South Tower Core Turns to Dust

So, that is WTC 7 in the foreground of Cams picture?
It sure doesnt look damaged to the extent the debunkers claim.
It appears that the mass of WTC 1 is falling away from WTC 7.

As far as the spire collapsing.
It is possible that it just falls away from the camera angle as someone has pointed out, but never the less it is very curious looking.

What we really need is to see where this 400 foot length of ridgid box columns ended up. THey should have been laying on top of the debris pile seeings how they were the last things to fall.
Can anybody find a picture of that?

Originally posted by gottago
Here's another view of the spire turning to dust:
´
And h/t to CF for posting the photo of the spire sizzling with dust plumes rolling off it. How exactly, that?
..

It just pushes the real question away to the next level--you've got to explain the missing building mass and all that dust.

yeah, looks very strange, especially the sudden change in dust volume. the other issue is that these remnants are severely damaged, failure of joints is one thing, but the spire imho looks severely 'corroded' for lack of a better term. it's totally fubared and while the box structure is partly visible it's torn up top to bottom in varying degrees. what on earth inflicts this kind of damage?

wrt building debris volume, i'd say most of it was buried in the basement, the towers weight 500kt each, iirc, dust alone can't account for 1Mt of material, can it? besides, the basements look completely filled up from the pics you posted.

Remember that most of the building was concrete which was reduced to dust as a result of the explosions caused by the demolition.

A designer of the WTC is on record as saying you could put several airliners into the building and it would still stand due to the design. One aircraft, a bit of a fireball (which remember, is EXTERNAL to the building) followed by a bit of an office fire across a few floors. That does not add up to a vertical building collapse at free-fall speed, and not after just 57 minutes.

Anyone care to explain the sounds of explosions before and during the collapse? There is plenty of evidence of this, available from numerous sources. Again, despite any flaws the film might have or point of existing as a film, "Loose Change" covers this point quite well.

[edit on 11-3-2007 by mirageofdeceit]

Originally posted by mirageofdeceit
Remember that most of the building was concrete which was reduced to dust as a result of the explosions caused by the demolition.

Most of the WTC towers were steel and aluminum cladding. Where did you get this "mostly concrete" BS? That is false. As for being reduced to dust..Gypsium drywall getting crushed by the tremendous force of a celing to floor colapse is a MUCH more likely explaination of Dust. Of course *some* (as in a percentage) of the dust would be caused by concrete being pulverized by the same falling weight as mentioned above. not by explosives.

A designer of the WTC is on record as saying you could put several airliners into the building and it would still stand due to the design.

Hyperbole and misquote. The towers were said to be designed with the ability withstand a collision by a 707 jetliner. (smaller than the 767 that actually hit) In the 1960's, I doubt (and this is my opinion) that anyone would be thinking an airliner would be INTENTIONALLY trying to penetrate the towers--much less at FULL SPEED and FULL FUEL.

One aircraft, a bit of a fireball (which remember, is EXTERNAL to the building) followed by a bit of an office fire across a few floors.

WTF? Holy minimalization, Batman! How about one Big-ass Jetliner, One Huge fireball, so big that not only the INSIDE of the crash area was engulfed in flames the fireball escaped all the way to the other side of the tower. "Abit of an office fire?" How about a raging, uncontrolled multi-floor fire. Jeeze dude..

That does not add up to a vertical building collapse at free-fall speed, and not after just 57 minutes.

It wasn't freefall speed...at all. Not even close. AND all of those factors Do add up to a vertical building collapse. And mountains of evidence support it.

Anyone care to explain the sounds of explosions before and during the collapse?

Explosions, or sounds similar to explosions could come from any number of sources after a traumatic structural event such as a Huge Jetliner , fully fueled, hitting and penetrating into a building ignighting into a HUGE fireball, and lighting several floors on fire.. Actually I would be surprized if there were NO explosions after an event like that..and really, wouldn't you? Electrical transformers, Co2 tanks, severed gas lines, generators, just to name a few.

There is plenty of evidence of this, available from numerous sources.

There are witness accounts, a a few audio clips of things that sound like explosions (Loud sounds). There is NO evidence that High Explosives were detonated inside the WTC towers. NONE.

Again, despite any flaws the film might have or point of existing as a film, "Loose Change" covers this point quite well.

Loose Change is a work of FICTION, Dylan Avery freely admitts it.

The effect of "Loose Change" is so similar to the radio broadcast of "War of the Worlds" it isn't even funny.

Back when Orson Wells broadcast the FICTION story of War of the Worlds over the radio, a widspread panic ensued. People actually thought the US was being invaded by Martians. Why? because the FICTION story was being presented in such a way that many people thought it was a credible newcast. After a while, people's better senses prevailed, and only a few paranoid-delusionists still believed that it was true. The FACT is it was just an entertainment ploy.

When the Loose Change crew, uploaded their FICTION Documentary on Google and Ytube, a widespread panic ensued. People actually thought the US government was behind the attacks of 9/11. Why? because the FICTION story was being presented in such a way that many people thought it was a credible documentary. After a while, people's better senses prevailed, more looked into the FACTS of 9/11 and began to see the gaping FLAWS in the conspiracy storys regarding 9/11. and only a few paranoid-delusionists still believed it was true. The FACT is it was just an entertainment ploy.

My feeling is, the events of 9/11 shouldn't be the subject of entertainment. at all.

Hope this helps.

[edit on 11-3-2007 by mirageofdeceit]

[edit on 11-3-2007 by GwionX]

First Debunk this:
jet plane cat do a thing nest a little pencil
youtube.com... he died on 911 by the way

sorry but your last post its pure entertainment.
Its ridiculous at best.
Start to watch some of those Videos and start to debunk a few of them than come back and place a few more comedy comment on here.

explosion
www.liveleak.com...
explosions
www.liveleak.com...
explosion
www.liveleak.com...
explosions
youtube.com...

youtube.com...

structure failure? fire intense?
www.liveleak.com...

oh before I forget please plase debunk this crazy man:

www.liveleak.com...

Or come up with a logical explanation about it if you can.
But no you cannot.
Can you?

Holy thread hi-jack, Batman.

The thread is about the bizarre physical effects seen in the various photographic evidence of the remnant of the tower's central steel core structure, aka the spire.

What caused them, related phenomenon pertinent to them.

We're not here to rehash Loose Change and do 9/11 101 yet again.

Please, stay o/t people.

[edit on 11-3-2007 by gottago]

Originally posted by gottago
Holy thread hi-jack, Batman.

The thread is about the bizarre physical effects seen in the various photographic evidence of the remnant of the tower's central steel core structure, aka the spire.

What caused them, related phenomenon pertinent to them.

We're not here to rehash Loose Change and do 9/11 101 yet again.

Please, stay o/t people.

[edit on 11-3-2007 by gottago]

Well, I didn't think you were all worried about the details..seeing as your thread title is refering to the SOUTH tower..while the whole discussion is about the NORTH tower.

Welcome to the thread, GX

Yes that's an error of ID that's been pointed out earlier.

Anything of substance to offer?

I could never really decide whether the spire gif in question was turning to dust or falling, creating a dust trail, but it kinda looks a lot like it is turning to dust. Either way - Its quite hard to tell at these low resolutions don't you think, so really none of your arguments hold much water for me.

Regardless, dust samples taken from around GZ contained 'micron sized particles' of 'an alphabetic soup' of metals, 10-300 microns across! That is incredible and true physical evidence of complete annihilation on a molecular scale. Exotic metals used in computer chips were identified, imagine that! These small computer chips encased in the computer separated into micron scaled particles. You would be hard pushed to produce this with conventional explosives.

Evidence like this heavily suggests its no less than a nuclear event! As I understand it and have stated many times before to produce that with typical charges you would need to plant explosives for every square meter of area in the tower!

Although I remain unsure, I think the clue to what is happening with the spire top is that it starts to fall just before it appears to turn into dust. Now, if it had turned to dust without showing signs of falling, then I WOULD be interested. But I think it is more likely that the shudder caused by the slipping down of the spire knocked off fine dust that had accumulated on it, enveloping it in a cloud that obscured it as it fell. Sorry, Professor Judy Wood. But I think you misinterpreted this.

Thanks for the links to the video of the designer talking about multiple aircraft impacts - I was just off to go find it myself.

The reason I find the nuclear theory difficult to take is because there would be an area of intense radiation. You can't hide it, even on a small scale.

If a low yield nuke(s) had been used, surely someone with a Geiger counter would have found out by now??? Did no-one look even if it was just to show that no nuke had been used?

Another problem is that nukes tend to vaporize things or blow them wide open. It has already been shown that Thermate was used to cut several beams, and it wouldn't actually take long to get these set up. As has already been pointed out, they had 3 days (that were known about) where charges could be set. If you are doing a rush job, you're going to get the best onto it (i.e. Spec Ops), as they would think nothing of working a 48 hour shift. Just tell them where you want them, and they're in there. You don't require structural engineers to physically place them.

As for the collapse of the central column - I saw this live on TV as it happened, and was a bit surprised when it first collapsed (it didn't seem there was anything to hit it) and the fact it fell straight down is suspect (it had me thinking it was odd, even at the time). I remember sitting thinking about how it just fell, and thought the only logical thing is that the base was suddenly removed, but in my shock at what I'd just seen, it didn't hit me that it was a central support column for the WTC that I just watch collapse, and would be extremely well fixed to ground, and rather large, too; not likely to "just" fall over, never mind fall straight down like that.

I do remember watching it collapse straight down, leaving a dust trail. The dust created from the rest of it collapsing would settle on it that quickly due to the sheer volume of dust we are talking about (that is certainly possible).

The angle shown above is not the best. The footage I saw was from BBC World but that is no longer available (if you were here about a week or two ago, all the live archives suddenly went offline world-wide). In that you can clearly see it collapse straight down, and not just mysteriously become a bit of dust suspended in mid-air.

I'd be looking more at why/how it fell rather then whether it became dust or not.

Can we get structural drawings of the WTC? Are these publicly available?

[edit on 11-3-2007 by mirageofdeceit]

Originally posted by Insolubrious
I could never really decide whether the spire gif in question was turning to dust or falling, creating a dust trail, but it kinda looks a lot like it is turning to dust.

I've been thinking the steel was sublimating, and then fell downwards at some point from the base as it was still doing so. In some images you can see dark gray dust streaming off of the columns and their bracing.

^ Click for hi-res.

You can see it plain as day.

If a low yield nuke(s) had been used, surely someone with a Geiger counter would have found out by now??? Did no-one look even if it was just to show that no nuke had been used?

The site was totally sealed off from the public for a good while.

A site where the debris was hauled, Fresh Kills landfill, was recently in the news for showing signs of unusual radioactivity, though. The Ground Zero site itself seems scrubbed by now.

[edit on 11-3-2007 by bsbray11]

Originally posted by Spawwwn
you have to be kididng me those pictures are obviously photoshopped fakes.

isn't that the core that was still standing weeks after the attacks?

What a dumbass

Originally posted by micpsi
Although I remain unsure, I think the clue to what is happening with the spire top is that it starts to fall just before it appears to turn into dust. Now, if it had turned to dust without showing signs of falling, then I WOULD be interested. But I think it is more likely that the shudder caused by the slipping down of the spire knocked off fine dust that had accumulated on it, enveloping it in a cloud that obscured it as it fell. Sorry, Professor Judy Wood. But I think you misinterpreted this.

I WOULD be interested to know how all that dust collected on a structure of vertical columns immediately after a catastrophic collapse. Enough to "obscure it as it fell."

Maybe you have a new theory of dust?

Sincerely, Prof. Judy

Originally posted by Long Lance
sorry, but a nuke gives of a flash, it does not cook away slowly, does it? do you know of any example of a 'slow' nuke? besides, nuclear neutron radiation would have penetrated the entire structure, therefore affecting more than just the columns' surface. as you know, the neutron bomb was designed to kill without inflicting as much thermal damage as a normal nuke, so using neutron radiation to destroy a building seems counter-intuitive to me and the approach would require intensely focused neutron beams without sidelobes (otherwise half of manhattan would have dropped dead), not to mention leave tell-tale signs of nuclear damage. of course there's no way to tell if any samples were tested.

Dear Long Lance:

Sorry, but the nukes did give off flashes at the WTC towers on 9-11. We just didn’t see them because they detonated inside the buildings somewhere in the bathtub areas (basements). The seismic records of Palisades show this clearly. And the effects of the blasts revealed themselves as slowly or quickly as is normal for any nuclear explosion. There’s plenty film footage out there of A-bomb and H-bomb “tests” — underground or aboveground — to compare with.

And neutrons sure did penetrate the entire structures. That’s why practically all materials except the outermost columns and their aluminum coverings turned to vapor and dust.

Yes, neutron bombs were designed to kill with less thermal blast. But designed to kill they are. Conventional neutron bombs as concocted by Sam Cohen, the man who wanted to use these devices on Vietnamese pig farmers, are nothing more than modified fission-triggered H-bombs — albeit small ‘baby’ versions.

As a weapon, neutron radiation is a more precise deadly force than a thermal blast, and therefore militarily almost always more desirable. Whether it’s used to destroy living beings or buildings. It can terminate biological life efficiently with less collateral damage to man-made structures. But neutrons can also be used much more selectively than thermal forces to annihilate inorganic substances. In short, in any case, against personnel or structures, neutrons are the superior form of targeting energy transfer medium (as opposed to pressure/blast and heat/thermal effects). Conclusively, if you wanna blow something up, neutrons is the way to go!

Also, pure hydrogen bombs are strictly fusion weapons. Whereas Sammie Cohen’s Neutron bombs are fission/fusion combo devises – with more radioactive fallout.

Greetings,
The Wizard In The Woods

I tend to believe it is an illusion that the SPIRE turned to Dust, although I admit it sure looks like it is turning to dust.

The thing I find curious about its demise, is that it looks very similar to the collapse of the Towers, it really has that appearance of 'evaporating' that is the only word I can think of for this.

But really unless we see another picture or film on it we might be just speculating on its demise.

Originally posted by Wizard_In_The_Woods

Sorry, but the nukes did give off flashes at the WTC towers on 9-11. We just didn’t see them because they detonated inside the buildings somewhere in the bathtub areas (basements). The seismic records of Palisades show this clearly. ..

the columns remain standing for a short while (way after collapse has been initiated), only then start sinking slowly onto themselves while emitting curious plumes. how does that delay come into play? if the neutron flash you hypothesized lasted only for a microsecond or so, how can we accoutn for the delay?

don't get me wrong, the pocket nuke is still a valid theory, considering reports of molten mass, extreme temperatures and 'the meteorite', which was retrieved from the basement of one of the buildings (dunno which one tbh). i just fail to see how it could produce the observed effects.

Keeping in mind multiples could have been used, if anything was used in the basement, I think it was either not directed up the core of the building, or else was not detonated until after the collapse was already well underway and approaching the ground.

Reason being for this is that the spire thickened towards the base. The columns seen standing are only a small fraction of the actual core structure that was once in that space (we're looking at 2-5 columns near its top, or something like that, depending on the time instant you pick, and so there are 40-some missing). If anything was directed upwards through the core from underground from the start then I would expect to see visible signs of such before debris starts reaching the ground. I would also expect to see more damage towards the bottom, and less damage towards the top, regardless of the overall structural integrity of the building.

The light issue is hard to reconcile, but then again, so are many other things without considering some source of extreme energy being added to the system.

Is there any way to force light out of the visible spectrum? The so-called "after-glow" is something that I haven't really looked into, but the idea is that lots of light in the infrared spectrum was present during and right after each collapse.

Bsbray11

The light issue is hard to reconcile, but then again, so are many other things without considering some source of extreme energy being ADDED to the system.

Emphasis 'added' by me. (No pun intended)

Just my humble opinion: I don't believe that the spire just disintegrated, I believe is simply fell very quickly and from my limited viewpoint it looks like it did this mostly downwards. In the four frames illustrated in the beginning post, the third frame you can still see the tip of the spire 'silouetted' inside the dust, just down a bit because it's in the process of falling.

My main question is what kicked all the dust (fireproofing?) off while it was falling? Did some sort of shockwave travel through the spire right before/as it fell?

[edit on 12-3-2007 by ViewFromTheStars]