There were some tall pieces. You saw these pieces. Do you have documentary evidence about the amount of steel removed? By this I mean something more than verbal testimony.

In fact we do. From the company who supervised Fresh Kills where all the steel was brought.

The company is Phillips and Jordan’s out of Zephyrhills, Florida.

165,000 tons of steel.

See here.

http://911depository.info/PDFs/Othe...nc - World Trade Center Forensic Recovery.pdf

 

[triforcharity]

This is the false story that you are working with.

Well, lets see. Before collapse, no massive amounts of dust. After, there it is, spread all over lower Manhattan.

You don't need to be Sherlock to figure that out....

 

[WTC Dust]

Ignorance bothers me too. Why do you claim to understand how the towers were built and then make a post like this? It show very clearly you don't know what your talking about.

I hope you aren't saying that the Twin Towers were built in such a way that they had no resistance to horizontal forces. This would be stupid. Hurricanes happen, and those buildings withstood many storms during their years, although not a direct hit from a hurricane.

Wind presses against a building horizontally. Of course the Twin Towers were built with strong resistance to horizontal forces. To say anything else is bizarre.

 

[WTC Dust]

The PATH trains terminated underneath the WTC Towers, with transfers to the MTA for NY riders.


Really? So they were up and running the next day? How about a week later? A month? Try this. 2 YEARS later! November 19th, 2003.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/sept11/2003-11-19-wtc-subway_x.htm

So, what were you saying?

The PATH train stations were damaged, but not destroyed.

 

[WTC Dust]

So is it steel dust or has it turned itno some other kind of dust?

What is the dust composed of if not steel?

Steel is a very specific thing. I do not claim the dust was steel. The steel of the World Trade Center became dust, almost entirely.

There were some pieces of the steel that used to be the WTC left over after the attacks, but most of the steel went away from the scene. It became a strange sort of dust. The dust itself isn't steel. It used to be steel, and concrete, and other things.

They didn't recover any toilets from the WTC, so the dust was partly ceramic material, but I wouldn't call it "toilet dust".

 

[dtugg]

The steel of the World Trade Center became dust, almost entirely.

Unless you provide evidence, no sane person in the world is going to believe you.

 

[triforcharity]

I would ---
Why don't these FEMA evidence photos you post have any time-stamps ?

This is essential and the FEMA stills are considered evidence.
Where are the FEMA pictures with time-stamps and date-stamps ? Is the entire set of FEMA WTC
photos and videos online ? The citizens are conducting a murder treason investigation.




Where you located when you witnessed the WTC 2 flying object?
What exactly did you eyewitness on 911 Tri ?

I cannot answer the FEMA question, as I do not work for FEMA.

Yes, I was located when I witnessed the plane impact WTC 2.

Two plane crashing into two buildings, and then watching them collapse.

Your point?

 

[triforcharity]

The PATH train stations were damaged, but not destroyed.

Were they operational? Did they have to tear them down, and reconstruct them?

Then I would say destroyed. But hey, semantics and all......