WTC dust

[A W Smith]

Why are you asking me for the formula for kinetic energy? I'm not your monkey, and I don't dance at the tip of anyone's finger. Find it yourself and tell me why you think it's important.

Because you have the burden of proof with your extraordinary claims. Produce your evidence or admidt defeat of your claims. It is as simple as that. It is not a "difference of opinion". We are right and you are wrong. Get used to it.

 

[Arus808]

there were 110 story BUILDINGS with every floor nearly OCCUPIED by what you find IN OFFICES.

Not including the GENERATOR floors which were machines that CONTAINED iron.

care to provide this papers??

 

[beachnut]

OK. I tend to believe all the peer reviewed papers that mention the iron that was found in the dust and I'm not talking about Steven Jones' ridiculous non-peer reviewed travesty of a paper, either.

They found iron in the dust. Steel is 98% iron. Where's the question?

Guess what, research scientist, guess what the world is mostly made of?

You might think a real research scientist would have knowledge. Why are you spewing nonsense.

8 most common elements in Earth’s crust (by mass):
46.6% Oxygen (O)
27.7% Silicon (Si)
8.1% Aluminum (Al)
5.0% Iron (Fe)
3.6% Calcium (Ca)
2.8% Sodium (Na)
2.6% Potassium (K)
2.1% Magnesium (Mg)

The whole earth crust is thermite! lol, the study by Jones, discovered the earth's crust! Wowzer

 

[WTC Dust]

Can you please point out these peer reviewed papers that support your theory? Something along the lines of "Iron Found In WTC Samples Prove Space Beams Caused The Destruction of The Towers" by Dr. Wood and Dr. Dust. Journal of Wacky Science, December 2005, Vol. II.

Space beams isn't Dr. Wood's theory, and it isn't mine. Do a google search on your own for evidence of iron found in the dust. It's more satisfying to learn on your own, and that stuff isn't my research anyway.

Dr. Wood's theory hasn't been debunked. I'm waiting, guys. If you debunk it successfully, I promise to dump it ASAP, but not before.

 

[WTC Dust]

Guess what, research scientist, guess what the world is mostly made of?

You might think a real research scientist would have knowledge. Why are you spewing nonsense.

8 most common elements in Earth’s crust (by mass):
46.6% Oxygen (O)
27.7% Silicon (Si)
8.1% Aluminum (Al)
5.0% Iron (Fe)
3.6% Calcium (Ca)
2.8% Sodium (Na)
2.6% Potassium (K)
2.1% Magnesium (Mg)

The whole earth crust is thermite! lol, the study by Jones, discovered the earth's crust! Wowzer

Don't mistake me for a Jones follower. He's a stupid jerk, in my eyes.

 

[A W Smith]

Space beams isn't Dr. Wood's theory, and it isn't mine. Do a google search on your own for evidence of iron found in the dust. It's more satisfying to learn on your own, and that stuff isn't my research anyway.

Dr. Wood's theory hasn't been debunked. I'm waiting, guys. If you debunk it successfully, I promise to dump it ASAP, but not before.

Dismissed. You failed to support your claims with evidence.

 

[beachnut]

Very good question. I'm waiting it out on this one. Dr. Wood says that an "energy weapon" is the likely cause. I prefer to think of it as a "Tesla weapon" or an "electrical weapon", but I could very well be wrong on this.

It certainly wasn't gravity, as the "collapse" model expects you to believe.

Where are you hiding your evidence for this steaming pile of poppycock?

 

[dtugg]

Space beams isn't Dr. Wood's theory, and it isn't mine. Do a google search on your own for evidence of iron found in the dust. It's more satisfying to learn on your own, and that stuff isn't my research anyway.

Dr. Wood's theory hasn't been debunked. I'm waiting, guys. If you debunk it successfully, I promise to dump it ASAP, but not before.

Debunked four years ago.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2086102&postcount=393

(WTC Dust will ignore this)

 

[beachnut]

You can't post the formula for kinetic energy means you are not a scientist and more.

Steel that changes from Fe to something that is dust, what elements are in the dust that was once Fe?

 

[alienentity]

Very good question. I'm waiting it out on this one. Dr. Wood says that an "energy weapon" is the likely cause. I prefer to think of it as a "Tesla weapon" or an "electrical weapon", but I could very well be wrong on this.

It certainly wasn't gravity, as the "collapse" model expects you to believe.

It certainly was. No evidence to the contrary.

Whether you inhale or not, it's the same.

 

[alienentity]

What I see as very suspicious is the amount of dust.

Suspicious if it hadn't happened on 9/11, if no planes had impacted the buildings at 400+ mph.
But of course, you don't think planes actually hit the towers, probably....Just a guess.

Instead, you had all this dust every place. Dust appeared at ground level before either of the Twin Towers went poof.

What happened to all that drywall and such when the planes impacted? It all stayed intact, I guess, along with the SFRM, insulation etc....

You do realize the dust has been analyzed for content? It wasn't mostly iron or steel, unfortunately for your theory. What is your theory? What was the process you claim? What would you expect to find?
YOu don't really have a coherent theory, do you? But read on and find out what the dust really was......

'The USGS Study

A study by the US Geological Survey (USGS) provides some analytical detail missing from the above study. It lists the elemental composition of a number of dust samples collected from outdoor and indoor locations. 3 The following table summarizes the percentages by weight of the more abundant elements in samples for which sulfur was measured.

sample element: percentage by weight
Si Ca Mg S Fe Al
WTC 01-02 21.20 15.01 3.11 1.33 4.13 4.13
WTC 01-03 26.30 9.58 2.23 0.87 2.16 2.75
WTC 01-14 15.30 17.65 2.83 4.32 1.87 2.86
WTC 01-15 13.60 18.58 2.64 5.40 1.87 2.59
WTC 01-16 17.00 13.36 1.79 3.68 1.92 2.27
WTC 01-21 12.80 18.94 2.68 5.10 1.49 2.73
WTC 01-22 17.00 16.80 2.77 3.70 2.78 2.78
WTC 01-25 13.20 20.37 3.29 4.03 1.33 3.28
WTC 01-27 15.20 19.51 3.04 4.29 1.72 3.05
WTC 01-28 13.80 19.65 2.83 4.56 1.80 2.95
Gypsum, the primary constituent of most wallboard, has the formula CaSO4-2(H20), and is 18.62% sulfur and 23.38% calcium by weight. 4 Gypsum is also about 5% of portland cement, the binder used in most concrete and constituting. Since aggregate constitutes between 70% and 80% of most concrete, gypsum might account for 1% to 1.5% of the concrete in the towers'

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/dust.html


Keep flapping around, seems like you are wont to do it. It won't change the facts. Flap all you like, squawk all you like, it won't make your fantasy come true.

 

[alienentity]

Dr. Wood's theory hasn't been debunked.

No, because it's not even wrong. Ain't that right, Pauli?

 

[Oystein]

Being from New York doesn't mean you've examined the WTC dust. Has anyone, other than me?

Yes. The RJ Lee Group did an analysis of the WTC dust that had settled in and on the Deutsche Bank Building (130 Liberty Street, right across the street from Ground Zero). You find the report here:
http://www.nyenvirolaw.org/WTC/130 ...ignature.Composition and Morphology.Final.pdf

The EPA analysed the dust that settled around Manhattan. Check out their site:
http://www.epa.gov/wtc/panel/backdocs.html

Frank Greening has looked at the energy available and necessary to crush the concrete of the towers in several papers, one of them here:
http://www.911myths.com/WTCREPORT.pdf

Niels Harrit, Steven Jones e.al. analysed several dust samples, but concentrated on some paint chips.


Bottom line is: Steel dust was not found by anyone in significant amounts. The potential energy of the towers was sufficient to create the observed amount and particle size distribution of dust.

 

[Oystein]

Very good question. I'm waiting it out on this one. Dr. Wood says that an "energy weapon" is the likely cause. I prefer to think of it as a "Tesla weapon" or an "electrical weapon", but I could very well be wrong on this.

It certainly wasn't gravity, as the "collapse" model expects you to believe.

Each tower stored, and by collapsing released, about 500,000,000,000 Joules of (gravtitational!) potential energy.
The most advanced directed energy weapons (laser or microwave) release on the order of 1MW of power and can fire for at most 5 seconds per pulse. That amounts to 5,000,000 Joules of energy release. Which is the energy content of a small jar of peanut putter. It is 100,000 times less than the potential energy of one tower. It is enough to melt at most a few ounces of steel. This proves conclusively that energy weapons cannot possibly have played a significant role.

Said energy weapons heat their targets, they do not grind them. No energy weapon exists or has even only been suggested that would dustify its targets without heating them significantly. Mrs. Wood expressively refuses to make any claim whatsoever about the kind of energy, amount of energy, kind of weapon, location of weapen etc. that she imagines to have been used.
Without any such claim made, it follows she has not proven any claim.

The "energy weapons destroyed WTC" idea is a delusion.

 

[Oystein]

"Who"? Um...lotsa people? Do you make the claim that the dust was entirely concrete? I say no, and that is my point. The dust was steel and all the rest of the contents of the WTC buildings, not just the concrete.

Nobody in his right mind claims all of the dust was concrete.
Lots of the dust was gypsum.
Lots of the dust was soot.
Lots of the dust was organic fibers of many sources.
Lamentably, some of the dust was asbestos.

One component generally not found in the dust was ground steel. The towers contained close to 200.000 tons of steel, according to NIST. Close to 170.000 tons of steel, IIRC, were pulled in the form of large chunks from the rubble, according to FEMA. The difference can be much better explained by imprecision in estimating the original amount of steel, and weighing the salvaged scrap metal, then by supposed "dustification".

 

[Oystein]

The dust isn't steel. It used to be steel.

What was it after, if it wasn't steel anymore?

And what's so "insane" about that? You can't think of a process that can turn steel into dust? Well, learn something. Can only point you the way. Can't make you go there.

Well, can YOU think of a process that can turn steel into dust without anybody noticing the tool you use? If so, please explain!

 

[Oystein]

I do not have definitive proof of any electrical weapon.

Do you at least have any non-definitive (maybe circumstantial) proof of any electrical weapon?

I have only forensic evidence that rules out gravity and explosives.

What is it? We at JREF always love to see evidence. Don't beat around the bush! Post your evidence, then discuss it!

I haven't even proved an electrical weapon did it, yet, not to mention that I haven't found the exact weapon.

Have you found the inexact weapon at least? What is your claim, really?

Normal people aren't highly educated and creative, like Dr. Wood and me. Normal people like to watch football and purchase shiny objects. Count me out.

Ah yes, Mrs. Wood sure is creative. She writes science fiction

 

[Oystein]

OK. I tend to believe all the peer reviewed papers that mention the iron that was found in the dust and I'm not talking about Steven Jones' ridiculous non-peer reviewed travesty of a paper, either.

They found iron in the dust. Steel is 98% iron. Where's the question?

Who found how much iron in which dust, and what were its properties?

 

[Oystein]

Steel is not iron. Iron was found. Steel is a particular formulation of chemicals that includes iron and carbon and other trace elements heated and treated certain ways.

The iron that was found used to be caught up in the steel, but the steel got pulverized down to the elements, which results in iron being detected.
...

Says who? Source, please.

 

[Oystein]

...Or actually, what I'd like you to do is to debunk the science of Dr. Judy Wood, or try to...

We first have to find any "science of Dr. Judy Wood".
She looks at pictures and her imagination runs wild.
Can you specify which science you are referring to? Source, maybe a couple of quotes? Let's start with the hypothesis that her science would then attempt to support.

Can you state Mrs. Wood's hypothesis, in any actionable detail?