• 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.
triforcharity said:
As soon as I am motivated, I will do the core area. I just need the overall demensions......hint hint......
Click to expand...

Don't forget that most of the tenants had their office space partitioned and dry-walled off into separate offices. There were also many many glass walls installed throughout the buildings. (Several of my friends were in there 9/10/01 putting up "distraction tape" on these glass walls on several floors. Their decision to stay late and work overtime to complete the project ultimately saved their lives)

Pretty much everything except the steel is what caused the dust. WTC dust (I really would like to remove the ust in her name and switch it with ouche) doesn't seem to grasp that.
 
triforcharity said:
As soon as I am motivated, I will do the core area. I just need the overall demensions......hint hint......
Click to expand...

It's a tough assignment.

The perimeter columns were "covered" on 3 sides with drywall type material, and so the previous estimate is reasonably close.

However, the core columns were "covered" in all kinds of various materials. Planks, regular drywall, etc. and some were 2x thick. So you've gotta figure the distance around each column and multiply by 2, just for the "fire proofing" of the core columns.

Then add up all the small rooms on all the floors and the drywall used for those.........

Gives me a brain fart just thinking about it.

I think I once read an estimate for the number of tons of drywall used. Try finding that.
 
Seymour Butz said:
It's a tough assignment.

The perimeter columns were "covered" on 3 sides with drywall type material, and so the previous estimate is reasonably close.

However, the core columns were "covered" in all kinds of various materials. Planks, regular drywall, etc. and some were 2x thick. So you've gotta figure the distance around each column and multiply by 2, just for the "fire proofing" of the core columns.

Then add up all the small rooms on all the floors and the drywall used for those.........

Gives me a brain fart just thinking about it.

I think I once read an estimate for the number of tons of drywall used. Try finding that.
Click to expand...

That would be an appropriate task for a real research scientist to carry out..:rolleyes:
 
alienentity said:
That would be an appropriate task for a real research scientist to carry out..:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

****, just call me a research scientist then!! :D

Hey, look everyone, I am a research scientist!!

Anyway, Justin, You're absolutely correct. Office partitions would certainly add to that drywall count. But, there are too many variables, and not enough valid information. So, as such, I will not attempt to account for that.

HOWEVER, I do have access to the dimensions of the core and basically can extrapolate the amount of drywall that would be needed.


But, again, I am not really motivated to do that right now. I think 43,000 pieces is quite enough for WTC Dust to work with for now. We shall see what comes of it, if anything.
 
Last edited:
Hey Tri: It doesn't give you the number you're looking for, plus this person was trying for an estimate of just sulfur load in the Twin Towers. But Frank Greening made a stab at one quantification of the amount of sulfur from wallboard in his Sulfur paper (linked here: http://www.911myths.com/Sulfur.pdf). I don't know how he came up with this figure, but he gives an estimate of 20 kg per square meter of wallboard (I think he's referring to wallboard, and not simply the gypsum component, but I could be wrong). Anyway, he may have some figures in his paper that may be of use to you.
 
WTC Dust said:
You guys (mostly) are supposed to be pro-debunkers.

Since my theory is standing strong, why not subject it to
the best? This is actually why rhetorical tactics like
clairvoyance and name calling are insufficient. I actually
want a debunking of my theory.

Does anybody know what I'm talking about, yet?
Enough to debunk it?
Click to expand...

Can you explain what we are seeing in the attached video in terms of the Judy Woods/John Hutchinson theories ?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-dWBBEtA5bI&NR=1
 
Last edited:
WTC Dust said:
I say that the fumes were very fine dust that came from the buildings.

If you think an airplane crash can do this, then it's really up to you to show how this could happen.

Nothing, and I mean NOTHING, about an airplane crash is sufficient to turn the WTC into dust. Even the resulting fires that would have happened are not capable of doing this.
Click to expand...

Again, the WTC didn't turn even remotely "mostly" to dust. Why do you keep dodging that? This is obvious for anyone watching the pictures and footage of Ground Zero up until it was cleared of all the debris forming those enormous piles.

How can you possibly reconcile piles of steel, many many times the size you had assumed, with your ideas? You can't, so you ignore one of the most observable and demonstrable facts. I, personally, think that is truly an odd way of going about it.

Why do you assume the exact opposite of what is reality to be true?
 
Jono said:
Again, the WTC didn't turn even remotely "mostly" to dust. Why do you keep dodging that? This is obvious for anyone watching the pictures and footage of Ground Zero up until it was cleared of all the debris forming those enormous piles.

How can you possibly reconcile piles of steel, many many times the size you had assumed, with your ideas? You can't, so you ignore one of the most observable and demonstrable facts. I, personally, think that is truly an odd way of going about it.

Why do you assume the exact opposite of what is reality to be true?
Click to expand...

There were more than 10 miles of massive core columns above ground level. These were fixed in the centre of the footprint of WTC1 so they should still be there in the footprint after the collapse. They are not. (Large zoomable photo available)
 
Last edited:
Bill Smith, do you think they were 'dustified' by a DEW weapon?

If they weren't where do you think they went if you say they aren't there?
 
triforcharity said:
They're there. Bill Smith just has those "Stupidity Goggles" that he wears all the time.
Click to expand...

Shall we count together Tri ? One-two-three.....maybe twenty or thirty all told. Call it 100 x 30 foot sections......But there should be about 1,750 of them..

Want to see the photo ?
 
What about the 'shipping the steel to China' business ? A childish attempt to persuade people that the noticably missing steel had already been removed. They even had to ignore the normal bounds of respect for the dead and common decency to try that one on.
 
This picture?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f5/Wtc-photo.jpg

They're there. Take the stupidity goggles off.

Some of them are here too.

FEMAphoto_WTC-349.jpg


And here

3columns.jpg


I can do this all day long.
 
Bill Smith. for once will you give us a clue. What do you think happened to the columns and the steel?
Do you think it all somehow disappeared from ground zero in the collapse either by 'dustificastion' or some other as yet undescribed method? That is other than being removed on large lorries over the weeks and months of the clearup.

Or, do you yink it was there in a pile as shown in the photographs and tv footage that documented the months long clear up of the site?

This shouldn't be too hard to answer, it's not as if the reasons for the collapse of the towers effects the aftermath. 'truthers' and 'debunkers' both agree that the buildings collapsed after all.
 
Last edited:
Captain_Swoop said:
Bill Smith. for once will you give us a clue. What do you think happened to the columns and the steel?
Do you think it all somehow disappeared from ground zero in the collapse either by 'dustificastion' or some other as yet undescribed method? That is other than being removed on large lorries over the weeks and months of the clearup.

Or, do you yink it was there in a pile as shown in the photographs and tv footage that documented the months long clear up of the site?

This shouldn't be too hard to answer, it's not as if the reasons for the collapse of the towers effects the aftermath. 'truthers' and 'debunkers' both agree that the buildings collapsed after all.
Click to expand...

Whatever the answer is it involves a hell of a lot of missing steel. That is not in dispute and is enough to show that something exotic was happening to cause the steel to disapppear from view.

Now we are trying to narrow down what the cause might have been.
 
bill smith said:
Whatever the answer is it involves a hell of a lot of missing steel. That is not in dispute and is enough to show that something exotic was happening to cause the steel to disapppear from view.

Now we are trying to narrow down what the cause might have been.
Click to expand...
You have delusions. I recommend some basic science classes to cure your ignorance on subject matter needed to cure your propensity to spew lies and delusions about 911. You have no clue what the equation for kinetic energy is, and you can't help this woman with her idiotic delusions.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom