• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

WTC dust

Status
Not open for further replies.
3bodyproblem said:
(if there had been a collapse :confused:)
Click to expand...

Dusty believes that the steel of the WTC was hit with a DEW-like weapon (that she refuses to define the properties of) and was turned completely into dust (despite pictures that show the numerous steel columns strewn around the collapse site), a theory which is based upon her "discovery" of a pile of dust under a concrete overhang a few blocks from the Ground Zero site that she claims is from the structural steel of the WTC. Bear in mind, she "discovered" this dust nearly NINE years AFTER 9/11, and refuses to acknowledge that this compromises her conclusions as there is absolutely no way of knowing exactly where the dust came from or even what caused it to pile up there (for all we know there was a construction site for a building built AFTER 9/11; plus, even if it did, in the intervening nine years who knows what sort of contaminants were introduced into the pile) and cannot give any definitive answer as to how she came to the conclusion that the dust actually came from the WTC. In short, her theory is comprised of utter lunacy. One of her heroes is Judy Wood, if that tells you anything. At any rate, that's why she said "if there was a collapse"; because she believes the steel was turned to dust and the dust then fell to earth. Despite the numerous experts in this thread informing her of the impossibility of such an occurrence.
 
Sabrina said:
Dusty believes that the steel of the WTC was hit with a DEW-like weapon (that she refuses to define the properties of) and was turned completely into dust (despite pictures that show the numerous steel columns strewn around the collapse site), a theory which is based upon her "discovery" of a pile of dust under a concrete overhang a few blocks from the Ground Zero site that she claims is from the structural steel of the WTC. Bear in mind, she "discovered" this dust nearly NINE years AFTER 9/11, and refuses to acknowledge that this compromises her conclusions as there is absolutely no way of knowing exactly where the dust came from or even what caused it to pile up there (for all we know there was a construction site for a building built AFTER 9/11; plus, even if it did, in the intervening nine years who knows what sort of contaminants were introduced into the pile) and cannot give any definitive answer as to how she came to the conclusion that the dust actually came from the WTC. In short, her theory is comprised of utter lunacy. One of her heroes is Judy Wood, if that tells you anything. At any rate, that's why she said "if there was a collapse"; because she believes the steel was turned to dust and the dust then fell to earth. Despite the numerous experts in this thread informing her of the impossibility of such an occurrence.
Click to expand...

If you read that in a novel you would think it too far-fetched.
 
WTC Dust said:
Mostly empty space? Are you kidding? Steel exterior beams (covered in aluminum cladding), steel spandrel plates, and windows, and you call that "mostly empty space"?

You're telling me that a plane crashed into the WTC, but missed hitting the steel on the exterior, and I call schenanigans on that. At least the parts of the plane that hit the steel should have bounced backwards and they don't, at least not in the videos of 9:03AM.
Click to expand...

:jaw-dropp
No, the plane punched through the exterior in compliance with the laws of physics, as opposed to bouncing off like a cartoon. Buildings are not made of undestructium, so they can be damaged. The steel in cars is bent in crashes at highway speeds, far less than the airline impact speed. :cool:

Yes, buildings are mostly an empty space. They make being inside possible. :rolleyes:
 
It's time for some of you to lighten up on the subject of 9/11.
Click to expand...

I know this is far afield from the topic at hand, and I know there are other posters who have addressed this far more eloquent than me, but I have to say something to that if I expect to be able to look myself in the mirror tomorrow.

Last year, when the White House travel office did its incredibly ham-handed photo session of Air Force One over New York, Brian Williams went on MSNBC and made an editorial comment that really resonated with me. He mentioned that he had recently either attended or spoken at an event for first responders and (his words) to them "9/11 happened fifteen minutes ago." And when I first heard about the event (the fly-by), I thought it was just media overreaction, and then I saw the video and I realized exactly why people had been frightened, because the entire event was incredibly creepy to watch.

I was fortunate enough that I spend the morning of 9/11 safely in my bedroom in Central Virginia. I woke up late, flipped on the TV, and was just in time to watch the North Tower come crashing down. And, safe as I was in my home hundreds of miles away, my knees buckled. So that's my personal reaction. I think if I were to take that feeling and multiply it by a million, I still wouldn't come close to knowing what it was like for people who where there that day, especially those who lost colleagues, friends, and family.

One of my friends at the time was a reservations agent for American Airlines, and she told me once about the feeling of dread that came over their office as flight after flight after flight was canceled. Another friend was returning from Europe, and spent three days in the airport in Frankfurt while airline representatives did everything they could to work around the groundstop on air travel, eventually putting people on flights that were vaguely in the right direction, just so they would be closer to home.

Every man, woman, and child that I have ever personally known has always expressed nothing but abject horror about the subject, from people who were first responders, people who were New Yorkers, and even people like me who were just plain, ordinary citizens who came face to face with something that heretofore could only have been imagined in a Hollywood movie.

I think most people here have made fairly salient points about your scientific acumen.

But--and moderators, if I step across a line of civility and politeness, I apologize, and accept whatever reprimand you feel appropriate--I think that as bad as your science seems to be, your humanity is worse.

Shame on you.
 
Yes - we do don't we ?

Architect said:
Well, we have a number of problems with this, don't we?

1. All the evidence points to the failure ocurring on the upper floors of the properties, starting with the deformation of the outer facade. That's the trucks out.
Click to expand...
Sorry , Please clarify point 1 and I will address it.

2. We're not talking about taking out just one or two columns and beams to induce failure, but rather a lot. Whilst there seems to be no doubt that the MFCG devised can produces significant power, I've yet to see any data on extent of the effect.
Click to expand...
The NIST cites the cause of the WTC7 tower was the failure of one column from expansion due to fire-- Column 79

3. If we want decent power, they're not exactly small devices, are they? Why don't you tell us the size of unit we'd have to be clamping on to the columns to make these devices bring down the tower?
Click to expand...

They are relatively small --
Excerpted from the link provided
[excerpt]
The following information was converted from Fire, Fusion, & Steel 1st edition using the 07 DEC 1994 errata.

EXPLOSIVE POWER GENERATION
Also known as an Explosive Magnetic Flux Compressor (EMFC) or Flux Compression Generator (FCG), this technology uses the detonation of an explosive to generate power. It's primary use is to generate an large pulse of current to be employed in directed energy weapons.
TL Type Weight Volume Cost Density
9/9 Chemical Explosive Cartridge (CXC) .0088 .000027 $1 250J/g
10/9 Chemical Plasma Cartridge (CPC) .00528 .0000162 $5 417J/g
12/10 Pulse Plasma Cartridge (PPC) .00264 .0000081 $10 833J/g
14/11 Pulse Fusion Cartridge (PFC) .00176 .0000054 $25 1250J/g
16/13 Gravitic Compression Fusion (GCF) .00088 .0000027 $50 2500J/g

TL: Tech Level. The first number is the Traveller Tech Level (TTL) of introduction. The second number is the GURPS Tech Level (GTL) of introduction.
Weight: Multiply the energy output of the EPG generator (in kJ) to find the weight (lbs.).
Volume: Multiply the volume given by the EPG output (in kJ) to find the volume.
Cost: Multiply the cartridges weight by this value to get the actual cost.
Density: The energy density of the technology. Measured in Joules per gram.
Dimensions: The physical dimensions of the cartridge are:
Radius(R): .376 x (Volume/27)^(1/3) Volume in cubic feet. Radius in meters.
Diameter: 2 x R
Length: 6 x R

For example, an 12MJ output TL10 EPG cartridge would be 31.68lbs (rounded to 32 lbs), .0972 cf (rounded to .1), and cost $317. It would measure 116 x 348mm.

