WTC dust

[WTC Dust]

Wow.

And you wonder why no one here takes you seriously.

I play the clown, but everything I say is true, to the best of my abilities.

 

[DGM]

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

I found a video of it being applied. Color look familiar?

 

[Sabrina]

Uh-huh.

You've again dodged the issue with your photograph I notice.

Have you ever tried to stand still for 3+ hours, Dusty? I at least have the benefit of being somewhat used to it, but even I am utterly incapable of standing in one position for more than 30 minutes (albeit that is partially due to a back injury I sustained while overseas); the longest I've ever seen any person stand in formation in one relative position is no more than an hour, and the amount of stiffness and pain that resulted from that was not pleasant for the people involved.

If you don't believe me, I suggest you try doing it for yourself. Stand with your feet shoulder width apart, hands clasped one over the other at the small of your back, and time yourself. See how long you can manage it. I'll bet you won't be able to last very long.

There is also the issue of the likelihood of the people in the formation passing out increasing the longer they stand in formation. The more tired you get, the more likely you are to lock your knees to keep yourself upright, which in turn can cause you to black out. I've seen it happen.

 

[phunk]

It would only be forty feet per second until the molecules of iron reached an average density of one atom per micrometer, under the theory I'm currently exploring.

A single kg of iron at that density (1 atom per micrometer^3) would full a cube 22 meters on a side.

200000 tons of steel at that density would fill more than 5000 cubic miles.

How much of the steel would your theory require to be at that density?

 

[starri]

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.

You've said that almost all of the steel ("billions of pounds", I believe was the figure you were using) was reduced to dust through whatever means. Even 1% of a billion pounds is still a fairly significant amount of carbon.

Additionally, if the steel was pushed apart atom-by-atom to the dimensions you yourself have set up, you would have, not the common forms of carbon, like graphite, but amorphous carbon, which in this case would be more or less coal dust. Maybe there was a source of that in the WTC that I'm not thinking of, but absent a large coal bin somewhere in one of the towers, finding that much elemental carbon would be highly unusual.

ETA: Iron is far, far more abundant than carbon, at least on land.

 

[WTC Dust]

I found a video of it being applied. Color look familiar?

The actual color looked a little brownish to me, but that could have been the lighting in the video.

But I have seen that stuff you mention and know what you are talking about. It is the color, but not the consistency and not the placement of my WTC dust samples, but I'm not ruling it out.

 

[phunk]

WTC Dust, you never answered my question earlier in the thread about the steel only being partially dustified. Did the dustification somehow magically stop exactly at the joints between column sections, or should there have been thousands of partially dustified columns in the rubble?

 

[DGM]

The actual color looked a little brownish to me, but that could have been the lighting in the video.

But I have seen that stuff you mention and know what you are talking about. It is the color, but not the consistency and not the placement of my WTC dust samples, but I'm not ruling it out.

You shouldn't. You should also consider what the pulverized remains of everything in an office would look like. Maybe you should pulverize an old phone and pass your magnet on a string near it. I bet it "dances".

 

[beachnut]

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

Now you make up moronic delusions of steel turning to dust as you disrespect those who died by blaming imaginary bad guys. You are no spewing nonsense and disrespecting those who died by making up lies and which is a your weak attempt to apologize for terrorists who did 911.

Steel turning to dust is an idiotic lie you support with delusional claims.

 

[leftysergeant]

Do you have any images of the plane they reconstructed from the pieces they found at Shanksville?

Reconstructions are only done to determine the cause of an aircraft for NTSB purposes. The 9/11 crashes were not under NTSB jusridiction because they were a known criminal act. The black boxes and DNA were more than adequate to identify the aircraft and persons on board. Having identified the aircraft, by its contents, as one of those stolen on that date, and having observed three of them being used as kamikaze attack aircraft, the cause of the crash was already obvious. It was a controlled flight into terrain. There is no need to reconstruct the aircraft to make that determination.

NTSB makes determinations of the cause of crashes in order to determine and apply such safety measures as will reduce the likelihood of similar crashes in the future. Again, it was not neccessary to do a recontruction or even serious in-depth analysis of the wreckage to determine that the best way to prevent such crashes in the futre is to institute a poicy stating that NOBODY other than flight deck crew enters the cockpit when the engines are running.
The fact that there was no recinstruction only bothers people who have no freaking idea what they are talking about.

 

[WTC Dust]

Uh-huh.

You've again dodged the issue with your photograph I notice.

Have you ever tried to stand still for 3+ hours, Dusty? I at least have the benefit of being somewhat used to it, but even I am utterly incapable of standing in one position for more than 30 minutes (albeit that is partially due to a back injury I sustained while overseas); the longest I've ever seen any person stand in formation in one relative position is no more than an hour, and the amount of stiffness and pain that resulted from that was not pleasant for the people involved.

If you don't believe me, I suggest you try doing it for yourself. Stand with your feet shoulder width apart, hands clasped one over the other at the small of your back, and time yourself. See how long you can manage it. I'll bet you won't be able to last very long.

There is also the issue of the likelihood of the people in the formation passing out increasing the longer they stand in formation. The more tired you get, the more likely you are to lock your knees to keep yourself upright, which in turn can cause you to black out. I've seen it happen.

I don't dispute any of this. The image doesn't look like those men were tired from standing at attention. It looks like they are uncomfortable because of the dust/fumes.

 

[WTC Dust]

You've said that almost all of the steel ("billions of pounds", I believe was the figure you were using) was reduced to dust through whatever means. Even 1% of a billion pounds is still a fairly significant amount of carbon.

Additionally, if the steel was pushed apart atom-by-atom to the dimensions you yourself have set up, you would have, not the common forms of carbon, like graphite, but amorphous carbon, which in this case would be more or less coal dust. Maybe there was a source of that in the WTC that I'm not thinking of, but absent a large coal bin somewhere in one of the towers, finding that much elemental carbon would be highly unusual.

ETA: Iron is far, far more abundant than carbon, at least on land.

To know for sure, they would have had to scrape up all the dust they cleaned up off the street as well as capture all the dust/fumes that rose into the sky from the site at Ground Zero and add that to the steel and other debris they found for a proper stoichiometry.

And obviously they missed some of the dust from the cleanup, because I stumbled upon some. I bet you lots of old buildings and such near Ground Zero has this dust inside various nooks. There are some abandoned apartments a few blocks over that have never been occupied since 9/11. I wonder if there is some dust in those buildings.

What should really happen is a re-cleaning of Lower Manhattan.

 

[DGM]

I don't dispute any of this. The image doesn't look like those men were tired from standing at attention. It looks like they are uncomfortable because of the dust/fumes.

The point is the picture has no context. It could have been taken long after it was over. Do you have a news report (or anything) that states the ceremonies were "disrupted"?

 

[leftysergeant]

Do you have an image of the tail section of Flight 93?

No. Nor would I expect it to have survived as a unit identifiable by casual observation. It did not impact with the ground in the normal manner for such crashes. It was oriented in exactly the reverse position to nearly every empanage assembly that survived in a recognizeable piece. We may not, therefore, expect it to look at all the same as most other empanage assemblies after the event.

 

[WTC Dust]

You've said that almost all of the steel ("billions of pounds", I believe was the figure you were using) was reduced to dust through whatever means. Even 1% of a billion pounds is still a fairly significant amount of carbon.

Additionally, if the steel was pushed apart atom-by-atom to the dimensions you yourself have set up, you would have, not the common forms of carbon, like graphite, but amorphous carbon, which in this case would be more or less coal dust. Maybe there was a source of that in the WTC that I'm not thinking of, but absent a large coal bin somewhere in one of the towers, finding that much elemental carbon would be highly unusual.

ETA: Iron is far, far more abundant than carbon, at least on land.

You know what? The metallic dust really DOES look like coal dust, in some aspects. I need to get some coal dust and compare. Thanks for the tip.

Iron might be more common than carbon, but carbon is very common.

 

[WTC Dust]

WTC Dust, you never answered my question earlier in the thread about the steel only being partially dustified. Did the dustification somehow magically stop exactly at the joints between column sections, or should there have been thousands of partially dustified columns in the rubble?

I really don't know. All I can say is that some beams appeared to have rather clean looking cuts on them in some of the pictures, which I consider to be inconsistent with an airplane crash conspiracy.

The steel samples they did recover from Ground Zero were anomalously damaged in many cases, as was The Sphere.

 

[WTC Dust]

Now you make up moronic delusions of steel turning to dust as you disrespect those who died by blaming imaginary bad guys. You are no spewing nonsense and disrespecting those who died by making up lies and which is a your weak attempt to apologize for terrorists who did 911.

Steel turning to dust is an idiotic lie you support with delusional claims.

But if it's not a lie and actually is the truth, then I have a world history changing story in my hands.

 

[WTC Dust]

Reconstructions are only done to determine the cause of an aircraft for NTSB purposes. The 9/11 crashes were not under NTSB jusridiction because they were a known criminal act. The black boxes and DNA were more than adequate to identify the aircraft and persons on board. Having identified the aircraft, by its contents, as one of those stolen on that date, and having observed three of them being used as kamikaze attack aircraft, the cause of the crash was already obvious. It was a controlled flight into terrain. There is no need to reconstruct the aircraft to make that determination.

NTSB makes determinations of the cause of crashes in order to determine and apply such safety measures as will reduce the likelihood of similar crashes in the future. Again, it was not neccessary to do a recontruction or even serious in-depth analysis of the wreckage to determine that the best way to prevent such crashes in the futre is to institute a poicy stating that NOBODY other than flight deck crew enters the cockpit when the engines are running.
The fact that there was no recinstruction only bothers people who have no freaking idea what they are talking about.

You'd think 9/11 would have been one of those "plane crashes" that merited close scrutiny.

 

[HyJinX]

But if it's not a lie and actually is the truth, then I have a world history changing story in my hands.

It's not. You don't. Move on.

 

[Sabrina]

I don't dispute any of this. The image doesn't look like those men were tired from standing at attention. It looks like they are uncomfortable because of the dust/fumes.

Ah, so we're making progress! You admit that it may in fact be dust that is causing discomfort rather than some unknown, unverified "fumes" that you don't have a shred of evidence for other than your personal incredulity.

Now, as DGM said, you have offered no information as to the context of the picture. You don't appear to even know who took it (or at least you have not indicated so in this thread). How, may I ask, do you draw the conclusion that they are reacting to "fumes" rather than dust swirls from a gust of wind blowing across what was at the time a very dirty, very dusty site? Occam's Razor would seem to lean toward the more mundane explanation of dust blown around by the wind, yet you go for the one that is quite literally impossible to verify, since none of us were there and it would be difficult if not impossible to contact the people in that picture, since there are few distinguishing characteristics visible in the photo.

If you do possess information on who took the picture in question, please provide it and/or contact the individual and ask them what the context was of the photo. What were the firefighters doing at the time of the photo being taken? Were they in some kind of formation that was disrupted by the dust swirls? Or was the photo taken much later after the ceremony was complete and that is why they were in what is colloquially known as a "gaggle"? Was the ceremony in any way disrupted by the dust swirls? Either provide this information, or admit that you don't know enough about the context of the photo to claim it is proof of ANYTHING, much less your putative "fumes".