Merged 9/11 CT subforum General Discussion Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
That's not 100,000 tons of structural steel we see.I doubt that it's even half that.
Click to expand...

So you admit you're just guessing?

If not...

What are you basing your calculations on?

Are you just looking at the steel on top of the huge pile?

How do you know how much steel isn't visible in the pile?

Are you just guessing or channelling for Heiwa?
 
Last edited:
bill smith said:
Tens of thousands of tons Mac. The concrete can be explained by the thermite and so can a lot of the steel. But look at the picture I posted ? That's not 100,000 tons of structural steel we see.I doubt that it's even half that.

This particular fesibility study has to be reverse-engineered.
Click to expand...

But how did you come to this conclusion? What does 100,000 tons of steel look like? How could one visually determine the total weight of a 3 dimensional pile, just from a few photos?

It's not enough just to believe that material is missing...there has to be a rational explanation to go along with the belief. An explanation that is both feasible and is compliant to all the physical evidence. If you believe debris is missing, but cannot offer an explanation as to how and why, then your belief doesn't pass the "feasibly test", and should be shelved along with the past beliefs that the truth movement no longer subscribes to.
 
Macgyver1968 said:
But how did you come to this conclusion? What does 100,000 tons of steel look like? How could one visually determine the total weight of a 3 dimensional pile, just from a few photos?

It's not enough just to believe that material is missing...there has to be a rational explanation to go along with the belief. An explanation that is both feasible and is compliant to all the physical evidence. If you believe debris is missing, but cannot offer an explanation as to how and why, then your belief doesn't pass the "feasibly test", and should be shelved along with the past beliefs that the truth movement no longer subscribes to.
Click to expand...

Dr. Frank Greening (an OCT scholar) calculates hat there was 120,000 tons of dust in the streets all over Manhatten after the collapses. That means 60,000 tons from each buillding. That's by far the most of the concrete. How do you reckon it was so finely pulverised ?
 
bill smith said:
Dr. Frank Greening (an OCT scholar) calculates hat there was 120,000 tons of dust in the streets all over Manhatten after the collapses. That means 60,000 tons from each buillding. That's by far the most of the concrete. How do you reckon it was so finely pulverised ?
Click to expand...
The dust is mostly insulation, fire protection, wall board, ceiling tiles; mostly.

You posted another lie, the dust is not mostly concrete; that is a lie.


The gravity collapse of the WTC was over 150 tons of TNT energy in each tower collapsing; the kinetic energy was equal to 150 TONS of TNT in each tower which is why WTC complex looks like it was bombed with 300 2000 pound bombs. Got physics?


The WTC was 95 percent air, when it fell the piles were 5 stories high; all of the WTC was on the ground in NYC except for the office contents that were burned and went up in smoke.
 
Last edited:
bill smith said:
Dr. Frank Greening (an OCT scholar) calculates hat there was 120,000 tons of dust in the streets all over Manhatten after the collapses. That means 60,000 tons from each buillding. That's by far the most of the concrete. How do you reckon it was so finely pulverised ?
Click to expand...

Most of the dust cloud was comprised of gypsum from the drywall, which is very easily pulverized. For the concrete dust that was in the cloud, from what I understand, the falling debris reached a speed of 114 mph towards the bottom of the tower. Many concrete floors striking another concrete floor at 114mph would have more than enough kinetic energy to cause some of the concrete to be turned to dust.
 
bill smith said:
Dr. Frank Greening (an OCT scholar) calculates hat there was 120,000 tons of dust in the streets all over Manhatten after the collapses. That means 60,000 tons from each buillding. That's by far the most of the concrete.
Click to expand...

Firemen at WTC on 9/11 said that much of the dust was ash from burning papers.

How do you reckon it was so finely pulverised ?
Click to expand...

Because you are looking at it via a 400x400x pixel window via YouTube.
 
I'm interested in physicists' evaluation of what would happen if thousands of tons of steel were rapidly (a) vaporized, or (b) fragmented into a fine powder.

Wouldn't iron vapor or diffused steel powder explode (conflagrate, not detonate, I would guess) in air? So that instead of the huge dust cloud that we saw, there would be a huge white-hot fireball instead?

If it were iron vapor (and it wasn't all consumed in an explosion), would it condense on nearby surfaces? Condense into droplets in the air?

I'd expect lots of iron oxide smoke and lots of iron oxide fallout.

Respectfully,
Myriad
 
Macgyver1968 said:
But how did you come to this conclusion? What does 100,000 tons of steel look like? How could one visually determine the total weight of a 3 dimensional pile, just from a few photos?

It's not enough just to believe that material is missing...there has to be a rational explanation to go along with the belief. An explanation that is both feasible and is compliant to all the physical evidence. If you believe debris is missing, but cannot offer an explanation as to how and why, then your belief doesn't pass the "feasibly test", and should be shelved along with the past beliefs that the truth movement no longer subscribes to.
Click to expand...

No...Observation comes first. Explanation comes second. But even if there is no explanation the observation still stands.
 
Last edited:
Myriad said:
I'm interested in physicists' evaluation of what would happen if thousands of tons of steel were rapidly (a) vaporized, or (b) fragmented into a fine powder.

Wouldn't iron vapor or diffused steel powder explode (conflagrate, not detonate, I would guess) in air? So that instead of the huge dust cloud that we saw, there would be a huge white-hot fireball instead?

If it were iron vapor (and it wasn't all consumed in an explosion), would it condense on nearby surfaces? Condense into droplets in the air?

I'd expect lots of iron oxide smoke and lots of iron oxide fallout.

Respectfully,
Myriad
Click to expand...

I'm guessing this is where bill is going with this.
 
bill smith said:
No...Obserrvation comes first. Explanation comes second. But even if there is no explanation the observation still stands.
Click to expand...

observation would lead you to believe that a lot of the dust is gypsum board (you know sheet rock, drywall, the thing you stare at when you claim you are doing "research") as was pointed out before and you skipped right over
its a lot of things
you cant comprehend the scope of these collapses or the amount of material in any sense
 
Last edited:
bill smith said:
No...Obserrvation comes first. Explanation comes second. But even if there is no explanation the observaton still stands.
Click to expand...

If the observation is incorrect, then it doesn't stand. Your whole basis that material is missing is based solely on your own opinion on how big the pile should have been, compared to how big is actually was. Since, as far as I know, you are not an expert in this matter, you are evaluating something with only a laymans knowledge of the subject. Your opinion does not constitute evidence that debris is missing. It's basically like trying to estimate the weight of a fat chick, when all you can see is their head. :)

Now if you posted something like this, then it would be different:

Bill: Mitch, here is a link to a official report of the total weight of the structures <link>. Here is a link to all the manifests from all of the companies that removed debris from ground zero and give the total tonnage removed. <link> Here is a link that estimates the total weight of the dust cloud. <link> If you will look at these documents and do the math, there is X amount of tons of debris missing from the pile.

Mitch: Now that is actual evidence to missing debris, thank you Bill.
 
Last edited:
Clearly, truthers have learned their investigative skills from George W. Bush.

He wanted to see WMDs in Iraq...so he saw WMDs in Iraq.

Truthers want to see thermite in the WTC dust...so that is what they see.
 
Macgyver1968 said:
Most of the dust cloud was comprised of gypsum from the drywall, which is very easily pulverized. For the concrete dust that was in the cloud, from what I understand, the falling debris reached a speed of 114 mph towards the bottom of the tower. Many concrete floors striking another concrete floor at 114mph would have more than enough kinetic energy to cause some of the concrete to be turned to dust.
Click to expand...

So the rest fell to the ground. Show me some pics then and I don't mean enough to make a rockery.
 
parky76 said:
Clearly, truthers have learned their investigative skills from George W. Bush.

He wanted to see WMDs in Iraq...so he saw WMDs in Iraq.

Truthers want to see thermite in the WTC dust...so that is what they see.
Click to expand...

...and that's what they empirically test for...and guess what ?....they find it in abundance.
 
bill smith said:
So the rest fell to the ground. Show me some pics then and I don't mean enough to make a rockery.
Click to expand...
A rockery. Why not a rookery?

You post lies and like delusions; and you prove it everyday.

How many more years before you figure out 911 as you are stuck on dust now and beam weapons due to your lack of knowledge in science?

It was a nuke in the basement that only vaporizes steel and concrete; wait, all the steel and concrete was found and carted to the dump.

NotMelted.jpg
Oops, this is not the concrete on the ground but it is an engineer studying the WTC steel. Oops, did you say the steel was quickly (8 months) shipped off before being studied? How many lies have you posted and you don't care as you press on and post bigger lies and dumber delusions.

No thermite was found on any steel! No thermite was used on 911 Jones made it up and he found rust and Al in the dust and he fooled you because you can't understand he is telling a lie.
 
Last edited:
bill smith said:
No...Observation comes first. Explanation comes second. But even if there is no explanation the observation still stands.
Click to expand...


Here is why the "pile" is nearly invisible in your photographs.
Do a little math;
A WTC tower was 1200 ft tall and 110 floors.

The concrete was 4 inches thick per floor. Round that up to 12 inches per floor for the truss supports, etc. That means 110 ft of "content".

If you suck all the air out of the towers, the resulting pile would be something more than 110 ft tall.

That's about 12 floors high, still within 210x210 footprint.

About 6 floors of that sunk into the basement.

Each tower was one acre in footprint in a plaza about 24 acres in size.

The debris was spread over 24 acres, for two towers, that's 12 times the footprint.​
 
Macgyver1968 said:
If the observation is incorrect, then it doesn't stand. Your whole basis that material is missing is based solely on your own opinion on how big the pile should have been, compared to how big is actually was. Since, as far as I know, you are not an expert in this matter, you are evaluating something with only a laymans knowledge of the subject. Your opinion does not constitute evidence that debris is missing. It's basically like trying to estimate the weight of a fat chick, when all you can see is their head. :)

Now if you posted something like this, then it would be different:

Bill: Mitch, here is a link to a official report of the total weight of the structures <link>. Here is a link to all the manifests from all of the companies that removed debris from ground zero and give the total tonnage removed. <link> Here is a link that estimates the total weight of the dust cloud. <link> If you will look at these documents and do the math, there is X amount of tons of debris missing from the pile.

Mitch: Now that is actual evidence to missing debris, thank you Bill.
Click to expand...

Why didn't you just say what they all say ? 'Where's your calculations' lol
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom