• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Mushroom Cloud and Pyroclastic Flow

babazaroni said:
If you look closely at these falling flows, you will see they are preceded by large dense objects such as girder sections, which create a low pressure path behind them for less dense objects to follow.

Similar effect is a motorcycle drafting behind a large truck.
Click to expand...



I tried to explain that to him once, and his response was, in essence, "Vortexes, shmortexes!"
 
TruthSeeker1234 said:
RMackey, I've explained this to you before, stop playing dumb, you're an intelligent man. Apart from numbers typed into a spreadsheet, there is no basis for your assertions. The photographic evidence indicates quite conclusively that only about 20-30% of the steel from the twin towers remained macroscopic. Only about 1% of the concrete, if that.
(snip)
Click to expand...

Are you calling the person who says this
As we examined the WTC-debris sample, we found large chunks of concrete (irregular in shape and size, one was approximately 5cm X 3 cm X 3cm) as well as medium-sized pieces of wall-board (with the binding paper still attached). Thus, the pulverization was in fact NOT to fine dust, and it is a false premise to start with near-complete pulverization to fine powder (as might be expected from a mini-nuke or a “star-wars” beam destroying the Towers). Indeed, much of the mass of the MacKinlay sample was clearly in substantial pieces of concrete and wall-board rather than in fine-dust form...

It seems that the 9/11 truth community likewise “has been slow to understand” that the WTC dust particles in greatest abundance are the “supercoarse” variety rather than “fine” particles, and that significant chunks of concrete were also found in the WTC rubble.
Click to expand...
a liar?
(Bolding mine)
 
Last edited:
TruthSeeker1234 said:
RMackey, I've explained this to you before, stop playing dumb, you're an intelligent man. Apart from numbers typed into a spreadsheet, there is no basis for your assertions. The photographic evidence indicates quite conclusively that only about 20-30% of the steel from the twin towers remained macroscopic. Only about 1% of the concrete, if that.

Please observe the photos which ought to show the existence of the north wall of WTC1. It's not down in WTC6, it's not in Vessy street.

Photographic evidence trumps a spreadsheet, scientifically speaking.
Click to expand...

If that's the case then why doesn't steel show up in significant quantities in the dust samples from the WTC site following 9/11?

Like this one for example:
45.1% Fiberglass, rock wool (insulation, fireproofing)
31.8% Plaster (gypsum), concrete products (calcium sulfate, selenite, muscodite)
7.1% Charred wood and debris
2.1% Paper fibers
2.1% Mica flakes
2.0% Ceiling tiles (fiberglass component)
2.0% Synthetic fibers
1.4% Glass fragments
1.3% Human remains
1.4% Natural fibers
trace asbestos (it became illegal to use during the construction of the WTC)
Other trace elements: aluminum, paint pigments, blood, hair, glass wool with resin, and prescription drugs were found.
http://www.janegalt.net/blog/archives/004194.html

There's always a chance I missed a few dust samples that show large amounts of steel, so if you've found any then please show me if you wouldn't mind.

-edit-

Oh yeah, I meant to ask you. Has that televised debate been confirmed yet? If so, when will it be shown?
 
Last edited:
Unfit4Command said:
If that's the case then why doesn't steel show up in significant quantities in the dust samples from the WTC site following 9/11?

Like this one for example:
45.1% Fiberglass, rock wool (insulation, fireproofing)
31.8% Plaster (gypsum), concrete products (calcium sulfate, selenite, muscodite)
7.1% Charred wood and debris
2.1% Paper fibers
2.1% Mica flakes
2.0% Ceiling tiles (fiberglass component)
2.0% Synthetic fibers
1.4% Glass fragments
1.3% Human remains
1.4% Natural fibers
trace asbestos (it became illegal to use during the construction of the WTC)
Other trace elements: aluminum, paint pigments, blood, hair, glass wool with resin, and prescription drugs were found.
http://www.janegalt.net/blog/archives/004194.html

There's always a chance I missed a few dust samples that show large amounts of steel, so if you've found any then please show me if you wouldn't mind.

-edit-

Oh yeah, I meant to ask you. Has that televised debate been confirmed yet? If so, when will it be shown?
Click to expand...



Do you have a photo of this "dust", with arrows pointing out all these elements? Because if you don't he won't accept this as "scientific", it's just another spreadsheet.

I know from experience......
 
TruthSeeker1234 said:
Only about 1% of the concrete, if that.
Click to expand...

Don't you love it when your "heroes" disagree with you?

[url=http://preview.tinyurl.com/2ngbs8]Steven Jones[/url] said:
Along with others, I examined the sample obtained by Janette MacKinlay at 113 Liberty Street, just across from the South Tower. The windows of her apartment were blown in during the collapse of this tower on 9/11/2001, and her apartment was filled with dust and debris. She collected a sample of this material in her own apartment in a plastic bag – which is good procedure – and the chain of custody went directly from her to me. (In the presence of other researchers, I collected more samples from her large plastic bag, while visiting in her home.)

As we examined the WTC-debris sample, we found large chunks of concrete (irregular in shape and size, one was approximately 5cm X 3 cm X 3cm) as well as medium-sized pieces of wall-board (with the binding paper still attached). Thus, the pulverization was in fact NOT to fine dust, and it is a false premise to start with near-complete pulverization to fine powder (as might be expected from a mini-nuke or a “star-wars” beam destroying the Towers). Indeed, much of the mass of the MacKinlay sample was clearly in substantial pieces of concrete and wall-board rather than in fine-dust form.

A previously published study of the WTC dust noted: “The environmental science community has been slow to understand that the acute health effects were attributable to a complex mixture of gases and particles and that the particles in greatest abundance (mass) in the dust were the unregulated supercoarse (>10-ìmdiam) particles, not the fine (<2.5-ìm-diam) or coarse (2.5–10-ìmdiam) particles that are typically measured.”

http://pubs.acs.org/subscribe/journals/esthag/40/i22/html/111506feature_lioy.html

It seems that the 9/11 truth community likewise “has been slow to understand” that the WTC dust particles in greatest abundance are the “supercoarse” variety rather than “fine” particles, and that significant chunks of concrete were also found in the WTC rubble.
Click to expand...
underlining mine.
 
Last edited:
babazaroni said:
If you look closely at these falling flows, you will see they are preceded by large dense objects such as girder sections, which create a low pressure path behind them for less dense objects to follow.

Similar effect is a motorcycle drafting behind a large truck.
Click to expand...

I have looked carefully at the falling flows. The steel sections all appear to be disintegrating into dust as they fall. The notion that a perimeter section that is about 36 feet x 10 feet and has spaces between the columns, that this object could create "drafting" 500 feet, even 1000 feet above it, this is just laughable.

I repeat my request for input as to how we could create an experiment to test this idea of "drafting drywall". It would be practical to obtain a steel beam, or other large solid object, attach drywall or whatever, and throw it over a cliff. What materials/methods do you all suggest that would be most favorable to recreating the "drafting drywall dust" effect? I say it is impossible (absent explosives capable of dustifying concrete and steel).
 
TruthSeeker1234 said:
I have looked carefully at the falling flows. The steel sections all appear to be disintegrating into dust as they fall. The notion that a perimeter section that is about 36 feet x 10 feet and has spaces between the columns, that this object could create "drafting" 500 feet, even 1000 feet above it, this is just laughable.

I repeat my request for input as to how we could create an experiment to test this idea of "drafting drywall". It would be practical to obtain a steel beam, or other large solid object, attach drywall or whatever, and throw it over a cliff. What materials/methods do you all suggest that would be most favorable to recreating the "drafting drywall dust" effect? I say it is impossible (absent explosives capable of dustifying concrete and steel).
Click to expand...
You know, if you quit trying to look at these while receiving your electroshock therapy, you might be able to see them as they actually appear rather than how you want them to appear.
Just a suggestion.
 
TruthSeeker1234 said:
I have looked carefully at the falling flows. The steel sections all appear to be disintegrating into dust as they fall. The notion that a perimeter section that is about 36 feet x 10 feet and has spaces between the columns, that this object could create "drafting" 500 feet, even 1000 feet above it, this is just laughable.

I repeat my request for input as to how we could create an experiment to test this idea of "drafting drywall". It would be practical to obtain a steel beam, or other large solid object, attach drywall or whatever, and throw it over a cliff. What materials/methods do you all suggest that would be most favorable to recreating the "drafting drywall dust" effect? I say it is impossible (absent explosives capable of dustifying concrete and steel).
Click to expand...
You should seek damages from the school system!
 
What, multiple replies by TS1234, but my precious questions were snubbed?

What gives, "TruthSeeker?"

Cat got your tongue?

If you have me on ignore, please say so! ;)
 
TruthSeeker1234 said:
I have looked carefully at the falling flows. The steel sections all appear to be disintegrating into dust as they fall.
Click to expand...
Tell me about it! I've been hunting for that so-called "steel" for nigh on a year! I believe that you are a true TruthSeeker! Won't you join me in my quest for the mythical steel debris?

879045f9cc8d52f90.jpg

​
 
JimBenArm said:
It's a pity they didn't get any pictures of the steel dust. You know it has to be there somewhere! TS says so!
Click to expand...
I've heard tale of a flyover of a squadron of rare-earth-magnet pterodactyls. I haven't been able to confirm that yet, though. I hope TruthSeeker will join me in my quest...I'll provide the coconuts!
 
Gravy said:
Interesting. Please show us how you arrived at this estimate. I recall asking you a similar question when you claimed that the dust cloud was as dense as gravel (geez, I wonder why every building it touched wasn't crushed). You never replied. Please do so now.
Click to expand...

I arrived at this estimate because the stuff falls rapidly, more rapidly than raindrops, certainly. I don't recall stating anything about gravel, but indeed the dust-fluid was very dense, and I doubt gravel would fall any faster.

That's quite a claim. What comprised the 1.6 million tons of debris that was trucked from Ground Zero? Or is your estimate of the towers' mass much, much higher than anyone else's? Say...1,000 times higher? TS, approximately what was the total mass of the towers?
Click to expand...

I don't believe the government reports that state 1.6 million tons of debris were removed. Obviously the government reports are written to agree with the government story.

This is your last chance to prove that you're merely severely misinformed, and not 100% kook. I believe you're just a kook, but I'm open to correction.

Show us how your estimates are derived. Show your grasp of the science. Show your math. If you're relying on someone else's analysis, give us the link and we'll point out the errors.
Click to expand...

To repeat, my statement that the dust-fluid is very dense is based on its fall time. It falls nearly as fast as solid steel, and the notion of this being related to "drafting" is nonsense. I again repeat that we should experiment to see if there is any validity to the "drafitng drywall dust" hyposthesis. Please give me your calcualtions that support this idea.

You won't do these things, but I thought I should point out once again that making wild claims isn't the same as providing evidence.
Click to expand...

The fall-time of the dust is evidence. Thus far the only other explanation for the rapid fall time of the dust is the "drafting drywall dust" hyposthesis. I see no support for this notion, but again, I'd be very interested in an experiment to look at it.
 
TruthSeeker1234 said:
I arrived at this estimate because the stuff falls rapidly, more rapidly than raindrops, certainly. I don't recall stating anything about gravel, but indeed the dust-fluid was very dense, and I doubt gravel would fall any faster.

I don't believe the government reports that state 1.6 million tons of debris were removed. Obviously the government reports are written to agree with the government story.

To repeat, my statement that the dust-fluid is very dense is based on its fall time. It falls nearly as fast as solid steel, and the notion of this being related to "drafting" is nonsense. I again repeat that we should experiment to see if there is any validity to the "drafitng drywall dust" hyposthesis. Please give me your calcualtions that support this idea.

The fall-time of the dust is evidence. Thus far the only other explanation for the rapid fall time of the dust is the "drafting drywall dust" hyposthesis. I see no support for this notion, but again, I'd be very interested in an experiment to look at it.
Click to expand...
Holy Mary, Mother of Suffering Jesus!

Look what you did to me, TS: you turned me Catholic!

:hb:

Okay, bye, bye, TS. I cannot tend to, or gaze upon, your sickness any longer. You have a serious problem with reality. Please, please, please seek professional mental health care. You can be helped. Really.

–Mark
 
TruthSeeker1234 said:
I have looked carefully at the falling flows. The steel sections all appear to be disintegrating into dust as they fall. The notion that a perimeter section that is about 36 feet x 10 feet and has spaces between the columns, that this object could create "drafting" 500 feet, even 1000 feet above it, this is just laughable.
Click to expand...

I think we are making some progress here TS.

An object with spaces will still create a low pressure path behind it, just not as low a pressure as a solid object. As this path gets filled with lighter debris, this becomes a flow that more debris will follow. Also denser objects in this stream will move faster.

I've personally experienced this effect by being at the end of a bike pace line 50 riders long. Was I drafting the lead rider? No, I was drafting the rider right in front of me, who was drafting the rider in front of him.....
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom