If you're trying to use the spire "turning to dust", or "demolecularizatyion", I'm not even going to waste my time because it fell, left a breif dust cloud, but it didn't turn to dust. I challenged you guys to show me cars that were the result of your "nukes". This is absurd.

You can make a fairly conclusive observation when looking at the pictures just posted pictures above.

The beams were super heated, or else, more than likely, you wouldn't be seeing that happen.

So they fell out and left a cloud of dust (from the structure being there one second, and then dropping out a few seconds later)? There was obviously lots of dust around the place from the collapse that had just happened.

OR, the steel vaporized into 'dust'?

There' s a Grand Canyon of a difference.

Don't you think that if they were going to use explosives anywhere, that they'd each generally be as small as possible to avoid exsessive audio "reports"?

Don't you think some 'big' "nuke" (I mean compared to sticks of shaped charges) would be a tad loud compared to shaped charges?

Don't you think the clearence involved in securing many of these "micronukes" for this already problematic "demo" job is taking it to absurd extremes? I'm not a worshipper of occams razor, but man at soem point you have to say enough is enough.

Dear IgnoranceIsntBlisss:

Correct. The steel turned into vapor (dust) within seconds. And yes, there was lots of other dust around as well, from everything else breaking down into micro-fine particles, steam, heat and light. It’s a good thing ‘they’ (the cabal) chose a bright sunny day for 9-11. Had they done this at night we would have seen ‘more’.

“OR, steel vaporized into dust?” I can’t follow you here, IgnoranceIsntBliss. The steel sublimated (vaporized) and got thinner and thinner, weaker and weaker until it failed and the columns tipped over. Where in all of this is the “Grand Canyon”?

Greetings,
The Wizard In The Woods

Originally posted by IgnoranceIsntBlisss
Don't you think that if they were going to use explosives anywhere, that they'd each generally be as small as possible to avoid exsessive audio "reports"?

Don't you think some 'big' "nuke" (I mean compared to sticks of shaped charges) would be a tad loud compared to shaped charges?

Dear IgnoranceIsntBlisss:

Yeah, yeah. The dude with the razor, again. Actually he may be right, but it all depends on one’s bias to begin with. You sound like my kid brother, he always talks about that guy. He’s a hopeless OCT-er, naturally.

I’ve said this before, but of course stuff like this gets lost in the thick of things here on ATS.

Hydrogen bombs are much, MUCH quieter per destructive yield than conventional explosives.

A very conservative calculation on ATS’s “Hydrogen Bombs Brought Down The WTC’s Fact, Err. Hypothesis” shows that at a minimum 12,348 tons of trinitrotoluene (TNT) would have been needed per tower to do what the nukes did. In a bomb, the thermal blast is what makes the noise. Being that TNT is nothing but blast, and hydrogen fusion bombs effects are 80% silent high-energy neutrons and only 15% blast (5% is other radiation), what do you think is more likely to have been present at the WTC’s?

Greetings,
The Wizard In The Woods

Originally posted by Wizard_In_The_Woods

Hydrogen bombs are much, MUCH quieter per destructive yield than conventional explosives.

A very conservative calculation on ATS’s “Hydrogen Bombs Brought Down The WTC’s Fact, Err. Hypothesis” shows that at a minimum 12,348 tons of trinitrotoluene (TNT) would have been needed per tower to do what the nukes did. In a bomb, the thermal blast is what makes the noise. Being that TNT is nothing but blast, and hydrogen fusion bombs effects are 80% silent high-energy neutrons and only 15% blast (5% is other radiation), what do you think is more likely to have been present at the WTC’s?

Links please. Those are rather strong claims to not have any links whatsoever.

Its so ridiculous to have used a Nuke for 9-11

Why not use coventional devices? I'm sure its wasn't conventional but nukes arent needed just some well placed cutters.

Why would the gov't use something that the terrorists definetly would not have? I mean if you could conclusively say it had to be a nuke, its obivously the govt who did it. If it was found out there were some regular explosives in the tower it would be easy to say after the fact there were more terrorists

Reasons Why Conventional Explosives Weren’t Used To Destroy The Bulk Of The WTC’s

1. Too Loud.
2. Too Visible.
3. Too Recognizable. Their effects are known by many.
4. Would have left large rubble pile full of incriminating evidence.

Greetings,
The Wizard In The Woods.

Don't forget the fact that the core columns; There were alot, made of the best steel, extremely thick. The amount of cutter charges needed is a joke, let alone the logisitics of setting them all up..they needs to be placed on the steel..would all the columns really be accessible without the building being stripped for demolition first??

Theres also the matter of the collapse.. massive amounts of dust shot out the impact zone as the building started to fall, literally within 1-2 seconds.. where is all this dust coming from? And where is all the energy coming from to pulverize it so fast?

Originally posted by shrunkensimon
Theres also the matter of the collapse.. massive amounts of dust shot out the impact zone as the building started to fall, literally within 1-2 seconds.. where is all this dust coming from? And where is all the energy coming from to pulverize it so fast?

What? You never heard of drywall? You think the interior was wide-open steel and concrete? As for the energy to pulverise it (not that much energy would be required) has everyone forgotten high school physics and the potential energy imparted to everything lifted up to the various heights over the years?

Yes, because it was all drywall Honestly!

You can't have it both ways...if there was an inferno, then surely all the material on those floors would be destroyed anyway!!!!

Sorry, but what you are seeing is concrete, not drywall. Try and answer my questions again please

One thing is for sure. There was something generating an enormous amount of heat at the WTC Towers, beyond what one would expect from JET FUEL fires, even 6 weeks after the event.

Originally posted by shrunkensimon
Yes, because it was all drywall Honestly!

You can't have it both ways...if there was an inferno, then surely all the material on those floors would be destroyed anyway!!!!

Sorry, but what you are seeing is concrete, not drywall. Try and answer my questions again please

Fine. Drywall and concrete. A fire is only going to reduce matter so far. As for where the energy's coming from, how about you address the answer I posited?

"can not provide"

You have some sort of math that proves such an absolutist statement?



So did anyone actually watch the video of the "spire" falling out (instead of "turning to dust")?

The greatest problem I have with all the naysayers on this thread is simply this...

Explain to me in plain English (or "Scientific jargon" if you must"), how the hell did much of the debris found end up at a size of 30 microns or so ??

I mean seriously, If anyone honestly believes this happened as a result of "jet fuel" or conventional explosives (those that are known), they seriously need their heads read...

Or they can show me evidence right now to demonstrate how either of these possibilities lead to such minute particles of debris...

Before you do, dont bother saying to me prove it, blah, blah....Its already been proven thru official sources time and again there was an abundance of debris particles in this size range...

There is only one "known" force on this planet that is capable of producing such debris....

And we know what that is...

Lets go....

I thought the question here was whether or not the "spire" "vaporized into dust"?