It's good that you say concrete wouldn't immediately pulverize like that. I agree, that it wouldn't have without the assistance of some very powerful explosives. But now you've actually make a statement that supports the notion that explosives were in the building, because the concrete WAS pulverized. The dust contained a mixture of everything inside the towers, including concrete and gypsum. Here's an article (not a conspiracy theory site), that is about the analysis of the WTC dust, and many of the peculiarties researches. http://pubs.acs.org/cen/NCW/8142aerosols.html
HUGE difference between "wouldn't immediately pulverize" and "wouldn't pulverize at all." Just sayin'.
That is actually not true at all. This proves that you are simply parroting what you assume to be true, and that you have not actually studied this case in any detail. The NIST's study attempts to give an explaination of how the collapse began, but in no way does it attempt to explain how the entire building was destroyed because of the initial damage. That would be like claiming someone died by eating a grape, but only explaining how the person ate the grape.
That's the first thing linked here that is actually worth reading. Unfortunately it doesn't lend any support to your theories. barfo
HUGE! Please explain that one to me. One floor slammed against another floor, then it sorta had a delayed reaction?
Yeah. It is likely that some concrete got pulverized on impact with the ground rather than on impact with the floors above. barfo
I used it to prove that there was pulverized concrete in the dust. It also states how how the wreckage was, even weeks after the collapse. There was MOLTEN steel found at ground zero, and uncontrolled hydrocarbon fires cannot burn hot enough to melt steel. Also, as I said, we can end all this speculation, because they found un-reacted thermite. Case closed.
The dust seen blasting out as each floor pancaked was largely from the drywall, not from the concrete, because drywall pulverizes much easier than concrete. As the structure continued to collapse, the concrete became pulverized.
Thermite explosions are really loud. Nobody heard anything remotely like one of those, let alone the hundreds it would take to bring down one WTC building.
Sorry, making things up doesn't work. The dust that was analyzed was the air born dust that scattered around for hundreds of yards. It was the dust that was airborn and expelled during the collapse.
Molten steel, huh? It was found? Or it was "seen"? I poked around on the Web for a while and can't find anything that confirms there was any sort of molten metal found, let alone that it was steel. Ed O.
You should watch some videos of the collapse of the buildings sometime. You might notice big plumes of dust rising up from where stuff hit the ground. barfo
Concrete buildings? They were steel framed with concrete floors, and much of the concrete was pulverized to 10 microns. The first 3 times in history that 3 steel framed high rise buildings collapsed because of fire. However, when concrete buildings to collapse naturally, you usually see some big concrete chunks on the ground. Each floor of the WTC was had about an acre of 4 inch think concrete, all of it pulverized in mid-air. The building materials, which would have made up the majority of the weight were pulverized into fine dust, and went air born. Thus, their weight could not have contributed to the progressive collapse.
Yes, sorry, I should have said concrete-containing buildings. And how do you know that? Did you examine each floor before it hit the ground? Yes, if the upper floors had been turned to dust instead of falling, they wouldn't have fallen. However, there are numerous videotapes which show the upper floors falling, so I have to conclude that they weren't just turned to dust. barfo
http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html?page=4 Puffs Of Dust Claim: As each tower collapsed, clearly visible puffs of dust and debris were ejected from the sides of the buildings. An advertisement in The New York Times for the book Painful Questions: An Analysis Of The September 11th Attack made this claim: "The concrete clouds shooting out of the buildings are not possible from a mere collapse. They do occur from explosions." Numerous conspiracy theorists cite Van Romero, an explosives expert and vice president of the New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology, who was quoted on 9/11 by the Albuquerque Journal as saying "there were some explosive devices inside the buildings that caused the towers to collapse." The article continues, "Romero said the collapse of the structures resembled those of controlled implosions used to demolish old structures." Violent Collapse: Pancaking floors — not controlled demolition — expel debris and smoke out South Tower windows. (Photograph by AP/Wide World Photos) FACT: Once each tower began to collapse, the weight of all the floors above the collapsed zone bore down with pulverizing force on the highest intact floor. Unable to absorb the massive energy, that floor would fail, transmitting the forces to the floor below, allowing the collapse to progress downward through the building in a chain reaction. Engineers call the process "pancaking," and it does not require an explosion to begin, according to David Biggs, a structural engineer at Ryan-Biggs Associates and a member of the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) team that worked on the FEMA report. Like all office buildings, the WTC towers contained a huge volume of air. As they pancaked, all that air — along with the concrete and other debris pulverized by the force of the collapse — was ejected with enormous energy. "When you have a significant portion of a floor collapsing, it's going to shoot air and concrete dust out the window," NIST lead investigator Shyam Sunder tells PM. Those clouds of dust may create the impression of a controlled demolition, Sunder adds, "but it is the floor pancaking that leads to that perception." Demolition expert Romero regrets that his comments to the Albuquerque Journal became fodder for conspiracy theorists. "I was misquoted in saying that I thought it was explosives that brought down the building," he tells PM. "I only said that that's what it looked like." Romero, who agrees with the scientific conclusion that fire triggered the collapses, demanded a retraction from the Journal. It was printed Sept. 22, 2001. "I felt like my scientific reputation was on the line." But emperors-clothes.com saw something else: "The paymaster of Romero's research institute is the Pentagon. Directly or indirectly, pressure was brought to bear, forcing Romero to retract his original statement." Romero responds: "Conspiracy theorists came out saying that the government got to me. That is the farthest thing from the truth. This has been an albatross around my neck for three years."
you didn't answer my question before but i'll try again. case closed? on what? how do these "findings" close the case in your favor?
