Mushroom Cloud and Pyroclastic Flow

[Horatius]

So there you are - Larry Niven and some friends dreamed up Star Wars for the Reagan administration, Bush senior was Reagan's VP and successor, his son wanted to start a war to avenge the assassination plot against his father, so to fire up public opinion the WTC towers were demolished by a weapon clearly described in Larry Niven's books. Looks like a smoking disintegrator to me.

Dave

OMFG! It all makes sense now - Larry Niven was able to devote his life to writing SF in part because he inherited a lot of money - that his grandfather made in the OIL BUSINESS!

9/11 was a Larry Niven Story!
9/11 was a Larry Niven Story!
9/11 was a Larry Niven Story!
9/11 was a Larry Niven Story!

Get the word out! Before he catches on to us!

 

[WildCat]

But it fails to destroy these small pieces of steel before they reach the ground?

There's also a man falling among the debris in that pic.

 

[R.Mackey]

Personally, my money was on the Slaver Disintegrator as well... even though Ace's description made it sound more like a Tnuctip mass-energy conversion ray.

At this point, Ace is clearly knocking on the gates of Christopheraville.

 

[Mancman]

Yes, what about the 110 acre sized slabs of reinforced concrete in each tower, supported by steel trusses under steel floor pans? Those appear to have disintegrated completely. I have found less than 1% of this material. Yes, let's add concrete dust to the experiment.

Where do you suppose those 104 (not 110, the bottom 6 floors were a lobby) floorslabs would end up in a pancaking scenario?

They would hit the ground floor at over 100mph, a ground floor which was above a 7 story basement. If the floors penetrated into the basement - would they be visible in any photos taken at ground level or above? Yes or no will suffice.

 

[pvt1863]

Nuclear reactions in Iron? That is rich. Go read a nuclear engineering textbook and maybe you'll learn something. Personally, I suggest this one. I studied it during school and found it to be very useful.

The whole mini-nuke idea is completely absurd. The use of this claim demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of nuclear reactions.

The disintegration of steel and other materials is not a property of nuclear reactions themselves. The temperature and the pressure waves generated by a bomb are what cause that effect. If you had enough conventional explosives (and packed them well enough) to mimic a nuclear bomb, the conventional explosion would do the same thing. There is nothing special about fission or fusion that causes the destruction of surrounding materials (materials not involved in the reactions themselves). They just simply are very good at generating enormous amounts of heat and very large pressure differentials in a short period of time with a minimal amount of material.

Think of it this way. If nuclear fission somehow "vaporized" or "dustified" nearby steel, then every commercial nuclear power plant in the world would fall apart instantly because the steel vessels containing the cores would disintegrate.

Knowing that the disintegration associated with a nuclear explosion is pressure and temperature based (and not a function of the nuclear reactions), one can rule out mini-nukes as the cause of the WTC collapse. If the power of a nuclear bomb were scaled down enough to go off unnoticed (which is not possible to begin with), it would not generate the conditions necessary to make steel disintegrate, dustify, vaporize, or any other buzz word that truthers like to use. A weapon that small might knock steel beams out of position and initiate a collapse, but the steel would still be there to be found (which goes against TS1234's "evidence").

Similarly, a weapon large enough to disintegrate steel would have wiped out most of Manhattan and incinerated anyone within many blocks of the towers. If the weapons generate temperatures and pressure waves sufficient enough to vaporize steel in the towers, then those temperatures and pressure waves are still going to be plenty large outside of the building.

The bottom line is that "nuclear" does not mean "magic," no matter how much truthers want it to.

 

[T.A.M.]

And now TAM goes away, embarrassed, without replying to my answer. TAM, if you can't see the difference in behaviour between the Landmark dust, and the twin tower dust, I feel very sorry for your patients.

Does anyone have any answers for my questions?

What about the proposed experiment? If you all are so willing to believe in the "Drafting Drywall Dust" explanation, why not have a litte experiment? I strongly suspect the reason is that you all know that you are lying, and are quite afraid of such an experiment. Otherwise, help me design it. I'll do it.

And, please, what happened to the steel from the north wall of WTC1?

Well I originally had a large viscous spue of insults and anger ready to post in reply to this. However, that would only gratify your childish attempt to goad me down to your level ACE.

My ability as a physician is just fine. I have had no complaints, and in my 6 year of practice I have not had any complaints filed against me in a court or to my licencing body. I have qualifications in access of 60% of the physicians in my country. I have taught medical students and residents through our provincial university.

As for the dust/debris cloud appearance, I, unlike you, will acknowledge I am not an expert, and that my eye is not trained on it enough to make a scientific comment on it. My post of the Landmark tower was to show to all the other untrained fence sitters, that the clouds, to most peoples eyes, look nearly identical except in size and color.

Funny that those here trained in such things disagree with you as well ACE. Why is that?

TAM

 

[Babbylonian]

[much good information about nuclear weapons]

And you don't even mention the secondary effects of the radiation that would be present for a long period of time, likely killing a large number (perhaps all) of the people who participated in the WTC cleanup - even assuming, of course, that said radiation was confined within the area, which it wouldn't be.

 

[HeyLeroy]

This video (about 50 seconds in) shows nothing sinister, just hanging dust after the piece collapses:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vjwDv_IONgA

TRUTHSEEKER: I know there's a lot that goes on in any thread in which you participate, but coulds you tell me, is the person who said 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.

a liar?

 

[TruthSeeker1234]

Well I originally had a large viscous spue of insults and anger ready to post in reply to this. However, that would only gratify your childish attempt to goad me down to your level ACE.

My ability as a physician is just fine. I have had no complaints, and in my 6 year of practice I have not had any complaints filed against me in a court or to my licencing body. I have qualifications in access of 60% of the physicians in my country. I have taught medical students and residents through our provincial university.

As for the dust/debris cloud appearance, I, unlike you, will acknowledge I am not an expert, and that my eye is not trained on it enough to make a scientific comment on it. My post of the Landmark tower was to show to all the other untrained fence sitters, that the clouds, to most peoples eyes, look nearly identical except in size and color.

Funny that those here trained in such things disagree with you as well ACE. Why is that?

TAM

No, they haven't disagreed with the observations, that's the point. Many have certainly disagreed with the interpretations, but that was not the subject of your question.

You asked,

In case you missed it TS. How does [the landmark demolition] look any different than the WTC in terms of the post collapse dust?

1. Please observe. The landmark tower is a bottom up demolition. The twin towers turn to dust from the top down.

2. The landmark dust goes up into the air and is suspended, as we would expect regular dust to do. On 9/11, there is certainly much dust which gets suspended in the air as well. However, the huge dust-fluid flow that is so interesting falls very rapidly, in sharp contradistinction to the landmark dust.

3. The landmark dust diffuses very rapidly. The 9/11 dust-fluid maintains a distinct boundry with the air, and forms characteristic cauliflower shapes.

Now, TAM, there are three profound differences in the "look" of the twin tower "collapses". And again, it's very interesting that you need to supply video of a demolition to compare to the twin tower "collapses".

The same can be said of the black smoke above WTC1. Before "collapse", it is diffused and drifting up and to the southeast. As soon as "collapse" begins, its behaviour changes obviously. It begins to expand in all directions, (mushrooming), and begins to take on a characteristic cauliflower shape.

I suspect you are not visually impaired, and are quite intelligent, and that you can easily see these differences for yourself, and are playing dumb, and that your patients are in good hands. But taken at face value, you cannot see these differences, even when pointed out to you, thus your patients ought to fear you.

 

[Hokulele]

[snip]

It begins to expand in all directions, (mushrooming), and begins to take on a characteristic cauliflower shape.

[snip]..

Expansion is not mushrooming. Mushroom cloud formations refer to a specific set of circumstances, which are not replicated here. Please stop misusing this term. You understood why the term "pyroclastic" was inappropriate, thank you. Please understand why this term is inappropriate as well (direction of rotation, etc).

 

[pomeroo]

No, they haven't disagreed with the observations, that's the point. Many have certainly disagreed with the interpretations, but that was not the subject of your question.

You asked,



1. Please observe. The landmark tower is a bottom up demolition. The twin towers turn to dust from the top down.

2. The landmark dust goes up into the air and is suspended, as we would expect regular dust to do. On 9/11, there is certainly much dust which gets suspended in the air as well. However, the huge dust-fluid flow that is so interesting falls very rapidly, in sharp contradistinction to the landmark dust.

3. The landmark dust diffuses very rapidly. The 9/11 dust-fluid maintains a distinct boundry with the air, and forms characteristic cauliflower shapes.

Now, TAM, there are three profound differences in the "look" of the twin tower "collapses". And again, it's very interesting that you need to supply video of a demolition to compare to the twin tower "collapses".

The same can be said of the black smoke above WTC1. Before "collapse", it is diffused and drifting up and to the southeast. As soon as "collapse" begins, its behaviour changes obviously. It begins to expand in all directions, (mushrooming), and begins to take on a characteristic cauliflower shape.

I suspect you are not visually impaired, and are quite intelligent, and that you can easily see these differences for yourself, and are playing dumb, and that your patients are in good hands. But taken at face value, you cannot see these differences, even when pointed out to you, thus your patients ought to fear you.

Ace, Please don't interpret what I'm about to write as a personal insult. You've been polite in our exchanges, and I sincerely appreciate your civil tone. I ask you to consider that you are debating real scientists and you, it is painfully obvious, have no background in science. You are flogging your absurd thesis so hard that you simply can't process the information that is being placed under your nose. Back off for a moment. Try to read the explanations that contradict your fantasy as though you're coming to them with a clear head. You exhibit no capacity for absorbing the wealth of information that is being posted here. You simply can't keep raving about steel that has turned to dust. Your grand theory just doesn't fit the evidence.

I strongly urge you to check out the thread, "Ground level steel beam." The photos utterly destroy the conspiracy madness. Look at the slag that dripped outside the beams. Pause for a moment, Ace: Reason, logic, and evidence are not bad things. Try to recover your balance.

 

[TruthSeeker1234]

This video (about 50 seconds in) shows nothing sinister, just hanging dust after the piece collapses:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vjwDv_IONgA

TRUTHSEEKER: I know there's a lot that goes on in any thread in which you participate, but coulds you tell me, is the person who said this a liar?

Sounds like it might be Steve Jones or Greg Jenkins. Whoever said that was looking at a sample. What was the chain of custody? Was it representative of the whole mess? Are we to believe any of the published dust analyses? For all I know, the dust might have been 25% iron.

Based on that sample provided, the author might be telling the truth.

Unrelated to your post, I think it's pretty clear now that Jones and Jenkins are disinfo. They flat refuse to look at the data.

 

[TruthSeeker1234]

Ace, Please don't interpret what I'm about to write as a personal insult. You've been polite in our exchanges, and I sincerely appreciate your civil tone. I ask you to consider that you are debating real scientists and you, it is painfully obvious, have no background in science. You are flogging your absurd thesis so hard that you simply can't process the information that is being placed under your nose. Back off for a moment. Try to read the explanations that contradict your fantasy as though you're coming to them with a clear head. You exhibit no capacity for absorbing the wealth of information that is being posted here. You simply can't keep raving about steel that has turned to dust. Your grand theory just doesn't fit the evidence.

I strongly urge you to check out the thread, "Ground level steel beam." The photos utterly destroy the conspiracy madness. Look at the slag that dripped outside the beams. Pause for a moment, Ace: Reason, logic, and evidence are not bad things. Try to recover your balance.

I would like to take this opportunity to commend you, Ron, for being the first person to agree to allow the 9/11 evidence to be presented on television, as I shall in my debate with Frank Greening. Hardfire is only local public access in New York, but it's great. You demonstrate courage where so many before you have not.

The subject of the debate will be Greening's crush-down crush-up theory. I have said before, and will say again, I don't know what caused the the twin towers to blow up. I do know, with certainty, that it was not a gravity-driven collapse.

I do indeed learn things on the forums, that is why I spend so much effort in "hostile" territory. If my science knowledge is so lacking, this will be quite clear to your audience, and the show will serve as a fine debunking document to spread far and wide.

 

[CHF]

....my debate with Frank Greening

Remind me again what your education is.

 

[WildCat]

Is Ace really going to debate Greening?

 

[pomeroo]

Is Ace really going to debate Greening?

Ace made an extraordinarily generous offer to cover Dr. Greening's travel expenses to NYC. I think Greening deserves to be heard, even if Hardfire, with its tiny audience, is the only platform I can provide. This thread reveals my problem.

I have no wish to humiliate Ace, who, as I previously wrote, has conducted himself with civility in his exchanges with me. If, however, the debate turns into the Scientist vs. the Lunatic, I look ridiculous (or, as my detractors might have it, even more ridiculous). My producer wants to know why I think this confrontation is worth staging. I'd like to showcase Greening, but, frankly, that's not enough.

Many fantasists would love to parade their ignorance of science and their contempt for evidentiary reasoning in front of an audience, however small. I don't wish to sound unkind, but I'm having a tough time figuring out what Ace brings to the table. If this is an audition, it isn't going well.

 

[CHF]

I have no wish to humiliate Ace

But apparently Ace does.

 

[pomeroo]

Help Me Decide

But apparently Ace does.

I just had a thought (now, now, that's not nice!).

There are many super-bright people posting regularly here. They have taught me a great deal about the science behind debunking the loons. I put it to them: Should Ace Baker debate Dr. Greening on Hardfire? We all recognize the disadvantages. Is there anything to be gained?

 

[The Demon's Head]

I just had a thought (now, now, that's not nice!).

There are many super-bright people posting regularly here. They have taught me a great deal about the science behind debunking the loons. I put it to them: Should Ace Baker debate Dr. Greening on Hardfire? We all recognize the disadvantages. Is there anything to be gained?

Anything else gained besides making troofers look utterly foolish in a debate?

No.

Just look at the debate between the Loose Change boys and Gravy. Loose Change crew lost that debate horribly bad, yet troofers claim they won by a landslide. Troofers will always deny.

 

[DavidJames]

Is there anything to be gained?

Only by Ace. Ace is in it for the publicity. He has nothing to lose and everything to gain.