[NOTE: This compares to 12lbs, .12 cf, and $1200 for an TL8 Explosive Generator from the Vehicles Additions.][/excerpt]

4. And that takes us back to the same problem the "explosives" proponents have. How do all these devices get placed without anyone noticing?
Click to expand...

Dominic Suter-Urban Moving Systems (google same)

5. Final point. Accordingly to the site you linked, side effects of the electro-magnetic pulse are noticeable some distance away. What verifiable and substantive evidence of this do you have from 911?
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Incinerated and partially burned vehicles at Barclay and West Broadway
before the WTC7 collapse
 
Fonebone said:
Incinerated and partially burned vehicles at Barclay and West Broadway
before the WTC7 collapse
Click to expand...
I still have not found where in the articvle you linked to the device is described as doing anything at all to steel.

And how many times do we who have dealt with car fires have to tell you twoofers that there is nothing at all strange about the car fires in that video. They look EXACTLY as we expect them to look.

The fact that there is even anyone able to make video of the aftermath proves that the device in the article was NOT deployed in this event.

The device is intended to fry electrical currents. The only time there would have been any current in the steel parts of the towers would be in the event of one bloody awful short circuit or a lightning strike.
 
The problem with the examination of the dust from the WTC has been one of scale.

JREFers have insisted that I do a mass composition analysis, which essentially measures things at the atomic scale. There are many images available of the dust at a microscopic scale. This data proves worthless because of the lack of insight and lack of focus on the macroscopic scale.

I want to think about the WTC dust from the largest possible scale and work downwards. Focusing on the tiniest fraction of the dust is very much like missing the forest for all the trees.

The largest examination of WTC dust should begin with the photographs from space. I am assuming that the dust that was found in the ground was formed by the same process that produced the fumes that rose up into the sky. These photographs show the fumes streaming away from the WTC site, proving that it was not steam. The fact that the same images of the fumes on 9/11 also included the gigantic hurricane Erin is noted.

On the scale of a city, the dust that came from the WTC covered all of Manhattan south of the buildings, even flowing into the rivers in parts, and also reached for many blocks north of the towers, spreading east and west across most of the island. The fumes that rose from the WTC site were mostly white and appeared to expand in a foam-like manner. The fumes that rose most directly from the center of the site appeared dark gray in color.

In the centimeter scale, the dust is most assuredly multitypical, meaning there are at least two types of dust, dark and light. The lighter colored dust is denser than the darker dust and is itself heterogeneous, with bits and pieces of different looking material sprinkled in. The darker dust is much like a foam, similar to a meringue that has been frozen, with obvious round holes or air pockets forming the material itself. Both the lighter colored dust and the darker dust, although very crumbly and very given to generating fine dust, has a physical consistency and solidness that allows it to be picked up and handled. The dust can make a magnet move when placed close to a magnet on a string.

My conclusion is that, without evidence that an airplane crash into the WTC can produce such material, the official theory of airplane crashes starting office fires can be ruled out as the mechanism of destruction of the WTC. It has been shown elsewhere by that no planes at all were found at any of the sites where they were said to have crashed that day. Convincing evidence of hijackings is also lacking.

A new mechanism for destruction of the WTC, and any other similar sized structures, is therefore concluded.
 
Last edited:
WTC Dust said:
The problem with the examination of the dust from the WTC has been one of scale.

JREFers have insisted that I do a mass composition analysis, which essentially measures things at the atomic scale. There are many images available of the dust at a microscopic scale. This data proves worthless because of the lack of insight and lack of focus on the macroscopic scale.

I want to think about the WTC dust from the largest possible scale and work downwards. Focusing on the tiniest fraction of the dust is very much like missing the forest for all the trees.

The largest examination of WTC dust should begin with the photographs from space. I am assuming that the dust that was found in the ground was formed by the same process that produced the fumes that rose up into the sky. These photographs show the fumes streaming away from the WTC site, proving that it was not steam. The fact that the same images of the fumes on 9/11 also included the gigantic hurricane Erin is noted.

On the scale of a city, the dust that came from the WTC covered all of Manhattan south of the buildings, even flowing into the rivers in parts, and also reached for many blocks north of the towers, spreading east and west across most of the island. The fumes that rose from the WTC site were mostly white and appeared to expand in a foam-like manner. The fumes that rose most directly from the center of the site appeared dark gray in color.

In the centimeter scale, the dust is most assuredly multitypical, meaning there are at least two types of dust, dark and light. The lighter colored dust is denser than the darker dust and is itself heterogeneous, with bits and pieces of different looking material sprinkled in. The darker dust is much like a foam, similar to a meringue that has been frozen, with obvious round holes or air pockets forming the material itself. Both the lighter colored dust and the darker dust, although very crumbly and very given to generating fine dust, has a physical consistency and solidness that allows it to be picked up and handled. The dust can make a magnet move when placed close to a magnet on a string.

My conclusion is that, without evidence that an airplane crash into the WTC can produce such material, the official theory of airplane crashes starting office fires can be ruled out as the mechanism of destruction of the WTC.
Click to expand...

We have already told you that the planes are real and that they played no part in creating your dust samples. The "Foam" was sprayed onto the metal after assembly to make it more fire-resistant. It is a cementic substance with air mixed in Some shady operators even mix in extra air to stretch the cement in order to use less of it, making a lower-quality, more easily-crumbled coating

Here's a test you can try to confirm what I have posted here. Place a few drops of phosphoric acid on a small sample. (You can get it at any hardware store. It is used to remove rust and to "Parkerize" steel to prevent rust.)

Now filter out the solid matter thaty does not dissolve. Check the solid residues with a magnet. You will probably find a wealth of small fused spherules of varying colors. These will be clinkers or fine sand of hematite or sphaerelite, also know as "magnetite."

Weigh the dried filtrate. It will be less heavy, because some of it will have been removed in a solution as calcium phosphate. Cementic foam.
 
leftysergeant said:
We have already told you that the planes are real and that they played no part in creating your dust samples. The "Foam" was sprayed onto the metal after assembly to make it more fire-resistant. It is a cementic substance with air mixed in Some shady operators even mix in extra air to stretch the cement in order to use less of it, making a lower-quality, more easily-crumbled coating

Here's a test you can try to confirm what I have posted here. Place a few drops of phosphoric acid on a small sample. (You can get it at any hardware store. It is used to remove rust and to "Parkerize" steel to prevent rust.)

Now filter out the solid matter thaty does not dissolve. Check the solid residues with a magnet. You will probably find a wealth of small fused spherules of varying colors. These will be clinkers or fine sand of hematite or sphaerelite, also know as "magnetite."

Weigh the dried filtrate. It will be less heavy, because some of it will have been removed in a solution as calcium phosphate. Cementic foam.
Click to expand...

Magnetic?
 
Fonebone said:
Incinerated and partially burned vehicles at Barclay and West Broadway
before the WTC7 collapse
Click to expand...

You don't notice the beams and other debris from the north tower?? This doesn't say anything to you? You're that disconnected from reality?
 
WTC Dust said:
Magnetic?
Click to expand...
At least part of Portland cement is made of fired clay and limestone. The clay would contain some iron, probably as hematite or ochre. It is attracted to a magnet.

Ordianry sand contains vast amounts of iron or iron minerals. I can pass a magnet over soil where I live and pick up a load of pebbles and sand. Some of the pebbles and grains of sand are even polarized.
 
JREFers have insisted that I do a mass composition analysis, which essentially measures things at the atomic scale. There are many images available of the dust at a microscopic scale. This data proves worthless because of the lack of insight and lack of focus on the macroscopic scale.
Click to expand...

Why is it worthless? It would prove conclusively that the mass composition of your dust/foam is the same as the samples collected as part of the official investigation, wouldn't it?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom