WTC dust

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

Interesting.

I've heard the official 9/11 conspiracy buffs say that the steel beams had dust on them, and that when they fell, the dust fell off the beams.

It looks different to me. It looks like those steel beams became dust.

Ignore my question:

How can steel turn into "dust", when it doesn't turn into a liquid first, then evaporate & then turn to dust?

 

[tsig]

1606 posts in, 2 bad pictures and no data so far. Is your pace set to 'glacial'?

Paint dries faster than this and it's more interesting to watch.

 

[HyJinX]

Why don't you explain one mistake she made? "DEW doesn't exist because I don't know about it" doesn't count as a mistake she made.

Prove it exists then.

 

[beachnut]

DEW is the result of Dr. Judy Wood. Ask her to defend it. I already told you many times I would like to see a debunking of her theory, if it's possible. I want to find out the real reason, and if her theory has a major flaw, I want it to be discovered. I haven't been able to, and I have never read anyone else who was able to.

Oops, you said you knew how the WTC collapse and would present your methods and data; you were telling lies?

Judy's insane claims are false; she never provided what did it. She makes it up and lies. If you can't figure out Judy is telling lies, you are not a research scientist, you are a paranoid conspiracy theorist who prefers hearsay, fantasy and false claims.

You say the WTC collapse would take 50 seconds, but forgot to do the math and left out gravity, no momentum transfers, and more. It is simple to do the time of collapse based on momentum transfer, you can't do simple physics. Instead you make up numbers for a floor falling of .5 time 100, and say it is 50 seconds.

Why not use .87 seconds, the time to drop a floor one floor at the acceleration of gravity? They your moronic theory would be over 87 seconds. Why can't you do any physics?

Caught you making up your math, why can't you do anything and back it up with data that is correct?

 

[WTC Dust]

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.

Well, you're the one who is claiming a floor crashing down onto another floor, not me. I don't think it happened. I think the floors (and almost everything else) got turned into dust while it was sitting there, stationary. Then the dust fell.

Just to be explicit: I understand that an object impacting another object imparts a force onto the second object. I am actually not an idiot and did get good grades in high school and college physics. I didn't take physics in grad school, but I'm guessing a minority of JREFers have, either. And the ones that did have only a few research scientists among them. Engineering isn't a research science. Neither is architecture.

This is important, because what I'm claiming is that advanced technology was used to destroy the World Trade Center. If it wasn't DEW, then it was something else, but it wasn't anything that a graduate level research scientist with good basic education in physics (me) already knew about on 9/11. I knew I'd have to learn something before I understood what destroyed the World Trade Center. I wasn't so arrogant to think that it must have been something I already knew about on the day of the attacks.

Why is research science a relevant field, as opposed to, say, architecture? Because architects are not trained in explaining previously undescribed phenomena, as research scientists are. Even engineers use technology to solve problems and do not do research science (except a minority).

If you have to figure out a difficult science problem using only forensic evidence, I don't see how engineering helps other than the basic science and math education. Research is an entirely different thing compared to engineering.

 

[dtugg]

DEW is the result of Dr. Judy Wood. Ask her to defend it. I already told you many times I would like to see a debunking of her theory, if it's possible. I want to find out the real reason, and if her theory has a major flaw, I want it to be discovered. I haven't been able to, and I have never read anyone else who was able to.

Your hero Judy Wood has no theory, thus there is nothing to debunk.

 

[WTC Dust]

How?

What is the actual process, consistent with known physical laws of the universe that could be used to do this?

"Known" by you, I'm presuming, right? You think you already know all the laws of the universe, or do you think that you might not know something?

Because even physicists will tell you that physics is a field of active research. Even physicists don't know all the laws of the universe, which means there might be some out there that they don't already know.

I could tell you the process that I suspect is going on here, but again, that's not my work. It's the work of other scientists.

 

[leftysergeant]

Why don't you explain one mistake she made? "DEW doesn't exist because I don't know about it" doesn't count as a mistake she made.

DEW does not exist in the form in which whacky old Judy describes it. There is no form of energy which can be applied to steel to cause its destruction without making a bit of noise or making it glow.

If you think there is, it is your burden to show that there is. There is more evidence that you and Judy are both nuts than that there was any sort of DEW used on 9/11.

 

[WTC Dust]

You might want to find a new photographer, that is way out of focus.

I didn't select my best photograph. I'm stingy like that. It's good enough to show what I'm talking about.

 

[WTC Dust]

He has no idea Alferd, he's just the messenger. He'll leave all the sciency details the powerhouse scientists of the truth movement.

If I'm a messenger, then I am a messenger sent by myself. I'm showing you my original data that I collected with my own grubby little hands, and this data is available on exactly zero other forums, unless it gets posted there from here.

 

[WTC Dust]

1606 posts in, 2 bad pictures and no data so far. Is your pace set to 'glacial'?

As slow as it takes to get people to notice my original research.

Almost all of the discussion so far is about other people. It was fun. But now, time for business.

 

[beachnut]

If I'm a messenger, then I am a messenger sent by myself. I'm showing you my original data that I collected with my own grubby little hands, and this data is available on exactly zero other forums, unless it gets posted there from here.

Your data proves a gravity collapse due to fire, when mixed with reality.

...Because even physicists will tell you that physics is a field of active research. Even physicists don't know all the laws of the universe, which means there might be some out there that they don't already know.

I could tell you the process that I suspect is going on here, but again, that's not my work. It's the work of other scientists.

No, you can't tell us anything. You are making up lies and nonsense.

You know what did it, but you can't tell us because? ...

 

[WTC Dust]

Is your photographer using a point and shoot digital camera? Could you specify what equipment was used?

I could ask him. He's a mac guy. Does that help? It looked like he was pointing and shooting to me, but he also sent me the images after he downloaded them onto his Ipad. Does this make a difference?

 

[Dave Rogers]

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

And you didn't see anything wrong? Bizarre.

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

It was gravity. But gravity doesn't work the way you think it does. It doesn't make things fall at a constant speed. I can see you might not be up on the latest research - after all, we've only known this for about half a millenium - but things falling due to gravity keep on getting faster. So, even though the top block only falls through one floor's height in the first half a second, it falls through two in the next half-second, and four in the next, and so on. So, just because it takes half a second to fall through one floor, that doesn't mean it takes fifty seconds to fall through a hundred floors.

If you got good grades in high school physics, then your school was well below par if it let you go away in a state to believe Judy Wood's rubbish.

Dave

 

[Oystein]

I didn't select my best photograph. I'm stingy like that. It's good enough to show what I'm talking about.

I suggest everybody stop replying to Dusty until she kicks that attitude and tells us all that she knows about that dirt heap. And then some.

 

[DGM]

I could ask him. He's a mac guy. Does that help? It looked like he was pointing and shooting to me, but he also sent me the images after he downloaded them onto his Ipad. Does this make a difference?

Wouldn't you want to document those sort of things for your research? It makes a great difference in how the sample appears. I'm guessing the samples actual make up is not going to have a great deal of influence on your research.

 

[WTC Dust]

WTC Dust,

How can steel turn into "dust", when it doesn't turn into a liquid first, then evaporate & then turn to dust?

Wooo! VERY interesting question. If you want me to talk about what I suspect is going on, I can do that. If you want me to talk about it in terms of final proof, what I actually KNOW is going on, then I can't do that.

I hesitate to go into mechanism, because my presentation isn't about mechanism, yet. I've only shown you two slides. I want to take you all through my data and my thought processes on the subjects that I'm very confident on, and then later move onto the more speculative bits.

That's really the only plan that makes sense for me, especially since the speculation comes from the work of other people. I know my own work backwards and forwards, but the relationships and connections between my work and that of other scientists is, naturally, more tenuous (although I think, strong nevertheless).

 

[beachnut]

I suggest everybody stop replying to Dusty until she kicks that attitude and tells us all that she knows about that dirt heap. And then some.

Maybe some bats left their calling cards... so far she has a pile of BS that has no known boundaries.

She has her sister in dumb ideas on 911, what more does she need. bill smith will introduce fibrous steel dust...

 

[bill smith]

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.

Have you tested the fibres in the lighter dust for strength and toughmess ? Are they surprisingly strong ?

 

[WTC Dust]

Yes you have. You have been told many times in this very thread, in fact. Why do you keep lying like this? Do you think it makes your delusions look more credible?

I thought our relationship was over, uke.

I am not lying when I say that I, personally, have not been convinced by anyone's attempts to debunk Dr. Wood.

Can't you tell that? I keep telling you I think she got the right answer. Doesn't this appear to you to be my genuine belief? How can you call this a lie?