• 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.
Dave Rogers said:
Remember how truthers keep claiming that WTC1 crushed up before it crushed down, thus proving that it was a CD, and that WTC2 crushed down before it crushed up, thus proving even more that it was a CD?

Dave
Click to expand...

This level of response will keep you in Woodbines and Brown Ale indefinitely Dave. lol
 
Fonebone said:
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.
[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]
Click to expand...

Thank you for posting those pictures.

Is there still anyone out there who refuses to acknowledge that steel turned into dust on 9/11?
 
WTC Dust said:
Is there still anyone out there who refuses to acknowledge that steel turned into dust on 9/11?
Click to expand...

Yes, those with an IQ higher than that of a sea cucumber. The pictures are blatantly cherrypicked, and you know it.
 
Originally Posted by WTC Dust
Is there still anyone out there who refuses to acknowledge that steel turned into dust on 9/11?

yeah, pretty much all those who qualify as Homo-sapiens.
 
Oystein said:
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.
Click to expand...

Almost all of the WTC got turned into dust.

I really don't know why most of you are against even discussing the possibility of an electrical weapon destroying the WTC. Steel conducts electricity. You know you can "do things" to metals with electricity.

Don't know what is sooooo outrageous about destroying steel with electricity.

Can you explain it? Why are most of you angry and name-calling when someone suggests that it is possible to destroy steel with electricity. It doesn't seem like something that would engender any kind of hatred.
I expect something like curiosity, but nope. I'm "insane" or "an idiot" for not ruling it out. Seems like there's a mental block with most of you.
 
WTC Dust said:
Don't know what is sooooo outrageous about destroying steel with electricity.
Click to expand...

a.) the amount of electricity required to do it in the timeframe you're proposing.
b.) the fact that it would cause the steel to MELT, not "dustify"
 
Oystein said:
Let's look at this series of images a little closer. I have added a few lines with Paint, to help our focus:
[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/368864cce824d4e387.jpg[/qimg]

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.
Click to expand...



OMG. Talk about a bunch of words that don't prove a thing.

You remind me of Steven Jones. "We found rust spots in the metal, so it must be spray-on nanothermite."
 
Captain_Swoop said:
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?
Click to expand...

You're running too far ahead, Cap'n. I only want to talk about "HOW" the steel was turned into dust with people who acknowledge that it did.

Do you acknowledge that most of the WTC was turned into dust?
 
The WTC towers did not turn into dust. 100% of the steel remained, down in the bathtub.
 
WTC Dust said:
I only want to talk about "HOW" the steel was turned into dust with people who acknowledge that it did.
Click to expand...

"I am right but I'm not going to tell you how I'm right until you acknowledge that I'm right" :rolleyes:

It couldn't have been electricity, what's left?
 
Last edited:
WTC Dust said:
. I only want to talk about "HOW" the steel was turned into dust with people who acknowledge that it did.
Click to expand...

Isn't that nice! Unfortunately, you won't be preaching to the converted if you attempt to publish your great 'dustification' thesis in a science journal.

At some point you have to pop your head out of the moist, warm rabbit hole and face criticism.
 
WTC Dust said:
Thank you for posting those pictures.

Is there still anyone out there who refuses to acknowledge that steel turned into dust on 9/11?
Click to expand...

Yes because they are selected frames cherry picked from aaaaaa video.

I notice you never answer any questions as to what this 'DEW' is, how it works, where it was or how it operated.
 
Dave Rogers said:
:dl::dl::dl::dl::dl::dl:

The building was stationary, therefore we can't calculate the kinetic energy of the airliners.

Stundied.

Dave
Click to expand...

Even if you believe that ridiculous lie about hijackings on 9/11, you still missed the point.

I'm talking about 1 second before the buildings collapsed. They weren't moving.
Then, the building turned into dust. There's no kinetic energy to calculate.

If you think floors fell down, then you might have a reason to do some kinetic energy calculations, but I don't. I know that the buildings were destroyed while standing. THEN the dust fell to the ground (except the stuff that went up into the atmosphere).

Hey. It was a complicated crime. It's not going to be as easy to understand as a hijacking, which means you'll have to actually do some learning in order to understand it.

So far, most of the debunkers on this list act like high school kids who resent homework and classwork and any real effort on their part. Cry cry cry. "You're mean! You make us do homework!" Waaah!


Learn about directed energy weapons that are already documented to exist. Then you won't be telling me it's impossible.
 
nvidiot said:
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?
Click to expand...

I don't do calculations on theories that have already been debunked. I get nothing out of it.
 
aggle-rithm said:
Go ahead...tell us how much unexplainium was found in the samples!
Click to expand...

There are at least two different kinds of dust with different chemical makeups. You can look in the literature already published for information on the dust. You don't need me.
 
WTC Dust said:
There are at least two different kinds of dust with different chemical makeups. You can look in the literature already published for information on the dust. You don't need me.
Click to expand...

bzzzzzzzzzt! wrong!

You made the claim that the dust is "strange." It's up to you to explain why. This explanation would include the actual composition of the dust. Something you lack, for some reason, after 9 years.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom