Never heard of dustification.
Is this an argument that the building is not suffering from a normal type of fire? What about the metal framework? Do building fires normally dustify the metal parts of office buildings?
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
There were no normal fires present and very little evidence of conventional heat; note the millions of unburnt paper. Most of the buildings, including the steel and the most of the people inside, turned to dust leaving very little rubble or seismic impact. Dustification is a term first coined by Dr. Judy Wood to describe this new phenomenon. In fact, the rubble were still dustifying for months and even years afterwards, which is indicative of continually molecular breakdown.
NIST even had conducted fire experiments and which as expected hardly any damage was done to the building structure:
Are there any sound theories for persons and evidence that needed to be destroyed by fire?
If concrete dustifies, wouldn't it turn into swiss cheese, fuel the flames with compressed blowing air, like a rocket stove? I have never heard of flammable concrete, but the porous nature of it could certainly have fanned the flames.
The steel did not turn molten and there was no "underground pool of molten metal". Many people and rescue crew were present at the ground throughout the entire time since it wasn't "too hot to approach".
The steel along with the concrete turned to dust.
Are you serious? The ground was not "too hot".
Those links don't represent reality. 800 degrees would've fried every single person in those images. If they are not on the "surface", where are they?
Where is this "super hot surface"?
Why are you throwing around links and numbers that have no bearing on reality?
Even if the thermal images are correct (which likely aren't especially since they are from September 16 to 21), it would not be due to conventional heat since no one was burnt and there were millions of unburnt paper throughout.