WTC dust

[Architect]

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.

Bump For WTCDust

 

[fess]

I think you folks are being very harsh with WTC Dust. I mean, what if he/she is correct; almost all of the steel was turned to dust. So, in order to help him/her prove that theory, I post the following pictures.

Some flying dust

Dust you can stand on

"Fuming" dust

More flying dust

Standing dust

A big dust ball

A dust ball at night

Dust sticking out the side of a building

Pieces of dust

More dust being stood on

All sorts of dust

No need to thank me Dusty, glad to have helped.

 

[excaza]

I'm guessing the closest thing in fictional work that describes the weapon is the "flux capacitor" used in Back to the Future. Remember how the professor throws a banana and a beer can inside it in order to generate 2.1 gigawatts of power? Something like that.

Reposted for posterity.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

People do dumb and illogical stuff all the time.

If we have learned anything from your posts, it is that some people do dumb and illogical stuff all the time.

False things don't have a place in my brain, and I include fiction and especially science fiction in this category. I'm very unusual in this regard. For a very highly educated person to avoid fiction of every type is rare. I'd say it's unique. But it lead me to become an excellent researcher, so good for me.

Eventually, you will agree. I'm onto something here. If you pay attention to what I'm actually saying (as opposed to DEW and Dr. Wood and whether or not I need medication), then you will slowly start to see me as a great scientist. I have a world history changing story within my grasp, and I want to get it right.

You've only seen the first data slide, and you haven't even commented directly on it, so it might take a while.

Take your time. Even the great Anna Russell^WP took years to refine her act and to get it right.

"I'm not making this up, you know!"

 

[WTC Dust]

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.

Griffin has recently suffered a stroke, and is likely out of the 9/11 truth biz for good. I don't wish ill on the man, but I thoroughly repudiate his work.

His "Ommissions and Distortions" book included every rumor that the 9/11 report excluded, but neither reported the facts of the day in a clear and precise matter. BOTH mucked it up completely. David Ray Griffin did a bad, bad thing to America, and his colleague, Steven Jones, is worse. Both are religious idiots, so why the hell are they commenting on science?

On the other hand, I'm glad you mention the different colors of "smoke". What is your explanation for this? Fire and concrete dust? Soot and gypsum wall board?

I have WTC dust that is more than one color. One type is very dark, metallic, and has rusty looking spots. One is ligher gray with a different texture and composition. I think they correspond to the different colors of dust seen in the images of 9/11.

 

[excaza]

I have WTC dust that is more than one color. One type is very dark, metallic, and has rusty looking spots. One is ligher gray with a different texture and composition. I think they correspond to the different colors of dust seen in the images of 9/11.

What is the mass composition of your dust?

 

[DGM]

Reposted for posterity.

Maybe if "Scotty" just turned down the transporter a little he could "dustify" just about anything. Maybe He/She has a point.

 

[dtugg]

Just pay attention, and you'll get there. I plan to prove everything. If it takes a long time to get you to pay attention to what I'm saying, and it takes a long time for my proof to be presented on this forum, that isn't my fault.

We all know that you will not be providing any evidence whatsoever to support your insane ideas.

I'm presenting my data in the order I want to present it when I start giving talks on the subject. The first data slide in my talk about the dust is the picture of the dust in situ.

What are your comments?

It's a picture. So what?

Next.

 

[uke2se]

WTC Dust, is it part of your strategy to bore everyone to death to get out of providing evidence for your insane ideas?

GET ON WITH IT!

 

[332nd]

You might be right because I never read science fiction, or fiction of any sort, except the classics. I never watch dramas or go to any movies that aren't documentaries. I don't like filling my head up with fakery, which is probably why I recognized that something was wrong with the 9/11 story the moment I heard it.

False things don't have a place in my brain, and I include fiction and especially science fiction in this category. I'm very unusual in this regard. For a very highly educated person to avoid fiction of every type is rare. I'd say it's unique. But it lead me to become an excellent researcher, so good for me.

... You do realize you posted this after comparing the weapon that "dustified" the steel to the flux capacitor?

 

[DGM]

... You do realize you posted this after comparing the weapon that "dustified" the steel to the flux capacitor?

"Back to the future" wasn't a documentary? Next thing you'll claim is "the Matrix" isn't either.

 

[Oystein]

291 posts, and all WTC Dust has to show as supporting evidence is a photo of dust, with no offer of an analysis what's in it?

Worthless effort. Off to Ignore with him or her.








By the way: Am I the only one who wonders where jammy has been lately?

 

[WTC Dust]

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.

They used a plane crash in the model, so it was a messed up model. I'm a research scientist by training and vocation. The traditional explanation of what destroyed the World Trade Center is faulty.

The fact that they came out with their results so early isn't in their favor. They didn't have time to thoroughly contemplate the evidence that was available, and much of the evidence has come out since that time.

Snap judgments? Not good. Slow, reasoned effort? Much better. You might have been convinced by the airplane crash story, but I wasn't. Not for a moment.

 

[WTC Dust]

So far, the only data you've presented in support of your theory is the height of the fence around Ground Zero.

Dave

Nope. I put up an image of the dust that is not available on any forum in the world except this one. I know because I had the picture taken, and I've only posted it in this forum.

What do you say about it?

 

[WTC Dust]

What destroyed the buildings was a gravity-driven collapse, initiated by an unprecedentedly large, multi-storey, fast-spreading contents fire accelerated by tons of kerosene. No building fire with even remotely similar dynamics has been seen before or since; this was an extraordinary event, with a unique cause. And we know that an airplane crash, in each case, severed the majority of the perimeter columns on one side of the building, which on its own is a significant reduction of structural strength.



I've calculated how fast gravity would allow the buildings to be destroyed. Have you? No, I didn't think so. Frank Greening, Gregory Urich, Newtons Bit, femr2, and several others, on both sides of this argument, have done similar calculations. They fall into two categories: either they give results that generally agree with the observed collapse times, or they flagrantly violate the laws of physics. The buildings were destroyed, in fact, exactly as fast as we'd expect.



You missed the clue. Watch a game of pool some time, and tell me what was the lateral force that made the object ball move at a different angle to the cue ball. It's the same force that threw the building debris sideways: glancing impact forces.

Dave

Calculations, smalculations. You don't believe your own eyes, so why would calculations do anything?

You can do calculations with the wrong assumptions and nothing real is accomplished.

You didn't answer my question, either. What horizontal force threw those beams hundreds of feet?

 

[WTC Dust]

Tell us what you know. What was it?

I'm telling you what I know in the exact order I want to tell you. First, the image I presented to you of the dust in situ.

If you never take a look at that, you're going to misunderstand everything, so I'm being patient.

 

[uke2se]

Nope. I put up an image of the dust that is not available on any forum in the world except this one. I know because I had the picture taken, and I've only posted it in this forum.

What do you say about it?

It's dust. Next slide please.

 

[uke2se]

Calculations, smalculations. You don't believe your own eyes, so why would calculations do anything?

You can do calculations with the wrong assumptions and nothing real is accomplished.

You didn't answer my question, either. What horizontal force threw those beams hundreds of feet?

Stundied!

 

[WTC Dust]

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_147644cd12cbde3e07.jpg[/qimg]

Dave

Depends on how you draw the angles. You drew the man standing right next to the wall. It's simply not to scale.

Plus pictures prove me right. As Bill has pointed out, there isn't a pile where WTC 1 and WTC 2 were standing. Somehow, the core columns and all the rest were gone, when I expected to see them there, piled up.

 

[dtugg]

I'm telling you what I know in the exact order I want to tell you. First, the image I presented to you of the dust in situ.

If you never take a look at that, you're going to misunderstand everything, so I'm being patient.

We all know that you are not going to be presenting any evidence whatsoever in support of your insane ideas. This stalling/bluffing tactic is really quite pathetic.