WTC dust

[WTC Dust]

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.

Are you one of the people who say gravity provided all this energy?

 

[dtugg]

I don't dispute any of the studies of the dust. I'm pointing out that they all miss the point that there wasn't one type of dust. There were several different types of dust, some of which were metallic.

The potential energy of the building was due to gravity, and gravity isn't a sufficient explanation for all that dust. Your theory has concrete floors falling twelve feet (not much kinetic energy in a twelve foot fall). Also, your theory doesn't effectively discuss how these floors began to fall.

It's actually a mishmash, your theory. Floors didn't fall. By the time anything began to fall, it was already dust.

Prove it.

 

[BigAl]

Beachnut: You're so confused. A fifth grader could probably find the equation for kinetic energy and post it here. If I did, it wouldn't prove anything.

As for being a scientist, I can see how this assertion would be key in your attempts to debunk me. But since I am actually a research scientist, you'll have to try something else.

Your evidenced knowledge of the behavior of dust and the energy requirements of "space beams" says you are not a "research scientist".

 

[WTC Dust]

The "nothing was visible over a ten foot fence from ground level on Day 3" claim is complete fiction. Even if it were true it's irrelevant.

I walked past WTC every day to get home via the Staten Island ferry. I always walked as close to the pile as allowed. There was no such fence for weeks.

What can I say? I live here. There was a fence erected on Day 3. You couldn't get any closer than two blocks away, and you couldn't see the pile above the fence. You could see some tall pieces sticking up, but not the pile itself. You could also see these horrible fumes coming up.

 

[DGM]

The only person who comes close is Dr. Judy Wood, and I'm willing to dump her theory as soon as it is debunked.

What's to "debunk"? She never actually presents a theory. She makes lots of assertions but falls way short of connecting the dots. For instance, What does she claim did the destruction? Please be specific.

 

[WTC Dust]

What have you studied it with?

electron scanning microscope?

how about chemical makeup analysis?

Show us your paper, I personally would love to see it.

I'm talking about my research in the way I want to talk about it. I don't follow orders.

 

[dtugg]

Also, your theory doesn't effectively discuss how these floors began to fall.

And the twoofer now proves that he hasn't even so much as read the NIST FAQs.

 

[dtugg]

I'm talking about my research in the way I want to talk about it. I don't follow orders.

Translation: I am a fraud and have conducted no research whatsoever (unless you count browsing Judy Wood's website).

 

[WTC Dust]

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=492&pictureid=3964[/qimg]

here is a digital image of GZ, with color coded elevations. does this look flat to you?

It doesn't look flat, but the pile appears to be very short. NOT what I expected to see on Day 3. They said that two huge buildings collapsed. I expected to see a pile of debris much taller than two stories, but nope. Very short pile, relative to street level.

 

[dtugg]

It doesn't look flat, but the pile appears to be very short. NOT what I expected to see on Day 3. They said that two huge buildings collapsed. I expected to see a pile of debris much taller than two stories, but nope. Very short pile, relative to street level.

Provide calculations showing that the pile should have been higher or admit that you have nothing.

 

[WTC Dust]

She doesn't have a theory. All she says is DEW did it, no facts no figures only pictures with questions.

Tell us where the DEW was, how much energy did it use and where did it get this energy.

DEW is not my theory, and I won't support it other than to point out that it hasn't been debunked effectively (to my knowledge). Put up or shut up. Debunk her theory, and I'll drop it like a stone. Just don't tell me gravity did it, because I don't like to laugh that hard this early in the morning.

 

[dtugg]

DEW is not my theory, and I won't support it other than to point out that it hasn't been debunked effectively (to my knowledge). Put up or shut up. Debunk her theory, and I'll drop it like a stone. Just don't tell me gravity did it, because I don't like to laugh that hard this early in the morning.

What theory?

 

[WTC Dust]

I'm a New Yorker. I've never heard anyone say that, especially not any of the eyewitnesses.

New Yorkers as a group don't "hate Arabs." Hundreds of thousands of them are New Yorkers and good people.

You claim to live in NYC. I say you are a fraud.

I've interviewed dozens of eyewitnesses, some of whom are my closest friends. They talk about the dust. Some of them saw what looked like a plane. Some of them did not. New Yorkers don't tend to hate Arabs because they tend to be liberal people. However, there's a lot of vicious hatred of Arabs floating around as a result of 9/11.

Calling me a fraud isn't going to work for you, because I'm the real deal. I live a few blocks away from Ground Zero. I could throw a softball from my rooftop onto Ground Zero.

 

[dtugg]

I've interviewed dozens of eyewitnesses, some of whom are my closest friends. They talk about the dust. Some of them saw what looked like a plane. Some of them did not. New Yorkers don't tend to hate Arabs because they tend to be liberal people. However, there's a lot of vicious hatred of Arabs floating around as a result of 9/11.

Calling me a fraud isn't going to work for you, because I'm the real deal. I live a few blocks away from Ground Zero. I could throw a softball from my rooftop onto Ground Zero.

Assuming you're not lying: So what.

 

[CORed]

Almost the entire building was turned into dust,

Which building? There were several that collapsed. Where did those massive piles of rubble at ground zero come from?

The stupid! It burns!

 

[W.D.Clinger]

Our resident research scientist, WTC Dust, knows remarkably little about the limits of current technology.

I looked at the article. Here's some complaints I have.

RMackey: The test is simple: Do beam weapons of this magnitude exist? No.

WTCdust: How were you able to determine that these weapons do not exist?

In the text you quoted, the highlighted word "No" linked to another post, which linked to a 2004 press release by Boeing announcing its first test firing of the most powerful airborne laser that had been constructed to that date.

Today, the most powerful ground-based laser is housed in a building the size of three football fields, at the National Ignition Facility at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. From the NIF web page:

The National Ignition Facility (NIF) is the world's largest laser. NIF's 192 intense laser beams can deliver to a target more than 60 times the energy of any previous laser system. NIF became operational in March 2009 and is capable of directing nearly two million joules of ultraviolet laser energy in billionth-of-a-second pulses to the target chamber center.

As a research scientist, you should be able to confirm that the 2 MJ deliverable by the world's largest laser (as of 2010) is three decimal orders of magnitude less than the kinetic energy of the aircraft that hit the WTC towers.

If you need help with that calculation, you might consult another of the links Ryan gave in the post you quoted.

RMackey: The beam weapon must fire from almost directly above its target, and must do so unseen.

WTCdust: These are assertions, not facts. The beam weapon could have been anywhere. Also, the weapon doesn't have to be unseen, although, to escape detection, it must be at least disguised.

Anywhere? You really believe the beam weapon could have been fired from Afghanistan? Or from the far side of the moon?

 

[WTC Dust]

You can start by telling us a method for powering such a device and giving us exact figures. We did that math a looooooooong time ago and the amount of power would used would have run the Eastern seaboard for a few years - and that was a with a ridiculously high energy conversion rate.

There is a lot of energy contained within matter itself. It's not like you'd run an electric cord and power the device using ConEd. The energy for the destruction of the WTC didn't come from an airplane crash or explosions, but it came from somewhere.

The energy weapon theory, which I'm willing to drop instantly as soon as it is effectively debunked, says that the energy came from the material itself. In other words, the weapon tapped into the energy that is contained within the material and used this energy to destroy the WTC buildings and damage others. You wouldn't have to pay ConEd.

I'm guessing the closest thing in fictional work that describes the weapon is the "flux capacitor" used in Back to the Future. Remember how the professor throws a banana and a beer can inside it in order to generate 2.1 gigawatts of power? Something like that.

I don't have a picture of the weapon, so don't ask for it. I do have many pictures of the damage done by this weapon, however. It is erroneously claimed that gravity alone is powerful enough to do what was done, and I find that hilarious.

 

[WTC Dust]

You clearly don't know anything about the debris pile. I do, I saw the cleanup daily from 9/13 on.

I lived here and witnessed the aftermath with my own eyes, friend.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

I'm guessing the closest thing in fictional work that describes the weapon is the "flux capacitor" used in Back to the Future. Remember how the professor throws a banana and a beer can inside it in order to generate 2.1 gigawatts of power? Something like that.

I don't have a picture of the weapon, so don't ask for it. I do have many pictures of the damage done by this weapon, however. It is erroneously claimed that gravity alone is powerful enough to do what was done, and I find that hilarious.

Okay, I concede that WTC Dust is putting us on.

 

[WTC Dust]

Mackey explained why in terms of physics fundamentals. You appear to not know any physics.

You are a fraud.

Calling me a fraud isn't going to work out for you. It's an easy thing to type into a computer, I understand. Comprehension is a difficult thing, but if you try hard, you can do it.