• 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.
WTC Dust said:
Oh, really, Sabrina. How do explosives work, if it isn't by creating heat?
Click to expand...

By converting a solid to a gas. There's some other stuff going on too. Why don't you put your massive "research scientist" abilities to work and think through it.
 
WTC Dust said:
Oh, really, Sabrina. How do explosives work, if it isn't by creating heat?
Click to expand...
Gravity accounted for over 200 ton of TNT energy, kinetic energy on 911. There were no weapons you claim, and you have no idea that turning steel to dust is imaginary claptrap.

The dust was caused by the collapse crushing ceiling tiles, insulation under the floors, wall board used to insulate the steel (tons and tons of wallboard) and wall board in offices, just plain dust, and some crushed concrete (did you miss the reality based studies on the dust?). Your dust was collected many years after 911 and is worthless for making conclusions on 911, let alone evidence for some undefined field effect weapon which dustifies steel. You have delusions on 911; seek help from a professional.
 
Last edited:
Newtons Bit said:
By converting a solid to a gas. There's some other stuff going on too. Why don't you put your massive "research scientist" abilities to work and think through it.
Click to expand...
Gosh, if only there were easily accessible resources available to answer such a question...
 
beachnut said:
Why does she make up lies about 911? Steel does not turn to dust unless you grind it. No secret weapon she can't define. What weapon would it be? How much dope do you have to smoke to come up with moronic lies of steel turning to dust?
Click to expand...

Fonebone<
Steel can be transformed into an open celled foam slag-
I have seen it with my own eyes-

Fonebone said:
What about an electromagnetic weapon with a frequency of zero and a infinite
wavelength that will transform steel into a open cell foam slag in milliseconds
with very little heat generation ? This slag dissolved into a dust powder with the
slightest of handling or bending. I've seen it with my own eyes.
Click to expand...

Fonebone said:
U-Bet
An explosively pumped flux compression generator (EPFCG)
creates an EMP of Direct Current (D.C.) with currents exceeding 10's of millions
of Amperes for micro-seconds.
A tsunami of DC current will vaporize steel and the condensate will solidify
into a open celled slag of black gray material
that snaps like spaghetti when flexed
and dissolves into a dust-like powder in your fingers when handled.
I have seen this with my own eyes.

http://www.active-duty.com/MI_FCG_FluxCompressionGenerator.htm



The explosive magnetic flux generator has been weaponized and has been
installed on cruise missiles like the AGM_86D CALCM for delivery.
If a weaponized EPFCG EMP can be
delivered by cruise missiles it can be delivered by truck to a loading dock.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Dusty, I watched the first hour or so of your presentation. It was horrible. You have nothing.
 
Fonebone said:
Fonebone<
Steel can be transformed into an open celled foam slag-
I have seen it with my own eyes-
Click to expand...
with your own eyes, wow!
Wowzer, the entire WTC was dustified! You have delusions; good for you.

You posted pure nonsense, why? Do you support the dustified steel, a super crazy claim?

You posted nonsense; wood and plastic, jet fuel, all have more energy than your idiotic transforming steel to slag crap made up delusion. There was no steel turned to dust, or foam slag on 911, you have failed big time. What was your point? You have no clue what EMP is; based on your post.
 
I signed out of the presentation about 30 minutes in. What was the groundbreaking information she had ? Didn't she promise to have some answers and not ask questions ?
 
TheBigKahuna said:
Fail, you still need to show where this paper from a peer reviewed journal is wrong:
Wierzbicki, T. & Teng, X. (2003). "How the airplane wing cut through the
exterior columns of the World Trade Center." J. of Impact Engrg. 28, pp. 601-625
After all, that's what research scientists do.
Click to expand...

TheBigKahuna said:
Well, I've been unemployed for a while. Are you offering me a consulting job to look this paper up for you? It'd be cheaper for you to order it or go to your local library and see about interlibrary loaning a copy.
Click to expand...

Fonebone < No I'm not offering a consulting job to look something up-
I can do that for myself. I'm unemployed too .
All I find on google are references and summaries
that you claim support your position.

I got the impression from your post that you had read the paper you cited
"Wierzbicki, T. & Teng, X. (2003). "How the airplane wing cut through the
exterior columns of the World Trade Center." J. of Impact Engrg. 28, pp. 601-625"
and that you were in complete agreement with the conclusion
the the plane wings could without a doubt cut through the steel exterior columns
and you were requesting others read the same and prove them --
and you--wrong.
Did you read the paper you cite as evidence BigKahuna ?
 
Fonebone said:
I got the impression from your post that you had read the paper you cited
"Wierzbicki, T. & Teng, X. (2003). "How the airplane wing cut through the
exterior columns of the World Trade Center." J. of Impact Engrg. 28, pp. 601-625"
and that you were in complete agreement with the conclusion
the the plane wings could without a doubt cut through the steel exterior columns
and you were requesting others read the same and prove them --
and you--wrong.
Did you read the paper you cite as evidence BigKahuna ?
Click to expand...

This is a very strange post.

I have written Fonebone about this paper in a private message offering to send it to him. He has not replied to my offer.

I have read the paper and as I stated earlier, it clearly makes the case that "the plane wings could without a doubt cut through the steel exterior columns." So I don't care what it is that Big K said or did not say. If you are not going to read the paper, please stop questioning other people's integrity.
 
Originally Posted by TheBigKahuna
Fail, you still need to show where this paper from a peer reviewed journal is wrong:
Wierzbicki, T. & Teng, X. (2003). "How the airplane wing cut through the
exterior columns of the World Trade Center." J. of Impact Engrg. 28, pp. 601-625
After all, that's what research scientists do.

Originally Posted by TheBigKahuna
Well, I've been unemployed for a while. Are you offering me a consulting job to look this paper up for you? It'd be cheaper for you to order it or go to your local library and see about interlibrary loaning a copy.
Click to expand...


Fonebone said:
Fonebone < No I'm not offering a consulting job to look something up-
I can do that for myself. I'm unemployed too .
All I find on google are references and summaries
that you claim support your position.

I got the impression from your post that you had read the paper you cited
"Wierzbicki, T. & Teng, X. (2003). "How the airplane wing cut through the
exterior columns of the World Trade Center." J. of Impact Engrg. 28, pp. 601-625"
and that you were in complete agreement with the conclusion
the the plane wings could without a doubt cut through the steel exterior columns
and you were requesting others read the same and prove them --
and you--wrong.
Did you read the paper you cite as evidence BigKahuna ?
Click to expand...

http://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...389c247513dd9f2bbf5dcbdaa5ecef2d&searchtype=a
Abstract
The problem of the airplane wing cutting through the exterior columns of the World Trade Center is treated analytically. The exterior columns are thin-walled box beam made of high strength steel. The complex structure of the airplane is lumped into another box, but it has been found that the equivalent thickness of the box is an order of magnitude larger than the column thickness. The problem can be then modeled as an impact of a rigid mass traveling with the velocity of 240 m/s into a hollow box-like vertical member. The deformation and failure process is very local and is broken into three phases: shearing of the impacting flange; tearing of side webs; and tensile fracture of the rear flange. Using the exact dynamic solution in the membrane deformation mode, the critical impact velocity to fracture the impacted flange was calculated to be 155 m/s for both flat and round impacting mass. Therefore, the wing would easily cut through the outer column. It was also found that the energy absorbed by plastic deformation and fracture of the ill-fated column is only 6.7% of the initial kinetic energy of the wing.
Click to expand...

No, I haven't read it, but I see no reason to doubt the presentation. I simply don't have the engineering math skills to evaluate the paper for accuracy in any case, as I haven't looked at Diff EQ or Calculus in this century. Dusty, OTOH, is touting herself as a "research scientist" and one the first things a research scientist does is a literature search to find papers relative to the topic. I read the abstract, which gives the minimum velocity for the plane wing to penetrate the building, and compared that to the speeds of AA11 and UA175. AA11 was the slower of the two with a velocity of 466 mph (per wikipedia) which I calculate to be around 200 m/s, which is sufficiently above the critical (i.e. minimum) velocity that the wings of both planes should be expected to cut through the columns with no visible evidence of resistance. From the information in the abstract, it's also evident there would be plenty of energy left to scour the spray on fire resistant material from the steel trusses as well as severing/damaging additional columns.

Dusty claims the planes should have bounced off the towers, which is apparently an argument from incredulity in her case. This paper, which she has completely ignored, contradicts her claim. She needs to support her claim by showing where the paper is wrong. She is incapable of doing that, just as she appears to be incapable of doing science in general based on the reports of her presentation and the information she has presented here.


But, if I get to a real research university, I will try to pick up some of the articles listed in the link below:
http://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/peer-reviewedpapersaboutthewtcimpacts,fi
 
Fonebone said:
Fonebone<
Steel can be transformed into an open celled foam slag-
I have seen it with my own eyes-
Click to expand...
No, you haven't, or you would offer proof of it. There is none.

BTW, why are you so fixated on an electronic gizmo fryer when we are discussing someone's delusions about a spaced-out discombobulator ray gun? We have video of the fact that no such thing was in operation in New York City at the time. Absolutely irrefutable video evidence that it did not operate.

How rare is that that you have invincible proof of a negative?
 
WTC Dust said:
Oh, really, Sabrina. How do explosives work, if it isn't by creating heat?
Click to expand...

Dusty, you are living proof that it is entirely possible to take college science courses, understand all of the material, get passing grades on the exams, earn all of your degrees, and completely forget/ignore everything you have learned.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom