• 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.
ElMondoHummus said:
Asking for it's composition doesn't mean we presume it's homogenous. What we're asking for is what it's made of. Sure, we'll understand if it contains more than one substance, but the point is: What is it made out of? You mentioned that "some of it is metallic", but that's not helpful. Which metal? Or if it's not elemental, which alloy?

You see, you keep presenting this dust as though it's something of importance, yet you don't go beyond the broadest, most vague characterizations of it. That doesn't tell anyone anything of substance, and that's why we ask you for the composition. It's a question that you should expect would be asked of you. If you're going to present it, you should explain it.

And forget having "a certain mass of people appear to be paying attention". You are the one choosing to focus on trivial, irrelevent minituae. If you compose a comment of substance on the dust - for example, something more descriptive regarding what it's made of- then you will get attention. But until then, you're making nothing but small talk.

It's up to you to make the thread substantive. So why don't you do it by explaining what you found out about the dust? What's it made of? What have you discovered about it? Post that, and the tenor of the thread will change.
Click to expand...

I would like to proceed, but I'm choosing my own next steps. First, the dust pic I already showed you. What do you think of it?
 
aggle-rithm said:
Heh, heh!

Yeah, you're just yanking our chains.
Click to expand...

No. If you pay attention, I'm actually showing you novel data that no one else has seen, and promising more if you could only pay attention to the first part.

The conclusion is that the dust is formerly steel. I'm not hiding the conclusion. I'm just not showing you the data in the order that you want.
 
WTC Dust said:
I've seen the evidence commonly thought to have associated bin Laden with the attacks, and I'm not convinced. I haven't heard or seen any solid evidence connecting KSM to the attacks, other than his torture-induced confession.
Click to expand...

So what if you are not convinced? You are quite obviously not a rational person.

BTW, KSM bragged about being the mastermind to the attacks before he was even captured. And there is no evidence whatsoever that his subsequent confessions were torture induced.
 
WTC Dust said:
I've seen the evidence commonly thought to have associated bin Laden with the attacks, and I'm not convinced. I haven't heard or seen any solid evidence connecting KSM to the attacks, other than his torture-induced confession.
Click to expand...
Nope, its been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt.
 
ElMondoHummus said:
Oh, I'd love to talk about your dust. Earlier, you said:

​
... and I replied:

​
... but sadly, this seems to have gone unnoticed. Well, since you yourself are raising the topic now, I'll be happy to start in. What is the dust made out of? What have you done to determine it's composition? Have you eliminated the SRFM material as a possibility?
Click to expand...

It looks like burned paper to me.

SFRM will typically be white, or slightly grey. Not black. Some buildings use black pain afterwards, if the trusses and beams will be exposed to the public.

There is a furniture store that is near me that I recently took pictures at to show to my students. It is black. Not origionally, but because the store does not have a suspended ceiling to hide the trusses.

It uses lightweight steel trusses almost identical to the WTC.

The local fire departments know about it, and have made all crew and dispatch aware of it.

The 7 P's my friend.

In conclusion, I don't think it is SFRM. It looks to me like burned paper and other materials.
 
Given the OP's behaviour, I would argue that this is nothing but a troll thread and that it has gone on for long enough. I hereby formally request for it to be locked.
 
WTC Dust said:
I would like to proceed, but I'm choosing my own next steps. First, the dust pic I already showed you. What do you think of it?
Click to expand...

There's nothing to think about it. It's merely an unreferenced picture. I believe you when you say it's something from the towers, but two datapoints (origin; gross physical appearance) are not enough to tell me anything substantive. There needs to be a convergence of descriptive details revealed before anything can be said about the material.

So what do I think of it? It's dark. Tell us something about it's constituents and physical properties beyond gross descriptions e.g. beyond "crumbly": Tell us if it's hydrophobic, or dissolves in water (you don't need to use up a lot of it to discover this). Tell us if a magnet attracts it. Characterize the material. At that point we can discuss the material, but simply showing a picture of it doesn't allow for anything beyond superficial observations.
 
WTC Dust said:
Drop a steel cage a thousand feet. What happens? It deforms. It doesn't shatter.
Click to expand...

it doesn't turn to dust, and as you can clearly see in clean up pictures, that the integrity of all the steel was severely compromised, but it wasn't dust.
 
WTC Dust said:
Pantaz said:
What have you published previously?
Click to expand...
You want my curriculum vitae? I have written several first author papers, and been second or third authors on a few more. I have invented several entirely new scientific methods, which I used in my Ph.D. work and industry. I have written several books, but none of them are published.

Whatever. I'm a crap publisher. Fine. I don't publish profusely, but I'm about to publish. That should be interesting to you. You're hearing stuff that literally no one else who isn't reading this forum is hearing. :D
Click to expand...
Yeah, and I had two novels on the N.Y. Times best seller list.
 
WTC Dust said:
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.
Click to expand...

With respect, what you believe is not relevant; what actually happened, and what we can deduce from calculation, are.

So, in actualy fact the debris field was a good 15m or so high above ground level in addition to the material in what had formerly been basement areas. Some authors have shown that this is perfectly reasonable and I challenge you to provide a meaningful critique of their calculations or a substantive alternative analysis yourself.
 
WTC Dust said:
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?
Click to expand...

It's a very small sample of unidentified material, we have no way of knowing where it came from, and you've posted no results of analysis of its chemical composition. It's about as significant as a recipe for lasagne or a cute picture of a kitten.

WTC Dust said:
Calculations, smalculations. You don't believe your own eyes, so why would calculations do anything?
Click to expand...

Stop lying. I believe my own eyes, especially when I see pictures of the rubble pile post collapse.

WTC Dust said:
You didn't answer my question, either. What horizontal force threw those beams hundreds of feet?
Click to expand...

Buckling forces and off-axis impacts. Simple Newtonian physics, that can be seen in action any day of the week on a pool table.

Try an experiment here. Take a piece of uncooked spaghetti, stand it vertically upright, and press straight downwards on the top. What horizontal force is throwing bits of spaghetti out sideways?

WTC Dust said:
To investigate.
Click to expand...

You don't think we should wait for a new investigation to investigate? Does that even make sense?

Dave
 
Architect said:
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.
Click to expand...

Another bump for WTCDust.
 
WTC Dust said:
I do not believe that DEW destroyed the World Trade Center. What I do believe is that I've never seen an effective debunking of the DEW theory, or of any single thing that Dr. Judy Wood has ever proposed scientifically.
Click to expand...

Nor have you ever seen an effective debunking of the invisible pink unicorn theory, because you can't prove that invisible pink unicorns don't exist. We know that horses exist, that some animals have horns, that some animals are pink, that animals can knock things over, and that some substances are invisible, so all the elements of the theory are established fact. Will you consider the possibility that invisible pink unicorns knocked over the Twin Towers?

Dave
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom