• 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:
I could check your math, if that's what you want.
Click to expand...
I don't think you're capabe. In fact, your "work" has been completely math-free. It wouldn't get a passing grade at a kindergarten science fair.

Here's a hint: arguments from personal incredulity is not the basis of science.

You have no math, no evidence, no physics supporting your bald assertions. In fact, your assertions are the stuff of street corner lunatics. This is why people question your mental state.
 
WTC Dust said:
What are you calculating?
Click to expand...

I would start with calculating the force of a 300,000 lb airliner hitting a building at 500 mph.

What are your assumptions? How do you perform the calculation (meaning what methods you use)?
Click to expand...

Determining the acceleration would be problematic. How fast would the airliner change velocity upon hitting the building? If we take your claim at face value, that the parts would bounce off the building, then you have to assume a HUGE amount of acceleration; because the parts would move from 500 mph to zero in the distance less than or equal to the maximum allowed by the length of the columns before severing.

A more reasonable estimate would be based on how long it took a large amount of the airliner to travel through the building and exit on the other side. This would be extremely imprecise, because of the chaotic nature of the crash, but I could make a conservative estimate.

Strength of steel is measured in pressure rather than force, so the next step would be converting from one to the other, then comparing the results to the strength of the structural steel used in the WTC.

I'm guessing that the pressure of an airliner colliding at that speed will be so overwhelming that it render a precise calculation moot.
 
WTC Dust said:
You could say the same thing about any person making any claim on the internet, so why bother?

I'm talking about my own work on my own WTC dust samples that I collected myself.

Do you have anything to say about what I've done? Other than to deny it and call me the same kook, liar, BS that most of the rest of the JREFers have done?

Even Sabrina, she's talking about my dust, but she isn't talking about my results. She has determined that contamination of a vague sort can turn steel buildings into metallic foam. Not a real discussion of my findings, but at least in the general area.
Click to expand...

Such narcissism exposes you...

It's funny how you kooks always hack on JREF and the people here, meanwhile your the one that came to a skeptic forum and is attempting to peddle the most pathetically told lies that have been tried countless times before you and you actually have to wonder why noone believes you...WOW.:boggled: Duuuuh!

I've seen your game 1000s of times. All you have presented is a bunch of made up nonsense and lies, that don't make any sense at worst and are laughable at best. And then you arrogantly prance around like we should just believe you because you and you alone have "the truth". And when this performance doesn't fly, instead of just realizing that you can't win em all, we get more narcissism, laughable claims of superiority along with the demonizing of everyone that doesn't believe you. Which is all a typical pattern i've often found in people that aren't being truthful. IE: The snake oil salesmen that must save the sales pitch from doubters that speak up, or the cult member trying to believe them and join the cult must demonize those that don't accept "the truth".

It's not hard to see that this is why you all get called kooks and liars by people, because that's what you show. You have to be nuts to think anyone is going to just play along with such delusions and lies that are so pathetic and obvious it's ridiculous, just because you come along and tell them too. Not everyone is a gullible fool, a mark, a recruitment target, that is just waiting for someone to come alone and "save" them with their "truth". Such as your road runner cartoon concepts of physics, or your admiration for Judy Woods and her imaginary beam weapons, or your BS dust stories that you alone found some dust 8 years later, and figured out all this crap. Yeeeeah riggggghhhht :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
WTC Dust said:
To repeat: I am not an expert in plane crashes. I am an expert in what destroyed the World Trade Center.
Click to expand...

I would simply state that you are an expert in neither. That would be truthful. You are not truthful, IMO. That is the real problem here.

But, you've been caught in your own deception again. On the one hand you claim to understand ballistics and plane crashes, indeed producing a list of features which is informed by your non-expertise (apparently - you didn't get this from Judy or Henry, I assume).

1. reasonably parts of a plane
2. moving in the opposite direction of the flight path
3. at the site of supposed impact
and
4. beginning at the moment of impact.

I note that you have added video forensics to your list of supposed expertise (unstated but implied by your proclamations) but as yet have produced no evidence of real expertise in such.

Again, to quote your own contradiction (above) 'To repeat: I am not an expert in plane crashes. '

Let's make an associated statement with this:

Dr Blevins wrote 'I am not an expert in plane crashes.'

Conclusion
Dr Blevins is not in a position to declare which characteristics of WTC impact videos captured on 9/11 are valid and which are not valid. She has no authority whatsoever in these matters, no university training and no professional experience. Her bare assertions are no more valid than those of any other amateur internet pundit, PhD or High School dropout. In fact they are indistinguishable from any other unqualified claim but for the constant arguments from authority that Dr Blevins continues to make.

There has been no proper scientific theory put forward by either Dr Blevins or her colleagues; there is no math/physics proof which can even competently suggest the alleged mechanism.
The 'leading' theorist whose work forms the basis of Judy Wood's energy claims, and by proxy the claims of Dr Blevins, has published not a single peer-reviewed paper in a scientific journal through his entire 'career' pertaining to his claims; he has no formal training in the area of his alleged 'expertise'; none of his experiments is properly documented, there isn't a single aspect that has been reproduced by any legitimate scientist.

In other words, the entire body of work of John Hutchison is untested and unproven, so there is no validated theory, if it is even a theory at all. After all, there is no math to back up Hutchison's experiments - try to find some on Judy Wood's website if you dare.

The users of the term 'Molecular dissociation' cannot explain it with math, just as Dr Blevin's 'metallic foam' cannot be explained by math.

This is more a faith-based approach to discovery rather than any accepted form of scientific inquiry. If Dr Blevins chooses to stake her reputation on this stuff, she has made a very poor decision, IMO. She is certainly not behaving like a scientist.
 
Last edited:
WTC Dust said:
I put some images up in this thread, but you can check my blog at wtcblogspot.com for more of them.

And, not only did I "hear back" from my "pal" in France, I've just returned from meeting him in Marseille.

During this meeting I was able to study some of Steven Jones' samples. It was very fruitful. Fred says that the dust cloud was cool, that he sees evidence of cold fusion, and that Steven Jones is a weird guy to be doing 9/11 research, considering he came to fame in a shameful debunking of cold fusion in the 80's.
Click to expand...

wtcblogspot.com returns nothing.

how did you "study" them?
 
WTC Dust said:
Seen this video a hundred times. There are no plane parts that appear to bounce back off the south face of WTC 2, just like I said.

Yes, there is the explosion I keep mentioning that came from the south face of WTC 2. It happens after the object fully penetrates the building.
Click to expand...

I hate it when people lie. It is an insult to the intelligence of those who they present the lie to. It's not nice to do that.

Yes, I know DR Blevin's claims are mindnumbingly stupid. But since it's fairly easy to show the effect of the real jet impacting the tower, I'll show it.

First one shows deflection of material in the nose area as the plane enters the facade.

PlaneClip1.jpg


Second pic shows that the plane does not neatly enter the building without external effects. I don't know what the material is, since the video hasn't got sufficient resolution to determine it. But it would most likely be a combination of plane and building material. Prove me wrong, Dr Blevins.

PlaneClip2.jpg


This picture shows a distinct plume, expanding in the opposite direction of travel, corresponding with the area where one of the engines has just entered fully into the building. One plane wingtip is slightly visible, the rest of the plume is ejecta. It satisfies any reasonable criteria for a plane impact into an office building of WTC 2's construction, so far as I know.

Planeclip3.jpg



Final picture is 22 frames after the tail has completely disappeared into the building. The plume of ejecta is expanding in the opposite direction of plane travel, satisfying the expectation that SOME material would 'bounce' off the structure.
What is the mass of this material? We can't tell from the video. It can be calculated using FEM and math, unlike Dr Blevin's 'metallic foam' claim, which cannot be calculated with math. :p

But these four photos demonstrate fairly easily that there was material expanding out from the point of impact in several directions, sometimes opposite to the direction of plane travel, and BEFORE the fuel-air explosion is visible.

It is fair to say that Dr Blevin's claims that this video does not accurately depict an actual aircraft flying into an actual building are false and probably delusional. The video is far more accurate than most of the work so far produced by Dr Blevins, IMO.

PlaneClip4.jpg
 
aggle-rithm said:
I would start with calculating the force of a 300,000 lb airliner hitting a building at 500 mph.



Determining the acceleration would be problematic. How fast would the airliner change velocity upon hitting the building? If we take your claim at face value, that the parts would bounce off the building, then you have to assume a HUGE amount of acceleration; because the parts would move from 500 mph to zero in the distance less than or equal to the maximum allowed by the length of the columns before severing.

A more reasonable estimate would be based on how long it took a large amount of the airliner to travel through the building and exit on the other side. This would be extremely imprecise, because of the chaotic nature of the crash, but I could make a conservative estimate.

Strength of steel is measured in pressure rather than force, so the next step would be converting from one to the other, then comparing the results to the strength of the structural steel used in the WTC.

I'm guessing that the pressure of an airliner colliding at that speed will be so overwhelming that it render a precise calculation moot.
Click to expand...

A very, very rough estimate shows the pressure would be about 3.3 billion pascals, or around ten times the strength of the steel.

It's a very difficult problem, since there are so many variables involved. I could be way off, but it doesn't matter. Since I'm not the one claiming that something that clearly happened, didn't happen, then the burden of proof is not on me.
 
WTC Dust said:
Seen this video a hundred times. There are no plane parts that appear to bounce back off the south face of WTC 2, just like I said.

Yes, there is the explosion I keep mentioning that came from the south face of WTC 2. It happens after the object fully penetrates the building. Debris comes flying in the southerly direction, no doubt, but it isn't obviously from a plane crash and it occurs after the fact. The debris appears to be from an explosion inside the building, not from an impact at the south wall.

I'm not denying plane debris bounce back in response to watching this video again. This video is one of many that I've closely examined, none of which show any bounce back from a plane crash.

Also, getting to my other point about the wake that follows a plane, you don't see evidence of this wake, do you? A column of air does not appear to be pushing that explosion up against the wall of the WTC, or affecting it in any obvious way. The explosion just comes out of the south face of WTC 2.

Your nitwit accusation is at odds with my "impressive" qualifications.
Click to expand...
WTC Dust, I've been lurking on this thread for a while now and would like to ask a few questions regarding your claims that no planes were present during the tragedy at the WTC complex on September 11 2001.

I am a layperson and will be approaching this as such, obviously. I would ask that you, as a scientist, answer my questions by giving me a technical response suited to a laypersons understanding including any relevant calculations required to support your answers.

My first query would be regarding the videos of bullets you posted yesterday (excellent videos btw) and your use of it as well as the physics behind what we saw in relation to the impact video alienentity posted in response.

My question is, how does the high resolution, high frame rate video of bullets impacting solid materials correlate to the low resolution, low frame rate video of the plane impact video?

More to the point, is it possible that the low resolution, low frame rate video of the plane impact was not capable of capturing the same detail that we saw in the bullet impact videos?

My own opinion, aside from the fact that we do see debris being blown back in the plane impact video, is that the bullet impact videos were designed to show the detail that they did and using the same equipment and methodology as was used in the plane impact video may not garner the same result.

Can you please explain why we should accept the bullet impact videos as a valid comparison for the plane impact videos we've seen, include all technical data in support of your answer please.

Second question, this one involves scale.

On top of the issue of resolution we must also consider the scale of your bullet impact video and its relation to the plane impact video.

I ask, is the scale comparable?

The reason I ask should come as no surprise to a scientist of your stature and again involves what we should expect to see in terms of detail for both videos. Once again we have a very high resolution, high frame rate video of a bullet impacting solid materials from a relatively close distance (around 2-3'). In the plane videos we have a low resolution, low frame rate capture from around 700' (just a guess).

Can you explain how the second scenario would result in comparable detail to the first please? Also, given the size of the projectiles in question would it be fair to say the distances each video was shot from in relation to the impacts was comparable thus resulting in the same degree of detail for both videos (disregarding resolution and frame rate for the moment)?

My third question relates to your claim that we should see evidence of a wake created by the plane at impact. Now as a layperson I can almost accept your claim at face value save for a few niggling questions provided by the sceptic inside me.

Firstly, how does the impact itself affect the vortex of air "following" the plane and how quickly does this affect take place?

Secondly, what should we see in the smoke created by the plane impact and would the detail be captured by a low resolution, low frame rate recording device from the given distance?

Thirdly, can you point out what we should see in the plane impact videos by using the bullet impact videos you posted previously?

I've watched this video twice and can't see anything at impact that would indicate a disturbance in the blast pattern created by a wake vortex (which is present regardless of the projectile in question, correct?).

Are the bullet impacts fake too?

Lastly, you claim that the explosion we see in the plane impact video was not related to the plane impact itself but present nothing to support your claim.

So I ask, when should the explosion have occurred and how would material densities affect the timing of such an explosion?

Please answer these questions as a scientist, not as an ideologue.

In order for your claims to have any impact in the world at all you first need to convince laypeople like me and the best way to do that would be to answer our questions regardless of whether or not you deem them relevant.
 
WTC Dust said:
Also, getting to my other point about the wake that follows a plane, you don't see evidence of this wake, do you? A column of air does not appear to be pushing that explosion up against the wall of the WTC, or affecting it in any obvious way. The explosion just comes out of the south face of WTC 2.

Your nitwit accusation is at odds with my "impressive" qualifications.
Click to expand...

Just how large and how long would we expect this "wake" to be? What force is employed to drag the air along? Can you elaborate on the fluid mechanics here?
 
First, it's important to establish that a wake follows an airplane. Amazing that anyone could deny this. So, if you would like to do some calculations, I'll review them. You're not denying that every airplane flying through the sky is followed by a wake, are you?

sylvan8798 said:
Just how large and how long would we expect this "wake" to be? What force is employed to drag the air along? Can you elaborate on the fluid mechanics here?
Click to expand...
 
First, to address the back splatter of a bullet impact, this phenomenon is only observed when the target is something hard enough to resist the bulet for any reasonable time. This is most observable in the impact of the bullet or shotgun pellets against a steel target thicker than the sheet steel used in an automobile.

When a bullet with sufficient enrgy hits a steel target which does not yield immediately, both objects tend to melt partially. This is the reason that there will usually be a raised margin around the point of impact in the steel. The melting and deformation of the lead in the bullet cause the bronze jacket to split open. If you look closely at the debris that spreads out in the time that it takes for the steel to yield, you will see that the jacket tends to move laterally.

This can be compared easily to what happened at the Pentagon. The wall which the plane struck was utterly non-flexible, and had to be literally crushed by the impact. Bits of the fuselage and wings would, neccessarily, have shattered as does the jacket of a bullet striking a heavy steel plate. Thus, we have the little bits of sheet metal on the ground up-range of impact, while the heavier and denser parts, such as the longitudinal deck (to which the seats and nearly all really heavy internal structures, such as seats, are attached, continues on into the hole crushed by the weight of the aircraft.

But, if we examined the impact of a bullet with a paper target, we see that the paper yields almost immediately and does not even offer eenough resistance to deform the bullet in any manner. Thus, a bullet hole through a paper target will always have margins which are depressed on the impact side. (Trust me on this one. I have made enough holes in paper with various sorts of munitions that I can state categoricly that this always occurs barring the presence of a very sensitive explosive charge in either the projectile or target.)

Another interesting phenomenon occurs when the target is a milk jug full of water, or a watermelon or a human body. When a bullet enters a plastic jug of water, the water becomes pressurized and must escape. Generally, it does so out the exit hole down-range. Thus, the jug is propelled up-range while the water goes down-range.

The walls at the WTC did not need to be crushed. They were just shoved in like the fibers of a paper target until the fibers (in this case the bolted-together perimeter columns) broke and bent inward, down-range.

The interiors of the towers were briefly over-pressurized and a shock wave was established inside the buillding, but that shock wave and over-pressurization did not rebound significantly out the entry hole until, apparently, deflagration of the fuel started inside the building. Thus we see windows popping out parallel to the neccessary path of the shock wave, releasing pressurized fuel vapors and air, and the cloud of fuel vapor and the fireball are significantly larger down-range, out the other side of the building, and the denser materials that ade it that far, such as at least one engine and a landing gear, continue down-range. There is no reason for there to have been any back-splatter because the towers behaved more in the manner of a paper target than in that of a steel plate or brick wall.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom