Many here feel the Towers fell from implosion

[Torn_Scorned_Ignored]

and the debunkers believe the OCT.

Either theory does not answer a question I have.

WHAT caused the dustification? What caused steel to turn to dust before our eyes?

And when you post an answer please provide some other non related 9/11 examples with links.



This photo, #26 is an example of this dustification, a zoom tool is provided.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/282415/Military-photos-of-the-Twin-Towers

[HannibalCards]

1. The answer to your question is Nothing.

Nothing caused 'dustification'. The steel did not turn to dust.

[Torn_Scorned_Ignored]

2. excuse me?

did you even look at the photo?

AND,

what do you say to the many witnesses who say everything VAPORIZED?

I'm not here to argue or debate 9/11. All I want to know is what caused the dustification.

AND, I'm putting you on my lengthy Ignore list. RFN.

So don't bother replying to me personally. EVER.

[hack89]

5. Do you have any clue just how many tons of high explosive you are talking about?

why do you think it is remotely plausible?

[OnTheOtherHand]

6. what witnesses are those?

Sure as hell not my FDNY brother-in-law who spent days at ground zero looking for people to rescue. Have you heard of "the pile"? Did you think it was a pile of nothing but dust?

How do you think anyone could tell from that photo whether everything vaporized?

:banghead:

[HannibalCards]

7. Sure did

To the witnesses who say everything vaporized (which you failed to cite) I say; "No, it didn't."

I told you already what caused 'dustification' - Nothing.

Since I'm on your ignore list forever you won't see the answer to your question. That's sad.

[hack89]

3. Here is a WTC dust analysis - show me all the steel.

while you are at it - show me all the explosive residue.

Also note all the other things that could explain all the dust.

http://www.nyenvirolaw.org/WTC/130%20Liberty%20Street/Mike%20Davis%20LMDC%20130%20Liberty%20Documents/Signature%20of%20WTC%20dust/WTCDustSignature_ExpertReport.051304.1646.mp.pdf

[LARED]

4. The dustification was needed

on such a massive scale because the pixie dust union had been on strike for over 9 months and there was a critical shortage. Fairies were in dire condition because as everyone knows a fairy without pixie dust is just about useless and after about a month they wither up and die (Not a pretty sight if you know what I mean).

It was deemed the only way to "farm" pixie dust on large scale to avert a crisis.

[Ohio Joe]

8. What makes you think the dust consists of the steel?

You do realize the towers were made of and contained other materials that would explain the dust besides steel... don't you?

[Torn_Scorned_Ignored]

9. Ohio Joe

I haven't researched what the towers were made of. You however didn't answer my question either.

BTW, you are the only one on this thread that I'm able to see.

I apparently ignored the others a long time ago or the same person is attempting to argue with me. :rofl:

[SDuderstadt]

10. If you put them on ignore simply because they don't agree with you...

how do you expect to learn anything?

[Ohio Joe]

11. Well...

I have never heard of anything that would turn steel to dust as in the picture you requested be looked at... or any of the other pictures. I do know though that there were plenty of other materials in the towers that would account for the dust so... I'll ask you, why do you think the dust is from steel?

[Torn_Scorned_Ignored]

12. I do not think ALL the dust is from steel

nor am I a truther or a no planer. I do have questions about some of the evidence and some of the aftermath.

I occasionally post these in this forum. The problem with this is I never really get any answers from either side of the isle. The debunker's usually come out en-mass to argue the point with me - and I'm not going to feed them, thus the Ignore feature.

For instance, why would you imply I thought all the dust came from the steel?
Of course it's pulverized concrete and other material.

I read a post of yours here a while ago about your family living in Jersey and the personal connection you have to the event on 9/11. This is one reason I haven't made a decision to disregard your posts here via ignore. But please do not read more into my writing than what is there.

I do believe there was a form of dustification regarding the steel. I don't have lying eyes.
I have also seen satelight photos of the area and must ask myself the same question the author of that site asked their self, where is all the steel? Where is all of 220 stories of steel?

What I wonder is - what caused the vaporization or dustification of so much steel.

Implosions leave the steel on the ground. Fire does not cause steel buildings to collapse and vaporize - you can argue that point if you wish, just not with me because I'm not interested and you likely do not have the expertise to make that point.

[SDuderstadt]

13. Jesus...

you and this other person think the steel "dustified" or "vaporized" because you don't think the debris pile was deep enough? Do you think either of the Towers were just sitting on level ground? Does it occur to you that the Towers had large open areas below them?

[Neily]

116. Which begs another question...

lol. I will sit and wait for the backlash on that one dude... :) But you know I love ya :)

[SDuderstadt]

117. Send me a picture....

clothing optional...

[Neily]

119. I was begging the question of the hole you referenced... n/t

[SDuderstadt]

120. And I was asking for your picture....

seeing as how you love me and all.

[Neily]

121. Too Funny

You edited it to add the clothing optional part... now it makes sense... lol

Wait we are just in the courting stage... no photos yet my dear...

On the other hand, I am sure I will piss you off soon enough that you will regret this post... he he

(note: J/K in all of this... regardless I have respect for you)

[SDuderstadt]

122. Slow down....

do you always move this fast??

[Neily]

123. You do serve a purpose here afer all...

Comic relief :)

[SDuderstadt]

124. I'll bet you say that to all the boys....

you should come over to our side...we have better senses of humor.

[Neily]

125. If you only knew... n/t

[SDuderstadt]

126. Well, you DO talk in your sleep....n/t

[Neily]

127. Actually I do...

And it makes no sense or so I have heard... but we are way of the OT...

anyway...

[SDuderstadt]

128. Who cares if we're off-topic.....

So, hypothetically, if we were to get married and have kids, would you insist they be raised as "truthers"? The other option would to wait until they are old enough, have them watch "Loose Change" and read the NIST report, then make up their own minds.

As far as talking in your sleep, your secrets are safe with me. I also emphatically deny that I have ever tape-recorded your monologues.

[Neily]

129. hmm I think I would treat them the same...

when it comes to 9/11 as it does with many, if not all other topics... I would encourage them to make their own decisions. But, I would encourage them to never use mainstream media as a basis for their beliefs...

I think that is safe for pretty much every topic... Do independent research... or find independent research, then decide.

Although I am huge on playing devil's advocate and would likely find myself arguing all sides of the issue of 9/11 to remind them that no question is a bad question and no answer is definitive.

[SDuderstadt]

130. Okay...

I will forward you a list of proposed marriage dates. You can check off the date you want, but make sure you give yourself time for anything you need to do beforehand. For example, if you are currently married, you'd need time to arrange a divorce. I'd need time to prepare the pre-nup. You'd need to begin pulling your dowry together, etc.

There's a question I forgot to ask. Would this be considered a "mixed relationship"? Would I have to convert or anything?

I'll send the draft of the pre-nup over shortly.

[Neily]

131. Yeah... I am too demanding..

I dont think you could live up to my demands...

[SDuderstadt]

132. Alright...that does it...

no goodnight kiss for you!

[Torn_Scorned_Ignored]

136. What do you think about this?

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2004/10/04/MNGM393GPK1.DTL

Air Force pursuing antimatter weapons
Program was touted publicly, then came official gag order

[Ohio Joe]

14. Well...

"For instance, why would you imply I thought all the dust came from the steel?"

Just how I read your post, you mentioned steel but nothing else so I thought that you thought the entire cloud was steel dust. I was wrong, no biggie. I think I understand your question better now... not completely but better. What I am still not getting though is why you think any steel would have been turned to dust? According to this article:

http://911research.wtc7.net/cache/wtc/groundzero/china_baosteel.htm

"Dealers estimated that the WTC disaster created more than 300,000 tons of scrap metal."

I'm sorry but looking at the pictures and reading your posts, I'm not getting why you think steel was turned to dust (and I have the impression you think it was a large amount of steel, correct me if I'm wrong).

[Torn_Scorned_Ignored]

16. perspective

http://www.jobmonkey.com/oilindustry/html/oil_tankers.html

[KDLarsen]

17. What perspective?

Comparing oil tankers, which are usually quite large, quite sturdy and overbuilt in the name of safety, to a pair of office buildings, has got to be one of the more amusing things I've seen.

[Ohio Joe]

18. I don't get it

Could you please answer me in a straight forward manner that tells me why you think the steel was turned to dust?

[Torn_Scorned_Ignored]

24. Look

Notice the Beam in this pic

Right in front of my lyin eyes

[KDLarsen]

25. Looking at the last picture

It loosk more like the beam realises that there's nothing holding it up and it then collapses. Also, the pictures were taken at different angles.

[Ohio Joe]

57. Bottom line... I have no answer for you

Even if I were to share your opinion on what you believe the pictures to show (which I don't), I am unaware of any way to turn steel to dust on such a grand scale and so quickly. No nuke would do it, no thermite/thermate, no explosives, no laser beams... I am not even aware of any scientific theories that might be the basis for a weapon that might be capable of doing such a thing.

[Torn_Scorned_Ignored]

58. I pretty much agree with you

That's what I'm asking in simple english,

What kind of Weapon would do such a thing.

Thanks Ohio Joe.

[Bolo Boffin]

61. What kind of weapon can get past the Easter Bunny's defenses?

That's the type of question you're asking.

[BeFree]

67. WTF?

Easter bunny? WTF?

[Bolo Boffin]

69. As long as we are discussing questions with no basis in reality...

why not discuss the Easter Bunny? You got something against the Easter Bunny?

[BeFree]

70. heh

If the bush admin is the Easter bunny then you are being real.
Real to yourself anyway, but methinks everyone else sees through your fallacy.

Are the pics fake? Start there.

[Bolo Boffin]

74. Oh, bruddah.

The Bush Administration was real. The Easter Bunny is not. So your statement:

"If the bush admin is the Easter bunny then you are being real."

...lacks all kinds of sense.

The pictures are real. The interpretation of dustification is ludicrous. It's on a par with discussing the defenses of the Easter Bunny as he goes hop-hop-hopping along.

[BeFree]

91. Yeah, too real

But you asked: " What kind of weapon can get past the Easter Bunny's defenses?"

Weapons got past the bush admin and you talk about weapons getting past the bunny, so you can see how I would attach you to the butt of both.

Heh, just making fun with you bolo. I've missed that. I'm back from vacation.

[SDuderstadt]

92. When is your next "vacation", dude?

Just wondering.

[Name removed]

93. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Neily]

118. Easy or not so easy answer to your question....

compare that number to the tonnage of steel used in the construction and see if it is relatively similar... That should give you an idea if any steel vaporized or was turned to dust...

In reading the wiki, I don't see the amount of steel in a quick scan, but I am sure the data is available.

[Torn_Scorned_Ignored]

135. 200,000 tons of steel

http://www.infoplease.com/spot/wtc1.html

[Torn_Scorned_Ignored]

141. Although he is talking about Scrap Metal

[Neily]

147. True

didn't think about the vehicles...

[Mist]

79. It seems to me that simply falling down wouldn't have caused materials such as

industrial office carpeting, metal plumbing, office furniture, and miles of electrical wiring to be turned into dust either.

It seems the steel beams survived, luckily for whoever bought them as scrap metal.

[SDuderstadt]

80. That's because it didn't "simply fall down".....

watch the video again closely and tell us what you think is happening to the office contents as the floors collapse onto each other.

[Realityhack]

15. What I would start with is this. What evidence leads you to conclude that...

any significant amount of steel was turned to dust during the collapse?

I personally do not know of any such evidence.

[thepeopleunited]

19. Evidence:

Now you see it:



Now you don't:



Where's the all steel?

[HannibalCards]

20. You are looking right at it.

Also, take a good look at the site you pulled that second image from. You might learn something.

[thepeopleunited]

21. Exactly. I'm looking at a field of ashes

where ten seconds earlier two gigantic quarter-mile high towers stood. The steel has literally vanished. How that happened is a question.

[OnTheOtherHand]

22. you are?

If we gave that picture to any 100 people who hadn't seen it before, do you suppose that any one of them would describe it as a "field of ashes"?

[thepeopleunited]

23. I am. That is exactly what I see.

There is some steel in the pile of course, and some steel was hauled out and sold to China to turn into radioactive cheese graters for sale at WalMart, but the great majority of the steel in those two massive structures has, in ten seconds, vanished.

