• 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.
I'll wait until you agree THAT the WTC got turned into dust. I don't want to waste my time arguing HOW something happened until you agree that it did happen.

You seem to misunderstand.

You said earlier:

My research shows first of all THAT the WTC was turned largely into dust.

He's asking you to show us that result. Evidently, we're not as clever as you and can't come to the same conclusion on our own, so help us out. Show us the research you did that proves the WTC turned to dust. Then, of course, we'll have no choice but to agree that the event occurred as you say and we'll be ready to learn how it happened.
 
Originally Posted by WTC Dust
I'll wait until you agree THAT the WTC got turned into dust. I don't want to waste my time arguing HOW something happened until you agree that it did happen.

funny stuff.
 
Iron dust

I'll wait until you agree THAT the WTC got turned into dust. I don't want to waste my time arguing HOW something happened until you agree that it did happen.

Plane huggers have a hard time with the dust. They can't explain it using a plane crash, so they deny it or call it "gypsum and wall board".

Doesn't explain the steel beams that were standing tall, 1368 feet into the sky, that suddenly, precipitously lost their strength. I say they dissolved into dust, but whatever you say must account for this loss of strength.

Do you think jet fuel/office fires did it? Seems like a ridiculous story to me.

Let's quantify the term -- "(structural) iron dissolved into dust"
Below is a representative sample of videos that show a 200 foot high box
beam of the WTC 1 core --
or a 200 foot high sections of exterior bevel box beams dissolve into dust.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-dWBBEtA5bI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=goGGQhhTcDY&NR=1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7W0-W582fNQ&feature=related

Here are two stills that cameo the structural iron 'spire' that extended hundreds feet above
the WTC1 tower suddenly, along with other pieces of super structure connected structural iron,
dissolves into a dust cloud that falls almost straight down.

Spire towers 200 feet above the destroyed tower for seconds.
363814cce28d38f121.jpg




Spire dissolves into a heavy dust
363814cce28d3b5a4d.jpg
 
24 pages ! WHY are you guys arguing with a no planer!!!?? Are you all insane?
 
Spire dissolves into a heavy dust
[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/363814cce28d3b5a4d.jpg[/qimg]

how about putting in the frames you left out?

you know, the ones showing the beams falling.
 
You seem to misunderstand.

You said earlier:



He's asking you to show us that result. Evidently, we're not as clever as you and can't come to the same conclusion on our own, so help us out. Show us the research you did that proves the WTC turned to dust. Then, of course, we'll have no choice but to agree that the event occurred as you say and we'll be ready to learn how it happened.

Reading these exchanges, a first ime visitor might think that
- WTC Dust claims 100% of WTC got turned to dust, there is no piece left larger than a speck of tust
- Debunkers claim 0% of WTC got turned to dust

I think neither perception fairly represents the claims.

I think both parties can agree in no time that some part got turned to dust and some did not. The difference is just over the percentages.Say, 80%-90% vs. 10-20%. Another difference would then be over the composition of the dust. WTC Dust seems to think that steel got turned into dust "just like" the other materials.


So I would rather ask WTC Dust to first define the claim:
  • How is "dust" defined? By a maximun grain size (say, 0.1mm), grain mass (say 0.000001g), or grain size distribibution? We need some numbers here
  • What overall percentage of the towers got turned into dust that conforms to the above definition of dust? A range (such as "70-80%", or a lower bound (such as ">50%") are needed
  • What percentage of the steel was turned into dust according to the above definition of dust? Again, numbers for the range or a lower bound are needed
  • We need estimates for the total mass of the towers, and the total mass of steel in the towers. Numbers again, please.

A brief explanation of how WTC Dust arrived at these numbers would be much appreciated, of course.

Once the claim is thus defined, we could derive lower bounds of the total mass of dust (both general and steel) that were produced, and of the energy required to create these amounts of dust.
We can then further start making predictions about what must have been observed if these numbers are nearly correct, and possibly make statements about minimum specifications of the device that supposedly caused this.

These predictions, if testable, might help us to decide whether or not we agree with WTC Dust's claims of dustification.
 
Oystein, you will get no response to your question.

He's has avoided for 24 pages to provide his numbers beyond pulling it out of his nether regions. What makes you honestly think that he will provide them now

24 pages of arguing with a no planer/DEWER.
 
...
Spire dissolves into a heavy dust
[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/363814cce28d3b5a4d.jpg[/qimg]

Let's look at this series of images a little closer. I have added a few lines with Paint, to help our focus:


The first thing we must notice is that the camera isn't fixed, it pans and zooms during this clip. The second thing that must be pointed out is that the stills have no time stamp, we don't know how much time passed between them, or if the time spans are at least equal. Because of these observations, analysis will be laden with some error. Keep that in mind, please.

In the first frame, I marked the height of three individual spires with horizontal lines in blue, dark red and yellow. The forth, green, line indicates roughly to what height of the already billowing dust obscures the view of the steel core: Below the line, you can't really discern anything.
I have repeated the green line in frames 2 and 3, guided by where the roof of that water tank begins. You will notice that the green line, along with all other stable objects (the building on the right, for examlple), is about 14 pixels higher in frame 2 than in frame 1. The tallest (blue) spire, in contrast, "moves up" by only 4 pixels, so relative to the fixed objects, it alread fell about 10 pixels between 1 and 2.
The dark red and yellow spires are even lower in frame 2, by 3 pixels, so they already descended 17 pixels relative to the fixed objects. We may concluuse that these fell earlier, or faster, or both, than then blue spire.

Now, between frames 2 and 3, the blue spire has descended by 44 pixels. It is still clearly visible still. It appears a little more fuzzy for two obvious reasons: a) It descended into a thicker cloud of smoke (smoke that no doubt was shaken and blown from the spire itself; it har accumulated on trusses and girders during the previous collapse phase) b) it's moving rapidly by now.
If we assume that the other spires descend at the same rate (44 pixels), they are now, in frame 3, where I drew the dark red and yellow lines. Note: Both these lines are below the green line, in an area where thick cloud obscures everything! We would actually expect them to have descended even lower, as they fell faster.
Relative to the green line (fixed reference), the blue spire fell even by 75 pixels.

On to frame 4: If I assume that the time intervall between 3 and 4 is the same as between 2 and 3, and if I further assume that the blue spire fell at constant speed, it would have fallen another 75 pixels relative to the green line. The thick blue line in frame 4 indicates where it would. Same goes with the dark red spire. The yellow spire would even be below the bottom margin of frame 4.
Of course the fall would have been faster due to acceleration

In summary:
- In frame 2, all the structure is still intact, but has already started to fall
- In frame 3, all of the structure, except for the tallest spire, has fallen so far that it is now totally obstructed by the water tank and thicker dust
- In frame 4, all the strusture has fallen out of view behind fixed structures.

The dust seen in 3 and 4 is way too little and to thin to represent a significant portion of the mass of the spires.


Comnclusion: Spires fell, they were not dutified.
 
Last edited:
I am interested in the 'Fumes' and how 'dustification' works


What are the fumes supposed to be? Is it the result of 'dustification' continuing for a year?

What is the mechanism for 'dustification'? Why does it dustify steel but not people?
Why does it dustify some steel but not other identical steel from the same building?
 
And just in case you missed it, how can you possibly state that there was "too much" dust generated in the collapse when you won't quantify how much there would have been if it was a "normal" collapse?

You are providing only assertion, not evidence. Show us some actual evidence of this "dustification by DEW" and we have something to work with.


Care to actually answer the relevant part this time WTC Dust? You know, the bit where you refuse to answer how much dust should be expected to be produced in a "plane crashed into the higher floors set off godawful fire then towers collapsed" collapse? If you cannot quantify this figure and most importantly back it up with maths (or heck I'll take an appeal to genuine authority on this one from you.) then can you think of a reason any of us should take you seriously?
 
Last edited:
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.

Thei is complete and utter rubbish. Several people have calculated the expected collapse time, incorporating resistance of the structure and conservation of momentum in collisions between the falling block and entrained debris and the lower floors, and found that the expected collapse time is in the range 12-16 seconds, from initiation to the time the roof level reached the ground. The observed collapse times were in the range 12-16 seconds, from initiation to the time the roof level reached the ground. The argument that there was anything unexpected about the collapse times is, therefore, completely unfounded.

If you want to dispute that, present your calculations. If you continue to dispute it without offering calculations, then it'll be clear to everyone that your approach is not evidence-based, and is therefore worthless.

Dave
 
Last edited:
24 pages ! WHY are you guys arguing with a no planer!!!?? Are you all insane?

No, but the 'no planers' may be.

I find it fascinating that someone can deny reality in such a way.


Bill Smith I think does it as some kind of entertainment. There hasn't been a 9/11 theory he hasn't supported even if it contradicts another theory he supports.
 
I'll wait until you agree THAT the WTC got turned into dust. I don't want to waste my time arguing HOW something happened until you agree that it did happen.

You're supposed to be a research scientist. If you want me to agree with your conclusions, then show me how your research has led you to these conclusions.

If you were a real research scientist, you would have started with this.
 
Here are two stills that cameo the structural iron 'spire' that extended hundreds feet above
the WTC1 tower suddenly, along with other pieces of super structure connected structural iron,
dissolves into a dust cloud that falls almost straight down.

Spire towers 200 feet above the destroyed tower for seconds.
[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/363814cce28d38f121.jpg[/qimg]



Spire dissolves into a heavy dust
[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/363814cce28d3b5a4d.jpg[/qimg]


I commented on this exact claim earlier:

Believe it or not, I found a VIDEO!

It was actually destroyed in 1973, when I was ten.

http://www.encyclopedia.com/video/4RqcBiBc4fo-medical-arts-building-implosion-fort.aspx

One of the interesting things is that, in the wake of the collapse, there was a Medical-Arts-Building-shaped column of dust left in its place, exactly like the one left when the final interior columns of the WTC collapsed. This has been shown by truthers as evidence that the building was "dustified" by ray guns from space.

ETA: The collapse begins at about 1:30.

Watch the video and tell me how this building was destroyed by DEW back in 1973.
 
I'll wait until you agree THAT the WTC got turned into dust. I don't want to waste my time arguing HOW something happened until you agree that it did happen.

No, that's not how it works. I can't agree that WTC got turned to dust until you show us some evidence or at least give us some idea of the mechanism. So far you just wave your hands and say 'DEW'

At the moment 'DEW@ is just a placeholder for some unknown mechanism. You might as well say 'X' the unknown factor did it.

If you are a scientist you must know that as the proposer of the 'Against the Mainstream Idea' it's up to you to support the idea with some evidence.
 
@ WTC Dust:

Not sure if this study has been linked before:

Materials Characterization of Dusts Generated by the Collapse of the World Trade Center

Abstract:
The major inorganic components of the dusts generated from the collapse of the World Trade Center buildings on September 11, 2001 were concrete materials, gypsum, and man-made vitreous fibers. These components were likely derived from lightweight Portland cement concrete floors, gypsum wallboard, and spray-on fireproofing and ceiling tiles, respectively. All of the 36 samples collected by the USGS team had these materials as the three major inorganic components of the dust. Components found at minor and trace levels include chrysotile asbestos, lead, crystalline silica, and particles of iron and zinc oxides. Other heavy metals, such as lead, bismuth, copper, molybdenum, chromium, and nickel, were present at much lower levels occurring in a variety of chemical forms. Several of these materials have health implications based on their chemical composition, morphology, and bioaccessibility.


Also you may want to look at
http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2001/ofr-01-0429/chem1/WTCchemistrytable.html
Which lists the chemical composition of the 36 samples (click here to find their locations), collected 6 and 7 days after 9/11. On average, iron atoms made up only 1.63% of the mass of the dust. They found more sulfur, magnesum and aluminium, and much more silicon, calcium and carbon.
So if any steel was "dustified", only little showed up in the dust. There are two possible explanations for this:
a) Little to none steel was turned to dust
b) The iron dust was magically sorted out and candestinely dumped at an unknown location.

Since here at JREF we don't deal in magic, only explanation a) bears significant likelihood of being true.
 
@ WTC Dust:

Not sure if this study has been linked before:

Materials Characterization of Dusts Generated by the Collapse of the World Trade Center

Abstract:



Also you may want to look at
http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2001/ofr-01-0429/chem1/WTCchemistrytable.html
Which lists the chemical composition of the 36 samples (click here to find their locations), collected 6 and 7 days after 9/11. On average, iron atoms made up only 1.63% of the mass of the dust. They found more sulfur, magnesum and aluminium, and much more silicon, calcium and carbon.
So if any steel was "dustified", only little showed up in the dust. There are two possible explanations for this:
a) Little to none steel was turned to dust
b) The iron dust was magically sorted out and candestinely dumped at an unknown location.

Since here at JREF we don't deal in magic, only explanation a) bears significant likelihood of being true.

Go ahead...tell us how much unexplainium was found in the samples!
 
Maybe aliens dustified the WTC using technology thousands of years more advanced than ours. Debunk that!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom