• 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.

Gage's next debate

Find the dust!

Christopher7 said:
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]Those pictures were taken weeks or months into the clean up after most of the dust had been removed.[FONT=&quot]

Show pictures taken during the first few days.

 [/FONT]
Click to expand...
Heres an array of images taken on september 21, 10 days after the attacks, So tell me Sarns, Where did "1,200,000 tons" of your dust go in ten days?


http://www.zombietime.com/wtc_9-13-2001/
 
Christopher7 said:
RJ Lee 2004 report
"The National Resources Defense Council (NRDC) report estimated more than 1.2 million tons of building materials were pulverized during the WTC Event including an estimated 300 to 400 tons of asbestos,35 mainly from insulation and from fireproofing."
Click to expand...


Wrong. More Than 1.2 tons collapsed (not "were pulverized") during the WTC Event.

The catastrophic structural collapse of the WTC resulted in coarse
fragmentation as well as fine particle dust generation including asbestos and
various chemicals of concern. The hazardous materials in the dust
originated from many common sources. The National Resources Defense
Council (NRDC) report estimated more than 1.2 million tons of building
materials collapsed during the WTC Event containing an estimated 300 to
400 tons of asbestos. (NRDC, 2002) Additionally, 50,000 personal computers
were destroyed, with each containing approximately 4 pounds of lead.
(NRDC, 2002) Additionally, thousands of fluorescent light bulbs, thousands
of light switches and other mercury-containing items were destroyed,
releasing thousands of grams of mercury into the surrounding environment.
These materials, properly contained and applied in their consumer products
and form, presented no particular environmental or health hazard. It was,
however, the pulverization of these items caused by the WTC collapse that
liberated and rendered them bio-accessible, thus creating an environmental
hazard.

http://web.archive.org/web/20060114124849/http://www.nyenvirolaw.org/WTC/130+Liberty+Street/Mike+Davis+LMDC+130+Liberty+Documents/Signature+of+WTC+dust/WTC+Dust+Signature.Composition+and+Morphology.Final.pdf
Click to expand...
 
A W Smith said:
Heres an array of images taken on september 21, 10 days after the attacks, So tell me Sarns, Where did "1,200,000 tons" of your dust go in ten days?
Click to expand...
All over lower Manhattan and under the steel on top. But I see voids so I'm going to concede the point.

However

The fires were put out as the building and everything in it was pulverized.

The pulverized combustible contents of the Trade Towers were mixed in with 1,200,000 tons of pulverized building material. The combustibles would smolder if heated sufficiently but would not burn because they were dispersed in noncombustible material.

gzexcavate5crop.jpg
 
Last edited:
Carlos said:
Wrong. More Than 1.2 tons collapsed (not "were pulverized") during the WTC Event.
Click to expand...

Carlos said:
more than 1.2 million tons of building materials collapsed during the WTC Event ... It was, however, the pulverization of these items caused by the WTC collapse that liberated and rendered them bio-accessible, thus creating an environmental hazard.

http://web.archive.org/web/200601141...logy.Final.pdf
Click to expand...


:rolleyes:

I think your bee suit might be impairing your brain function.
 
Last edited:
ergo said:
:rolleyes:

I think your bee suit might be impairing your brain function.
Click to expand...


You are acting just like a twoofer, and conveniently skipped the highlighted part.

The National Resources Defense
Council (NRDC) report estimated more than 1.2 million tons of building
materials collapsed during the WTC Event containing an estimated 300 to 400 tons of asbestos. (NRDC, 2002) Additionally, 50,000 personal computers were destroyed, with each containing approximately 4 pounds of lead. (NRDC, 2002) Additionally, thousands of fluorescent light bulbs, thousands of light switches and other mercury-containing items were destroyed, releasing thousands of grams of mercury into the surrounding environment. These materials, properly contained and applied in their consumer products and form, presented no particular environmental or health hazard. It was,
however, the pulverization of these items caused by the WTC collapse that liberated and rendered them bio-accessible, thus creating an environmental hazard.
Click to expand...


So, after reading the entire paragraph in the correct context, tell me, do you think that "pulverization of these items" refers to the all 1.2 million tons of debris or refers only to the items mentioned above (that created an environmental
hazard)?
 
Last edited:
Christopher7 said:
However

The fires were put out as the building and everything in it was pulverized.
Click to expand...


Vuelve el perro arrepentido
con sus orejas caidas
con el hocico partido
y con el rabo entre las patas

Vuelve el perro arrepentido
con sus orejas caidas
con el hocico partido
y con el rabo entre las patas

(El verso es repetido 44 veces)

Christopher7 said:
with 1,200,000 tons of pulverized building material.
Click to expand...


Not true.
 
:rolleyes:

How much was pulverized then, Carlos? And what is the point you're trying to make?
 
ergo said:
:rolleyes:

How much was pulverized then, Carlos? And what is the point you're trying to make?
Click to expand...


I do not know how much was pulverized, but there are no sources saying that this amount was 1.2 million tons, as Christopher7 are suggesting.

The source posted by him says 1.2 million tons of materials from WTC collapsed, it doesn't say 1.2 million tons were pulverized.
 
Last edited:
Carlos said:
So, after reading the entire paragraph in the correct context, tell me, do you think that "pulverization of these items" refers to the all 1.2 million tons of debris or refers only to the items mentioned above (that created an environmental hazard)?
Click to expand...
My bad. I am a contractor and "building materials" means materials used in construction so I stopped when I saw "building materials" and just copied that sentence. The NRDC does not differentiate between materials used in construction and the contents of the building.

This changes the math but not the point.

The noncombustible building materials used in the construction of the towers such as the concrete, drywall, insulation and glass were pulverized along with the noncombustible building contents like filing cabinets. There is no estimate of how much the combustible contents weighed that I know of so no accurate estimate of the proportions can be made. Sufice it to say that the dust in the debris piles contained far more noncombustible particles than combustible particles.

The combustible particles in the dust in the debris pile could not burn because they were mixed with a greater amount of noncombustible particles. If they could burn, the dust would have caught on fire.
 
Christopher7 said:
My bad. I am a contractor and "building materials" means materials used in construction so I stopped when I saw "building materials" and just copied that sentence. The NRDC does not differentiate between materials used in construction and the contents of the building.

This changes the math but not the point.

The noncombustible building materials used in the construction of the towers such as the concrete, drywall, insulation and glass were pulverized along with the noncombustible building contents like filing cabinets. There is no estimate of how much the combustible contents weighed that I know of so no accurate estimate of the proportions can be made. Sufice it to say that the dust in the debris piles contained far more noncombustible particles than combustible particles.

The combustible particles in the dust in the debris pile could not burn because they were mixed with a greater amount of noncombustible particles. If they could burn, the dust would have caught on fire.
Click to expand...
Is it your claim that if you mix non-combustibles with combustibles it renders to entire mixture non-combustible?


:confused:
 
DGM said:
Is it your claim that if you mix non-combustibles with combustibles it renders to entire mixture non-combustible? :confused:
Click to expand...
The mixture could not and did not burn on its own. If it could it would have done so.
 
Christopher7 said:
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]Those pictures were taken weeks or months into the clean up after most of the dust had been removed.[FONT=&quot]

Show pictures taken during the first few days.

 [/FONT]
Click to expand...
:confused:
So they were taken after the dust was removed, revealing things beneath that weren't literally pulverized to dust.

Does anybody have any idea how large the parking areas were beneath the towers? If I can recall from '93 (OOH!! Precedent) there's at least 5 levels of parking. Is that right? One would think 1,350' of steel and concrete landing on a bunch of cars and trucks would cause them to catch fire.

Cars that are made of aluminum which can easily account for the "molten metal" at the scene. Since there were no reports of molten metal prior to the collapses, is this not a viable theory?
 
Christopher7 said:
The mixture could not and did not burn on its own. If it could it would have done so.
Click to expand...

Then why do you twoofers keep hammering home the point that fires were still burning for weeks or months after - trying desperately to point to thermite?

How many contradictions can one movement have?
 
Christopher7 said:
Incorrect, the report says:
"The National Resources Defense Council (NRDC) report estimated more than 1.2 million tons of building materials were pulverized during the WTC Event including an estimated 300 to 400 tons of asbestos"

Pg 9 [pdf pg 10]
http://www.nyenvirolaw.org/WTC/130 ...DustSignature_ExpertReport.051304.1646.mp.pdf
Click to expand...


Well this another one say:

"The National Resources Defense
Council (NRDC) report estimated more than 1.2 million tons of building
materials collapsed during the WTC Event"

http://web.archive.org/web/20060114124849/http://www.nyenvirolaw.org/WTC/130+Liberty+Street/Mike+Davis+LMDC+130+Liberty+Documents/Signature+of+WTC+dust/WTC+Dust+Signature.Composition+and+Morphology.Final.pdf
 
NoahFence said:
:confused:
So they were taken after the dust was removed, revealing things beneath that weren't literally pulverized to dust.
Click to expand...
The things in the dust in that photo were pieces of steel.

At 1:26 "As time went by you realized that everything was pulverized. There were no desks, there were no phones. Maybe now and then you would find a fragment of something but basically, everything was just pulverized.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HCrin...layer_embedded

"You don't find a desk, you don't find a chair, you don't find a telephone, computer. The biggest piece of a telephone I found was half of a keypad"
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evid...eos/index.html

Does anybody have any idea how large the parking areas were beneath the towers? If I can recall from '93 (OOH!! Precedent) there's at least 5 levels of parking. Is that right? One would think 1,350' of steel and concrete landing on a bunch of cars and trucks would cause them to catch fire.
Click to expand...
That is possible but even if car's gas tanks were ruptured and a spark set them on fire, those fires would not burn long enough to heat the entire mass of eight or nine stories of debris and raise the surface temperature of the debris pile to 1376oF [747oC]

Cars that are made of aluminum which can easily account for the "molten metal" at the scene. Since there were no reports of molten metal prior to the collapses, is this not a viable theory?
Click to expand...
No. Molten aluminum appears silvery in daylight. Numerous qualified people like Peter Tully and Richard Riggs said there was molten steel. They would know that silvery molten metal would be aluminum.

Ground zero ironworkers on 9/11 anomalies
At 2:05
"The grapplers were pulling stuff out, big sections of iron that were literally on fire at the other end. They would hit the air and burst into flames."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HCrinZM9b2Q&feature=player_embedded
 
Christopher7 said:
That is possible but even if car's gas tanks were ruptured and a spark set them on fire, those fires would not burn long enough to heat the entire mass of eight or nine stories of debris and raise the surface temperature of the debris pile to 1376oF [747oC]
Click to expand...

The surface temp. of the pile was over 1,300 degrees? Why didn't the first responders melt or die from severe burns?

First responders were there within a matter of minutes and if I recall correctly, stayed for months.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom