Firefighter eyewitness - "The building collapsed to dust"

[rman]

"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 the keypad.
The building collapsed to dust."
-- Joe Casaliggi, firefighter

Videos of Eyewitness Recollections of Collapses
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/videos/index.html#witnesses


Meanwhile i encounter people who think the goverment LIHOP - and who think that when stuff falls from several 100 meters, it disintegrates into dust.

[petgoat]

1. "who think when stuff falls from several 100 meters, it disintegrates"

Not think--believe.

Because believing in demolition is painful.

Of course linking the demolition question to MIHOP isn't logical.

It's entirely possible that al Qaeda planted explosives in the WTC, and
this fact is being covered up because it's embarassing to Marvin Bush's
security company.

[rman]

2. Correct

In order to figure out "who done it" we'd have to look beyond the events at the WTC and Pentagon, and look at the network of people involved.
This forum should pay more attention to what people such as Hopsicker, Sibel and Indira have to say.

[hack89]

3. This makes no sense,

Assuming demolition, one would think that in order to avoid detection, keep the numbers of people involved low, and to be as quick as possible, the conspirators would have used the minimum amount of explosive possible. Which means that they would use high explosive shaped cutting charges like these on key support columns.:
http://www.dynawell.de/explosives_lsc.html

These charges would cleanly sever the steel and gravity would then bring down the building. Their detonation results in a very focused stream of hot metal that cuts steel - it does not "explode" in the sense of a bomb with damage 360 around it. In fact, they are so efficient in focusing their energy that there is not much of a visible explosion at all.

This raises several questions:

1. Since the theory behind controlled demolition is to let gravity do the work with the minimum of explosives and that buildings are not simply blasted apart, and if the WTC is "obviously" controlled demolition, wouldn't it then imply that the physical destruction of the towers happened as they fell due to the violence of their fall.

2. Since the cutting charges are unlikely to pulverize the contents of the building, are you suggesting that the buildings were packed with additional conventional explosive to destroy the contents?

[petgoat]

4. This makes no sense

1. Maybe. But since you assume perfect planning, and then assume that the observed results
were the result of perfect planning, other scenarios remain viable. Most of us on this board
evaluate Mr. Casaliggi's observation "The building collapsed to dust" in the context of
the cloud of pulverized concrete and energetically-ejected steel at the top of the building early in
the collapse sequence. This phenominon is poorly explained by the effects of gravity. Jim Hoffman's
calculation of the energy necessary to produce that debris cloud might interest you.

2. Whatever the purpose, the mushroom debris cloud suggests that the building was packed with
explosives.

[philb]

5. lots of firemen at the site witnessed explosions

as did the video seen on another thread
http://www.flcv.com/firemen.html

[hack89]

6. So it was packed with explosives

and yet no one working in the building saw anything? Right:eyes:

And these tons of explosives left no residue to be detected? Right:eyes:

[Christophera]

9. Number Of Cuts Would Change Character Of Visual Event. You Prove DEMO

Assuming your theory of shaped charges would be acting on steel columns, 47 of them 1,360 feet long would have to be cut into small enough piecs to not be seen toppling out of the dust and smoke.

The description of shaped charges does not include the fact that shaped charges have a very sharp and loud explosion. Something we didn't hear. We heard booms and rumbling, not the sharp crack of high density high explosives. The many cuts required would drastically change the character of the event.

Also you bring up an element of proof of demolition, since the falling chunks of concrete do not release enough energy for them to turn into sand and gravel at impact, there must have been alot of explosives at work. However they got in place.


Posted by hack89

Assuming demolition, one would think that in order to avoid detection, keep the numbers of people involved low, and to be as quick as possible, the conspirators would have used the minimum amount of explosive possible. Which means that they would use high explosive shaped cutting charges like these on key support columns.:
http://www.dynawell.de/explosives_lsc.html

These charges would cleanly sever the steel and gravity would then bring down the building. Their detonation results in a very focused stream of hot metal that cuts steel - it does not "explode" in the sense of a bomb with damage 360 around it. In fact, they are so efficient in focusing their energy that there is not much of a visible explosion at all.

This raises several questions:

1. Since the theory behind controlled demolition is to let gravity do the work with the minimum of explosives and that buildings are not simply blasted apart, and if the WTC is "obviously" controlled demolition, wouldn't it then imply that the physical destruction of the towers happened as they fell due to the violence of their fall.

2. Since the cutting charges are unlikely to pulverize the contents of the building, are you suggesting that the buildings were packed with additional conventional explosive to destroy the contents?

[hack89]

13. You make no sense..

please try again.

[Christophera]

14. Broken Record Pleads "Stupid". Don't Want To Understand? Sorry

The many cuts with shaped charges would cause a completely different event. The shaped charges needed would be huge.

You say the theory of controlled demolition is to let gravity do the work. At the WTC there was so much breakage that sand and gravel was the result. This is far beyond gravitational collapse damage, proving DEMO.

[hack89]

20. Some simple questions...

Do you believe that shaped charges were not used? If so how do you explain the "squibs"?

Is it your view that the WTC was simply packed full of high explosives? Was this on several floors or all floors? How many tons of explosives were used? How did they hide all these explosives?

[Christophera]

26. THX, For Being Direct: Squibs Improper Term, Corroborated Evacuations Of W

orkers from the WTC 1 floors immediately after they were sandblasted prior to laying mesh and pumping/pouring lightweight concrete.

Believe it or not, but Phil Jayhan of Let's Roll 9-11, remembers somebody telling him about the forced evacuations.

9-11pi.com when it first started had a few posts talking about tower workers complaints about elevator service after new ownership. It was said insurance reasons made the elevators needs servicing. Funny thing was that Otis guaranteed them free of service for the life of the building, or close to it.

The 1990 PBS documentary had at least 5 minutes dedicated to a slow down and conflict between subcontractors and the general because of evacuations of workers that were unannounced and planned leaving subcontractors to pay for men who were sitting around while security did their mystery thing for about 3 hours. There was video of crews, later, jogging from floor to floor after subs threatened lawsuits about the lost wages/time due to the unannounced forced evacuations. A lot of time was also spent talking about the "special plastic coating" on the rebar of the cast concrete core.

What is called a "squib" by the 9-11 truth community is really closer to "rifle shot". It is a corrugation of the steel panel floor layered with c4 that has a direct relationship to a detonator which is either on the wrong delay or surrounded by corrugations having aged, non viable explosive. The steel panel below had corrugations that ran from the core outward, and the concrete above provided a rifle barrel effect to eject concrete particulate horizontally when viewed as single detonations.

One calculation says 14 tons were needed. I think more like 25 were used. All the rebar of the core and every floor had c4 on it or in it. All encapsulated in concrete. Secret cold war technology for self destruct sub bases and missile silos.

Here is an image of the core going off independant of the fluffy looking floor detonations, that is all nearly finished in the delay sequence.



The lower wall of the core were very thick, making the core blast of the image above.



As closely as I can reconstruct it, It is all explained here.

http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11scenario.html

And there were shaped charges, but they were built in the floors, custom, some didn't work, ozidization/exposure.

[DoYouEverWonder]

59. Interesting picture

Can someone explain what would cause that darker/almost black plum of smoke that is going straight up in the air rather the down. I would assume some sort of accelerant/explosive would be required to cause that effect?

[Christophera]

60. North Tower: Fuel Burn Off?

Only an accelerant/explosive could do that. The dark smoke may be fuel burnoff. The north tower took a lot of fuel into the core.

COREBLAST


Notice the lighter colored plumes that must be concrete. The lower image can facilitate alignment to confirm it is from the core area.

ALIGN

[petgoat]

15. Disinfo technique #9: Play Dumb

Evades the issues.

[hack89]

19. Not quite right...

it was a typically incoherent Christophera post and after reading twice I couldn't understand his points. What issue do you think I was avoiding?

[petgoat]

23. typically incoherent Christophera post

I don't want to get into a literary criticism of Christophera's style, but it seems to me that he's saying:

1. Had minimal numbers of shaped charges been used, the uncut steel core columns should have
been seen toppling like trees.

2. Your invocation of shaped charges didn't allow for their distinctive sound.

3. The fact of pulverization tends to prove the demolition point, since the energy of gravity
is insufficient to pulverize the concrete.

[hack89]

24. Do you agree with his assessment?

If so, are you prepared to prove statement 3? Because I will not accept it without something more than his or yours saying so.

[petgoat]

25. Of course I'm not prepared to prove point #3.

I've been pointing out ever since I came on this board that the floor slab
concrete was special lightweight non-structural concrete, and thus likely
to be more easily pulverized than conventional concrete.

It's something that needs to be investigated. Normally an investigation is
launched when sufficient evidence is presented to merit it. You don't cite
lack of proof as a reason not to investigate.

[hack89]

27. Can you at least prove...

that gravity alone was insufficient to "pulverize" the building?

[petgoat]

29. "gravity alone was insufficient"

Jim Hoffman has done a thermodynamic analysis of the collapse.

http://911research.wtc7.net/papers/dustvolume/volume.html

[hack89]

30. Here is a 911 skeptic that disagrees..

http://www.erichufschmid.net/WTC_AnalysisRussell.html

Note that he indirectly illuminates a huge potential hole in Hoffman's argument, namely that due to the massive potential energy the WTC towers had, it would have take huge quantities of explosives to make up the difference Hoffman says he calculated. This does, however, provide the 911 research community a means by which to calculate how much explosives were used - I wonder why Hoffman didn't take the extra step? Perhaps he didn't like the answer?

How much difference would explosives have made? As a particularly massive example of controlled demolition, the Kingdome weighed 110,000 tons:
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/tech/Geek/geek000316.html

and required 5000 lbs of dynamite to destroy:
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/stack05.shtml

So we might guess the amount of powder required to demolish a WTC tower might be as much as 30,000 pounds (or perhaps less, given the much taller and more lightly built structure). The energy content of dynamite is given as only 0.47 kwh per pound:
http://www.elorantaassoc.com/eob97.htm

Thus, if explosives were used, they would only have contributed about 15,000 kwh, which is largely negligible compared to the gravitational energy. In a controlled demolition, gravity does the lion's share of the work, while the explosives serve only to destroy the physical integrity of the structure.

[Christophera]

32. Firefighters Statements & This Image, Prove Pulverization. No Collapse.

The classic collapse, here is what it looks like. No, ............................ it really doesn't matter if concrete falls 1000 feet.





Here is the collase of a tower structure after an explosion at ground level.



Here is what a simulated failure of a concrete column on a load table looks like.




The below image matches what firefighters describe and the fact no office furniture, file cabinents, chairs. nada.

Where are all the structural concrete pieces at ground zero like the collapses above, WHERE? That was all concrete, some of it high strength concrete, now reduced to it's particulate components. Pulverized is a very good word.



These were amongst the strongest buildings in the world and the concrete in them would fail far less than any of the structures of collapse at the top.

[DoYouEverWonder]

58. Maybe you should be tested

for reading comprehension? There is a disorder where people can read the words but can't understand what they mean.

[Christophera]

65. Intentional Disorder, Non Compus Mentis, Helps In Denial

pretending that all is normal as if cognitive dissonance had over come one completely.


or



Who me?

[MrSammo1]

7. And to think........

scientists consider gravity a weak force!

;o)

==============================================================
Sheeple Science Lesson # 1
A jet will fold it's wings and vertical stabilizer when it strikes a brick wall with a limestone facing,
but not when it strikes a steel wall.
==============================================================

[LARED]

8. Sheeple Science Lesson # 2

All materials and combinations of materials will always act in the same manner under all circumstances. Even steel columns evenly spaced filled with glass and alum will act exactly like a thick solid concrete wall no matter how the energy levels they are exposed to may be different.

This is mathematically expressed as

►Ћ§=¿

[MercutioATC]

10. What's the mathematical expression for the following:?

The WTC towers were made of steel. The Pentagon was made of concrete. Steel is harder than concrete. Why did the planes penetrate the WTC towers so easily when AAL77 essentially disintegrated?

(this is one of my favorites)

[LARED]

12. I have not derived that one yet, but I think its

foundational algorithms are based on rock, paper, scissors

Something like this

» 3  » # »

[MrSammo1]

18. You forgot..........

that all powerful limestone facing!

Vertical stabilizer proof limestone!

[LARED]

21. How do you know the vertical stabilizer

stayed intact? If you look at the stills of the pentagon hit, there does appear to be a large piece of the jet flying over the top of the building.

[MrSammo1]

48. I don't see any sign of a jet in

the five frame folly. Therefore it can only be considered part of the lie.

I do know that the supposed jet's vertical stabilizer could only be stopped by some form of potential energy.

[LARED]

50. stopped by some form of potential energy.??????

Ok, In light of that comment you should stop making any comments whatsoever regarding energy of perhaps science in general.

[MrSammo1]

52. what ever you say..........

shill!

[LARED]

53. That's quite the rebuttal

Calling names seems to be about the extent of your qualifications

[MrSammo1]

54. Just calling it the way

I see it.

[Christophera]

33. Try Something Intelligent.

http://st12.startlogic.com/~xenonpup/dust%20trails/

and realize that the concrete pushed the steel outward and ripped the steel apart.

[LARED]

38. What a hoot

You want me to try something intelligent and you link me to that site. LOL

The dust is easily explained. EVERY perimeter column was filled with powdered vermiculite in the gap between the steel column and the facade. It was about 2" thick on three sides of each and every perimeter column. As the building collapse that dust is released. This ain't brain surgery.

[Christophera]

39. Your Description Illogical, Self Contradictory. Do You Mean Curtain Wall?

If you say a column was filled with something, the something was inside of it. If you say a gap was filled between the steel and the facade, that is not the perimeter box column.

There was an aluminum curtain wall that held the windows between the box columns spaced 22 inches apart. Are you sayin' that was reduced by 4 inches over all?

As far as I know, only the floors had quantities of vermiculite.

I've always noticed that the dust seems to come from the steel, or is somehow trapped inside cavities to stream out as the steel falls. Your notion that a coating of vermiculite is removed by the air pressures of falling is nonsense.

My guess would be that the floors blew up first and all the vermiculite, flyash and pumice of the lightweight concrete was trapped in between the 14 inch column and the spandrel plate, then the core went of in a 40 foot tall piece. The floors detonation severed at least the interior box columns on 3 sides and perhaps broke some joints in the sections of perimeter box columns nearby. The core detonating levered the severed interior box columns outward, hinging downwards with the floor beams to break the perimeter box columns sections completely out of the shear wall and toss them downward.

The streaming powdery dust is the floor concrete materials sifting up and billowing out of the gaps and cavities of the perimeter steel.

[LARED]

41. Get a clue

the perimter walls were filled with 8 million pounds of vermiculite.



36 - the steel column
38 and 39 - fire resistant materials
40 - aluminum facade
42 - window glass
43 - the window frame.

[Christophera]

43. Your Source Is In Question: Not Consistently Labeled With Your Assertion

And the drawings from www.serendipity.li/ do not show us which 3 sides are coated with vermiculite. I see 1 only, 38 & 39.

The 8 million pounds figure seems deceptive, distribution is not addressed. The floors had the most. Also, how was it applied to 3 sides of the finished columns?

[LARED]

44. Your ability to read drawings is now in question

It is very clear to anyone with that skill to determine the components of the perimeter wall.

The vermiculite was not a coating, it was a fill. It was poured into the space between the steel columns and the alum facade. The concrete floors have a small percentage of vermiculite as a fill materials to make the concrete lighter.

[Christophera]

45. Logically Inconsistent Description With Drawing & Inadequate Labeling

The term "fill" doesn't show in the diagram of the facade as it is not "filled" all the way as it would be if poured. There is no explanation for this in the diagram making it inconsistent with your description.

In the below photo the facade you describe appears intact, but yet dut streams from the falling assembly of perimeter box columns.

[LARED]

46. Sorry if you can't understand the dwg.

It's pretty clear to me. Item 40 is the alum facade that was wrapped around each column on three sides. Item 38 is the vermiculite fill between the facade (40) and the column number 36.



Your image shows the vermiculte exiting the assembly. On many of the pieces you can see the column and the facade.




As a side note if you are having this much trouble understanding this simple dwg, I suggest you maybe should take a drafting class.

[Christophera]

47. I Do See Facade Pieces & Columns. dwg Doesn't Show INSL. Filling Facade T

otally. The space (right of 41) inside of 40 is not shown as being fully filled by 38. Crappy drawing. Maybe 40, the facade actually has an air space with that shape. Maybe the drawing on the right is meant to show that inner space of 40 which is filled with insulation.

Considering the non uniform removal of facade, the uniform streams of dust is inconsistent with the theory that the dust is from the disintegrating insulation applied to the columns, whatever package existed to contain the vermiculite.

[LARED]

49. The dwg does show the insul filling the gap

between the facade and the steel column. The space to the right of 41 inside of 40 IS the facade for crying out loud. That space is filled per the dwg. I though you worked in construction, yet you cannot grasp a simple drawing.

Considering the non uniform removal of facade, the uniform streams of dust is inconsistent with the theory that the dust is from the disintegrating insulation applied to the columns, whatever package existed to contain the vermiculite.

Translates to no amount of facts will sway me from believing the dust is some sort of weird phenomenon.

[Christophera]

51. Facade Seemed Stamped Sheet Metal. Dust Not Wierd Phenomena, Needs EXPL.

Why Is It? That is what needs explnation.

If the area right of 41 is the facade, more than an 1/8 thick, it's not stamped sheet metal with that thickness variant.


I read plans ok, I create them better. If what you say is true, I would have drawn those much differently.

[Christophera]

61. Yes DWG Does Show Insulation But Facade DWG Not Right, Deficient

The drawing does not show how that space immediately right of #41 is filled. Further right yes. The drawing shows a single stamped shell, without a second interior shell, which is not shown, that cavity immediately right of #41 will be filled too by insulation. So the drawings are nonsense.



Otherwise I have no big problem with the insulation filling and it being the cause of much of the streaming dust. I do see that the facade must be removed first before the filling can be eroded by air pressures of the fall and the facade is not totally removed but the dust is streaming uniformly anyway. This might be explained by erosion of the 4th side and some photos show gaps in the streams of dust about where they should be for the missing facade.

[Make7]

64. The drawings are not nonsense.

The green part is the aluminum facade.

- Make7

[LARED]

11. On the outside chance

Mr. Casaliggi was less than precise in his description are there others that tell the same story?

I often see his comments as a supposed proof that nearly all elements outside of the steel was pulverized to micron sized particles, but I don't recall too many others saying the same thing.

The nearly complete pulverization of the towers is of course 9/11 mythology, but I was wondering if there is actually other information beside poor Mr. Casaliggi statement to blame for this myth.

[petgoat]

16. pulverization of the towers is of course 9/11 mythology

Have you ever seen pictures of any surviving sections of floors?
Wouldn't you expect to see shattered sections of floor plates in a
natural collapse?

[LARED]

17. Pulverization

Please consult a dictionary. The pictures you show and the words you use do not match the meaning of pulverization.

There is no evidence the concrete was completely or mostly pulverized. All picture of ground zero show everything from dust to fairly large chucks of concrete.

Does this mean you are not an advocate of "pulverization" of the WTC any longer?

[Christophera]

34. Did You Lie On Purpose? You've Seen This Evidence.

Show us the big chunks of concrete a concrete core would leave.



all the fairly large chunks of concrete are complete concrete structures that were near but separate from the towers and not in this photo.

[LARED]

37. Show us the big chunks of concrete a concrete core would leave.

That would be difficult showing something that does not exist

[Christophera]

40. Concrete Exists And It Stays In Larger Pieces In Collapse. Proof Here

Observe, concrete structures collapsed and in large pieces. Yes falling long distances breaks them up but not that much.







The below is the tubular steel reinforced concrete core of WTC 2.



No proof what so ever exists for the steel core columns.

[RayUbinger]

22. Casaliggi's a liar

He says he saw the second "plane" hit. But the 2nd Hit was on the south side of the south tower, almost on the southeast corner. Casaliggi was INSIDE the NORTH tower lobby at the time, almost in the northwest corner, per the Naudet footage.

They drop a true statement or two like his remark about collapsing to dust, in amongst all the lies.


Ray Ubinger
http://911foreknowledge.com

[rman]

28. So his statements about not finding any recognizable office contents

is true.

Still it seems he was pretty much "there" when the 2nd plane hit - if his claim of "seeing" the 2nd plane hit is not literally true, then it seems to me it is a worst a small lie of very little consequence. Which won't stop people with a certain agenda from blowing it out of proportion in an attempt to discredit the guy all together.

What would be the purpose of his mixing lies with truths?

Also notably lacking in the pile of rubble are slabs of the floors.

[RayUbinger]

31. I endorse the position that the towers turned to dust

I just don't endorse quoting a liar to help prove it. I submit that the WTC dustification was captured on multiple videos. The same phenomenon happened at the Pentagon too:
http://thewebfairy.com/911/pentagon/dust.htm
http://thewebfairy.com/911/pentagon/pentapoof.htm

The purpose of mixing lies with truths is usually to make people more susceptible to swallow lies.

Casaliggi was in no position to see the alleged second "plane" flying or hitting Tower 2. He was INSIDE THE LOBBY of Tower ONE. The vast majority of BOTH towers stood squarely between him and the impact.

But he lies about it, two different times, on the dvd. Once is in the moment; he looks right at the cameraman and says, "There was a second plane. I saw it hit the tower." The other time is during a later interview, when he embellishes about the angle of a plane he couldn't have really seen:
http://www.gallerize.com/2005-01-11_001_MI_SG_UA175.htm
"Looking up and I saw the second plane coming in, second plane, it came in, from the west, came in from the west, and it banked onto its side, like this, and then turned, and it...it... disappeared for a fraction of a second behind the building and then the whole building just exploded."


