WTC dust

[WTC Dust]

Man, I hate using an overused response, but: Creating a straw man to knock down is the sign of a weak argument.

Gravity did not "make the steel lose it's strength". Nowhere can you find me or anyone else saying that. Don't ignore the structural damage from the jet impacts or the fires. Also, don't ignore the fact that all the steel components had connection points to each other. You oversimplify to your detriment; it shows how simplistic your thinking is.

How is it oversimplifying it?

According to the official 9/11 story, the forces acting on the buildings at the moment before the initiation of the final destruction are: gravity, wind, and the fire. Anything else?

 

[dtugg]

Or, I actually know what I'm talking about.

No, you are clearly extremely ignorant on the subject. Or you wouldn't have claimed that the floors of the WTC were made of steel beams or asked what initiated the collapse of the WTC towers.

 

[WTC Dust]

Truthers keep claiming this, and have yet to produce a single living hijacker after more than 9 years. I know you guys are are as incompetent as they come, but don't you think it would be pretty easy to prove that someone is alive? This is low-hanging fruit, isn't it?

Please. I'm not one of the "truthers" who think a hijacking occurred, and I don't study conspiracy theories. I study forensic evidence. I don't know and I don't claim to know who participated in the conspiracy that destroyed the WTC. I study the destruction itself. Other people can study the conspiracy, if they choose.

 

[WTC Dust]

Oh, BTW: Any acknowledgement that you were wrong about basic facts in one of your posts?

Which fact? I'm not afraid of being wrong. In fact, I delight in discovering that I've made an error. If you've found a factual error that I've made, you'd be doing me a favor in pointing it out.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

How the steel of the WTC lost its strength is of great importance. You say it was gravity, for the most part. I say gravity isn't strong enough to do it.

The WTC didn't collapse, anyway. It turned almost entirely into dust while standing, and the dust fell to the ground.

 

[dtugg]

Which fact? I'm not afraid of being wrong. In fact, I delight in discovering that I've made an error. If you've found a factual error that I've made, you'd be doing me a favor in pointing it out.

Your biggest one would be claiming that hundreds of thousands of tons of steel was dustified on 9/11 in a few seconds by some weapon that exists only in your head.

 

[WTC Dust]

No, you are clearly extremely ignorant on the subject. Or you wouldn't have claimed that the floors of the WTC were made of steel beams or asked what initiated the collapse of the WTC towers.

You can keep saying that, but I actually know more about what destroyed the World Trade Center than anyone you've ever interacted with before.

Other people were satisfied to prove that airplanes didn't do it. I wasn't. Other people called for an independent investigation. I didn't, because I was already doing an independent investigation. The more the merrier, I say.

The right answer will be the right answer, no matter who finds it. I think Judy found it, but I could be wrong. The real explanation might not be DEW.

 

[WTC Dust]

Your biggest one would be claiming that hundreds of thousands of tons of steel was dustified on 9/11 in a few seconds by some weapon that exists only in your head.

I'm not factually wrong on that. Anything else?

 

[dtugg]

You can keep saying that, but I actually know more about what destroyed the World Trade Center than anyone you've ever interacted with before.

Keep them jokes coming. You're (unintentionally, of course) hilarious! And I can always use a good laugh.

 

[dtugg]

I'm not factually wrong on that. Anything else?

Oh, then you can provide some evidence that this happened.

J/K, you will of course be providing nothing.

 

[R.Mackey]

Do you have imagination problems? By this I mean, is it possible for you to admit that a weapon such as I describe MIGHT exist? At this point, you seem to be the type of person who thinks that if they, personally, don't know about something, that it doesn't exist.

I find that to be arrogant and incurious. Don't you learn things every day? And if you do learn things every day, isn't that an admission that you don't already know everything? And if you don't know everything, how do you know FOR SURE that this weapon doesn't exist? That's a hard thing to know. I don't know how you'd even try to go about proving something doesn't exist.

This was written to me, when I suggested there was no known technology that could spontaneously turn the WTC Towers' steel structure into dust.

Dear WTC Dust, I have a book for you to read. "The Demon Haunted World," by Carl Sagan. Your world is inhabited with particularly severe demons. Specifically, read the chapter called The Dragon in My Garage. I can imagine all kinds of ludicrous, nonphysical things, but unlike you, I know the difference between imagination and reality.

If we wasted all our time looking for enemies that only existed in our imagination, we would accomplish nothing. Medical science has a term for this type of behavior -- it's called "paranoia."

 

[ElMondoHummus]

Which fact? I'm not afraid of being wrong. In fact, I delight in discovering that I've made an error. If you've found a factual error that I've made, you'd be doing me a favor in pointing it out.

You are demonstrably wrong on your characterizations of the 1975 and 2001 North Tower fires, as I pointed out above. Acknowledged?

Furthermore:

Your biggest one would be claiming that hundreds of thousands of tons of steel was dustified on 9/11 in a few seconds by some weapon that exists only in your head.

I'm not factually wrong on that. Anything else?

No, as a matter of fact, you are. Each tower contained approximately 100,000 tons of steel, for a rough total of 200,000 tons. The Staten Island Landfill processed approximately 1,462,000 tons of debris (most of it steel), while the Fort Hamilton site processed the rest. It was pretty much all recovered, and in fact was recovered in sizes requiring heavy equipment to manage.

Remedial reading: http://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/groundzerocleanup,freshkillssortingopera

As I said above: You have demonstrated yourself to be wrong on basic facts. You need to suspend your statements of certainty and go back to review the basics of the event.

 

[ElMondoHummus]

Dear WTC Dust, I have a book for you to read. "The Demon Haunted World," by Carl Sagan. Your world is inhabited with particularly severe demons. Specifically, read the chapter called The Dragon in My Garage. I can imagine all kinds of ludicrous, nonphysical things, but unlike you, I know the difference between imagination and reality.

Let's also recommend Shermer's Why People Believe Weird Things. Oh, boy, this so applies to her.

 

[alienentity]

I agree that scientific theories can be tested. Let's take the theory that a jet fuel office fire can destroy a steel building.{/quote]

Not a very good description of the process, but...

then you try to parlay into a strawperson argument about a propane grill - btw which is an old truther canard, which you've fallen for.

Yawn..... goto 1:15 in this video, or click on direct link below



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CGsOkT__M7Y&t=1m15s

Oh, and for the record, Dusty, EMRTC has proven this canard very wrong, and also by proxy your argument very wrong. Too bad so sad

 

[alienentity]

I'm not factually wrong on that. Anything else?

Uh, yeah, you sure are factually wrong, sez at least 200,000 tons of recovered steel and 1.462 million tons of other debris.

You come across as a bit of a fool, really, posting such a stream of arguments from incredulity. Get facts, kid. You don't know the difference between science and science-fiction.

 

[alienentity]

Not a surprise that a person who believes DEW destroyed the WTC is woefully out of touch with the facts. No, it's sadly predictable.

 

[leftysergeant]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CGsOkT__M7Y&t=1m15s

Oh, and for the record, Dusty, EMRTC has proven this canard very wrong, and also by proxy your argument very wrong. Too bad so sad

OY! The stupid in that last segment in the clip, just burned my brain.

Gage says that the experiment did nothing to refute, or even address his blather about explosives.

Well, freaking DUH!

The test showed that jet fuel does get hot enough to weaken steel. Little Dickie has never proven that a single explosive charge went off anywhere. Why, then, should anyone adress the moron's concerns, other than to demand proof from him that anything else was observed. Nobody need address what they do not see to have occurred.

Why does anybody even think Griffin has any credenmtials in any of these matters? He's as clueless as that religious whackadoodle MacQueen. Clearly, the senile old coot does not grasp that the Class A fires, being fanned as they were by a nice flow of air through the builiding, delivered far more energy, over a longer period of time, than that jet fuel in the fie pit

And while we're on the subject, those of you who claim that the black smoke in the towers indicated an oxygen-starved fire may now apply their l;ips to my blubbery old kundingi. Did you see the color of that smoke? Did you see what that smoky-as-all-hell fire did to that steel? I shall rub your noses in this for as long as the video is available.

 

[Oystein]

You should be asking yourself about the entirety of the steel. 48 core columns, and 240-something exterior columns. The steel that made up the horiztonal "trusses" and the pan that the concrete was poured into. Also, don't forget the spandrel plates that wrapped around the entire building.

Why did all this steel break apart?

Potential energy got turned into fracture energy.
That's structural engineering 101.
Find the formulas, research the data, run the numbers.
It's all been done before. It took a structural engineering professor only 2 days to publish that calculation. I am sure dozends of engineers world wide had it privately figured out before the sun set on 9/11/01.

 

[Architect]

I agree that scientific theories can be tested. Let's take the theory that a jet fuel office fire can destroy a steel building.

Here's a simple model: Take a steel cage, a plain and simple steel cage. The size doesn't matter, but let's say it's one foot cubed. Put this steel cage in a large bucket, one completely filled with kerosene. Light the kerosene and step away.

What is your expected result? Will the steel break apart into a zillion pieces?

My prediction: Not much will happen to the steel cage.
My reasoning: Such things already exist. They're called "propane grills".

No matter how much propane you have, your grill doesn't break apart like the steel of the WTC did. You might say, "But the steel broke because of gravity." But this would ignore the initiation event. You say the steel got weak. From ... an office fire? An office fire that is at least an order of magnitude smaller than the fire that had already taken place in the WTC in the mid '70s? You have to prove this to me, because I think it's a ridiculous theory.

That can happen by two methods. Either the force can increase, or the strength can decrease.

I say the strength decreased because of some exotic mechanism, maybe DEW, maybe something else.

You say the strength decreased because of an office fire. OK. Sounds implausible to me, but most people agree with you.

You've shown quite well that fire can weaken steel. Very nice. Have you shown that a fire can turn a steel building into dust? No, but I'm listening for more.

I'm sorry, but you don't appear to be analysing this in any sort of objective manner.

Your opening premise is that steel is not susceptible to fire induced failure based on a comparison with an unloaded mild steel mesh in a kerosene fire. You specifically advise that a reduction in strength "seems implausable".

However you now acknowledge that fire can indeed weaken steel. What I must stress to you, however, is that the material I presented quite specifically shows that it weakens it sufficiently under normal fire loadings to induce structural failure. The building codes which I then linked to showed unoquivically that there is a need to incorporate fire protection in order to address this.

You seek, however, to move the goalposts - twice.

Firstly, you claim that the fires are several orders of magnitude less than those which occurred on 1975. This misrepresents the situation. In actual fire, the fire was comparatively modest and although it extended to the 9th and 14th floors, it did not cover a significant proportion of the overall floorplate - in particular it affected in a utility duct. Contemporary reports indicate that areas at the furthest extent of the fire were extinguished almost immediately and the original fire was put out in a few hours. Most importantly, fire protection to the structural steel work was in-situ.

This in no way compares with a floorplate-wide fire over several stories including impact damage which dislodged structural fireproofing. To suggest otherwise indicates either a staggering failure to compare the two events or a dogged determination to compare apples with oranges in support of an unsubstantiated hypothesis.

The second shifting of the posts regards the "conversion" of the structural steelwork into "dust". This is patently ludicrous; the images already posted on this site by many, many others - including Truthers - show quite clearly that massive quantities of structural steelwork (generally heavily deformed, as one would expect in a collapse event) were found on-site following the collapse. To argue this point is, frankly, ludicrous.

I will leave the issue you seem to be raising, specifically speculation regarding the use of high-technology directed energy weapons or electrical charges, to others. But - and let's be quite specific on this - you admit that you have absolutely no evidence that such weapons exist. And on that basis, you may as well suggest that it was all Van Rijn's Invisible Elf.

 

[Oystein]

Yeah, true. WTC Dust ought to talk with the truthers who thought the event was suspicious because the columns littering Ground Zero just happened to be in "convenient" 30 foot lengths, perfect for being trucked off.
...

Could it be that the columns were indeed made in convenient 30 foot lengths, perfect for being trucked...
...not from the WTC after 9/11, but to the WTC during construction? Or would that be too easy?