WTC dust

[WTC Dust]

Bill Smith.

Visit a steel works. go and actualy see what is needed to melt thousands of tons of stell and keep it liquid.

How much fuel or energy do you think is needed to melt a ton of steel?

Why do you think a steelworks has it's own power station to supply it's furnaces or coke ovens producing many thousands of tons of coke a day to fuel it's blast furnaces?

How much Thermite do you think was planted in the towers? By my calculations they would have had to be piling sack loads of it in each office to produce up to produce your lake of molten steel.

This is true. So what you all are witnessing is a tiny part of the struggle I've been going through on other forums.

Steven Jones and his bad thermite theory has taken over the 9/11 truth movement, and is the main reason I do not identify with those people. I'm not looking for 9/11 truth. That's too broad a subject, and I really doubt the absolute truth about everything will ever be known.

Which is why I focus on the destruction of the World Trade Center. I believe I can help to solve that problem. Other aspects of getting to the "truth" I leave to other people. I think that proving that at least part of the WTC became metallic dust is a world history changing story.

If I'm right, all the thermite proponents and the plane crash conspiracists will be proved wrong at the same time because neither thermite nor plane crashes result in metallic dust.

 

[Mikemcc]

And you're claiming all this energy came from a plane crash and gravity?

Easily, I'll repeat Oystein's 2nd point

b) On the other hand, the collapse of one twin tower released potential energy at an average of of 30,000MW of power during the 15 seconds collapse - that is the output of 30 large nuclear power plants. There exists no technical device in this world that can handle an output of 30,000MW and not self-destruct instantly. The largest high-voltage direct current line, for example, is the Yunnan–Guangdong HVDC - its transmission capacity is "only" 5,000MW, at 800kV.

All the impacts had to do was cause sufficient initial damage and start a process that weakened the steel to the point that it couldn't support the structure above it. A far smaller energy budget than trying to dissociate massive a massive tonnage of steel.

Even if the DEW hypothesis was trying to keep to that smaller budget of weakening the structure and ignoring the 'dustification' silliness. It would still be 2-3 orders of magnitude more than was achievable then or since.

 

[WTC Dust]

Well isn't that special! You know the location you found it in, but from your previous post (quoted below in blue) you don't know the ORIGIN of the "dust".



Very likely does not equal known fact.





Well, we are kind of getting somewhere, but you still have some major hurdles to overcome before you can even discuss what you may or may not have done to/with your "dust" samples.

Let's start off with the following for starters.

1. What is the location of the dust in the picture "in situ" as you say? And I don't mean the location IN the house, I am talking about an address of the house in question.
2. Now we can ask: WHERE in the house was it?
3. Who took this picture?
4. When was the picture taken? (date and time)
5. Is the "dust" in the picture the "dust" you actually are looking into testing, or is the "dust" you are talking about examining in relation to your case found someplace else, either in the house in question or some other totally unrelated place? (I know I should not have to ask this question, but look at who we are dealing with)

Let's start there. If you can't even answer these simple questions and provide documentation for your answers there is no need for you to go any further.

Note: Your answers to these questions will determine whether you are the second person to make it onto my ignore list on ANY forum I have been a member of or am currently a member of.

Thank you in advance.

I'm a scientist. I know that nothing can be definitively proved, which is why I say "very likely". Things can be disproved, like thermite and plane crashes, but never ever proved.

The hurdles that you mention are only hurdles for you. And, misstating my words is unfair. I didn't say it was found in a "house". I don't know of even one single "house" in Manhattan. I said it was found in a "home". Later on, somebody is going to probably try and claim I said I found it in a house when I did not.

As far as who took the picture, why does that matter? I'm asking this person to speak at my presentation on December 1, but if they decline or want to keep their own anonymity, I won't mention their name. It wasn't me who took the pictures, is all.

Why is the date and time important?

Also, the dust in the picture is part of the dust that is being analyzed. Why would I take a picture of some dust and talk about different dust? I don't really get what you're trying to say?

 

[Edx]

I believe I can help to solve that problem.

Just wondering, how do you plan to do that?

Other than posting on internet forums like this one of course. Will you writing any scientific papers? Going to the media? The courts?

 

[WTC Dust]

Easily, I'll repeat Oystein's 2nd point



All the impacts had to do was cause sufficient initial damage and start a process that weakened the steel to the point that it couldn't support the structure above it. A far smaller energy budget than trying to dissociate massive a massive tonnage of steel.

Even if the DEW hypothesis was trying to keep to that smaller budget of weakening the structure and ignoring the 'dustification' silliness. It would still be 2-3 orders of magnitude more than was achievable then or since.

But you have to admit that my comment about the plane crashes and gravity is important. If you say all that energy was involved, the energy came from somewhere. Unfortunately for plane crash conspiracists, the only energetic sources they can draw on are fire and gravity (perhaps wind), because those were the only forces acting on the buildings at the time the destruction began.

The energy is the problem. The destruction of the WTC was, in fact, a very highly energetic process, yet all the survivors on the street walked home dusty but without burns, indicating a process that did not involve excess heat.

 

[Justin39640]

No magic here.

I'm saying that if the magnetic field overcomes the Casimir effect, molecules of a solid metal can theoretically be pushed apart. It's normally talked about as an attractive force that is sensitive to the magnetic field.

Change the magnetic field ---> change the attractive force between the molecules into a repulsive force.

No one has really written about this. I'm just suggesting it as an actual, real life, mechanism where steel can be dissociated without heat. Thermodynamic calculations not necessary.

More from that article:

An important physical quantity when discussing the Casimir force is the "field radiation pressure". Every field - even the vacuum field - carries energy. As all electromagnetic fields can propagate in space they also exert pressure on surfaces, just as a flowing river pushes on a floodgate. This radiation pressure increases with the energy - and hence the frequency - of the electromagnetic field.

So now this "DEW" not only conduct a massive amount of energy but creates a vacuum at the same time? You know there was a huge magnetic field in the towers generated by a 13,500 volt transmission line. So how much power would it take to disintegrate the steel if that didn't harm it for 30 years?

Direct link to your article: http://www.physics.ohio-state.edu/~jay/631/Casimir effect.pdf

 

[WTC Dust]

So now this "DEW" not only conduct a massive amount of energy but creates a vacuum at the same time? You know there was a huge magnetic field in the towers generated by a 13,500 volt transmission line. So how much power would it take to disintegrate the steel if that didn't harm it for 30 years?

Direct link to your article: http://www.physics.ohio-state.edu/~jay/631/Casimir effect.pdf

The Casimir effect doesn't go away outside a vacuum. The discussion about a vacuum was the introduction, the assumption that was ongoing before the Casimir effect was studied.

As in: Traditional physics does not account for quantum flux in a vacuum. The Casimir effect does.

 

[Newtons Bit]

And you're claiming all this energy came from a plane crash and gravity?

Plane crash weakened the structure. Gravity does what it always does.

 

[Edx]

For goodness sake...

....can we just pressure WTC Dust to show us any reason to think a DEW that can cause such damage exists??

 

[Mikemcc]

I'm a scientist. I know that nothing can be definitively proved, which is why I say "very likely". Things can be disproved, like thermite and plane crashes, but never ever proved.

The hurdles that you mention are only hurdles for you. And, misstating my words is unfair. I didn't say it was found in a "house". I don't know of even one single "house" in Manhattan. I said it was found in a "home". Later on, somebody is going to probably try and claim I said I found it in a house when I did not.

As far as who took the picture, why does that matter? I'm asking this person to speak at my presentation on December 1, but if they decline or want to keep their own anonymity, I won't mention their name. It wasn't me who took the pictures, is all.

Why is the date and time important?

Also, the dust in the picture is part of the dust that is being analyzed. Why would I take a picture of some dust and talk about different dust? I don't really get what you're trying to say?

So what percentage of the dust was metallic iron? Have you done comparitive studies against dust sample pre and post 9/11? How does it compare to your sample? When was you sample collected, at what distance from the impact site, upwind, downwind or some other vague direction?

How about comparisions with other cities, is your sample unique, or do samples from other cities exhibit similar compositions?

How have you managed to 'disprove' the plane crash hypothesis?

 

[alienentity]

So you are pushing for an effect that has NEVER been witnessed and does not hold with present theories on the Casimir Effect that are supported by experimental data? You also want to expand the effect from a microscopic scale to a scale where it's NEVER been witnessed and is not supported by experimental evidence?

On top of that, these energetic reactions have to happen quickly and affect many thousands of tonnes of steel, without affecting the temperature? An effect that's localised to one building at a time without affecting any other structures, and is invisible to the naked eye or TV cameras.

I think I'll stick to calling it woo!

Well said. On top of that some 200,000 tons of the nonexistent 'dustified' steel were recovered, along with a total of 1,462,000 tons of non-dustified debris. LOL

 

[Newtons Bit]

But you have to admit that my comment about the plane crashes and gravity is important. If you say all that energy was involved, the energy came from somewhere. Unfortunately for plane crash conspiracists, the only energetic sources they can draw on are fire and gravity (perhaps wind), because those were the only forces acting on the buildings at the time the destruction began.

The energy is the problem. The destruction of the WTC was, in fact, a very highly energetic process, yet all the survivors on the street walked home dusty but without burns, indicating a process that did not involve excess heat.

You're hypothesizing some sort of giant magnetic or electrical weapon, right? What do you think would happen to the iron in the stairway survivors blood? The only possible source of energy that could bring the towers down and not kill them is gravitational potential energy.

 

[WTC Dust]

Just wondering, how do you plan to do that?

Other than posting on internet forums like this one of course. Will you writing any scientific papers? Going to the media? The courts?

I doubt that I will be writing a scientific paper in the next few months, but it is my goal to do so.

I did not post on this forum to "prove my case". I posted on this forum to test certain aspects of my argument. My case is not fully presented here. The media is involved already. The police should be involved, and I do plan to take my evidence to them. The courts? Not so much. Nobody to sue, yet. I have no idea who destroyed the World Trade Center, but I do believe that I have grounds to sue them should I ever discover who they are because I, along with many millions of people in NYC, had to breath those horrible fumes for months. I'm sure it has had some impact on my health, but there are many people who have suffered much more than I did.

 

[WildCat]

I've looked at hundreds of images of the clean up

And you didn't see steel in any of these images?

 

[triforcharity]

I don't know what the question was.

I figured you wouldn't.

Here you go.

The 9/11 one year anniversary memorial service included uniformed members of the police and fire departments that marched down into the pit at Ground Zero. At a certain point, the fumes came up so strongly that the ceremony was disrupted.

Please link us to a statement showing the ceremony was disrupted or retract your baseless assertion.

Source please? Thanks.

 

[Mikemcc]

The Casimir effect doesn't go away outside a vacuum. The discussion about a vacuum was the introduction, the assumption that was ongoing before the Casimir effect was studied.

As in: Traditional physics does not account for quantum flux in a vacuum. The Casimir effect does.

The reason the experiments on the Casimir effect have to be done in a vacuum is that the effect of Brownian motion would completely obscure it! The effect is that tiny. It's like trying to say that lifting a car hulk with an electromagnet can't happen because gravity would pull it down!

 

[WildCat]

I'm a scientist.

I'm Henry VIII.

Henry VIII I am.

 

[WTC Dust]

You're hypothesizing some sort of giant magnetic or electrical weapon, right? What do you think would happen to the iron in the stairway survivors blood? The only possible source of energy that could bring the towers down and not kill them is gravitational potential energy.

Fantastic point! You have been listening and thinking!

I think that the energy weapon is the reason that intact bodies were not found inside the WTC. If a building falls down on a person, the person might die, but you'll eventually dig out a whole person, not tiny bits and pieces of bone.

You know how the steel in the WTC got turned into tiny bits? Well, same thing with the victims.

 

[triforcharity]

I'm a scientist. I know that nothing can be definitively proved, which is why I say "very likely". Things can be disproved, like thermite and plane crashes, but never ever proved.

Really? I can prove quite a few things. Over and over.

Fire is hot.

Water is wet.

There are two very simple things that can be definitively proven.

You are not a very good scientist. Whomever gave you your degree should be drawn and quartered.

 

[WTC Dust]

The reason the experiments on the Casimir effect have to be done in a vacuum is that the effect of Brownian motion would completely obscure it! The effect is that tiny. It's like trying to say that lifting a car hulk with an electromagnet can't happen because gravity would pull it down!

Right. That's the reason experimentation exists. It allows you to control for certain aspects of a problem to investigate other aspects of the problem.

The Casimir effect doesn't appear in a vacuum and at absolute zero and disappear at normal temperatures and pressures. It's just difficult to measure at normal temperatures and pressures.