• 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.

WTC dust

Status
Not open for further replies.
Oystein said:
What do you conclude from the full body of eyewitness testimonies thus related first-hand to you? Was there a plane, or was there no plane?
Click to expand...

Too many people have told me that they saw a plane flying into the building for me to discount their views. This means I wholeheartedly disagree with the TV Video Fakery theory, which says that a plane image was inserted into all the videos and still images of the event. If all these people say they saw a plane, this must be accounted for, and TV Video Fakery fails to do this.

But something that also needs to be accounted for is the strange behavior captured on these videos. The "plane" didn't get stuck in the side of the building. The "plane" didn't twist, crumple, slow down, or change its trajectory in any way that would indicate that it was in the process of crashing into the exterior beams of WTC 2. There was no visible plane debris falling to the ground. There is a FOX News video of what looks like a "nose-out".

What was captured on the videos of 9:03AM doesn't look like a plane crashing into the south face of WTC 2. An explanation that fits the data is a projected image of a plane. Did this happen? Maybe.

Since, if you remember, my main research question is "What destroyed the World Trade Center" and since planes did not do it, technically the plane story is not what I study. I do not consider myself a plane expert or even a plane crash expert. I pay attention to what destroyed the WTC, and even if a plane did crash into the building (which I doubt), it didn't destroy the building, so it's not what I'm interested in studying.
 
WTC Dust said:
Too many people have told me that they saw a plane flying into the building for me to discount their views. This means I wholeheartedly disagree with the TV Video Fakery theory, which says that a plane image was inserted into all the videos and still images of the event. If all these people say they saw a plane, this must be accounted for, and TV Video Fakery fails to do this.

But something that also needs to be accounted for is the strange behavior captured on these videos. The "plane" didn't get stuck in the side of the building. The "plane" didn't twist, crumple, slow down, or change its trajectory in any way that would indicate that it was in the process of crashing into the exterior beams of WTC 2. There was no visible plane debris falling to the ground. There is a FOX News video of what looks like a "nose-out".

What was captured on the videos of 9:03AM doesn't look like a plane crashing into the south face of WTC 2. An explanation that fits the data is a projected image of a plane. Did this happen? Maybe.

Since, if you remember, my main research question is "What destroyed the World Trade Center" and since planes did not do it, technically the plane story is not what I study. I do not consider myself a plane expert or even a plane crash expert. I pay attention to what destroyed the WTC, and even if a plane did crash into the building (which I doubt), it didn't destroy the building, so it's not what I'm interested in studying.
Click to expand...

Blah blah blah.....You have some unanswered question in the last few pages.

What intersection were you at?
 
beachnut said:
How would you know, you have no clue what kinetic energy is? Prove it, calculate the kinetic energy of the drop of the floor and then the whole tower. You can't produce a simple formula, how will you calculate the numbers?

Very short pile in truther fantasy is equal to 5 stories. That is funny
Click to expand...

Beachnut, How are you this morning? Let me tell you something. When I walked to see the damage for myself on Friday morning after the attacks, I expected to see a pile of steel. I walked to within two blocks of the WTC site and saw a ten foot fence instead. No pile was visible above the fence. You could not see even one tiny bit of the pile itself, where the buildings previously stood. You could only see a few pieces sticking up, plus huge waves of fumes.

And do you really think a research scientist can't figure out the equation for kinetic energy if they have internet access? Even if I didn't know it already? ha
 
WTC Dust said:
Beachnut, How are you this morning? Let me tell you something. When I walked to see the damage for myself on Friday morning after the attacks, I expected to see a pile of steel. I walked to within two blocks of the WTC site and saw a ten foot fence instead. No pile was visible above the fence. You could not see even one tiny bit of the pile itself, where the buildings previously stood. You could only see a few pieces sticking up, plus huge waves of fumes.

And do you really think a research scientist can't figure out the equation for kinetic energy if they have internet access? Even if I didn't know it already? ha
Click to expand...

You obviously didn't take that into account......

What intersection was this?
 
WTC Dust said:
Too many people have told me that they saw a plane flying into the building for me to discount their views. This means I wholeheartedly disagree with the TV Video Fakery theory, which says that a plane image was inserted into all the videos and still images of the event. If all these people say they saw a plane, this must be accounted for, and TV Video Fakery fails to do this.

But something that also needs to be accounted for is the strange behavior captured on these videos. The "plane" didn't get stuck in the side of the building. The "plane" didn't twist, crumple, slow down, or change its trajectory in any way that would indicate that it was in the process of crashing into the exterior beams of WTC 2. There was no visible plane debris falling to the ground. There is a FOX News video of what looks like a "nose-out".

What was captured on the videos of 9:03AM doesn't look like a plane crashing into the south face of WTC 2. An explanation that fits the data is a projected image of a plane. Did this happen? Maybe.

Since, if you remember, my main research question is "What destroyed the World Trade Center" and since planes did not do it, technically the plane story is not what I study. I do not consider myself a plane expert or even a plane crash expert. I pay attention to what destroyed the WTC, and even if a plane did crash into the building (which I doubt), it didn't destroy the building, so it's not what I'm interested in studying.
Click to expand...

Hey remember when you made the huge blunder that there were eight inches of steel beams running across the entire floor of every floor of the towers. It was hilarious.

What do you have to say about the fact that you don't have even the foggiest clue of how the towers were constructed? Do you think this makes sane people more or less likely to believe your ridiculous ideas?
 
Thunder said:
Wow...I finally get to utter the all soo famous words:

"Don't feed the troll".

DEWers are not worth the time, energy, or effort guys. Every additional response to him enables his ego...and makes us look foolish.
Click to expand...

Thunder: I thought you were going to ignore me. :D:):o
 
tsig said:
You can throw a softball more than 500'? Why aren't you playing in the World Series?

The standard block in Manhattan is about 264 by 900 feet (80 × 270 m); and in some U.S. cities standard blocks are as wide as 660 feet (200 m)
Click to expand...

OK, maybe I'm not that good. I can see directly down into the pit of Ground Zero from my roof. I figure, that will give me a little edge. I think I could get close, anyway.
 
alienentity said:
I would amend that to read 'Every additional response to him enables his ego...and makes him look foolish'

However, it does waste our time, and does apparently feed his ego. No argument there.
Click to expand...

Actually, I came here for a debunking. I'm willing to dump any part of my theory that is disproved. Nobody can tell me that I actually did see the building above a ten foot fence on Day 3, though. I know what I was looking for (a debris pile) and I know that I didn't see it. Maybe the fence was 10.5 feet. I'm willing to give on certain points. The fence was a regular sized fence that you see all over NYC, and those fences are about 10 feet tall. I know where I was standing, on Broadway. At that close range, it's not really possible to say I was exactly 2 blocks away, because the WTC site itself is pretty much two blocks wide. But you couldn't see the pile from my vantage point, and I tried.
 
WTC Dust said:
OK, maybe I'm not that good. I can see directly down into the pit of Ground Zero from my roof. I figure, that will give me a little edge. I think I could get close, anyway.
Click to expand...

What street intersection were you at?
 
WTC Dust said:
Actually, I came here for a debunking. I'm willing to dump any part of my theory that is disproved.
Click to expand...

You nor your hero Judy Wood have a theory. You won't even state how you think hundreds of thousands of tons of steel can be dustified. Thus there is nothing to debunk or disprove. You fail, moron.
 
Mikemcc said:
I had an arguement about DEWs a couple of years ago with a troofer, here's the answer I gave him:

The idea that DEWs converted 90% of the material of the top 90 floors of the WTC to dust is absolutely, astoundingly stupid.

There was 200,000 tons of steel in each of the towers (http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2004/EricChen.shtml).

So mass involved in your scheme = 0.90 x 90/116 * 200000 = 139700 tonnes or 1.397 x 10^8 kg

The Enthalpy of Atomization for iron (temperature to complete dissocaiate all the atoms - vapourised) = 414.2 kJ/mol and it's average atomic mass is 55.847 (http://environmentalchemistry.com/yogi/periodic/Fe.html#Physical)

So to vapourise 1kg of iron requires 1000 * 414.2 / 55.847 = 7416.7 kJ = 7.4167 x 10^6 J

the energy to vapourise all that iron then is 7.4167 x 10^6 x 1.397 x 10^8 = 1.036 x 10^15 J

To give you an idea of the energy involved that's 247kt!

This all assumes that the energy is transferred at 100% efficiency, according to this site http://www.ausairpower.net/AADR-HEL-Dec-81.html the efficiency of transfering energy into aluminium (which the WTC was clad with is about 3%, even if I allow for 30% transfer (because the surface may not be smooth and shiny) that still means having to input 1.036 x 10^15 / 0.3 = 3.45 x 10^15 J, then there's the generating efficiency of the laser and propagation losses through the atmosphere (likely to be less than 10%). On top of that add on the mass of concrete and aluminium in the tower (probably tripling the energy required), the energy involved is absolutely ridiculous, somewhere in the region of 3 * 10 * 3.45 x 10^15 = 1.035 x 10^17 J

On top of that the beam has to be focused to affect each tower in turn, without the reflected light affecting anything else!

According to this website (http://www.eei.org/industry_issues/industry_overview_and_statistics/industry_statistics) the generating capacity of the US in Dec 2005 was 1067019Mw = 1.067 x 10^12 W, so to achieve the energy input that I arrived at would take (1.035 x 10^17) / (1.067 x 10^12) = 9700 seconds. This means that each tower would require the entire generating capacity of the US for 2.7 hours!

The most powerful CW laser developed at the time for purposes such as this was M-THEL, this achieved a MW output for 70 seconds. All of 7 x 10^7 J, out of luck by more than 9 orders of magnitude!

Even if the troofers would like to reduce that to a single percent of the material 'dustified', enough to weaken the structure, they would still be out by 7 orders of magnitude!

A terrible thing, actually applying a little bit of maths. It's a pity WTC Dust and Judy Wood with all their qualifications couldn't do that.
Click to expand...

Why did you calculate vaporization figures? Are you saying the steel became a gas by heating? Neither Judy Wood nor I say this. So, you're doing your own calculation on your own theory. This has nothing to do with the theory that I'm working on, because my theory doesn't talk about vaporization at all.

Neither does Dr. Wood's theory. She doesn't do the calculations because the calculations are irrelevant to her theory. She doesn't say the building contents got turned into a gas. She says that the contents got turned into powder/dust and so do I.

The dust cloud seen on 9/11 wasn't a gas. It was a colloidal suspension of particles in air. Colloidal suspension /= gas.
 
WTC Dust said:
She doesn't do the calculations because the calculations are irrelevant to her theory.
Click to expand...

:dl: :dl: :dl:

If actually had a theory (she doesn't), calculations would be necessary to demonstrate to sane people that it is even possible.

She doesn't do any calculations be she can't.

She says that the contents got turned into powder/dust and so do I.
Click to expand...

How? Until you explain how that could possibly happen, no sane person in the world will ever take your seriously.
 
alienentity said:
Well said, but you're comparing science to Judy Wood theories, which is like apples to fruitcakes. She is claiming, by a virtual appeal to magic, an unknown and unproven process called 'molecular dissociation'.

She can't tell you how it works, apart from some vague ideas about 'interference' with references to Tesla coils and the alleged 'Hutchison effect'.

So you might as well be debating with Doc Brown from Back to the Future about the problems with his time machine.
Click to expand...


Sufficiently advanced technology appears magical to the naive, which is where most of you fail.

Dr. Wood is a scientist, not a magician. She's describing what the weapon did, not the weapon itself. She's describing a possible mechanism for the weapon, which is the only mechanism that hasn't been debunked.

Go ahead and debunk it. I am waiting. RMackey's so-called debunking forced a condition at the very beginning that wasn't necessary, and then he debunked his own story. He didn't debunk Dr. Wood.
 
Thunder said:
Yeah, feeding this guy truly is an example of "fool me once, shame on you. fool me twice, shame on me."

Shame on us for letting this guy fool us into responding rationally and intellectually, to irrational and unintellectual arguments.

I'm out.
Click to expand...


OK, if I never hear from you again, I guess this is goodbye. Goodbye, Thunder!
 
WTC Dust said:
Why did you calculate vaporization figures? Are you saying the steel became a gas by heating? Neither Judy Wood nor I say this. So, you're doing your own calculation on your own theory. This has nothing to do with the theory that I'm working on, because my theory doesn't talk about vaporization at all.

Neither does Dr. Wood's theory. She doesn't do the calculations because the calculations are irrelevant to her theory. She doesn't say the building contents got turned into a gas. She says that the contents got turned into powder/dust and so do I.

The dust cloud seen on 9/11 wasn't a gas. It was a colloidal suspension of particles in air. Colloidal suspension /= gas.
Click to expand...
Are the calculations "irrelevant" to your theory? By what means do you "dustify" something?
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom