It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Thank you.

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

# the free fall fallacy

page: 2
0
share:

posted on Nov, 19 2007 @ 02:18 PM

Do you take into account the energy removed from the system by "airborne" steel peeling away from the structure.

Also, due to their location and the nature of the collapse ("banana peel"), the external box columns probably never exerted any pressure on concrete in the building.

It is also interesting to note that the concrete pulverization seems to be a feature of the disappearance of every floor, starting at the impact zone, unless you believe (as I do) that all that smoke was detonations.

From your posts I know that you do not believe these were "unassisted" collapses, but I'm not an engineer and I'm just wondering how the considerations I mentioned play into your thinking.

posted on Nov, 19 2007 @ 02:21 PM
Here you have:

Doesn't like it but I guess in the case that it were only 70ton concrete the
missing energy argument can not be hold.
With 15 sec it is in the range of the observation. (I observed 14sec.. but who can measure that exact)
Ok if you cut the steel columns you can get the 14 sec.

thanks for the input.
You should have been around and gave that input a year ago when i was full in that simulation.

So if a selfcollapse is possible or not all depends on that 70ton I would say. If concrete 70ton then no.
A critical number.
sheesh! Someone please give me the exact number!
I want a yes / no answer not a can be can also be not.

ok what else can be calculated with the towers..
give me something new.

Edit: Sorry The numbers in the graphc are of course Ktons (kilotons) not tons. Added that comment by hand.

[edit on 19-11-2007 by g210b]

posted on Nov, 19 2007 @ 02:36 PM

It's conservation of momentum. Energy drag of Crash of concrete and energy drag of buckling steel. Not much more.

best if you download the program there you see what I took into account and what not.

Yes I think that the tower collapse happend with help and did not selfcollaps without assistance. if 70tons is correct however then the "additional energy is required" can not be hold up if I trust in my model. Still however you have to wonder how the core culumns could break apart. If you watch the videos of the twoer collapsing then you see somethign very interesting the whole tower cut itself from the core. all core broke. and this way down.. the core somehow 'desintegrated' into peaces. So where came the horizontal forces from that that are required to break the cores into small peaces down the tower. then there is wtc 7 collapse with hardly any dammage. Not made really public.. many doesnt know...the pentagon ..so much does not add up. However I am still looking for the one peace that nails it.
Or a confession of someone that i guess never happens.

posted on Nov, 19 2007 @ 03:14 PM

I guarantee you, if someone comes forward to confess and show how the controlled demo was done, George Bush won't have to knock the guy off to shut him up. He won't even have to order it. That job will be done by a committee of Phd's in Engineering, trying to protect their butts.

posted on Nov, 19 2007 @ 03:41 PM

Originally posted by ipsedixit
I guarantee you, if someone comes forward to confess and show how the controlled demo was done, George Bush won't have to knock the guy off to shut him up. He won't even have to order it. That job will be done by a committee of Phd's in Engineering, trying to protect their butts.

Probabily. I can well figure that.

let's get back to the subject I started to check this all again.. somehow the numbers looks strange with the 70kton concrete:

I checked the reference one posted on page 1:
www.journalof911studies.com...

page 13: he uses 280kton concrete for hsi calculation and refers to:
hypertextbook.com...

that one says 450kton total weight EACH tower referenced to 5 sources.

200kton steel for the WHOLE consturction. I gusse that steel includes the base also. Wouldn't we have to 'scale ' the steel down also?

Lets calculate again what we had as last:
70kton concret + 96kton stell = 166 kton.

if each tower was 450kton than what are the missing 284 kton if not steel and concrete?

I guess if we take 70kton concrete we have to distribute the 200steel in total with the base also.

140kton concrete 2 towers + 260kton base. = 400kton Concrete total
applayed to the steel:
70kton steel tower 2 towers + 130kton steel base = 200kton stell total

that leafs 35kton steeel each tower, not 96kton.
Execpt we have much more concrete in the base and less steell and much more steel in the twoer and less in the base. But how much?

1) Was all the steel in the tower or do we have subtract something for the base.

2) where are the missing 380kton each tower (again 70kton concret + 96kton steel =166kton and we miss 284 kton for up to the 450kton tower wight.

Now I know again why that 70kton concrete number was unrealistic to me! It simple doenst add up this way.

can you solve this!?

We need correct numbers for getting correct result.

[edit on 19-11-2007 by g210b]

posted on Nov, 19 2007 @ 04:14 PM

A lot of the structural details of the materials used in building the WTC are located in the NIST report:

wtc.nist.gov...

The link is to the section of their report in which they describe the building in detail. Hope it helps. I think you will be able to find out how the steel was distributed in the building. Not sure about the basement level though.

Here is another link, in which there is a cursory description of the basement levels. Maybe not so helpful:

serendipity.911review.org...

[edit on 19-11-2007 by ipsedixit]

posted on Nov, 19 2007 @ 04:27 PM

Originally posted by Haroki
Did you factor in the force to crush the lightweight concrete used in the floors would take less energy to pulverize it than normal construction concrete?

Did you factor in that "lightweight" has NOTHING to do with strength? I know some lightweight mixes that have far more strength than "normal" construction concrete.

And before I get asked "why don't they use lightweight concrete then?", I'll tell you. Normal is cheaper.

I've already had this conversation before. Lightweight does NOT equal light strength.

posted on Nov, 19 2007 @ 04:31 PM

Originally posted by g210b
Yes I simulated all the concrete as light concrete which reuqires less energy to crash than the usual concrete.

Not true, depending on the mix design.

Structural lightweight concrete has strengths comparable to normal weight concrete, yet is typically 25% to 35% lighter.

www.escsi.org...

posted on Nov, 19 2007 @ 04:35 PM

Originally posted by Haroki
But your concrete tonnage is waaaaaay off. Greening computes 627 tons/floor, including the cores area. 627 x 110 = 70,000 tons, not 400,000.

Who says Greening is correct? As far as I know, he isn't privy to the structural drawings either.

posted on Nov, 19 2007 @ 05:57 PM
Normal or light concrete doesnt matters so match when the crashing energy required is not factor 10 different and this is not the case.
So to be on the safe side I do the calculation/simulate with the light concrete value that is accepted by the most. If I don't do that someone would bring this up and doubt the calculation you see.

Yes I wonder too if greens estimation can be considered correct. I think not.

400000 cubiqyard is about 460kton. Asumed its for the whole constructen (which has to be checked first and confirmed because I read thsi different)

Then I dont think that the base has factor 4.5 more concrete than one tower. So the suggested ratio of: 140kton (both tower) to 260kton base
is supsect to me.
Maybe you can say both twoer together = 1 base than you have 230kton to 230kton and that means 115kton for each tower
or probabily its more like 1/3 each: 460/3 = 153kton each tower
say 150kton.
then we have 96kton steel.. It's long since I checked up this number but i believe there was much less uncertainity about that..it's considered all the 200kton stell is in the 2 twoer..nothing in the base..

so we have 150kton concrete and 96kton (I have this number from somehwere) steel

Now I added 50kton payload more or less bymyself this was a very raw estimation from my side (about 10% of the tower wight) because I dont have a number to that and it is probabiyl way too much.
If we have now reduced the twoer to 150kton concret + ca. 100kton steel = 250kton instead 560 kton so i have to adapt that according. makes about 22kton. (And in case of greens 70kton concrete + 100kton steel anout 15kton.)
The payload probabily still much too hight estimated (it woudl require a buttom up estimation ..people furniture etc..) this way. however the payload makes of course big different in time the region where almost all concrete has gone.

well that makes
1) 150kton concrete + 100kton stell + 22kton payload

or
2) 70kton concrete +100kton steel + 15kton payload

if the total wight as the other sources tell is really 450kton than the second one green's 70kton is not feasable.

Number 1 does more fit with that 450kton total. (250kton compared to 450 kton.. well still a lot missing thought)

maybe the 280kton concrete used in that one doc is most correct.

I have seen numbers up to 700kton in other estimations. An amazing factor 10! (one says 700kton the other 70kton)

The question is can we narrow it somehow to a value?

I knwo it was 400000 cubiqyard thats 460kton in total. All is needed is the correct ratio Base to tower.

The steel is probabily correct but is also to question

and the payload is of course to question

It all depends on this 3 numbers. I only need 3 good numbers.

concret mass, steelmass , and payload mass.

edit: corrected the numbers... made a misstake somewhere

[edit on 19-11-2007 by g210b]

posted on Nov, 19 2007 @ 09:16 PM

Originally posted by g210b

Originally posted by Haroki
Review your source about the amount of concrete again - "400,000 tons for the entire building". More than likely, it's 70,000 tons in the floors for each building = 140,000 tons + 260,000 tons for the basements/slurry walls/foundation, etc = 400,000 tons.

Do you mean this is to read 400'000 cubeyard for BOTH towers? Building ..building!? how was it used in the links..
That would indeed change the thing if this is for both towers.
And yes all that is in the basement doesnt adds to fall time.
hmm...

To be honest, I don't have much better numbers than you do on where all that concrete went. But the amount that went into the floors is clear.

Check back on your Greening paper and see if there's anything wrong with his concrete weight/floor calcs.

911myths.com...

posted on Nov, 19 2007 @ 10:12 PM

Originally posted by g210b
Normal or light concrete doesnt matters so match when the crashing energy required is not factor 10 different and this is not the case.
So to be on the safe side I do the calculation/simulate with the light concrete value that is accepted by the most. If I don't do that someone would bring this up and doubt the calculation you see.

Yes I wonder too if greens estimation can be considered correct. I think not.

400000 cubiqyard is about 460kton. Asumed its for the whole constructen (which has to be checked first and confirmed because I read thsi different)

Then I dont think that the base has factor 4.5 more concrete than one tower. So the suggested ratio of: 140kton (both tower) to 260kton base
is supsect to me.
Maybe you can say both twoer together = 1 base than you have 230kton to 230kton and that means 115kton for each tower
or probabily its more like 1/3 each: 460/3 = 153kton each tower
say 150kton.
then we have 96kton steel.. It's long since I checked up this number but i believe there was much less uncertainity about that..it's considered all the 200kton stell is in the 2 twoer..nothing in the base..

so we have 150kton concrete and 96kton (I have this number from somehwere) steel

Now I added 50kton payload more or less bymyself this was a very raw estimation from my side (about 10% of the tower wight) because I dont have a number to that and it is probabiyl way too much.
If we have now reduced the twoer to 150kton concret + ca. 100kton steel = 250kton instead 560 kton so i have to adapt that according. makes about 22kton. (And in case of greens 70kton concrete + 100kton steel anout 15kton.)
The payload probabily still much too hight estimated (it woudl require a buttom up estimation ..people furniture etc..) this way. however the payload makes of course big different in time the region where almost all concrete has gone.

well that makes
1) 150kton concrete + 100kton stell + 22kton payload

or
2) 70kton concrete +100kton steel + 15kton payload

if the total wight as the other sources tell is really 450kton than the second one green's 70kton is not feasable.

Number 1 does more fit with that 450kton total. (250kton compared to 450 kton.. well still a lot missing thought)

maybe the 280kton concrete used in that one doc is most correct.

I have seen numbers up to 700kton in other estimations. An amazing factor 10! (one says 700kton the other 70kton)

The question is can we narrow it somehow to a value?

I knwo it was 400000 cubiqyard thats 460kton in total. All is needed is the correct ratio Base to tower.

The steel is probabily correct but is also to question

and the payload is of course to question

It all depends on this 3 numbers. I only need 3 good numbers.

concret mass, steelmass , and payload mass.

edit: corrected the numbers... made a misstake somewhere

[edit on 19-11-2007 by g210b]

Wow, more nice work.

I'd say that 60-70k tons of steel sounds about right, if you figure some is below and some exterior columns peeled away.

70k tons on the floors is correct. The other concrete is in the bathtub and foundations and weren't crushed.

The problem is how fine the concrete was crushed. There's lots to debate there......

posted on Nov, 20 2007 @ 12:54 PM

Originally posted by Haroki

Wow, more nice work.

thanks.

Originally posted by Haroki
I'd say that 60-70k tons of steel sounds about right, if you figure some is below and some exterior columns peeled away.

70k tons on the floors is correct. The other concrete is in the bathtub and foundations and weren't crushed.

I checked some sources again. I really don't think 70kton can be correct.
You would have to explain the large missing mass up to the 450kton somehow and how if it is not conrete or steel.

There is a lot confusion about the conrete. Interesting it seems that I am not the only one that read '400,000 cubic yards for the whole building' valid for one single building /twoer if you check here:

Despite the presence of 400,000 cubic yards of concrete in each tower, the photographs reveal almost no evidence of macroscopic pieces of its remains.

911research.wtc7.net...

So do they have it wrong?

Because this is unclear it's maybe better to estimate this way:
450kton - 100kton steel - say 50kton paylonad = 300kton concrete.
because the 450kton is mentioned a lot. (which doesnt mean it has to be correct, but I would not ignore it there is a contradiction.)

I don't know. But most calculations I have seen have concrete estimation in this range or higher. green seems to be the only one with such a low concrete mass.

No, 50kton payload is almost sure way too much and unrealistic if you have 70kton concrete for the building in total only. if you refer to the 15kton..yes might be more realistic..but thats all guess. no real calculated estimation.

Originally posted by Haroki
The problem is how fine the concrete was crushed. There's lots to debate there......

There were measurements done If I dont err and the numbers the grad of pulverisation (partical size and distribution) should be relativly safe knowledge. (isn't this also in the nist report?) too long since i checked into this.
There is byway also just a nice picture int he 911reasearch link i just gave. Importand is the quantity of the mixture. If you have some few big rocks at a one place this fits in the distribution because you theoretical get all size..just the quantity distribution has to be measured correct and this gives you the energy numbers.

Ok I have to do something else ..spend to much time into this already yesterday to get this all running and checking up again.

if anyone come up with thrustworthy concrete mass and stell mass and payloadmass numbers I am ready to rerun the simulation with this numbers. Just call.

[edit on 20-11-2007 by g210b]

posted on Nov, 20 2007 @ 02:59 PM

Originally posted by g210b

Originally posted by Haroki

Wow, more nice work.

thanks.

Originally posted by Haroki

I checked some sources again. I really don't think 70kton can be correct.
You would have to explain the large missing mass up to the 450kton somehow and how if it is not conrete or steel.

There is a lot confusion about the conrete. Interesting it seems that I am not the only one that read '400,000 cubic yards for the whole building' valid for one single building /twoer if you check here:

Despite the presence of 400,000 cubic yards of concrete in each tower, the photographs reveal almost no evidence of macroscopic pieces of its remains.

911research.wtc7.net...

[edit on 20-11-2007 by g210b]

Ok, let's do some calcs. We'll do one floor first.

The office floors floors were 31,000 sq feet, the core area was around 9000.

1 cubic yard = 3'x3'x3'= 27 cubic feet. That would give you a slab 1 foot thick x 27 ft square, right? But the office slabs were 4" thick, or .33 foot. so 27/.33 = 81 sq feet of floor per cubic yard of concrete. 31,000 sq ft/81 sq ft/ yard of concrete= 382 cubic yards of lightweight concrete/floor.

Core floors were 5" thick or .42 foot. 27 / .42 = 64 sq ft of floor/yard of concrete in the core areas. 9000 sq ft / 64 = 140 yds of normal weight concrete in the core.

382+140 = 522 yds of concrete/ floor. 522 yds/floor x 110 floors= 57,420 yds total for all the floors. around 70k tons.

Here's an understandable place to read about total weight of the towers. 320k tons total. Section 4 has the summary. They seem to estimate your "payload" as much higher.

911research.wtc7.net...

posted on Nov, 20 2007 @ 05:16 PM

Originally posted by Haroki

Ok, let's do some calcs. We'll do one floor first.

The office floors floors were 31,000 sq feet, the core area was around 9000.

1 cubic yard = 3'x3'x3'= 27 cubic feet. That would give you a slab 1 foot
....
around 70k tons.

Here's an understandable place to read about total weight of the towers. 320k tons total. Section 4 has the summary. They seem to estimate your "payload" as much higher.

911research.wtc7.net...

Good find!

Urich comes to 288kton total mass of one tower (320 short tons)
Contradicting the 'populare 500kton' (or probabily rather 450kton I read everywhere) from a buttom up calculation/estimation if I get that right.
The steel is known. And he lists a lot as 'payload' that requires a closer inspection. Somehwere in this calculation (hiden?) has to be the total mass of the concrete... or am I wrong?
not found yet. that psf and feets and lbs and ...is all confuseing me.. I am not so familiar with the US units.

too your 70kton calculation i can not say much haven't checked it.
I guess you did that the same way as green when you get the same number. Question is if you cover everything this way and have the right numbers.

posted on Nov, 21 2007 @ 10:16 AM

Originally posted by g210b

Originally posted by Haroki

Ok, let's do some calcs. We'll do one floor first.

The office floors floors were 31,000 sq feet, the core area was around 9000.

1 cubic yard = 3'x3'x3'= 27 cubic feet. That would give you a slab 1 foot
....
around 70k tons.

Here's an understandable place to read about total weight of the towers. 320k tons total. Section 4 has the summary. They seem to estimate your "payload" as much higher.

911research.wtc7.net...

Good find!

Urich comes to 288kton total mass of one tower (320 short tons)
Contradicting the 'populare 500kton' (or probabily rather 450kton I read everywhere) from a buttom up calculation/estimation if I get that right.
The steel is known. And he lists a lot as 'payload' that requires a closer inspection. Somehwere in this calculation (hiden?) has to be the total mass of the concrete... or am I wrong?
not found yet. that psf and feets and lbs and ...is all confuseing me.. I am not so familiar with the US units.

too your 70kton calculation i can not say much haven't checked it.
I guess you did that the same way as green when you get the same number. Question is if you cover everything this way and have the right numbers.

Well, I'm sure the concrete used for the floors is correct. But feel free to check, of course. If I did something incorrectly, I'd love to hear about it.

As far as the payload goes, yes, you're right, it's a very difficult factor to figure out. There ARE some figures for how they figured it all out. Figures for carpeting, partition walls, fireproofing, plumbing, electrical, etc. And being it's a CT site, I'd say that they're more apt to skew the figures in a way that would make the CD theory more likely.....

Keep up the good work.

posted on Nov, 21 2007 @ 10:41 AM

Originally posted by dionysius9
I have a question:

As the floor material was pulverized into dust and expanded sideways into an ever-increasing cloud volume, what was left to do the crushing? What large smashing object remained to do the smash down and continue pulverizing the floors all the way to the ground when the outer beams were ejected radially, and the concrete floors turned into airborne dust?

[edit on 17-11-2007 by dionysius9]

EXACTLY!! This is one of those moments when the official story/fairy tale believers start to hem and haw and sputter..they will ignore this and try and come up with all sorts of silly nonsense that has ZERO likleihood of being possible under the circumstances.

There is NO WAY that a top block could crush the core beams and all the support beams, etc, all at the same time!! The same time!! That is the only way to get a footprint fall. The entire structure had to go all at once..and there was NO BLOCK of heavy material crushing anything. It all turned to dust: The entire top parts above the plane strike areas dropped and simply TURNED TO DUST!! There was NO great weight doing anything at all.
There was only some unknown as yet energy force so great that it shredded two Towers and turned then into dust...Bldg. 7 was done differently, of course, going from the inner basements first with the tops dropping down straight as usual...7 was NOT shredded the same way that the Towers were; after no plane hot 7, the perps had to resort to plan B and blow the building in a way that was patently obvious as a CD, but all they could do at that point was hope the media would cover up as usual, and they did.

Again, WHAT was so heavy in that dust cloud that could account for the crushing of the core and all steel supports, as well as the DUSTIFICATION of the concrete? Gravity..no way. Firs..what a laugh. The facts are so CLEAR but the immensity of the treachery is so pronounced that few people are willing to admit that we are living in a criminal state..the leaders are in league with the devil, the Bush/ Cheney cabal, and we are frinished as a free nation if the 9-11 truth does not become well known and something done about it.

But again, the poster I quote was absolutely right: There was NO weighted mass bearing down on the Towers..there was only dust being ejected forcefully AWAY from the Towers, and the top sections that broke away turned to dust as well, as they could NOT have crushed any part of that structure.

posted on Nov, 21 2007 @ 12:45 PM

Originally posted by eyewitness86

Originally posted by dionysius9
[edit on 17-11-2007 by dionysius9]

EXACTLY!! This is one of those moments when the official story/fairy tale believers start to hem and haw and sputter..they will ignore this and try and come up with all sorts of silly nonsense that has ZERO likleihood of being possible under the circumstances.

There is NO WAY that a top block could crush the core beams and all the support beams, etc, all at the same time!! The same time!! That is the only way to get a footprint fall. The entire structure had to go all at once..and there was NO BLOCK of heavy material crushing anything. It all turned to dust: The entire top parts above the plane strike areas dropped and simply TURNED TO DUST!! There was NO great weight doing anything at all.
There was only some unknown as yet energy force so great that it shredded two Towers and turned then into dust...Bldg. 7 was done differently, of course, going from the inner basements first with the tops dropping down straight as usual...7 was NOT shredded the same way that the Towers were; after no plane hot 7, the perps had to resort to plan B and blow the building in a way that was patently obvious as a CD, but all they could do at that point was hope the media would cover up as usual, and they did.

Again, WHAT was so heavy in that dust cloud that could account for the crushing of the core and all steel supports, as well as the DUSTIFICATION of the concrete? Gravity..no way. Firs..what a laugh. The facts are so CLEAR but the immensity of the treachery is so pronounced that few people are willing to admit that we are living in a criminal state..the leaders are in league with the devil, the Bush/ Cheney cabal, and we are frinished as a free nation if the 9-11 truth does not become well known and something done about it.

But again, the poster I quote was absolutely right: There was NO weighted mass bearing down on the Towers..there was only dust being ejected forcefully AWAY from the Towers, and the top sections that broke away turned to dust as well, as they could NOT have crushed any part of that structure.

1- are you saying that the part above the strike zone vanished? Steel and all were vaporized?

2- the claim that all the concrete in the floors turned to dust is false.

posted on Nov, 21 2007 @ 04:03 PM
No, of course it didn't vanish, it turned to dust right on film, and you know it. Look at the videos and when the top part begins to go ( after very loud explosions are reported by multiple witnesses ) the ' top section ' starts to tilt and then the part still in contact, the pivot point, simply DROPS away and the section starts to go straight down instead of toppling over into the street, like one would expect. The building started turing to dust UNDER the large chunk above allowing it to drop down.

Then, in the dust caused by that scenario, the top section is obscured for a moment, and just as one would expect the dust to clear and see the top section still intact what is seen instead is more dust!! The entire top section turned to dust on the way down..there is no other way to put it. Something, some incredibly energetic force, was causing the structure to dustify, all but the paper. Humans and steel were dustified, but paper remained, as well as scorched cars blocks away.

So, what could cause a 30 some odd story section of buolding, already seperated and toppling to one side, to suddenly STOP the fall and drop straight down? ONLY the removal of the pivot point, and that could ONLY have been caused by exposives, the results of which have been documented thoroughly elsewhere. Pictures of squibs and steel ejected far from the possible influence of gravity means WHAT? To me it means that the official fairy tale is an insulty to the intelligence and proof of an inside job.

When those Towers start to go, the core turned to dust also, imagine that; there are famous photos of the core..the ' spire..turing to dust on film. There is NO amount of energy that can POSSIBLY be contributed to gravity and fire that could cause what is seen. The problem with people who still cling to the tortured tales wrought by the perpetrators and their deluded followers is that they are operating in a state of denial: No matter HOW much evidence is given..no matter how much proof is shown, no matter the odds and no matter the logic, the thought of being ruled by murderers and traitors and being helpless to do anything about it is too much for some to be able to take and still funstion on a daily basis.

That is the only reason one can imagine for the continued acceptance of the lies and distortions and denials and secrecy of the Bush cabal and the people who planned and executed this operation: The Neocon shadow government, staffed with key military and intelligence insiders who share the vision of the group and were willing to sacrifice 3000 some odd Americans in order to move forward with their grand plans. The Pearl Harbor that was needed was planned and went off well, but not perfectly, by any means: There are so many anomalies that are still no adequately explained that we have a wealth of evidence and proof: What is needed is a trial.

Hopefully one day we will see Cheney ( if his black soul has not already been consigned to the infernal regions by then ) and Bush and all of the Israeli/AIPAC/Neocon/Industrial/Defense complex of players standing in a docket, preferably in the Hauge, with the convicted swining from the same rope that hung the Nazi propgenitors of this filthy bunch..these Neocons lust after a fascist state and police state so much that they should share their fate. Send 'em to Spandau and throw away the key!!

posted on Nov, 21 2007 @ 04:24 PM

Originally posted by eyewitness86
The building started turing to dust UNDER the large chunk above allowing it to drop down.

The entire top section turned to dust on the way down..there is no other way to put it. Something, some incredibly energetic force, was causing the structure to dustify, all but the paper. Humans and steel were dustified, but paper remained, as well as scorched cars blocks away.

When those Towers start to go, the core turned to dust also, imagine that; there are famous photos of the core..the ' spire..turing to dust on film.

Alrighty then. Sounds like a real valid observation there.

Have a nice day....

new topics

top topics

0