WTC dust

[BasqueArch]

Originally Posted by WTC Dust View Post
I've studied the dust for 9 years. Can you ask me a question about that?

People have been asking you about that for 40 pages, you refuse to answer.

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.

[qimg]http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_qpE5hNwi618/SpNF6b4GPHI/AAAAAAAABig/JW89booKRr4/s400/drunk+russians.jpg[/qimg]

 

[Architect]

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.

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).

We are, however, trained in structural engineering. And unfortunately for you, that explains the collapse of WTC1 and 2 pretty damned well. Without the need to invest space rays.

 

[WTC Dust]

Prove it exists then.

I can't prove it, but I am attempting to prove that the steel of the WTC was turned into dust.

 

[Dave Rogers]

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

It did, a couple of years ago. Because I understand gravitational acceleration, and I was able to find out some properties of steel columns in compression, I was able to work out how long the collapse should have taken.

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

In fact, they increased the collapse time by something around a second. This is exactly what we'd expect.

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.

Anybody who's even glanced at a video of the collapse is aware that your beliefs are not just untrue, but absurd. We can clearly see the upper and lower structure remaining intact well into the collapse.

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.

I did take physics, to doctorate level, and I've been in research for a quarter of a century or so. And I can tell you that you're either a liar or an idiot. If you honestly learned any physics in high school and you believe what you read on Judy Wood's site, then you're an idiot. If you didn't, then you're a liar.

"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.

We may not understand physics in the most extreme conditions of the first few nanoseconds after the Big Bang, but we understand the operation of gravity. In particular, we know it doesn't make things fall at roughly constant velocity, but at roughly constant acceleration. This is not a subject of active debate in the physics community, whatever the raving nutter community may be talking about this week.

Dave

 

[ElMondoHummus]

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.

Seconded. We've had two images, a note that there are two "major types", one being light colored and fibrous, the other being darker and metallic, and that's it. When Jones, Harrit, et. al. laid out their description, they did it in far shorter time with far fewer words and nowhere near the same number of digressions into irrelevant minituae. Let's stop posting entirely, folks, until she's ready to compose a complete work. I mean, think about it, people: If this were a presentation, she would've been about two hours in and still giving an introduction. There's no reason to post in this thread until substance is provided, so let's just quit. I'll start. I won't continue until we get:

1. Specific characterizations of the dust (the above is a start).
2. Attempted identification of the components dust.
3. Description of experiments or observational methods (spectroscopy, etc.) used to aid in the characterization of the dust.
4. Explanation of the significance of the dust, and the hypothesis being built from the noted characteristics of the dust.

As much as we criticize Jones and Harrit for their work, at least they provided the above. This person isn't providing anything but empty reading calories. So let's all stop posting here. Let her provide substance from here on out.

 

[WTC Dust]

Cool story, bro'.


First you say the actual collapse was at least 5 times as fast as a gravity collapse, and then you say the actual collapse was "very near a gravity collapse time" but slower.

To succeed as a performance artist, you'll need to work at remaining in character.

Don't misquote me.

The WTC didn't collapse at all. It was destroyed faster than this "gravity-driven collapse" model could possibly account for. I'm not saying gravity did it. I'm saying gravity had nothing to do with the destruction. Of course, after the building bits were destroyed and turned into dust, then gravity caused these bits to fall to the ground.

I think I'm going to change my sig, dangit.

 

[dtugg]

Don't misquote me.

The WTC didn't collapse at all.

Anybody with a properly functioning brain can tell this is untrue simply by watching a video of the collapses.

It was destroyed faster than this "gravity-driven collapse" model could possibly account for.

Prove it. Otherwise, sane people have no reason to believe you.

 

[beachnut]

Don't misquote me.

The WTC didn't collapse at all. It was destroyed faster than this "gravity-driven collapse" model could possibly account for. I'm not saying gravity did it. I'm saying gravity had nothing to do with the destruction. Of course, after the building bits were destroyed and turned into dust, then gravity caused these bits to fall to the ground.

I think I'm going to change my sig, dangit.

A gravity collapse model matches the collapse time of the WTC save the core which collapsed after most the WTC collapsed.

You failed to do the physics. Why? This would be simple for a reality based research scientist.

 

[WTC Dust]

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?

Your gravity calculation about floor falling isn't relevant. What is relevant is how the steel beams lost their strength.

 

[dtugg]

What is relevant is how the steel beams lost their strength.

Oh, that's easy. Fire. It is a fact that fire weakens steel. Which is why fireproofing is used to protect it.

 

[BasqueArch]

<snip>

I think I'm going to change my sig, dangit.

You're free to use mine -

"To a truther, having double standards simply means they're better than the average person, because they have twice as many standards."- CI1mh4224rd

A Truther is a Believer convinced by lies. --- You can lead a truther to facts but you can't reason someone out of something they weren't reasoned into. - Basquearch.

 

[WTC Dust]

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.

I've seen some images of glowing beams and what looks like dripping (liquified) stuff that was also glowing. Maybe this is the effect you'd expect to see if DEW were used?

 

[WTC Dust]

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



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? ...

I CAN tell you about my results.
I HAVE told you a tiny bit so far about my results.
I PLAN to tell you everything, if you listen.

 

[phunk]

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.

Yes, we all know you don't think it happened that way. I was referring to your explanation for how long a gravity driven collapse would have taken in this post just a couple hours ago. Is your short term memory really that bad? Maybe you need to ease up on the marijuana research.

 

[Dave Rogers]

I've seen some images of glowing beams and what looks like dripping (liquified) stuff that was also glowing. Maybe this is the effect you'd expect to see if DEW were used?

No. If DEW were used to destroy the buildings, we'd expect to see them still standing.

Dave

 

[uke2se]

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.

Thirded. Let's ignore the troll until she gets to the point.

 

[dtugg]

I PLAN to tell you everything, if you listen.

It is extremely obvious that you have nothing to tell. You are fooling nobody. So why bother?

 

[WTC Dust]

And you didn't see anything wrong? Bizarre.



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

I am amazed by all the clairvoyance. You're now claiming I think that gravity causes things to fall at a constant speed, when that's idiotic. Of course things speed up when they fall. Gravity causes things to fall with constant acceleration, not constant speed.

What you are missing in this "gravity-only collapse" is that the lower floors wouldn't begin to fall until the upper floors crashed into them. But it is silly to talk about a gravity aided collapse of concrete floors because that didn't happen. By the time what used to be the floors (and the walls, and the supporting structure) of the WTC started to fall, it was already either dust or becoming dust.

My reseach proves (I believe) that steel became dust. We will see if this pans out. Dr. Wood's research only indicates that steel became dust. I hope to complement her research with my own.

No object can fall faster than gravity, unless there is an outside force acting upon the object.

 

[phiwum]

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.

When you say you've studied it, what do you mean?

How, exactly, have you studied it?

 

[W.D.Clinger]

Don't misquote me.

I haven't.

As much as you'd like for readers to think you've been misquoted, it would be dishonest of you to say I've misquoted you.

You really did write these things:

Did the WTC take about a minute to collapse? No. It took about 10 seconds. Way off.

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