WTC dust

[WTC Dust]

Just out of interest, I looked up the Fe-Fe bond energy and found a value of roughly 75kJ/mol. Iron is body centred cubic, so each atom has eight nearest neighbours; that means, as far as I can tell, something like an average four bonds to be broken to liberate a single iron atom, so about 300kJ/mol would be required to dissociate polycrystalline iron into monatomic iron. It looks to me, therefore, like we need about 5MJ to convert 1kg of iron to dust. I'm a physicist rather than a chemist, so I'm not sure whether this is along the right lines - can any of our resident chemists comment?

Dave

Full atomization? I really don't think that happened.

 

[Newtons Bit]

The buildings didn't collapse at all, so it's silly to talk about a collapse analysis.

Prove it.

 

[WTC Dust]

Forgive me for just jumping in here, but I can't seem to stop looking at this discussion for any length of time.

I just have to ask, even assuming that your picture shows that your dust is heterogeneous, what are you saying that proves? Maybe I've missed something, but I thought your contention was that the structural steel, and ONLY the structural steel was pulverized by some unknown force.

And as a corollary, even if your dust IS the pulverized iron from the steel, where is the carbon that was alloyed with it?

The heterogenous aspect of the dust resolves the discrepancy in the peer reviewed literature on the dust and explains the highly variable results with the mass composition analyses.

The metallic dust disproves a plane crash, because nothing about a plane crash can result in this type of dust. The macroscopic structure of the dust is at least as important as the elemental composition of the dust. I'm calling it a "foam". The carbon? Eh? Since it's about 1% of steel and since it is an extremely abundant material, I'm going to have to put pretty large error bars and warning flags about any sort of analysis of the carbon.

 

[WTC Dust]

I never said the dust and debris from a collapsed building would be "ordinary street dust". Did you know that spray-on fire protection resembles foam?

Can you link a quick picture to what you're talking about? This could really be good!

 

[WTC Dust]

Fine, so you're incompetent and evasive. What did you think the term "molecule of iron" referred to when you used it?

Dave

A mistake?

 

[alienentity]

Dr Blevins is once again using misdirection to thwart attempts at critical thinking. I'll give an example in a second. But of course she's not expecting to trick any of you for long - she doesn't need to - for her hoax to work, she just needs to present her pseudoscientific bafflegab to gullible truthers, who, as we know already, lap up pseudoscientific babble like koolaid.
Dr. Babs already knows that Judy Wood's nemesis, Dr Jones, has had quite a bit of success with his nanothermite hoax, so she must be somewhat encouraged to try her hand at the game. She knows Dr Jones is wrong, yet he's a big celeb in 9/11 Truth circles.

You must keep in mind the desperation and lack of scruples already displayed by Dr Babs; the cryptic refusal to answer many legitimate questions, the obvious delusions of grandeur which fuel her actities etc.. but even if we reflect on her own words regarding her past hoaxes, we can learn a few things:

from her blog
'so I came up with a scam'
'I kept creating all these hoaxes and scandals around London'

So we already know Dr Blevins is fond of hoaxes and publicity stunts. But returning to her misdirection - somehow, in a discussion about WTC Dust, Blevins manages to redirect the conversation to a missing tail section of flt 93 at Shanksville?

Not in this lifetime, and not in this universe is that relevant to the composition of her questionable dust. Yet you can almost guarantee she'll bring the subject up in her Dec 01 hoax presentation.

Has Dr Blevins responded to demands that she detail the provenance or composition of her dust? Absolutely not. She does refer to the 'candy' she promises to presnt at her little Bleeker talk tho. God only knows what fresh nonsense this will be.

Getting back to the good doctor's claim about dustified steel, she has repeatedly moved the goalposts of her claim. First she insisted that 'Almost all' the WTC was dustified.
Of course, she refuses to properly quantify this claim - it's just so inconvenient, isn't it?
But when confronted with the truth, she now realizes she must account for the many pictures of strangely and stubbornly un-dustified steel, and the documentation of at least 200,000 tons of steel recovered. So now she allows that not all the steel was dustified. Wow, now that's genius-level science, init? C'mon, Tracy, that's grade-school level rationalization.

Your real problem is that out of all the dust collected and tested by competent labs, iron wasn't the main constituent. You'll never be able to deal with this fact - and it directly contradicts any claim you've made, since it shows that the materials which were pulverized were ordinary building materials, not steel.
You also falsely claim that gravity had little to do with the non-collapses of the towers, yet it was demonstrably gravity which provided the force to pulverize the building materials, but oddly not the steel rebar and beams, which survived fairly intact.

The worst obstacle for your hoax is that there is zero, and I mean not a shred, of evidence of a steel beam which has been partially 'dustified'. Since you've already allowed that only some of the steel was dustified, then there must be a boundary to the effect, and there must be an artifact of that boundary on remaining steel - else your theory is incorrect.

It's very simple logic, really. So not only is your theory inconsistent within itself, it's not consistent with the observed evidence. In short, it's already a failed theory, and that makes your efforts pretty weak.

Reflecting again on some of your past behavior, you have a history of attaching yourself to important events or issues. You are a chronic attention-seeker, willing to pull outrageous stunts and hoaxes; you were attracted to 9/11 way back, and went so far as to offer sexual favours to FDNY personnel who suffered during the terrorist attacks - as pathetic and disgusting your behavior has been, we can see that you haven't changed much - you still seek to exploit this tragedy for your own narcissistic reasons, pretending to be providing a service to society.

Yuck!!

 

[WTC Dust]

No comment on the "firemen being out of formation" nonsense I showed you up on? I'm disappointed.

You can look at that picture and see perfectly happy and content firemen, if that's what you think it looks like to you.

They look like they are reacting to being swamped with those fumes to me. It doesn't look like they are "at ease", when at one point they were in formation.

 

[WTC Dust]

Prove it.

Nothing can be proved, only argued.

 

[Sabrina]

I'm honestly amazed that no one so far has pointed out the fallacy that the "dust" has yet to be proven to be from the WTC. And by that, I mean that Dusty here has stated unequivocally that the dust was purported to be found in a DWELLING; not outside of it, mind you, IN it, which completely destroys the possibility of the "dust" being an uncontaminated sample FROM the WTC site. The mere possibility that the "dust" was contaminated by whatever building materials were within said dwelling completely negates any findings whatsoever.

I'm also reminded of reading about a woman who, upon returning to her apartment near the Ground Zero site, claimed she had found copious quantities of some sort of dust-like material in her apartment that she believed had come from Ground Zero. The reason I bring this up is that, IIRC, that woman was an artist who worked with welding equipment and sculpted metal, so the likelihood that the dust was contaminated with metal filings was extremely high in her case. I wouldn't be the least bit surprised to find out that Dusty got her sample from this woman, which would put the final nail in the coffin of her delusional rantings.

 

[Newtons Bit]

Nothing can be proved, only argued.

You've provided absolutely nothing to advance your case that the WTC steel was turned to dust. You're not arguing, you're floundering.

 

[WTC Dust]

Dr Blevins is once again using misdirection to thwart attempts at critical thinking. I'll give an example in a second. But of course she's not expecting to trick any of you for long - she doesn't need to - for her hoax to work, she just needs to present her pseudoscientific bafflegab to gullible truthers, who, as we know already, lap up pseudoscientific babble like koolaid.
Dr. Babs already knows that Judy Wood's nemesis, Dr Jones, has had quite a bit of success with his nanothermite hoax, so she must be somewhat encouraged to try her hand at the game. She knows Dr Jones is wrong, yet he's a big celeb in 9/11 Truth circles.

You must keep in mind the desperation and lack of scruples already displayed by Dr Babs; the cryptic refusal to answer many legitimate questions, the obvious delusions of grandeur which fuel her actities etc.. but even if we reflect on her own words regarding her past hoaxes, we can learn a few things:

from her blog
'so I came up with a scam'
'I kept creating all these hoaxes and scandals around London'

So we already know Dr Blevins is fond of hoaxes and publicity stunts. But returning to her misdirection - somehow, in a discussion about WTC Dust, Blevins manages to redirect the conversation to a missing tail section of flt 93 at Shanksville?

Not in this lifetime, and not in this universe is that relevant to the composition of her questionable dust. Yet you can almost guarantee she'll bring the subject up in her Dec 01 hoax presentation.

Has Dr Blevins responded to demands that she detail the provenance or composition of her dust? Absolutely not. She does refer to the 'candy' she promises to presnt at her little Bleeker talk tho. God only knows what fresh nonsense this will be.

Getting back to the good doctor's claim about dustified steel, she has repeatedly moved the goalposts of her claim. First she insisted that 'Almost all' the WTC was dustified.
Of course, she refuses to properly quantify this claim - it's just so inconvenient, isn't it?
But when confronted with the truth, she now realizes she must account for the many pictures of strangely and stubbornly un-dustified steel, and the documentation of at least 200,000 tons of steel recovered. So now she allows that not all the steel was dustified. Wow, now that's genius-level science, init? C'mon, Tracy, that's grade-school level rationalization.

Your real problem is that out of all the dust collected and tested by competent labs, iron wasn't the main constituent. You'll never be able to deal with this fact - and it directly contradicts any claim you've made, since it shows that the materials which were pulverized were ordinary building materials, not steel.
You also falsely claim that gravity had little to do with the non-collapses of the towers, yet it was demonstrably gravity which provided the force to pulverize the building materials, but oddly not the steel rebar and beams, which survived fairly intact.

The worst obstacle for your hoax is that there is zero, and I mean not a shred, of evidence of a steel beam which has been partially 'dustified'. Since you've already allowed that only some of the steel was dustified, then there must be a boundary to the effect, and there must be an artifact of that boundary on remaining steel - else your theory is incorrect.

It's very simple logic, really. So not only is your theory inconsistent within itself, it's not consistent with the observed evidence. In short, it's already a failed theory, and that makes your efforts pretty weak.

Reflecting again on some of your past behavior, you have a history of attaching yourself to important events or issues. You are a chronic attention-seeker, willing to pull outrageous stunts and hoaxes; you were attracted to 9/11 way back, and went so far as to offer sexual favours to FDNY personnel who suffered during the terrorist attacks - as pathetic and disgusting your behavior has been, we can see that you haven't changed much - you still seek to exploit this tragedy for your own narcissistic reasons, pretending to be providing a service to society.

Yuck!!

Geez. No sense of humor. Who tries to make people happy in a time of tragedy? Me, darn it.

Remember that Yankees game they held so soon after the 9/11 attacks? I was there, with my silly sign that said:

"I love New York
I love the Yankees
and
I love Pot"

and many thousands of New Yorkers laughed at me. Hundreds of cops were in formation, and I was parading around waving my sign and giving them good belly laughs, perhaps for the first time in the early days.

I made THOUSANDS of New Yorkers laugh just a couple of days after 9/11. I'd call that a good deed.

 

[Sabrina]

You can look at that picture and see perfectly happy and content firemen, if that's what you think it looks like to you.

They look like they are reacting to being swamped with those fumes to me. It doesn't look like they are "at ease", when at one point they were in formation.

1) Any commander, be they military, firefighter, or police officer, that would force his/her people to stand in formation for a ceremony lasting over three hours is, in my opinion, an extremely incompetent commander.

2)We do not know the exact time frame when that picture was taken; it very well may have been after the formal portion of the ceremony was completed and the firefighters had been released to move about as they pleased and were simply standing in small groups talking.

3) What you see as "fumes" I see as dust being blown around by the wind. Having suffered through dust storms while stationed in El Paso as well as when I was deployed while on active duty in the military, I can state unequivocally that brown particles being swirled around more properly resembles dust clouds rather than some strange "fumes" that you can't even identify.

You fail. Spectacularly.

 

[DGM]

Can you link a quick picture to what you're talking about? This could really be good!

I can do it later. (I don't have any on hand). You could look-up fire protection in the NIST report, there are lots of pictures there.

 

[alienentity]

My work is forensic work, and I automatically discount hearsay evidence.

Since we didn't have other types of evidence that the flights existed, the evidence that they didn't exist is all we have.

In that case your claims should be immediately discarded.

How unsurprising that you'd use the word 'forensic' and yet deny the vast forensic evidence that the flights existed.

Do you expect normal people to regard you as anything but a bad joke? You're so dishonest it's not even very funny. It's just annoying.

 

[aggle-rithm]

I'm not claiming space rays. I don't know where the rays came from. They could have come from under the ocean, as far as I know.

Your speculation fails on parsimony alone. Epically.

Have you stopped for a while to think how many unknown entities your "theory" requires, verses the commonly accepted version of events?

DEW as an actual, existing phenomenon: Unknown entity
DEW as cause of collapse: Unknown entity
Perpetrators: Unknown entity
Explanation for virtually all structural steel being recovered from site when it was supposedly dustified: Unknown entity
Explanation for how DEW was deployed: Unknown entity

Compare this to the commonly accepted version:

Airplanes: Known entities
Buildings: Known entities
Hijackers: Known entities
Fact that buildings tend to collapse when airliners run into them: Known entities
Fact that buildings tend to collapse when they burn uncontrolled: Known entities

..and so on.

 

[WTC Dust]

the sign I used to make NYers laugh only days after the attacks

 

[nvidiot]

WTC, here's a free tip for aspiring CTers. Don't talk about physics. Dont talk about chemistry. Don't talk about maths. Don't talk about engineering. These subjects will always end up showing just how ridiculous your ideas are.

You can't even quantify your statement of "There was too much dust for a gravity collapse". Too much in comparison to what? I and many others here fundamentally question your ability to perform basic analysis of the facts at hand. We also don't believe you when you class yourself as a "research scientist" whatever the heck that's supposed to even mean.

I'm slowly coming to the conclusion that this may be an elaborate art project.

 

[aggle-rithm]

"I love New York
I love the Yankees
and
I love Pot"

It's just too easy.

 

[aggle-rithm]

the sign I used to make NYers laugh only days after the attacks

And now you're making the whole world laugh. Kudos.

 

[Sabrina]

the sign I used to make NYers laugh only days after the attacks

Wow.

And you wonder why no one here takes you seriously.