WTC dust

[Jono]

I don't even know what "convergently reflective or reality" means.

Should read "of" not "or", rather clear imo but ok, dodging the issue then?

I want debunking, which requires a lot more effort.

Then stop picking on words and respond to the actual rebuttal. Should I link to the post a second time, perhaps you missed last time as you were more fascinated with some extra wording?

 

[leftysergeant]

Don't forget my samples! They show what the other researchers show, which is a good thing. However, none of the researchers are talking sense about the dust samples, which I intend to correct and counter.

First, you need to learn what is supposed to be there. I see no sign that you or whacky old Judy have a clue. Not even old chuckle nuts S. Jones found any sign of dustified steel when he was picking his paint chips out of the dust samples.

The dust samples are the strangest material you've ever seen, if you've seen it. Very, very crumbly. The interior structure is that of a foam that has somewhat solidified. And there's more than one distinct kind of dust.

Tell me how a jet fuel sparked office fire can make such a sample.

I assume that you are talking about the "desicated" concrete that some clean-up workers found.

Get a freaking clue. It was built into the towers when they were erected. You people need to learn how to do some really simple fire investigations.

AS for jet fuel getting hot enough to damage steel, you are talking through your knickers. SUNLIGHT will warp steel if it causes it to expand unevenly. A friend of mine once described sabotaged about half a mile of railroad track using sunlight and a few coins.

Jet fuel will melt aluminum when it burns. Hot enough to melt aluminum is hot enough to warp steel, by hundreds of degrees, even Farhenheit.

And what really kicks your blather about "jet fuel fires" into the latrine pit is that the Class B (liquid hydrocarbon-fueled) fires were of short duration, having been set only to cause a more massive Class A (solid flammables-fueled) fire. In the jargon of fire science, the jet fuel was used as an "accelerant" to start and rapidly spread the Class A fires.

Stick to biology.

 

[Belz...]

Very good question.

I've got a better one: how can you tell that the dust was steel ?

 

[aggle-rithm]

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.

Well, the gravity hypothesis has one huge advantage over the others: Gravity actually exists.

 

[jammonius]

ETA: Someone has altered the appearance of my profile in this thread. I'm no student. I'm a research scientist.
ETA: Oh, I guess it has to do with how many posts you've made. NEVER MIND!

One of the most misunderstood issue of 9/11.

Most people (even after watching the videos) think that the dust was caused by concrete floors crashing down onto one another.

They saw all the dust. They know concrete can get smashed eventually into dust if you work hard at it. They twisted their minds around the gargantuan amount of dust seen rolling down the street, and then said, "Concrete. It's all concrete."

Wrong. That dust was steel, concrete, glass, wood, ceramic and everything inside the building. Almost the entire building was turned into dust, and that dust was a horrible, noxious thing. Unlike any dust you've ever seen before, and certainly unlike concrete (although it is the color of concrete).

I know about the dust because I've seen it with my own eyes and touched it with my own hands. I inhaled the stuff, on accident. I still have some of the dust, too. Pretty shocking, huh? Or are you still not impressed and working on this idea that I must be a fraud because I'm not saying what everyone else is saying.

As far as I know, none of you ever saw the dust in real life. Has anyone?

Greetings WTC Dust,

You started this thread a mere 5 days ago. Clearly you have captured the imagination, as it were, of posters and lurkers. Well done. I have long asserted that Dr. Judy Wood has correctly determined that the WTC complex was destroyed by a form of directed energy weaponry, evidenced, in part, by the obvious dustification (as Dr. Wood calls it) of that complex during the 10sec +/- destructive interval of each tower, along with WTC 3 and along with the obvious holes punched into WTC 4-6 that are circular and symmetrical, thus confirming a weapons effect.

I have not yet digested the first 14 pages of this thread, generated in a mere 5 days, and look forward to seeing how the topic has evolved. I expect to post further.

Meanwhile, your presence in the forum has added greatly to the substantive content available to us. For that, you are to be commended.

Thank you,

jammonius

 

[leftysergeant]

Greetings WTC Dust,

You started this thread a mere 5 days ago. Clearly you have captured the imagination, as it were, of posters and lurkers. Well done. I have long asserted that Dr. Judy Wood has correctly determined that the WTC complex was destroyed by a form of directed energy weaponry, evidenced, in part, by the obvious dustification (as Dr. Wood calls it) of that complex during the 10sec +/- destructive interval of each tower, along with WTC 3 and along with the obvious holes punched into WTC 4-6 that are circular and symmetrical, thus confirming a weapons effect.

The only weapon that could have made those holes would be 500 pound bomb with a proximity fuse set to detonated a few inches from the roo. Got proof there was an aircraft over head the could deliver one of those without being seen or heard?

In case you missed it, the holesare not round. They just seem that way because, to the casual observer, the margins of the hole average out to a circle, even though the are dozens of straight lines in the margins.

Meanwhile, your presence in the forum has added greatly to the substantive content available to us. For that, you are to be commended.

Substantive content? From WTC Dust? None of us with the relevant training sees any "substantive" content in any of her posts.

 

[GlennB]

....
and along with the obvious holes punched into WTC 4-6 that are circular and symmetrical, thus confirming a weapons effect.

Circular? Symmetrical? D'uh.

 

[Oystein]

...I have long asserted that Dr. Judy Wood has correctly determined that the WTC complex was destroyed by a form of directed energy weaponry

Right, you have merely asserted.
You have failed to even define what you mean by "directed" (position?), "energy" (how much? what form?) or "weapon" (size? technology? capacity?). It is therefore FALSE to assert that Mrs. Wood "correctly determined" anything. She must define her claim first.

, evidenced, in part, by the obvious dustification (as Dr. Wood calls it) of that complex

The only obvious "dustification" is that of lightweight concrete and drywall, as expected and observed during any collapse (partial or total) of a modern building. This dust is therefore not evidence for anything beyond the obvious: That the buildings collapsed. You, Mrs. Wood and "WTC Dust" cling to the delusional idea that steel, too, was dustified. This is neither obvious nor proven. In fact, it is wrong, as every analysis of the dust has failed to show any significant amounts of (non-spheric) iron dust.

during the 10sec +/- destructive interval of each tower,

I have previously informed you that this number is FALSE and asked you nit to repeat this FALSEHOOD. I see that you made a conscious decision to repead this FALSE number.
Please correct: >10sec (more like 14sec +/-, which makes a significant difference as it means that on the order 150,000,000,000 Joules of potential energy were converted into fracture (dust!) and buckling of building material before the rubble even hit the ground)

To make it clear: Your lie of "10sec +/-" serves to obfuscate the fact that more potential energy was available and converted in 14sec +/- to break concrete into particles from large chunks to fine dust than the most advanced DEW in existence today could deliver in a full day.

along with WTC 3 and along with the obvious holes punched into WTC 4-6 that are circular and symmetrical, thus confirming a weapons effect.

As your imagined weapon is wholly undefined, it is not known what effects it might have, therefore nothing is confirmed.

...
Meanwhile, your presence in the forum has added greatly to the substantive content available to us...

You must have overlooked the fact that WTC Dust has committed numerous errors of fact and has not referenced anything that can be considered evidence.

 

[WTC Dust]

proving that parts of the pile at GZ was many stories above street level.

[/B]

Exactly as I said, except the spots right above where WTC 1 and WTC 2 stood were not where the tallest part of the pile was. I was expecting a tall pile of debris in what we now call "the footprint" of the twin towers, and did not see this.

Pictures prove me correct. The tall bits of the building left over were not located where WTC 1 and WTC 2 previously stood.

 

[WTC Dust]

You said your primary research for the past few years was 9/11. What other 'research' do you do and how is it so lucrative that you only have to work on it part time and still be able to pay the rent in NYC?

This is a rude question.

 

[WTC Dust]

It appears to me that, with a far smaller floor area, the dust from the Balzac verinage is about half as dense as that from the towers at initiation of collapse. Given that sheetrock is more frangible than concrete by an order of magnitude, I should expect the dust to be far more dense in the collapse of the towers.

And the steel beams supporting the floors...how did they go away, according to your theory?

 

[WTC Dust]

Oh, I'm sorry. I was. I was trying to allow you the absolute minimum required energy to meet the conditions of all the steel having gone missing.
We know that steel is iron with a few impurities mixed in (alloyed) with it.
We know from the sampling of the dust that the dust present after the towers fell did not contain enough iron to account for the steel being converted to dust.
I was going to allow you the option, however silly, that the iron had literally vaporized, then blown away without being redeposited on anything in the vicinity.
If you reject that, then we must consider other options. Just remember that it's your claim, not mine, that the steel ( and thus, the iron present in the steel) is missing.

So, let's say that the iron did not vaporize, but through some unknown process was transmuted into the other elements that were found in the dust samples. In theory, you can take two light atoms (like Hydrogen) and fuse them together into a single heavier atom and get out the difference in binding energy. That's fusion. In theory, you can take a single heavy atom (like Uranium) and split it into lighter atoms and get out the difference in binding energy. That's fission.
But because of the curve of binding energy, you only get energy out when the resulting elements are more stable than the initial element. Moving toward less stable atoms means that you have to add energy -- in exactly the same huge mass-equivalent amounts that you could extract if you were going the other direction.
And the most stable atom is... Iron 56.
Transmuting iron into the elements actually found in the dust means that you not only need enough energy to overcome the mechanical binding energy of the steel, you also need enough additional energy to create the additional nuclear binding energy of the new element.

So if the iron is, as you contend, missing, you should be able to explain where the energy to make it go missing came from. It didn't come from the iron. Iron is a nuclear ash. You can't "burn" it into lighter or heavier elements to extract energy.
And the amount is huge. I won't begin to try to calculate the amount of energy required to turn two hundred thousand tons of iron into silicon, but a rule of thumb for atomic bombs is that about fifty thousandths of a gram is converted for each kiloton of yield.

You should take note that my objections to your contention don't care how the energy is applied. This is an argument from first principles.

You're saying a whole lotta stuff, but you are getting ahead of yourself.

Step one: What happened?
Step two: How did it happen?

If you think Step one is "vaporization" then you are not only incorrect, but you're going to get Step two and every other later step wrong.

We need to be arguing about the same thing. The buildings were turned almost entirely into dust. Yes or no? If you agree on this, then we can proceed to the "how it happened" part. Otherwise, we won't be having a debate about the same thing.

 

[WTC Dust]

Really? Cite your source.




JUST a hydrocarbon that started 5 acres of fires over 5 floors instantly. But hey, the Titanic was just a boat too......

Nobody is claiming the Titanic got turned into dust.

 

[WTC Dust]

Try not ignoring me for 4 pages.

Care to address the LIDAR image? We'll start with that.

Funny thing is we didn't start with the LIDAR image. We started with my post,
remember?

 

[tsig]

You're saying a whole lotta stuff, but you are getting ahead of yourself.

Step one: What happened?
Step two: How did it happen?

If you think Step one is "vaporization" then you are not only incorrect, but you're going to get Step two and every other later step wrong.

We need to be arguing about the same thing. The buildings were turned almost entirely into dust. Yes or no? If you agree on this, then we can proceed to the "how it happened" part. Otherwise, we won't be having a debate about the same thing.

OK they turned to dust, now tell us how it happened.

 

[twinstead]

We need to be arguing about the same thing. The buildings were turned almost entirely into dust. Yes or no? If you agree on this, then we can proceed to the "how it happened" part. Otherwise, we won't be having a debate about the same thing.

1. I submit that the buildings were NOT turned almost entirely into dust. This is the commonly-held opinion.

2. If you disagree, the energy required to turn them almost entirely into dust is one of the many challenges to your theory, but yes it's not the first thing you need to address. You need to show that the buildings were turned almost entirely into dust in the first place before you can even start.

 

[WTC Dust]

What kind of "research scientist" has never used a Bunsen burner?

Again, this thing you have about me being a fraud isn't going to work out with you. Bunsen burners are used in high school, so think of what you're actually claiming, that I haven't even achieved high school science level of ability and knowledge.

You can continue to think I'm a fraud if it makes you feel better.

 

[WTC Dust]

Step 1: Write a well-formed paper that actually describes a theory, lists assumptions, references other scientific works (scientific - not the Hutchinson crap), presents data in a well-ordered fashion, analyses the data (quantitative, where applicable: How much energy? How much dust? such things) with a view to the theory you want to support, and draws conclusions
Step 2: Submit it to respected scientific journals



Any fool can make any foolish claim and mail it to any court.
How did the US Supreme Court rule? Is the USSC the proper institution that you go to if you want to find out about an engineering problem?

You think it's an engineering problem, when it isn't. It's a research science problem. Engineers are not research scientists, unless they get specific additional training. Don't forget this.

 

[WTC Dust]

No, she does not discuss any new physics.She merely makes vague claims about there being some as of yet unknown stuff.
She does, however, discuss old physics, on her "billiard balls" page, and does so with so many gross errors that any 10th-grader will quickly spot her total ineptness. Considering that she once managed to receive an engineering degree, which would be near impossible without the most basic understanding og mechanics, it stands to reason that she is indeed mentally ill.

You still haven't debunked even a tiny sliver of her theory, so I guess you're saying that you got bested by a mentally ill person? Sad for you.

 

[WTC Dust]

And, given that it collapsed before lunch time, a lot of salads, sandwiches, fresh fruit and veggie sticks, just in what people brown-bagged to lunch. We aren't even looking into the walk-in fridge at the restruaunt on the top floor.

You must be joking. Burning plant material isn't orange, anyway.