Ray Ubinger
http://911foreknowledge.com

[rman]

35. "make people more susceptible to swallow lies"

in this case it would make people susceptible to swallow the "lie" that he "saw" the 2nd plane hit... Big deal?

Apparently he did in fact see the 'fire ball' that occurred as the plane hit.

I think that to call his claim that he saw the plane hit a lie, is mincing words.

[RayUbinger]

55. Then there's the lie that he was at the Alleged Odor of Alleged Gas scene

Casaliggi doesn't appear in the Church-Lispenard footage, but he recounts how he remembers going there.

And please note there was no fireball as the alleged plane hit. It vanished whole into the tower leaving only a puff of dust behind, and then it wasn't until a full second or two later the fireball started--hundreds of feet away from the impact point.

And Casaliggi still couldn't have seen the fireball. Not with the bulk of both towers positioned squarely between it and him. It was 70 storeys up and exploded predominantly out the EAST side of T2. Casaliggi was INSIDE the LOBBY of T1, in the northWEST corner.

Liars sometimes tell the truth, but don't use them as witnesses to build an argument.


Ray Ubinger
http://911foreknowledge.com

[Christophera]

36. Good Justification for Dustification! Lots Of Dust & Sand + Gravel = Con

crete.



Maybe not dust, but, the expression is appropriate under conditions. Once the evidence is seen, the question is, "Where did all that structural concrete come from? " The official plan calls for very little above ground structural concrete. Only the mechanical floors, 3, I think and about 5 others that were special stiffeners for the perimeter box columns, the exterior walls. Then, ............. how did all that concrete get reduced to its particulate components?

[rman]

42. Pentagon "turning to dust"? - i don't think so.

In case of the WTC there is a clear lack of the huge pile of rubble at/near the foot print of the towers that one would expect from 110 floors worth of concrete and steel lattice collapsing.

In case of the Pentagon there is in fact a pile of rubble:

The dust flows emanating from the pentagon collapse are not nearly as turbulent as those of the WTC collapses. Of course some amount of dust is to be expected when (part of) a building collapses (with or without CD). I say the amount of dust at the Pentagon is not unusually large. It is obvious that not even a significant amount of the part of the pentagon that collapsed did turn into dust.
http://thewebfairy.com/911/pentagon/pentapoof.htm

[RayUbinger]

56. Re-watch the falling stuff on the way down

I acknowledge significant rubble at the base of the collapsed Pentagon wall portion. The dustification of the Pentagon portion was not total like the Towers. But the same action can be seen in the video. Solid matter turns to fine dust before our very eyes during midair freefall.

In the clip
http://thewebfairy.com/911/pentagon/dust.htm
the action is best seen in the top left corner of the falling portion, just after it passes the slightly rightward-jutting bit of ledge on the left (uncollapsing) edge.

In the clip
http://thewebfairy.com/911/pentagon/pentapoof.htm
the action is best seen in the middle of the screen. Basically a whole storey or row of masonry gushes and turns to dust as it falls.

Webfairy thinks this is a so-called Hutchison effect, named for the living Canadian physicist John Hutchison.
http://thewebfairy.com/911/h-effect/


Ray Ubinger
http://911foreknowledge.com

[Christophera]

57. NY Environmental ORG. Has Scientific Dust Analysis

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

[jschurchin]

62. Ever see the video............

of the guy's skydiving inside of a car? Ask your friends, How come the car doesn't turn to dust?, it fell a hell of a lot farther. Granted it gets fuckin smashed, but dust?

[Christophera]

63. Yes, Velocity Doesn't Turn Things to Dust & Concrete Won't Break Enough To

even be turned into uniform pieces unless it contacted uniformly.

A collapse would leave many 20 foot chunks and huge mats of broken concrete still held together with steel. In a collapse, a tower with a concrete core could shear, and part fall off on one side, toppling would occur. Largely intact pieces of the building weighing 1,000's of tons would fall towards adjacent buildings. Huge chunks of concrete shear wall would rend, bend and rip structural steel apart.

Ground zero was sand and gravel, mixed with lots of dust and uniformly distributed structural steel. Massive amounts of very fine dust was propelled upward by thermal energy. That dust, basically silicates was bonded to large amounts of condensed iron in the nearby area.



There is way too much mineral base material in the basement for a steel cored structure. Floor volumes do not add up to one third of the volumes we see. And there were a protportionately small number of floors that had high strength rock aggregate concrete. Most were lightweight concrete with vermiculite, flyash, pumice mixes.