And the religious beliefs of 100 random individuals do not seem to me to be a scientific way of determining anything except maybe Nielsen ratings.

[Bolo Boffin]

26. Neither is the religious beliefs of 1 random individual such as yourself. n/t

[OnTheOtherHand]

27. "There is some steel in the pile of course"

So, to summarize, the steel has literally vanished, except for the steel that hasn't vanished -- and anyone who doesn't see it the way you do is acting out religious beliefs.

:eyes:

[vincent_vega_lives]

59. I'm not sure what you expect to see

The towers were mostly empty space, otherwise you wouldn't have much room for things like desks and people. In fact I have seen the figure of 90% of the volume was empty space. That could have been compressed into a block 11 stories tall if all the debris had fallen into it the rectangular footprint, and none had collapsed into the sub basements.

Clearly all of the perimiter columns fell outside the footprint and the subbasements were filled, and the pile was 4 stories tall.

[Torn_Scorned_Ignored]

73. um

As for the comment you made above involving the pile and 4 stories of WTC.

Did you just makeup those figures or do you have evidence?

[WillowTree]

153. All the "evidence" you ought to need is right there in the photo in post #23.

Just look at the "pile" as opposed to the surrounding buildings. That picture shows only a small section of Ground Zero. The rubble covered several acres and in some places the pile was as much as 7 stories high as evidenced in that picture, if you're only willing to look at it.

[thepeopleunited]

81. The problem is that the subbasements didn't collapse.

They were heavily damaged, and there was a mysterious crater under Building 6, but for all intents and purposes, the "collapse" stopped at street level. If it hadn't, the slurry walls would have given way, and you wouldn't see those ground-floor columns poking up in the photos.


"The Bank of Nova Scotia gold vault, located under WTC Building 4, is examined in late October 2001."
from: http://www.historycommons.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=complete_911_timeline&the_post-9/11_world

I'll post an oversize pic just below so you can see what I mean.

[thepeopleunited]

82. Oversize photo showing the WTC debris:

What you see is a very thin layer of debris -- nothing close to 11 stories of it -- spread over the substructure, which is basically intact below street level:

[Torn_Scorned_Ignored]

139. subbasement pic

[Torn_Scorned_Ignored]

140. had collapsed into the sub basements. - FEMA photo

[ryan_cats]

156. Why would the cheese graters be radioactive?

There is some steel in the pile of course, and some steel was hauled out and sold to China to turn into radioactive cheese graters for sale at WalMart, but the great majority of the steel in those two massive structures has, in ten seconds, vanished.

Why would the cheese graters be radioactive?

I see a lot of steel in that pile and it certainly took an incredible amount of trucks and barges to get the steel to freshkills. In fact, I just saw a special on the rise and fall of the WTC and to very roughly paraphrase, the contractor calculated that there was 100 million tons of scrap to move but when they were done, their estimate was off, I believe, by over 50%.

[LARED]

159. There is a small but fierce contingent of "truthers" that firmly

believe the WTC's were nuked.

[ryan_cats]

163. Nuked, huh, well ok.

Nukes, well then, that changes everything. Were they hush-a-boom nukes? Were they pure fusion nukes so there was no fallout? I seem to recall visible light and an enormous amount of x-rays go off during a nuk-u-lar (Bush speak) blast, where was the flash? Where are the shadows of people standing in front of say, a cement wall that leaves an image like an xray. Are we missing any nukes in our inventory?

I don't want to sound incredulous about the nuke theory. I'm sure their therapist want people to kind of play along, I think it helps them out towards reality.

Were I say want I really think, I'd have a nice tombstone next to my name and here I was, always thinking I was to be cremated.

[SDuderstadt]

167. Why are you trying to "suppress the truth"....

rc?

[Realityhack]

148. I see the problem now. You have no evidence...

and no idea what the hell you are doing. You are obviously in way WAY over your head in trying to understand the collapses.
Unfortunately there is nothing I can do to fix that.

[OnTheOtherHand]

150. incidentally, I really love the title of the OP

It pretty much sums up not only the thread, but a lot of the forum.

[Realityhack]

152. Absolutely. n/t

[thepeopleunited]

151. What problem?

What are you talking about?

[waldenaut]

28. I believe it is likely due to the use of explosive nuclear devices

of relatively conservative yield.

*shrugs & kisses to the ignored*

[Torn_Scorned_Ignored]

111. A Conservative yield - -

I'm not familiar with nuclear yields. As far as I know the evidence doesn't really point to nukes.

I've heard people online though talk about that possibility. There could have been different devices (weapons) used at the 3 locations. The "hijackers" did say they had bombs on board, and I think I heard on one of the flights a passenger during a phone call stated one of the hijackers had a bomb jacket or a bomb taped to his body.

As far as a conservative yield though, are you talking about a kneel, neil, or neo conservative? :P

[Realityhack]

149. "As far as I know the evidence doesn't really point to nukes. "

Anything short of thinking the idea of nuclear weapons being used is some of the stupidest crap thrown around on the internet and completely laughable as a hypothesis shows your utter willful ignorance of reality.

[rollingrock]

29. And what happened to the office contents?

office furniture, desks, chairs, personal computers, copy machines, mainframes, fax machines, etc. the towers were obviously filled with tens of thousands of tons of office equipment and furniture. what happened to all that stuff? what did the firefighter say?

'You have two 110 story office buildings. you don't find a desk, you don't find a chair, you don't find a telephone, a computer. the biggest piece of a telephone I found was half of a keypad. the building collapsed to dust.'
- Joe Casaliggi, NY firefighter

everything was turned to dust! what could do something like that? only nukes or nanotechnology weapons.

[SDuderstadt]

30. You know, it's real embarrassing that thinking as...

unhinged as this appears anywhere in conjunction with a discussion forum with "Democratic" in the title.

Dude, again I ask...is there ANY conspiracy theory so goofy even YOU won't embrace it?

[rollingrock]

31. You sound very angry and bitter

sorry to rain on your Mickey Mouse parade.

[SDuderstadt]

32. Really, dude....

Actually I'm laughing and looking forward to you marginalizing the "9/11 Truth Movement" with your absurd claims and backwards Logic. I wish I could put you on on a comedy tour with Spooked. You guys wouldn't even have to map out any sort of routine...just do what comes naturally, dude.

[LARED]

34. It's amazing these theories continue to get recycled - nt

[SDuderstadt]

36. It's actually embarrassing...n/t

[Torn_Scorned_Ignored]

33. filing cabinet found

http://thewebfairy.com/911/h-effect/filingcabinet.htm Video

[SDuderstadt]

35. Jesus, dude...

after two 110 story buildings collapsed, what do you expect office furnishings would look like?

[rollingrock]

37. Falling buildings cause filing cabinets to melt?

who knew? 'dude logic' strikes again.

[SDuderstadt]

38. Jesus, dude....

show me where I said anything about "melting"...your cognitive limitations are truly stunning. You "argue" points no one else is even making. If someone asks you a question, you answer an entirely different question.

Ever seen one of these?



Do you see how there are mutiple floors smashed together? What do you suppose happened to the office furnishings from the floors, dude? Your personal incedulity is nothing short of stunning.

BTW, I see you've given up trying to argue the "there's no such thing as an animated illustration" nonsense.

[rollingrock]

39. 'dude logic'

'falling' buildings causes steel to rust, burn, and melt. sorry, no cigar.

I use the term 'falling' loosely, because there was no pancaking of floors,
the floors were exploded one by one as the towers came down.

[SDuderstadt]

40. Dude...

no one is saying the collapse caused metal to rust. It's fairly clear to people of normal intelligence that exposure to the elements and time will do that, unless you're claiming that those pictures are from the day of 9/11. Hint: you might want to actually check the dates of the photos before shooting your mouth off. Since you have no idea what floor the picture of the cabinet fragment came from, it's kinda stupid to postulate what made the fragment look like that. Of course, no one is accusing you of actually thinking that hard.

Now, to your real doozy:

the floors were exploded one by one as the towers came down.

Of course, you have zero proof of this. Even better, can you "illustrate" specifically how what you claim could have possibly been pulled off? And, no, I am not asking for a picture. Further, could you clarify precisely what your position is regarding the towers and CD, because now you seem to be claiming that the "explosives" were only used to "explode the floors". I'm confused but, of course, probably not nearly as confused as you, dude.

With all due respect, since lovepg has "left us", it's a toss-up between you and Spooked as to which one of you has taken lovepg's place as the most incoherent poster. I'm rooting for you, dude.

[rollingrock]

41. You still think the towers pancaked?

sorry, but the NIST has already debunked that cartoonish theory. and itself.

so if the towers didn't explode (and anyone with two good eyes and a functioning brain can see that they did explode), then how DID they come down? if you are even capable of explaining it in your own words? which we all know you are not, so here's a chance for you to prove your naysayers wrong.

[SDuderstadt]

42. Dude...

If the towers "exploded", how do you acount for this?



And, if anyone with "two good eyes and a functioning brain can see that they did explode", how do you know they exploded? And, no, I'm, not referring to your eyesight, dude. And, what about your ears? If explosives were used to "explode" each floor, wouldn't it make sense that we would have heard 110+ explosions? Duh.

As far as how the towers actually did come down, it's pretty simple, dude. After the floors from the impact zone had been on fire for a while, the floors no longer could support the floors above. As the top section came down, it only had to overwhelm one floor at a time, aided and abetted by the each floor as it also collapsed. Gravity is a pretty powerful force, dude.

As far as your demand for an explanation of how the towers came down,

[rollingrock]

43. Why do you still cling to the pancaking fantasy?

because that is precisely what you just described. I told you, even NIST thinks its a stupid idea. if the pancaking theory were true, the floors would have built up one by one above the collapse front and you would see a stack of floors growing in size above the collapse zone as the building came to the ground. but that's not what we see. do you see a stack of floors/pancaked above the collapse front?? NO. because it isn't there. unless you are hallucinating. where is the stack of pancakes? it only exists in a cartoon or at IHOP.

there is no stack of floors, there is no stack of pancakes, because the floors are literally being blown apart one by one, not a growing stack. even NIST eventually came to its senses (somewhat) when it flat-out rejected the idea of pancaking in its final report. you are clinging to a fantasy.

[SDuderstadt]

44. Dude...

First of all, NIST doesn't say there was no pancaking. What it said was that pancaking was not the cause of the collapse initiation. Secondly, your comment about what we "should have seen", that is, a "stack of floors growing in size above the collapse zone as the building came to the ground" demonstrates that you don't remotely understand kinetic energy. I'd love to see the math for your hypothesis. Feel free to provide it.

In the meantime, I'm not going to try to reason further with someone who doesn't have the capacity to follow a technical discussion. Frankly, I would think it would be hard enough for someone to explain to you how to make a grilled cheese sandwich or heat up a can of soup ("How do we know it was really cheese? Did the serial number on the can of soup match the register receipt?").

In the meantime, could you please point to where NIST ruled out pancaking AFTER the collapse initiation? That should be easy enough for someone of your skill and intellect. (Hint: since the NIST report only addresses the collapse initiation, you might want to save yourself some time).


BTW, as I've tried to reason with you, I finally figured out who you remind me of, given your bumbling incompetence and flailing about:



Oh, wait...I mean THIS guy:



Actually, you remind me of both.

[rollingrock]

45. You really should stick to your Pink Panther and Jetsons reruns

leave the serious talk to the adults. because you really have no clue what you're talking about. I almost feel sorry for you, but I don't.

[SDuderstadt]

46. Ouch, dude...

Ouch. What a withering comeback. Give me a moment.

Okay. At any time, you can "advance" this argument by providing the math for your goofy claims. Feel free to use a calculator. When you can demonstrate how your claim could have actually transpired, then perhaps people will quit laughing at you. BTW, did you ever find that part of the NIST report that addressed pancaking other than the collapse initiation? No? Hmmm.

In the meantime, you really ought to try to master the following before trying more advanced subjects.





Maybe after you've mastered these, you can work your way up to something more challenging. Like maybe a hotdog or something.

[Bolo Boffin]

47. NIST only dropped pancaking as a theory of collapse initiation

Of course the floors pancaked after that. SDuderstadt showed you one picture of the pancaked floors.

[rollingrock]

48. Have you been drinking the SD kool-aid?

they couldn't have been more clear. they reject the pancaking fantasy, period. if you had bothered to read the report instead of drinking SD's kool-aid, you would know that.



NIST’s findings do not support the “pancake theory” of collapse, which is premised on a progressive failure of the floor systems in the WTC towers (the composite floor system—that connected the core columns and the perimeter columns—consisted of a grid of steel “trusses” integrated with a concrete slab; see diagram below). Instead, the NIST investigation showed conclusively that the failure of the inwardly bowed perimeter columns initiated collapse and that the occurrence of this inward bowing required the sagging floors to remain connected to the columns and pull the columns inwards. Thus, the floors did not fail progressively to cause a pancaking phenomenon.

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

[SDuderstadt]

49. Dude...

they're talking about what initiated the collapse, not what happened after it began...do you really have this much trouble with reading comprehension? How many times do they need to use the word "initiation", before you click to what they're talking about? The question was WHY it collapsed, not how it collapsed post-initiation, dude. This is why no one here takes you seriously.

I'm not EVEN going to try to educate you about how to make kool-aid until after you've shown you've mastered the making of toasted cheese sandwiches and soup, dude.

[rollingrock]

50. Where does it say anything about collapse initiation?

point out the quote please. and give me the quote in the report where they say the floors pancaked AFTER collapse initiation. back up your empty, unsupported assertions.

[SDuderstadt]

51. Jesus fucking christ, dude...

learn to read more carefully. I said earlier that NIST does not address post-initiation. They were trying to figure out WHY the towers collapsed, not HOW. Once the collapse inititated gravity took over, dude. What I also said earlier was that NIST effectively ruled out pancaking as a CAUSE of the collapse initiation. Seriously, most of these stupid arguments wouldn't even get started if you had normal cognitive ability.

2. Why did NIST not consider a “controlled demolition” hypothesis with matching computer modeling and explanation as it did for the “pancake theory” hypothesis? A key critique of NIST’s work lies in the complete lack of analysis supporting a “progressive collapse” after the point of collapse initiation and the lack of consideration given to a controlled demolition hypothesis.

NIST conducted an extremely thorough three-year investigation into what caused the WTC towers to collapse, as explained in NIST’s dedicated Web site, http://wtc.nist.gov. This included consideration of a number of hypotheses for the collapses of the towers.

Some 200 technical experts—including about 85 career NIST experts and 125 leading experts from the private sector and academia—reviewed tens of thousands of documents, interviewed more than 1,000 people, reviewed 7,000 segments of video footage and 7,000 photographs, analyzed 236 pieces of steel from the wreckage, performed laboratory tests and sophisticated computer simulations of the sequence of events that occurred from the moment the aircraft struck the towers until they began to collapse.

Based on this comprehensive investigation, NIST concluded that the WTC towers collapsed because: (1) the impact of the planes severed and damaged support columns, dislodged fireproofing insulation coating the steel floor trusses and steel columns, and widely dispersed jet fuel over multiple floors; and (2) the subsequent unusually large jet-fuel ignited multi-floor fires (which reached temperatures as high as 1,000 degrees Celsius) significantly weakened the floors and columns with dislodged fireproofing to the point where floors sagged and pulled inward on the perimeter columns. This led to the inward bowing of the perimeter columns and failure of the south face of WTC 1 and the east face of WTC 2, initiating the collapse of each of the towers. Both photographic and video evidence—as well as accounts from the New York Police Department aviation unit during a half-hour period prior to collapse—support this sequence for each tower.

NIST’s findings do not support the “pancake theory” of collapse, which is premised on a progressive failure of the floor systems in the WTC towers (the composite floor system—that connected the core columns and the perimeter columns—consisted of a grid of steel “trusses” integrated with a concrete slab; see diagram below). Instead, the NIST investigation showed conclusively that the failure of the inwardly bowed perimeter columns initiated collapse and that the occurrence of this inward bowing required the sagging floors to remain connected to the columns and pull the columns inwards. Thus, the floors did not fail progressively to cause a pancaking phenomenon.



Diagram of Composite WTC Floor System

NIST’s findings also do not support the “controlled demolition” theory since there is conclusive evidence that:

the collapse was initiated in the impact and fire floors of the WTC towers and nowhere else, and;

the time it took for the collapse to initiate (56 minutes for WTC 2 and 102 minutes for WTC 1) was dictated by (1) the extent of damage caused by the aircraft impact, and (2) the time it took for the fires to reach critical locations and weaken the structure to the point that the towers could not resist the tremendous energy released by the downward movement of the massive top section of the building at and above the fire and impact floors.

Video evidence also showed unambiguously that the collapse progressed from the top to the bottom, and there was no evidence (collected by NIST, or by the New York Police Department, the Port Authority Police Department or the Fire Department of New York) of any blast or explosions in the region below the impact and fire floors as the top building sections (including and above the 98th floor in WTC 1 and the 82nd floor in WTC 2) began their downward movement upon collapse initiation.

In summary, NIST found no corroborating evidence for alternative hypotheses suggesting that the WTC towers were brought down by controlled demolition using explosives planted prior to Sept. 11, 2001. NIST also did not find any evidence that missiles were fired at or hit the towers. Instead, photographs and videos from several angles clearly show that the collapse initiated at the fire and impact floors and that the collapse progressed from the initiating floors downward until the dust clouds obscured the view.

[rollingrock]

52. Are you hallucinating again?

where does it say the floors pancaked after initiation?
because it says precisely the opposite in what you just quoted.


'NIST’s findings do not support the “pancake theory” of collapse.'

What part of that do you not understand?

[SDuderstadt]

53. Dude....this is what I'm talking about....

'NIST’s findings do not support the “pancake theory” of collapse.'

Translation for cognition-challenged: THEY'RE TALKING ABOUT THE FUCKING COLLAPSE INITIATION!!!

Do you understand that they don't need a theory past that point? I'm done trying to help you understand this, dude. As I have said earlier, your little black and white worldview inhibits you from the most basic understanding and comprehension.

NIST was looking for WHY THE TOWERS COLLAPSED, therefore, they had to explain what INITIATED THE COLLAPSE. Once they figured that out, that's all they had to do. Their reference to the collapse progressing from the collapse zone down is confirmation that their COLLAPSE INITIATION theory is supported by subsequent events.

Simple suggestion. If you're this confused about what the fuck they're talking about, why don't you call them up and ask them.

Again, 'NIST’s findings do not support the “pancake theory” of collapse.' is talking about what happened up to the initiation of the collapse, not how the collapse unfolded past that point. You know, I used to think that it was difficult to explain technical matters to non-technical people. Now I know it's impossible to explain technical matters to people who simply don't want to learn.

[rollingrock]

54. Saying it doesn't make it so

let's try to deal with the real world here, ok dude?
I know that's not easy for you, but try real hard and think.

where in the NIST report does it say pancaking takes places AFTER collapse initiation?

[SDuderstadt]

56. For the last fucking time...

they don't. I never said they did. I said specifically that they don't address what happened POST-COLLAPSE INITIATION, dude. One of the initial HYPOTHSESES was that the COLLAPSE INITIATION was triggered by floors pancaking, however, upon further study, NIST revised their theory. You can read about it in the NIST report.

So, once more, for the record, you're conflating two different things here. NIST does not say the floors pancaked because NIST doesn't address post-collapse. OTHER structural engineers do and one can SEE the floors are pancaking AFTER the collapse has initiated. There was no way for the floors below the collapse zone to resist the force being applied to them ONE-BY-ONE.

Once the collapse initiated, what do think was going to happen? If you're trying to argue that the lower floors should have arrested the collapse, then produce some fucking math for your goofy theory. Your personal incredulity is NOT math.

Here's the evidence that the floors pancaked. It also rebuts your goofy claim that the floors were individually exploded.



I'm not going to address this further, dude. Trying to educate someone with close to zero cognitive ability is not a formula for success.

[rollingrock]

76. You still haven't shown where NIST says the floors pancaked

your screaming and shouting like an autistic child isn't going to change that fact.

[SDuderstadt]

78. Dude...how many fucking times do I have t

say that NIST doesn''t say that. They are addressing the COLLAPSE INITIATION. It's others who say the floors pancaked AFTER the COLLAPSE INITIATION. I alsp provided you with photographic evidence of pancaked floors. I'm done, dude.

[Bolo Boffin]

55. They are clearly talking about collapse initiation there.

After that, the floors pancaked as the building fell. NIST isn't denying that.

ETA: The "pancake theory" held that the failure of the floors led to the collapse. NIST showed that wouldn't be the case. In fact, NIST's explanation of the collapse initiation depends upon the floors staying intact.

But after that? Yes, the floors pancaked. SDuderstadt has shown you a picture of pancaked debris. Any of the "meteorites" show the same thing -- floor after floor compressed together into a dense mass. That happened during the collapse.

[rollingrock]

75. Utter fantasy

when one speaks of pancaking, it is assumed they are talking about pancaking that occurs after collapse initiation. because that's how pancaking WORKS or could have possibly taken place, if it did. NIST would not have said 'we DO NOT support the pancaking theory of collapse' if they supported it, because they would be contradicting themselves. Except of course in your pancaker cartoon fantasy world, where everything is the opposite.

[SDuderstadt]

83. Okay, dude...

here's your big chance. Let's put the shoe on the other foot. The only thing is, in this exercise you don't get to sit back while we patiently try to explain what NIST is saying, then do your usual sniping from the sidelines. Since you seem to fancy yourself as somewhat of an expert on what NIST says and means (even though it's clear that you haven't even read a portion of their report, let alone the whole thing) and you claim that NIST is addressing something other than the collapse initiation in rejecting the "pancaking theory of collapse", even though it's clear to nearly everyone else they are referring to collapse initiation, why don't you enlighten us as to HOW they did conclude the building collapsed, dude? You claim they are rejecting pancaking as an explanation of how the towers collapsed. In simpler words, dude, you're incapable of understanding that NIST rejected pancaking as a CAUSE of collapse initiation, but did not rule it out as a RESULT of collapse inititation, percisely because they don't address that phase, dude.

So, from that starting point, please enlighten us as to what NIST concluded about the towers as a RESULT of collapse initiation. Please sure to cite precisely in the NIST report where NIST says it. For the record, I don't expect you to take up this challenge and, eventually, you'll let this die a quiet death just like you did with your stupid "there is no such thing as an animated illustration" tour de force.

Again, this is why no one takes you seriously here, dude.

[rollingrock]

84. You spout plenty of mumbo jumbo

but no facts.

again, where does NIST say they support the idea of pancaking?

why can't you answer the question?

[OnTheOtherHand]

85. massive fail n/t

[rollingrock]

89. I fail to understand the mumbo jumbo

that you are correct.

perhaps you can translate it for me? I don't speak gobbledygook.

[SDuderstadt]

90. More stalling from RollingRock.....

lucky for him he has no more credibility left to lose.

[SDuderstadt]

94. Where's your math, dude?

[AZCat]

134. Well, you don't always want to use Darcy-Weisbach.

Hazen-Williams is an acceptable replacement, especially if you're sure the flow is turbulent. Also, Hazen-Williams roughness coefficients for various materials are readily available and the values do not depend on the Reynolds number.

[SDuderstadt]

86. Dude...

I have said REPEATEDLY that NIST ruled out pancaking as the CAUSE of collapse initiation and doesn't address pancaking (or anything else for that matter) as a RESULT of collapse initiation. I'm not going to keep repeating myself while you misrepresent what I have already said.

I have NEVER said that NIST addressed the pancaking of the floors because they simply confined their findings to the fucking collapse initiation. If you have evidence to the contrary, please provide it. Since you can't, I'll predict more silly posts like this while you try to confuse the issue. You also claim that the portion of the buildings below the collapse zone should have resisted AND arrested the collapse of the upper floors. Again, I am challenging you to provide the math that proves this particularly stupid claim.

So, your challenge is quite straightforward, dude.

1. Please provide a specific citation to where NIST addresses the post-collapse initiation circumstances.

2. Provide the math for your stupid claim that the towers could not have collapsed the way they did.

3. More subterfuge on your part will be taken as proof of your inability to satisfy 2 & 3. Or, you could just slink away like you normally do.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_T8Kwz9ax2Ew/SVZQTVjXoEI/AAAAAAAADGQ/M6nZNJQunYw/s400/painted+into+corner.jpg

[Bolo Boffin]

95. At least you are labeling your posts correctly.

Earlier theories proposed that pancaking started the collapse, that floors gave way under intense fires and started the collapse. NIST determined that wasn't the case, and in fact their explanation required the floors to remain intact. That is why they are against the pancake theory.

But after collapse initiation, of course the floors pancaked. NIST won't ever deny that.

It is your own understanding that's at fault here.

[rollingrock]

98. 'NIST won't ever deny that.'

how far have you gone down the rabbit hole?

-----------------------------------------------------------------
'NIST’s findings do not support the “pancake theory” of collapse.'

-NIST

-----------------------------------------------------------------

They did, in fact, deny it. you have yet to prove otherwise.

[SDuderstadt]

99. Dude...

as usual, you continue to try to confuse the issue by pretending that NIST said that with respect to anything OTHER than the collapse initiation.

You have been repeatedly challenged to:

1) cite the sections from NIST where they address how the towers came down AFTER collapse initiation and

2) provide the math for your goofy claim that the lower floors should have resisted and arrested the collapse of the upper floors. Where is your math, dude???

[Bolo Boffin]

100. No, they did not. "Collapse" for NIST is collapse initiation.

"Instead, the NIST investigation showed conclusively that the failure of the inwardly bowed perimeter columns initiated collapse..."

It did what? The failure did what? And to do that, it needed the floors to do what?

NIST is explicitly talking about collapse initiation. YOU KEEP QUOTING THE PART THAT SAYS THIS.

Please stop playing silly games.

[rollingrock]

101. Your imagination running wild again

Where does it say anything about pancaking, other than to deny it?

oh, that's right:

"NIST’s findings do not support the “pancake theory” of collapse."

"Thus, the floors did not fail progressively to cause a pancaking phenomenon."

-NIST

[OnTheOtherHand]

102. I'm curious what you think this means

What do you think is NIST's theory of global collapse? That is, once the towers began to fall, what is NIST's theory about how and why they continued to fall?

[Bolo Boffin]

103. Now I've provided the exact quote where NIST is shown to be talking about initiation

and you continue your denialism.

[OnTheOtherHand]

104. dontcha know, context is part of the conspiracy!!1! n/t

[Name removed]

106. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Bolo Boffin]

107. Your arrogance is astonishing.

What is the verb of the clause that showed what NIST proved conclusively in the sentence that begins INSTEAD, rollingrock?

A: It's "initiated."

ETA: Continuing on, since you're very clear that INSTEAD OF shows us the theory in lieu of the first one, you must concede that since the INSTEAD OF theory is about INTITIATED COLLAPSE, the first theory must also be about INITIATED COLLAPSE.

[rollingrock]

109. Where does it say pancaking takes place after initiation?

A: NOWHERE

[Bolo Boffin]

110. What does it say, rollingrock? What's that verb? INITIATED.

As in, "initiated collapse."

You had to show your ass, didn't you? There wasn't anyone here that made you show your ass like that. You hopped up and dropped trou all by your own self.

And there it is. The INSTEAD OF theory is about collapse initiation. Therefore, by your own remedial English lesson, you have to admit that the first theory is about collapse initiation.

You are advised to stop showing your ass.

[rollingrock]

112. The sad thing is, you don't even know what pancaking is!

Time for another vocabulary lesson!


1. If they supported the pancaking theory AT ALL, they would not have said, 'NIST’s findings do not support the “pancake theory” of collapse' and they certainly wouldn't have used the term THEORY to describe it.

2.. NOWHERE do they state that pancaking occurs AFTER initiation. For one, it is completely NONSENSICAL and RIDICULOUS to say pancaking occurs AFTER collapse initiation, because PANCAKING IS COLLAPSE INITIATION (the top block FALLS ONTO the floor below it, that floor falls onto the next, and so on). That's the only way pancaking can WORK!

[Bolo Boffin]

113. NIST: "the failure of the inwardly bowed perimeter columns initiated collapse" n/t

[SDuderstadt]

115. Okay, dude...this one is your record doozy...

For one, it is completely NONSENSICAL and RIDICULOUS to say pancaking occurs AFTER collapse initiation, because PANCAKING IS COLLAPSE INITIATION (the top block FALLS ONTO the floor below it, that floor falls onto the next, and so on).

The reason NIST rejected the pancaking theory of collapse initiation is PRECISELY for the reason you're citing, dude. If the COLLAPSE INITIATION was caused by pancaking, then you would have seen the floors BELOW the impact zone give way, allowing the top section to fall. Instead, what you see is the top section falling onto the lower floors, which then give way, dude. I'm not sure you can understand the distinction, though. However, we have a typical RollingRock subthread, Tell me something, RR. Why are none of your fellow "truthers" coming to your aid here?

[SDuderstadt]

105. Can you read, dude?

You just disproved your claim. Did you see that, dude?

"Thus, the floors did not fail progressively to cause a pancaking phenomenon."

Do you know the difference between "cause" and "result"? Again, the NIST report is focused on collapse INITIATION. That's CAUSE, dude. Not RESULT. "Pancaking phenomenom" = CAUSE. The floors pancaking AFTER collapse initiation would be RESULT.

[rollingrock]

108. So where do they say pancaking was the RESULT?

...except in your wild imagination?

[SDuderstadt]

114. I tried to translate the following into braille so you could read it, but it didn't work, dude.

They don't because NIST's study was about COLLAPSE INITIATION, dude. Only someone as cognitively impaired as you would keep asking why they don't address how the buildings fell when what they are analyzing is why the buildings fell.

I'll keep trying to find a language you can actually read and comprehend.

BTW, where's your math, dude?

[OnTheOtherHand]

133. surely you didn't mean Braille

This reminded me of several years ago when I watched an academic reading a biomedical ethics text using a special Braille reader that would pop up (I don't remember exactly) maybe 40 characters at a time in a shorthand-like format. (Text-to-speech wasn't very good yet, and I think she might have preferred this in any case.) She was impressively fast -- of course, she had had lots of practice.

Translating something into Braille certainly wouldn't make it easier for me to read it. I wouldn't expect it to work for rr, either.

[SDuderstadt]

138. It was a two-fold spoof of RR...

First of all for referring to us as "special ed" students and, secondly, I have posted several pictures of debris from the WTC that refute his goofy "the floors were exploded one-by-one" claim and he pretends he can't see them.

And, quit calling me Shirley.

[rollingrock]

143. Are you a special needs student?

why do you have such a hard time distinguishing the real world from the cartoon world?

[SDuderstadt]

145. Where's your math, dude?

[ryan_cats]

157. Rust is not an issue here

People thinking the fact that the steel rusted so quick and heavy is some sort of evidence for nano-thermite have never been in a wrecking yard. It seems, that any car brought in suffering fire damage already has a thick layer of rust on it where the fire occurred. I don't know why; it just happens. I've seen burned cars bought at the insurance auction that had no rust on them come in covered in rust the few days it takes to ship the vehicle to the yard.

In other words, it's no big deal-e-o.

[Prometheus Bound]

160. Holy crap! The Dude Pancake Theory.

With photo proof of multiple floor smashed into a stone-and-metal pancake.

Must be at least, what, 5 floors in that particular pancake?

What a hoot!

[vincent_vega_lives]

60. crushed

disintergrated.

Here is three floors worth. this used to be a space 24' high.

[rollingrock]

77. No, it is not

'NIST’s findings do not support the “pancake theory” of collapse.'

-NIST


stop drinking the kool-aid.

[vincent_vega_lives]

161. Yes it is

or is it the fucking meteorite that took down the WTC?

[Bolo Boffin]

162. Still pimping your little quotemined soundbite?

NIST was talking about a theory of collapse initiation. You are pretending it's a statement about the entire collapse. You really should stop. We're all still here, and we're not going to forget that this is one of your favorite factual inaccuracies.

[Theobald]

62. I feel like chicken tonight

that doesn't make me a chicken.

Steel didn't turn to dust before your eyes or anyone elses. You are starting with a completely flawed premise which has no basis in reality.

[BeFree]

63. Well, then

Try to explain those pictures of the steel looking like it turned to dust.

Those pictures have never been explained away. Are the pictures faked?

And the huge hole smack dab in the middle of the towers. No explanation for that either.

You who think you know everything have a burden upon you in any attempt to explain what the basis for the graphic reality appears to be.

Maybe that's why no one believes yall know what you are blabbering about?

[SDuderstadt]

64. It's wallboard, concrete and other materials found in offices, dude...

Please provide any proof you have at all that "steel dust" was found. As far as the huge hole found in the middle of the towers, do you honestly think that building collapses are orderly events? What do you suppose it should have looked like?

[OnTheOtherHand]

66. you mean, "steel looking like it turned to dust"?

Please don't ask me what that means. I suppose it's sort of like "dust looking like it used to be steel," but I really don't know.

[BeFree]

65. I see an ignored!! Too bad.

I don't respond to people who just don't get it. Not worthy of my time.

[SDuderstadt]

68. You just responded to yourself, dude....

I'd have to agree that you "just don't get it" and you're "not worthy of" anyone's time. Glad to see we agree on something.

[Theobald]

71. there is a vast difference between saying

"steel turned to dust" and "pictures of steel looking like it turned to dust". In the fisrt a statement of fact is made that is unsuportable. If it was supportable then there would be evidence of steel dust at ground zero. There isn't any evidence of steel dust, ipso facto the first statement is incorrect.

Now you ask why in the picture it looks like steel turned to dust and I don't know the answer to that. I could speculate that when that section collapsed the dust that was on the frame peices stayed suspended longer than the frame itself, since it is lighter, and that resulted in an affect that makes it look like the frame turned to dust. Of course the frame looks like it is the buildings cladding and if that is the case than it is made out of aluminum so it would be aluminum turning into dust, but that is a different issue completely.

The huge whole was caused by a plane.

[Torn_Scorned_Ignored]

72. There is evidence of steel

components in the dust. But you're correct about no evidence of 'steel dust'.

Steel doesn't come from a quarry or something you mine.

[Theobald]

88. You claim that there is steel dust

and then admit that there is no evidence of steel dust?

[Torn_Scorned_Ignored]

96. sorry

I don't speak to people who can't understand english. In other words,

I Do Not Have Time For Games.

You are now on IGNORE along with most of the names who have left responses on this thread.

[SDuderstadt]

97. If you have nearly everyone on ignore...

what would be the point of starting an OP?

[BeFree]

87. Two things

It appears the steel does turn to dust as the pictures show. The explanation that the dust remains as the steel disappears from view makes little sense. If the copious amounts of dust remaining were attached to the steel then it would drop as the steel did and not spread out like it appears.

The huge hole I wrote of is the huge hole in the middle of the towers at ground level per one of the pics in this thread. One would think that if there were but a pancake- straight down drop of 110 stories, and no explosion, that the middle of the building would have piled up leaving no gaping hole at ground level.

Well, unlike others in this thread you have at least tried to explain.

[Theobald]

144. It appears

Befree "The explanation that the dust remains as the steel disappears from view makes little sense."

Why does it make little sense? If I was holding a cutting board covered in flour and I dropped it I would expect a noticeable amount of flour to stay suspened in the air.

[Name removed]

137. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

142. Do collapsed buildings have big craters in the bottom?

[Torn_Scorned_Ignored]

146. There are a lot

of things to question about the scene in Lower Manhattan on 9/11 and the days that followed.

[ryan_cats]

154. How many clunkities is that?

This is pure unadulterated science. You must hear it to understand the truth...

http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/SophiaClunkity.wav

[LARED]

155. Finally someone that makes sense. I'm going to the dark side.

I mean how can you argue with such a logical and rational thought process.

[Raster]

158. You already are on the dark side. You just don't realize it.

:evilgrin:

[ryan_cats]

164. Does someone know the units?

Does someone know the units for each clunkity? I mean really, it's hard to solve an equation without units.

[snooper2]

165. dustification

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[SDuderstadt]

166. All I know is, when I encounter "dustification"....

I immediately turn to




Anyone got a better solution?