• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

WTC dust

Status
Not open for further replies.
WTC Dust said:
You don't think the WTC was turned almost entirely into dust.
This needs to be corrected, first.

Why should I do anything to convince you of HOW the dust appeared, when you are denying the dust?

You are still stuck on floors crashing down on one another. That is too far gone. You have too far to travel intellectually for me to bother.
Click to expand...

LOL. "I would tell you but you don't believe my other insane delusion, so I won't bother."

No, there is no reason for sane people to believe that the WTC, including the steel was turned entirely to dust. Seeing as how the idea is ridiculous and there is no evidence whatsoever in support of it.

You've got nothing.
 
Captain_Swoop said:
When the steel turned to dust was it still steel but in very tiny particles?

If it was still steel why don't we finf massive ammounts of steel in the dust?

If it stopped being steel when it was 'dustified' what did it become?
Click to expand...

Look at images of the WTC complex before WTC 2 went down. Then look at images of the WTC complex after WTC 2 went down.

DUST! Dust appeared where a building used to be. Nothing about a plane crash is capable of performing this feat. Jet fuel fires don't cause steel to become dust. Office fires don't, either.
 
WTC Dust said:
Look at images of the WTC complex before WTC 2 went down. Then look at images of the WTC complex after WTC 2 went down.

DUST! Dust appeared where a building used to be. Nothing about a plane crash is capable of performing this feat. Jet fuel fires don't cause steel to become dust. Office fires don't, either.
Click to expand...

Skyscrapers collapsing, however, do (create dust, not turn steel to dust; there is no reason to believe any steel turned to dust).

You're crazy.
 
The steel was not turned to dust. Got any evidence that there was a significant deficit of steel in the wreckage?
 
dtugg said:
LOL. "I would tell you but you don't believe my other insane delusion, so I won't bother."

No, there is no reason for sane people to believe that the WTC, including the steel was turned entirely to dust. Seeing as how the idea is ridiculous and there is no evidence whatsoever in support of it.

You've got nothing.
Click to expand...

Clairvoyance again. You need to get this checked out.

Watch the videos of 9/11. Look at the dust. The buildings started to become dust before any part of the buildings were moving. Therefore, floors crashing down on other floors did not cause the dust to appear.

Concrete floors couldn't even make the dust that appeared, even if they did crash down one on top of the other. Drop a concrete floor twelve feet, and some dust appears, but not much. Mostly chunks of concrete.

And the "concrete floor crasher" theory doesn't account for the steel beams that actually formed the strength of the WTC building. The theory sucks. It doesn't explain the damage seen at Ground Zero.
 
nvidiot said:
The steel was not turned to dust. Got any evidence that there was a significant deficit of steel in the wreckage?
Click to expand...

Yes. Look at the pictures of the recovery efforts. You will note that, where there were once huge buildings, there was a relatively short pile of debris.
 
WTC Dust said:
Clairvoyance again. You need to get this checked out.
Click to expand...

One doesn't need to be a pychic to know that only a complete nutjob would believe the crap you do.

Watch the videos of 9/11. Look at the dust. The buildings started to become dust before any part of the buildings were moving. Therefore, floors crashing down on other floors did not cause the dust to appear.
Click to expand...

Wrong.

Concrete floors couldn't even make the dust that appeared, even if they did crash down one on top of the other. Drop a concrete floor twelve feet, and some dust appears, but not much. Mostly chunks of concrete.

And the "concrete floor crasher" theory doesn't account for the steel beams that actually formed the strength of the WTC building. The theory sucks. It doesn't explain the damage seen at Ground Zero.
Click to expand...

Who says the dust came mostly from concrete?
 
dtugg said:
Skyscrapers collapsing, however, do (create dust, not turn steel to dust; there is no reason to believe any steel turned to dust).

You're crazy.
Click to expand...

Skyscrapers collapsing? Give me one other example.
 
WTC Dust said:
If you don't debunk the actual theory, it's not a debunking of the theory no matter how many words you use.
Click to expand...

Your theory aside, I specifically debunked claims you made, let's revisit them:
It doesn't look flat, but the pile appears to be very short. NOT what I expected to see on Day 3. They said that two huge buildings collapsed. I expected to see a pile of debris much taller than two stories, but nope. Very short pile, relative to street level.
...
Dust in large amounts spread all over lower Manhattan, and a pile of steel that isn't much taller than 2 stories tall.

[edit: A new one you made]
The steel of the World Trade Center became dust, almost entirely. [WTC Dust, you couldn't have made a more demonstrably untrue statement if you tried.]
Click to expand...

While your theory may or may not rest on these erronous claims, these grossly inaccurate statements were debunked here.

No dodging one-liner in return this time, please kind sir.
 
Last edited:
And just in case you missed it, how can you possibly state that there was "too much" dust generated in the collapse when you won't quantify how much there would have been if it was a "normal" collapse?

You are providing only assertion, not evidence. Show us some actual evidence of this "dustification by DEW" and we have something to work with.
 
WTC Dust said:
Yes. Look at the pictures of the recovery efforts. You will note that, where there were once huge buildings, there was a relatively short pile of debris.
Click to expand...

Yeah sure

tallrubblepile-1.jpg


WTC1debrispile.jpg
 
What did the steel turn into when it became dust? if it was still steel then many thousands of tons of steel would have been recovered as dust and could be remelted.

If it stopped being steel when it became dust what did it become?
WHAT DID THE IRON TURN INTO WHEN IT STOPPED BEING IRON?
 
It's odd, he's claimed that most steel turned to dust, but also that the steel didn't really turn into 'dust', but fumes. And now it's dust again. :confused:

WTC Dust, how can you not acknowledge the enormous piles, of hundreds of thousands of tons of steel making up for the vast majority of structural steel, visibly there. Seriously, it looked like the largest steel junkyard I've ever seen. You must realise that the idea most of it turned to dust, or into gaseous form, is ridiculous!?
 
WTC Dust said:
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.
Click to expand...


The conslusion doesn't follow from the premisses.

May I suggest you take this logic to a peer-reviewed engineering journal? "After collapse initiation, a dust cloud developed that quickly obstructed the actual collapse from view. We therefore have to conclude that the entire buildings where turned into dust, even though photographic post collapse evidence contradicts our conclusion." will fly very well.

Don't waste your time debating on obscure internet fora! Start writing that paper immediately! A career as in internationally highly esteemed civil engineer is very much on your path!

Good luck!

While you are at it, write a second paper that explains why steel framed buildings are inherently safe when it comes to commercial aircraft crashing into them. In this time of financial crisis such a breakthrough paper is more than welcome since it opens the prospect of reducing building cost, and will win you high esteem from not only the civil engineering community and the construction industry but also from the general public!
 
Last edited:
WTC Dust said:
You don't think the WTC was turned almost entirely into dust.
This needs to be corrected, first.

Why should I do anything to convince you of HOW the dust appeared, when you are denying the dust?

You are still stuck on floors crashing down on one another. That is too far gone. You have too far to travel intellectually for me to bother.
Click to expand...

Ah, an impasse. Looks like your theory gets stopped cold on an internet forum LONG before it could even be addressed in the halls of academia. Too bad. I'd have like to see you get pinned down about your little debate technique of invoking magic when you can't describe what could cause your fantasy.

Then this thread will get nowhere because the towers simply were NOT turned almost entirely into dust. You can believe that all you want, but the evidence is against you.
 
WTC Dust said:
Look at images of the WTC complex before WTC 2 went down. Then look at images of the WTC complex after WTC 2 went down.

DUST! Dust appeared where a building used to be. Nothing about a plane crash is capable of performing this feat. Jet fuel fires don't cause steel to become dust. Office fires don't, either.
Click to expand...

When buildings collapse they kick up a HUGE cloud of dust. Always.

I saw a building implosion when I was 12. The cloud of dust was many times bigger than the original building. And it wasn't caused by explosives; clearly the dust cloud was created when the debris hit the ground.

Furthermore, this was AFTER the building had been gutted, so none of the dust was from drywall or other potential sources that would have been present on 9/11.
 
aggle-rithm said:
Here is a link to info on the skyscraper that I saw collapse:

http://skyscraperpage.com/cities/?buildingID=71461

Granted, the density of concrete used would have been greater than that used in the WTC buildings. However, at 19 stories, the total amount of concrete to be "dustified" would have been much smaller.
Click to expand...

Believe it or not, I found a VIDEO!

It was actually destroyed in 1973, when I was ten.

http://www.encyclopedia.com/video/4RqcBiBc4fo-medical-arts-building-implosion-fort.aspx

One of the interesting things is that, in the wake of the collapse, there was a Medical-Arts-Building-shaped column of dust left in its place, exactly like the one left when the final interior columns of the WTC collapsed. This has been shown by truthers as evidence that the building was "dustified" by ray guns from space.

ETA: The collapse begins at about 1:30.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom