WTC dust

[Alferd_Packer]

for someone who supposedly doesn't subscribe to judy wood's theory, you sure do parrot a lot of her site

But can he play billiards?


Clunkity Clunk.

 

[Adolph]

You're correct about being able to see what happens to the spire in the first vid better. The parts I like about the second vid is that in frames 12-32, you can clearly see (it seems the best one for this) the entire spire including a clear view of what's left of the core at the lower parts of viewable area. The frames starting at 41 and going to 59 give one of the best views of the remains of the core I've seen.

All someone has to do it watch both videos and it should be clear that the spire isn't 'dustified' (dustified, really?) The core obviously collapses near the bottom and when the tallest spire sinks, it leaves a dust cloud that is the shape of the spire but if you pay attention, you can see the steel inside, sinking with the collapsing core.

Finally, there were 'researchers' who believed that the core was reinforced concrete and no amount of data would change their mind. Yet, in the second video, it's obvious that the core is steel. The video of the stairways where the trapped firefighters were shows an obvious feature, you can see the staircase not because the cement broke away, no, because the doubled up gypsum board that had blocked some survivor's way down appears to be blown off. In the still photo I'm talking about, you can easily see I think, five stories worth of emergency staircase, exposed because the gypsum was missing.

 

[WTC Dust]

Edited by LashL: 

Removed quote of and response to moderated content

 

[WTC Dust]

Ever heard of conservation of momentum? Clearly not if you think the entire thing comes to a stop at each floor.

I never said it came to a stop at each floor. I said that nothing (including the floors of the WTC) can fall faster than gravity, under this gravity-driven collapse theory.

Bombs could theoretically shoot the floors down faster, but I don't think it was bombs. The fall speed only disproves gravity. It doesn't disprove bombs. Other stuff disproves bombs.

 

[WTC Dust]

Oh, I see. You're a gullible idiot who believes whatever she reads on a website created by a mad woman. Do you understand the difference between velocity and acceleration? Do you understand that freefall is characterised by a rate of acceleration, not a constant velocity? And if so, why do you believe that the upper block had to stop dead still whenever it encountered an arbitrary and, in the circumstances, more or less academic level of the structure?

Putting it slightly differently, do you not realise that what you have written above is more than ordinarily moronic even for a member of the truth movement?

Dave

ETA: Still, we can at least forget your lies about being a research scientist. The above isn't even at high school level.

I did more than read Dr. Wood's site. I studied it for years.

Anyway, what, under a collapse scenario, accelerated the floors, if it wasn't gravity?

 

[WTC Dust]

Data Slide Number 2

This is a very tiny crop of an image that shows another result I've been claiming.

The dust is not homogenous. There are two major types of dust.
One is lighter in color and more fibrous.
One is darker in color and metallic, with rusty spots.

Original image. No one has seen this other than my photographer.

 

[beachnut]

I never said it came to a stop at each floor. I said that nothing (including the floors of the WTC) can fall faster than gravity, under this gravity-driven collapse theory.

Bombs could theoretically shoot the floors down faster, but I don't think it was bombs. The fall speed only disproves gravity. It doesn't disprove bombs. Other stuff disproves bombs.

The fall speed of the WTC collapse is exactly the speed of a gravity collapse. You have to use physics to understand this, and you can't do physics.

 

[phiwum]

Notice that I'm telling you the results, but I'm not actually showing you the data or giving you the methods? This is the way that I'm being stingy. Why should I share the details when you mock the results and the experimenter and actually pay no attention to the details that I have documented for you?

So, you expect everyone to agree that the bulk of WTC steel turned into dust without giving any argument or data supporting this conclusion.

And you won't give us such details until we agree to accept the conclusion.

Huh.

 

[dtugg]

I did more than read Dr. Wood's site. I studied it for years.

Too bad for you that you can't get those years of your life back. I honestly cannot think of a worse use of time.

 

[dtugg]

Data Slide Number 2

This is a very tiny crop of an image that shows another result I've been claiming.

The dust is not homogenous. There are two major types of dust.
One is lighter in color and more fibrous.
One is darker in color and metallic, with rusty spots.

Original image. No one has seen this other than my photographer.

It is an extremely crappy picture of what is supposedly dust from the WTC. So what?

 

[WTC Dust]

WTCDust, any reason you're refusing to respond to this and in particular the early part where you claims (or otherwise) regarding the fire resistant characteristics of steel are found wanting?

I'm afraid that, as you now cite 9 years of research and aver a scientific background, I'm going to have to press you for a professional and detailed response.

I've studied the dust for 9 years. Can you ask me a question about that? If you are a scientist, you know that we specialize. Too many people have been asking me about work that I haven't participated in.

 

[triforcharity]

Fantastic. A real comment. From the picture it is impossible to tell the exact composition of the dust. But you can say things about the color and the placement of the dust. Why does it look burned to you?
<Snipped useless word salad>.

Because it looks like burned ashes of something. I've seen many many piles of ashes before. Maybe paper, or something of the sort. Could be wood, I don't know.

It also looks like a large piece of debris of some sort is buried underneath it, but still partially visable.

You know the best way to find out?

 

[WTC Dust]

The fall speed of the WTC collapse is exactly the speed of a gravity collapse. You have to use physics to understand this, and you can't do physics.

It's very near a gravity collapse time, which should cause you to pause and think how this happened.

The steel beams that formed the exterior and interior of the buildings should have slowed the "collapse" but did not.

I'm telling you that the reason why they did not is because the steel beams were turned into dust and lost their strength.

The building fell at nearly free fall speed because the steel beams provided none or not much resistance to the fall.

 

[beachnut]

Edited by LashL: 

Removed quote of and response to moderated content

 

[WTC Dust]

So, you expect everyone to agree that the bulk of WTC steel turned into dust without giving any argument or data supporting this conclusion.

And you won't give us such details until we agree to accept the conclusion.

Huh.

Please look at Data Slide Number 2.

 

[WTC Dust]

Because it looks like burned ashes of something. I've seen many many piles of ashes before. Maybe paper, or something of the sort. Could be wood, I don't know.

It also looks like a large piece of debris of some sort is buried underneath it, but still partially visable.

You know the best way to find out?

OK. It looks like burnt ashes, to you. But what about the texture? You can't tell from the picture, but this dust is a very loosely agglomerated solid. I characterize it as a foam. It very readily generates dust particles when manipulated, but has a foam-like solidity to it. Imagine a frozen meringe pie. Imagine a dollop of shaving cream with some kind of stiffener in it.

 

[phunk]

I never said it came to a stop at each floor. I said that nothing (including the floors of the WTC) can fall faster than gravity, under this gravity-driven collapse theory.

Bombs could theoretically shoot the floors down faster, but I don't think it was bombs. The fall speed only disproves gravity. It doesn't disprove bombs. Other stuff disproves bombs.

You didn't say it, you implied it by stating that each floor takes at least 0.5 seconds to fall 12 feet, then the next floor takes 0.5 seconds, and so on. In order for that to happen, when the falling mass hits the floor it has to come to a complete stop, so that the floor it is impacting can start from 0 velocity and fall only under the influence of gravity. You are ignoring all of the momentum of the mass falling onto the floor to start it moving. Funny, enough, this is the exact same mistake Judy makes in her billiard ball nonsense.

 

[beachnut]

It's very near a gravity collapse time, which should cause you to pause and think how this happened.

The steel beams that formed the exterior and interior of the buildings should have slowed the "collapse" but did not.

I'm telling you that the reason why they did not is because the steel beams were turned into dust and lost their strength.

The building fell at nearly free fall speed because the steel beams provided none or not much resistance to the fall.

Not close to gravity collapse, much slower. You can't do math so you make up lies. What are the numbers, the time of collapse for free-fall and the time of WTC collapse? Got math?

The steel beams are part of the collapse and they did slow the collapse time. You don't have a clue because you failed to do the math and physics; Why can't you do math and physics.

Not a single piece of steel was trained to dust, you are a liar and will never support her delusion with facts and evidence.

The building did not fall near free-fall speed, because the building slowed down the collapse. You can't do math or physics, this why you never say how much faster, how much slower, you use talk instead of physics and make it up.

 

[triforcharity]

OK. It looks like burnt ashes, to you. But what about the texture? You can't tell from the picture, but this dust is a very loosely agglomerated solid. I characterize it as a foam. It very readily generates dust particles when manipulated, but has a foam-like solidity to it. Imagine a frozen meringe pie. Imagine a dollop of shaving cream with some kind of stiffener in it.

I tried to examine the sample for texture, but it feels smooth. Like my computer screen. Just, very smooth.

I contend that it is burned ashes of some sort.

 

[phunk]

I did more than read Dr. Wood's site. I studied it for years.

And you didn't see the glaring mistakes in her analysis? A high school student could see how wrong it is. Are you sure you're a scientist?