The "spires" didn't "sublimate"

This seems to be the concept and catch phrase that's derailing at least 2 threads, that I'm aware of.

There seems to be cherry picked images going around that support the "turned to dust" claim.

The definition of "Sublimate":

Sublimation of an element or compound is the change from a solid directly to a gas with no intermediate liquid stage. Sublimation is a phase transition that occurs at temperatures and pressures below the triple point.
en.wikipedia.org...(chemistry)

The "Spires":

The Spire Didn't Vaporize!

Don't be fooled by clips like this:

Google Video Link

Funny how the name of that clip is "Dust Spire Speed adjusted", isn't it?

This one is more realistic:

But note that the columns drop out and leave a trail of dus tin the air behind them.

There's no doubt that there was plenty of dust in the area:


Sorry, but the steel core columns didn't vaporize into a gas state without even first turn into a liquid.

It appears that a couple of the videos were altered. Which was was altered and which is the original video? If any of the videos are genuine, I think it would be pretty hard to debunk this. Material should not act in this way, without something else behind it. Sorry, Fire and gravity is not enough. It looks to me like the thing just vanished!!! How in the world can this be logically explained?

It's really quite simple: the remaining structure gave out, and then dropped, and then dust remained suspended in the air for several seconds as it's much lighter than steel.

My first post wasn't even specifically going after what caused the 'spire' itself to collapse, I suppose, but regardless of what made it fall/drop it didn't turn into a gas state without becoming a liquid. It did neither.

Crappy internet video. But when you see higher quality clips there's little question.

The fact that they did drop out is rather interesting, I must add, but that doesn't mean they VAPOURIZED!

Yes, because vertical core columns can really suspend dust on their vertical edges

The columns WERE sublimating, but again, that doesn't mean the entire thing was sublimating, only the surface area exposed to the air was turning from steel to steel vapour.

When the spire fell, it didnt turn to dust, that is merely an illusion of the film (from one of the angles anyway). However, it was giving off sublimated steel.

The collapses created a vacuum, sucking dust down towards the ground. Yet, the central mushroom cloud remained stationary, only its edges being pulled down...as if the mushroom cloud had been heated and was trying to rise/act against the vacuum.

Now, what could cause a mushroom cloud of heated dust? How about the entire core section of the WTC being subjected to high energy neutrons?

Or how about jetfuel fires?

Originally posted by IgnoranceIsntBlisss The fact that they did drop out is rather interesting, I must add, but that doesn't mean they VAPOURIZED!

Of course they vaporized. That’s why there was hardly hide nor hair of them in the rubble.

Now I’m starting the one-liner thing. But it’s better to keep things simple.
The truth will set you free.

Cheers,
The Wizard In The Woods

Originally posted by shrunkensimon
How about the entire core section of the WTC being subjected to high energy neutrons?

In which case, there would have been no observers left.

Hint: it takes a LOT less neutron flux to kill a person than to heat steel to the point that it vaporizes.

Yes, but we are not talking about dispersal of neutrons across Manhattan/an airburst. The bombs were confined to the basement, and because they were in direct contact with the central core, the energy would have been absorbed pretty much entirely by the steel/concrete/anything inside the towers. Theres also the matter of the charges being shaped/focused to force the energy upwards.

IIB, watch the spire closely. It's bad quality for all of those videos, but you can see that "dust" is rolling off of the structure in unnatural quantities if it's just concrete dust or drywall, neither of which are attached to the columns at this point.


Also watch the columns around the spire that don't stand as long -- you can see them doing the same thing even more clearly.

This is a better quality image cropped from a series of photos:




The dust cloud was sucked downwards with the collapse. You can see this in any collapse videos.

You can see the dust cloud below the spire in this image. All of that stuff coming off from the spire is pouring off of the columns.

This is what happens when steel is bombarded with neutrons, they're embedded into the material, and cause extreme localized heating. The steel doesn't just slowly heat up and glow, but instantly vaporizes where hit.


An interesting paper on the same subject from 1956:

A new method for studying the process of sublimation of metals
Yu. V. Kornev and S. L. Zubkovsky

A new method is proposed for determining the heats of sublimation of metals by means of radioactive isotopes, which makes it possible to obtain continuous measurement of the speed of flow of the saturated vapor through a small opening.

www.springerlink.com...

This mainly just to show that you can sublimate metals with neutron radiation (notice they use isotopes -- I'm assuming the extra neutrons are given off by melting the radioactive material? Not buying the paper to find out), and that it's even been studied as far back as 1956 at least.

[edit on 8-5-2007 by bsbray11]

If the so-called 'spire' had turned to a cloud of dust without first dropping, I would regard this video as good evidence for Dr Judy Wood's claim for the towers being vaporized. But the fact that the spire started dropping means that it could have shaken off dust and become hidden behind the dust cloud it formed as it fell. Wood cannot therefore claim this footage as unambiguous evidence of her thesis. The use in science of Occam's rule: "employ the fewest explanations" means that more speculative explanations like micro-nukes and laser weapons should not be considered when more prosaic, conventional explanations are available for the destruction of the towers. Of course, whether they can account for all features of the damaged towers, including WTC5 and WTC6, is another matter. But the point is: don't stretch for a more complicated explanation if a simpler one is at hand. IMO, Wood misinterpreted the spire video because she was looking for evidence of directed-energy weapons being used. However, she could still be right in the wider context.

Originally posted by shrunkensimon
Yes, but we are not talking about dispersal of neutrons across Manhattan/an airburst. The bombs were confined to the basement, and because they were in direct contact with the central core, the energy would have been absorbed pretty much entirely by the steel/concrete/anything inside the towers. Theres also the matter of the charges being shaped/focused to force the energy upwards.

Not really. We're talking a DT fusion reaction, and it's all about spewing huge quantities of very energetic neutrons.

The materials in concrete and steel will stop a large fraction of them, but not enough. You're talking petagreys of neutrons going off in a concrete building - I'm meatballing it here but 60 inches of standard concrete is still going to let megagreys of neutrons out. You have observers not that far from the building in some of the shots I've seen, and survivors from WITHIN the building. They would all be cooked up.

Not only that, but not all of the neutron energy is going to be deposited into your building materials as heat. You're going to transform some of that kinetic energy into a whole lot of gamma and x-rays as well. You'll also be getting them from Bremsstrahlung in the plasma formed during the explosion. And they go right through concrete.

The half-thickness for gammas of standard building concrete is about 6". The gamma and x-ray flux put off by a fusion bomb, even with the building material absorbing 90% of it, would still kill everyone in sight many times over.

Then you have the amazing lack of an EMP. How are the firefighters' radios working? Why are the lights not out in Manhattan? Where are all the destroyed electronic systems in the Manhattan area? How are all those camcorders recording onto magnetic tape - and still running both during and after the explosion - and the tape's not erased, nor did the camcorder stop? How are the long lines on the power grid not vaporized?

People survived inside the cores / stairwells.

911research.wtc7.net...

Case Closed.

Originally posted by IgnoranceIsntBlisss
People survived inside the cores / stairwells.
[...]
Case Closed.

The whole point of a micro-nuke is that the size of the blast is greatly reduced. The people that survived were in the lower floors.

Stop throwing around "Case Closed" in every other post, just to have your logic refuted shortly afterwards. It makes you look desperate.

Originally posted by IgnoranceIsntBlisss
People survived inside the cores / stairwells.

911research.wtc7.net...

Case Closed.

IIB,

I have read this entire thread and I congratulate you for making the case that there is know way a gravity induced collapse could have ejected debris (large beams) from wtc 1&2 several hundred meters from the collapsing buildings without some added energy source.


edit to add. I ment to post this in IIB's other thread:"Question about cars, I want an answer. No more messing around."



[edit on 8-5-2007 by etshrtslr]

Originally posted by bsbray11

The whole point of a micro-nuke is that the size of the blast is greatly reduced. The people that survived were in the lower floors.

You're still going to have a LOT of radiation coming off of any fusion reaction. The odd absence of dead people, or radiation poisoning at any level, is an indictment of the theory.

Originally posted by bsbray11
The whole point of a micro-nuke is that the size of the blast is greatly reduced.

So then "micronukes" have no blast? They just vaporize everything around them? I thought the nuke was used for the power it wields?

The people that survived were in the lower floors.

13th - 22nd floors. Did you expect people above those floors to survive the collapses? Is that fact the few survived now evidence of nukes?

Stop throwing around "Case Closed" in every other post, just to have your logic refuted shortly afterwards. It makes you look desperate.

Denying and refuting are 2 different things. Check the definitions. I can't believe you're still pushing on... and then telling me I look desperate.

You might also want to look up "rationalization". It's not like you have to bend over backwards and backflip thru hoops to not believe that NUCLEAR BOMBS were used down there.

[edit on 8-5-2007 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss]

Alright, I’ve been enthused by many a picture here on ATS. But this is one of the very best. This one image says it all. There is no better proof of the hydrogen bombs hypothesis. This one’s gonna go down in history.


A big thank you to the mighty bsbray(11). I’ve always wondered what that eleven is all about….

Greetings,
The Wizard In The Woods

[edit on 5/8/2007 by Wizard_In_The_Woods]

I guess all that dust and NOT a Bomb or explosives ___PLACE ANYY DEBUNKERS PIPEDREAM HERE_______made the basements super hot and , that dust is responsible for millions of gallons of water to "cool" the basements days afterwards. also the "dust" made the huge ball of molten metal in the basements....

oh yeah..... a plane with some Jet av fuel caused that...sure why not?

Originally posted by IgnoranceIsntBlisss
You might also want to look up "rationalization". It's not like you have to bend over backwards and backflip thru hoops to not believe that NUCLEAR BOMBS were used down there.

[edit on 8-5-2007 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss]

Actually, as far as I've seen, there's NO evidence to suggest any such of a thing. Have there been any reported cases of radiation sickness in any of the people that responded to the attacks? What about the people that still, to this day, live and work in the area? Any increase in illnesses there? Increased Cancer rates in the area? You're just going to have to provide some serious evidence to support this theory of your's, other than a missing column.

Besides, for there to have been a nuke of any kind there, there would be nuclear residue in the immediate area. Has anyone checked the place for radioactivity? I'm guessing no, which is probably the only thing keeping this theory afloat at the moment. Even IF it were a possibility, which I highly doubt, it'd have to be a VERY low grade nuke, to prevent any long lasting effects. What puzzles me about that is, why would the terrorists care about a little extra radiation, when their whole purpose for committing these evil acts was to kill as many as they could?

I'm sorry, there's just too many inconsistencies for this to be a valid theory.

TheBorg

[Edited for punctuation, and added content.]

[edit on 9-5-2007 by TheBorg]