The question for chek

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

I know this is getting repetetive, but as far as I am aware, nobody has claimed that every single scrap of concrete was powderised.

Howvever I think I'm fairly safe in asserting that nowhere that a building complex has been demolished by accident or design has it left a whole city borough inches thick in powder and looking like the aftermath of Pompeii.

Red herring. There has never been any other building collapse, intentional or not, that involved two buildings anywhere near the magnitude of the twin towers. So, of course, things like: amount of dust, height of debris pile, etc are going to be unique.

That is somewhat true in terms of both main WTC buildings added together.

A 90,000t figure for concrete per main tower was recently established, and the Seattle Kingdome contained 125,000t
http://www.controlled-demolition.com/de ... 0317140323

Nevertheless I don't recall proportionately two thirds of a similar sized area of Seattle being blanketed in concrete dust.

The problem with that comparison is that the Kingdome was not full of gypsum drywall; which follow-up testing showed to be the bulk of the dust from the WTC collapses.

[chek]

Red herring. There has never been any other building collapse, intentional or not, that involved two buildings anywhere near the magnitude of the twin towers. So, of course, things like: amount of dust, height of debris pile, etc are going to be unique.

That is somewhat true in terms of both main WTC buildings added together.

A 90,000t figure for concrete per main tower was recently established, and the Seattle Kingdome contained 125,000t
http://www.controlled-demolition.com/de ... 0317140323

Nevertheless I don't recall proportionately two thirds of a similar sized area of Seattle being blanketed in concrete dust.

The problem with that comparison is that the Kingdome was not full of gypsum drywall; which follow-up testing showed to be the bulk of the dust from the WTC collapses.

As Ignatz has already pointed out, it was a far from ideal comparison; my main reason for citing it was that the amount of concrete was two thirds
the amount generally agreed to be in the towers, and therefore large enough to possibly mimic at least some characteristics of a large scale catastrophe.
However while my intention was to point to a comparative large mass, I accept that even as a model, it is a poor one.