WTC dust

[WTC Dust]

Originally Posted by WTC Dust [qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/helloworld2/buttons/viewpost.gif[/qimg]
The WTC became almost entirely dust.

Wow...here it is again!!

The biggest lie I have ever read at JREF. Four years here, and this lie just takes the cake.

Thank you. I take it as a real compliment. You'll be in love with me when you realize I'm right. <smooch>

 

[WTC Dust]

Just a question... what building collapse is not going to create a dust cloud?

See, most people who did not live in NYC consider 9/11 to be just that, 9/11/2001.

But no. I lived near the WTC site then, and I kept expecting the fire to go out, or what I thought was a fire at the time.

What kind of fire lasts through heavy rain? What kind of fire is impossible for fire fighters to put out, even when they work 24/7 on the job?

So it's not really just the dust that rolled down the street on 9/11 that I study. What I also study is the "fumes" that lasted for a year, emanating from the site.

 

[beachnut]

... There was steel left over after the disasters, but much of it was twisted and peppered with strange holes and excessive rust.

Nonsense. Show the strange holes and excessive rust.

 

[WTC Dust]

Excellent question.

How about it, Mr. Research Scientist? What does your research say about the mechanism for dustification?

...hello...?

My research shows first of all THAT the WTC was turned largely into dust.
I'm not arguing HOW at this moment. That's Dr. Wood's job.

My samples are great. They show what the building became, and it isn't all gypsum and concrete. There's metallic dust, too.

 

[WTC Dust]

You have no theory, you have moronic nonsense. You can't define anything. You can't specify what steel dust is made of, or how it turned to dust. Got the equations for kinetic energy?

You make me laugh! Why do you keep asking me for simple equations that a grade school student can find on the internet?

 

[WTC Dust]

I have a simple experiment WTC Dust can perform at his leisure that will surely clear up much of the mystery in his mind:

1. Go to the hardware store and buy a bag of portland cement.
2. Dump the bag out onto the ground.
3. Observe.

Now, look up the ingredients for construction concrete. Ask yourself, "what would happen if the concrete were to be crushed in some manner, and its component ingredients liberated?"

That might have worked as a theory about 9/11, except the upper floors of the WTC were not moving fast at the same time that incredible amounts of dust was being generated.

Solid concrete? 30 years old concrete, just falling? It will create dust, but mostly chunks. Not dust, and certainly not dust/fumes that last a year.

 

[triforcharity]

Something happened to the steel beams that were supporting the floors of the WTC. What do you think happened?

There was steel left over after the disasters, but much of it was twisted and peppered with strange holes and excessive rust.

Twisted, yes. Huge amounts of external force will do that to a steel column.

Peppered with strange holes? You mean the eroded steel?

Excessive rust? What do you expect it to do when exposed to a highly acidic environment with lots of water being sprayed onto it?

Your whole argument is based on stupidity.

 

[WTC Dust]

No, I don't know what you're talking about. But I asked you several specific questions, which you have so far not responded to.

Care to address the questions?

And as I asked earlier (what I believe is a perfectly reasonable question) 'What is the composition of your dust samples? What labs have you sent them to and when are you intending to publish your research for peer review?'

Can you please have the courtesy of replying to these direct questions? If not, your position is harder to defend IMO. You haven't presented a theory yet to address.

See 'Scientific Theory' if you doubt my criticism.

My samples are being analyzed, but not by being "sent" to anyone. I haven't shared them with anyone.

 

[Andy_Ross]

The dust/fumes from the destruction of the WTC lasted an entire year.

Building demoition and sitre clearance raise dust clouds all the timethe site is being worked. Sodoes a construction site, quarry etc. Lots of large vehicles driving around tends to raise dust. That's why you will see them spraying the ground to try and keep the dust down.

Why would your 'DWW' cause 'fumes' for nearly a year after it was used?

What was the source of these year long 'fumes'

 

[tsig]

Why make billions when you can make....millions?


Bwahahhahhhahhahhahhha

Better yet keep it secret making no money and only use it for criminal activities that could get you a death sentence.

 

[WTC Dust]

So instead of taking your grand "theory" to somewhere real, you take it to some obscure internet forum. Gotcha. You still going to claim you're a scientist?

I'm not sure how your "theory" is "standing strong" when you can't even present the composition of the "strange" dust in your possession. Not to mention your "theory" is self-debunking, since it relies on the assumption that no steel or other rubble was found at GZ. This assumption is ludicrous and borderline insanity. Debunked enough for you?

Name-calling is the least effective form of debunking.

If someone came to you with metallic metal samples, and claimed that they were from the remains of the WTC, would you call them a liar?

I have the samples.

 

[triforcharity]

See, most people who did not live in NYC consider 9/11 to be just that, 9/11/2001.

But no. I lived near the WTC site then, and I kept expecting the fire to go out, or what I thought was a fire at the time.

What kind of fire lasts through heavy rain? What kind of fire is impossible for fire fighters to put out, even when they work 24/7 on the job?

So it's not really just the dust that rolled down the street on 9/11 that I study. What I also study is the "fumes" that lasted for a year, emanating from the site.

The kind of fire buried under many many tons of debris.

It's hard to put out a fire that you can't put water on.

A firefighter even invented a tool for this specific use.
http://firechief.com/mag/firefighting_waterjet_technology_cuts/

Wait through the ad.

 

[WTC Dust]

By the way Tracy, is that offer from that blog I posted ealier still valid? I might have some friends in NYC that are desperate enough...

What is the offer that you speak of?

 

[Andy_Ross]

My samples are being analyzed, but not by being "sent" to anyone. I haven't shared them with anyone.

Who is performing the analyses?

What analysis is being done?

 

[tsig]

Yes something happened. It was loaded onto trucks and shipped away.

The truck drivers, the equipment operators and all others were paid to keep silent(think of their pensions). China went along because they're atheistic communists.

 

[WTC Dust]

Don't forget that most of the tenants had their office space partitioned and dry-walled off into separate offices. There were also many many glass walls installed throughout the buildings. (Several of my friends were in there 9/10/01 putting up "distraction tape" on these glass walls on several floors. Their decision to stay late and work overtime to complete the project ultimately saved their lives)

Pretty much everything except the steel is what caused the dust. WTC dust (I really would like to remove the ust in her name and switch it with ouche) doesn't seem to grasp that.

Why did the steel beams of the WTC fail? This seems to me to be the unanswered question from the "plane crash" theorists. I realize the "bombs in the building" theorists say it was thermite bombs, but that isn't me. I know it wasn't thermite.

 

[tsig]

"Fracture energy"?

OK. You sort of bring up a good point.

Since we know the height of the building (1368 feet) and we know how fast things fall from that height, we can talk about how fast the buildings were destroyed, compared to what can be expected from a "concrete floors crashing onto other floors" scenario.

The fastest an object could possibly fall from 1368 feet is about 10 seconds. Acceleration is important, here, because this value assumes no interference from any slowing force.

I say the steel beams of the WTC should have provided some resistance to the fall, but the speed of the destruction says this can't have happened. The buildings fell almost as fast as they would have if zero resistance were supplied by the walls of the building.

I say that a steel building would have resisted any collapsing floors, at least enough to show a difference in fall time. If the floors resisted to any significant degree, the buildings wouldn't have fallen as fast as they did.

The hilited word blows apart the rest of your argument.

 

[WTC Dust]

Can you explain what we are seeing in the attached video in terms of the Judy Woods/John Hutchinson theories ?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-dWBBEtA5bI&NR=1

An advanced weapon has been developed that can destroy buildings.

What I see in the video is an amazing production of dust, at the very earliest moments of the destruction of the steel building.

I see pieces of the building trailing dust on their way down.

I see the central core steel beams of the building standing tall for a short while, but then being turned into dust.

What I see is that the machine doesn't operate perfectly. The operator noticed that the part of the steel core was standing, and zapped that little part, finishing it off.

I'm coming from the standpoint that a single person operated the weapon that destroyed the WTC. It could have been more than one person, but I don't see why this must be true. Very complex, advanced machinery can be controlled by a single person sitting at a computer terminal.

 

[Fonebone]

troll ?

If ever we needed more proof that Bill Smith is just a troll, this thread is it.

Fonebone <Troll...Wiki
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=6239680#post6239680

<excerpt>
USAGE ":
..........The term is often used as an ad hominem strategy to discredit an
opposing position by attacking its proponent.
Often, calling someone a troll makes assumptions about a writer's motives....

Happy halloween
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s8LiPoIpxnk&feature=player_embedded

 

[WTC Dust]

Again, the WTC didn't turn even remotely "mostly" to dust. Why do you keep dodging that? This is obvious for anyone watching the pictures and footage of Ground Zero up until it was cleared of all the debris forming those enormous piles.

How can you possibly reconcile piles of steel, many many times the size you had assumed, with your ideas? You can't, so you ignore one of the most observable and demonstrable facts. I, personally, think that is truly an odd way of going about it.

Why do you assume the exact opposite of what is reality to be true?

Well, I lived in NYC on 9/11, and I live there now. I live very close to the World Trade Center, so these attacks affected my life personally in a big way.

I kept expecting the fire to go out. I saw all the fire fighters working hard to put it out. I witnessed all the rain. Still, the remains fumed. Those fumes stunk to high heaven, unlike anything I've ever smelled before or since. I would recognize it if I ever smelled it again.