VIDEO: What Turned the Twin Towers to DUST on 9/11?

Originally posted by 911files
The steel did not turn to dust

This is why you and any other OS'er can never be taken seriously.

Exhibit A: The steel core "spire" turns to dust.



Dust. DUST. Period. Spin it any way you like, the damn thing turned to DUST.

If you wish to inject "energy beams", then you better be able to explain how that would work and why every electronic component in Manhattan was not fried by the EMP which would most certainly have resulted from the use of such a weapon.

It's called "directed energy" for a reason. It's aimed at the target, it's not just aimed at the whole damn city. And it has nothing to do with "lasers from outer space".

Some of that directed energy hit 1400 vehicles, but others remained unscathed.

Can you explain this flash that took out a chunk of the Woolworth Building?

www.youtube.com...

reply to post by waypastvne


no sir it doesn't. It verifies my question.

I asked more than a single question btw..

or will you refuse to look at the evidence as well?

reply to post by poppycock


agreed. it's too much for many to assimilate into their worldview. ah well.

reply to post by PookztA


Hi Abe,
I'd just like to thank you for the thread.
You took alot of time out of your unusually busy schedule to compile this thread for us. Thank you.

What impressed upon me most is your willingness to sign your name on such a board as this one.
I don't expect your career to flourish without a 'published practicum' after this thread...

You have alot to lose, why are you putting it all on the line? As if I need to ask...


I haven't looked into Dr. Wood's stuff. I do find myself chasing my own tail in this theater though with all of the different known and unknown capabilities of anyone's military, for that matter...as I understand only a military can operate on such a scale of coordinated devastation that we all suffered on that Mournful day...

Directed energy has more than one description/meaning; if one considers the psychology behind such a term.
Our energies to solve the riddle have been directed elsewhere. Like onto discussion forums instead of the court-room...

abraham

your medical training is irrelevant, and nobody cares


acceleration due to gravity would be my first suspect

Originally posted by SimontheMagusIt's called "directed energy" for a reason. It's aimed at the target, it's not just aimed at the whole damn city. And it has nothing to do with "lasers from outer space".

Some of that directed energy hit 1400 vehicles, but others remained unscathed.

What kind of "directed energy"? Gravity is "directed energy", but it was "aimed at the whole damn city". None-the-less, everything in the city had a potential energy as a result of it. The WTC's potential energy was unleashed as a result of support columns giving way.

Again, the entire WTC did NOT turn to dust. Showing a picture of a dust cloud does not make it so.

Originally posted by 911files
Again, the entire WTC did NOT turn to dust. Showing a picture of a dust cloud does not make it so.

I didn't show you "a picture of a dust cloud". I showed you a gif image that very clearly shows the core of the building turning from solid steel to dust in a few seconds and then blowing away in the breeze. It is just about as in-your-face as anything can possibly be. And yet, it's just a picture of a dust cloud.

Yeah, right.

You sir, are not to be taken seriously. You're just a clown defensing the perps.

Goodbye OS'er.

Originally posted by SimontheMagusI showed you a gif image that very clearly shows the core of the building turning from solid steel to dust in a few seconds and then blowing away in the breeze.

No you did not. You showed me a gif of a building collapsing obscured by a dust cloud generated by pulverized concrete.

Originally posted by 911files

Originally posted by SimontheMagusI showed you a gif image that very clearly shows the core of the building turning from solid steel to dust in a few seconds and then blowing away in the breeze.

No you did not. You showed me a gif of a building collapsing obscured by a dust cloud generated by pulverized concrete.

edit on 1-7-2012 by 911files because: (no reason given)

edit on 1-7-2012 by 911files because: (no reason given)

Yeah. And white is black, and 2+2=5. We all get your agenda.

Originally posted by SimontheMagus

Originally posted by 911files

Originally posted by SimontheMagusI showed you a gif image that very clearly shows the core of the building turning from solid steel to dust in a few seconds and then blowing away in the breeze.

No you did not. You showed me a gif of a building collapsing obscured by a dust cloud generated by pulverized concrete.

edit on 1-7-2012 by 911files because: (no reason given)

edit on 1-7-2012 by 911files because: (no reason given)

Yeah. And white is black, and 2+2=5. We all get your agenda.

Yes, yes, that pesky truth. Not nearly as exciting as dustification beams from space.

reply to post by PookztA

Ok PooktzA, Nice research. Please allow me to add my support.

The WTC event was unique. A steel framed tower has never "collapsed" before due to fire. Much less, three in one day. Furthermore, a controlled demolition of a 1,360 foot tower in a confined space (like WTC) seems a big risk to the nearby structures. We suspect some new technology was used. But before we get to that we must first establish a simple fact. It is in plain sight and has been for 12 years. There is something about these steel beams (prefabricated sections) that has never been seen before. They are trailing dust. All the way down. Where does this dust come from?What we see in the picture below is a 700' vertical core column section exposed after the perimeter columns have already pealed away. Examine closely. Especially the lower part. Dust is streaming off (all the way down to the base that is hidden from view). The column is standing still and turning to dust. The mass fades. Its existence ceases right before our eyes. Going, going, gone.The new word for this before unseen phenomenon is "dustification". Steel turning to dust.

Here is more evidence this time in motion.If any one needs still more evidence, consider the following.

Another unique feature of the WTC event is the surprisingly huge volume of paper found scattered throughout the area.These seemingly unending reams of papers must have come from the many WTC office's file cabinets. But no file cabinets were found in the rubble. Except for one. And here is its now famous picture.Is it really the crumpled remains of the only file cabinet found? What happened to all the others? Well since they were steel, they must have turned to dust. Freeing the papers to scatter in the wind.

After the meeting, I learned more in a few months than I had in years spent following the coat tails of the positioned "controlled demolition" experts. After examining more WTC pictures and those of controlled demolitions of other buildings, one thing became clear as the blue skies that September, 2001 morning: New York's majestic skyscrapers clearly did not merely explode a la controlled demolition, but rather, were somehow otherwise pulverized into a voluminous quantity of fine dust powder... quite unlike any known conventional demolition event that preceded it.

While I'm not going to waste my time debating photon torpedoes and laser beams from space that quote is interesting. 'pulverized' 'voluminous'

Just funny stuff!

reply to post by spooky24


Yeah, "voluminous clouds of dust" is really hilarious. So funny it would leave a coating several inches thick all over lower Manhattan not to mention the lungs of several hundred (or thousand?) rescue workers now dead or dying from breathing in all that dust that "wasn't" there.

I'm sure they're laughing every time they put on an oxygen mask or attend a funeral.

The only people mentioning "photon torpedoes" and "space lasers" are those trying to trash the ideas of Dr. Wood.

Please find me the quote where she mentions which type of Directed Energy Weapon was used on 9/11.
Should be easy to do since I see it used so frequently here.

reply to post by leostokes


Watch the video instead. It shows the core column (the so-called "spire") DROPPING for a brief instant and then falling out of sight. It was shaking off dust that had accumulated on it. It was NOT turning into dust. All the smoke and dust flying off falling girders and other debris was NOT caused by their "dustification" ala that scientist flake named "Dr Judy Wood". Instead, it was all the dust accumulated from pulverised concrete from upper floors being blown off falling debris by convection currents of air because it was much less dense than this debris.

reply to post by PookztA

correction to the above statement i made, i was in between classes and was rushed and said the king dome pile was relatively smaller. i meant to say larger.

The virtually empty King Dome, was taken down via controlled demolition, and produced a rubbile pile of roughly 12% of their original height. Therefore, buildings that are not as empty as a dome, should result in rubble piles of approximately 12% of their original height or more, since they are most likely not as empty.

In the case of the WTC towers, we see a rubble pile of much much less than 12% of their original height. this is because the building was turned to dust.

watch the video in the first post to understand what i mean.

The height of the rubble and the size of the pile are not easily quantified. The nay-sayers jump at the chance to shout down comparisons.

However, the seismic readings use the accepted standard index labeled the Richter scale. The Kingdome was a controlled demolition that was throughly studied. It produced an earthquake-like reading with (P)rimary and (S)econdary waves resulting in a 2.3 Richter number. The potential energy of the North Tower was much larger than the King Dome. We would expect a much larger seismic event at the WTC. It did not happen. The largest seismic reading from the entire WTC event was 2.3 from the North Tower. And it did not demonstrate S and P waves but only a surface wave.

WTC seismic data.
King Dome seismogram (R=2.3).
Why did the WTC ground shake so little? WTC steel turns to dust before it hits the ground.

reply to post by micpsi

Watch the video instead.

What? Why are you telling me to watch the video that I posted? I said above what it shows. I knew already that you would shout nay.
Your disruptive rhetoric does not rate further comment.

SimontheMagus

Originally posted by 911files
The steel did not turn to dust

This is why you and any other OS'er can never be taken seriously.

Exhibit A: The steel core "spire" turns to dust.



Dust. DUST. Period. Spin it any way you like, the damn thing turned to DUST.

If you wish to inject "energy beams", then you better be able to explain how that would work and why every electronic component in Manhattan was not fried by the EMP which would most certainly have resulted from the use of such a weapon.

It's called "directed energy" for a reason. It's aimed at the target, it's not just aimed at the whole damn city. And it has nothing to do with "lasers from outer space".

Some of that directed energy hit 1400 vehicles, but others remained unscathed.

Can you explain this flash that took out a chunk of the Woolworth Building?

www.youtube.com...

edit on 1-7-2012 by SimontheMagus because: (no reason given)

edit on 1-7-2012 by SimontheMagus because: (no reason given)

This is also the reason i can't take most truther seriously either

Dad used to say

Look for the people both sides despise

That's where the truth ls

Aka Judy

Btw nice bid of wool worth video has anyone looked into it to see if there was damge/repair?

spooky24

After the meeting, I learned more in a few months than I had in years spent following the coat tails of the positioned "controlled demolition" experts. After examining more WTC pictures and those of controlled demolitions of other buildings, one thing became clear as the blue skies that September, 2001 morning: New York's majestic skyscrapers clearly did not merely explode a la controlled demolition, but rather, were somehow otherwise pulverized into a voluminous quantity of fine dust powder... quite unlike any known conventional demolition event that preceded it.

While I'm not going to waste my time debating photon torpedoes and laser beams from space that quote is interesting. 'pulverized' 'voluminous'

Just funny stuff!

How can u say such things when in the post above u there is slow mo video of steel turning into dust?

Another_Nut

spooky24

After the meeting, I learned more in a few months than I had in years spent following the coat tails of the positioned "controlled demolition" experts. After examining more WTC pictures and those of controlled demolitions of other buildings, one thing became clear as the blue skies that September, 2001 morning: New York's majestic skyscrapers clearly did not merely explode a la controlled demolition, but rather, were somehow otherwise pulverized into a voluminous quantity of fine dust powder... quite unlike any known conventional demolition event that preceded it.

While I'm not going to waste my time debating photon torpedoes and laser beams from space that quote is interesting. 'pulverized' 'voluminous'

Just funny stuff!

How can u say such things when in the post above u there is slow mo video of steel turning into dust?

You can see the tip of the spire moving out of sight in the frames someone posted right above.

You know what happens when you turn steel into dust?

It explodes.

See an explosion?

Me either.

Your word for the day is "pyrophoric".

reply to post by Bedlam


Blah blahblah

What does this have to do with the slow mo video Judy presents that shows steel becoming dust?

Much more convincing than your opinion.

I've talkedn much about the spires and debris

But now i point your attention to the disappearing steel in the slow mo video reference

And just because we dint know how it was done doesn't mean it wasn't done

Or do u believe all magicians because you cant figure out the trick?

Eta here's good debate on the spire. Read this then we will talk
www.abovetopsecret.com...