Merged The Origin of Two Different Colors of WTC Dust

[tsig]

Consider that WTC 1 and WTC 2 were almost identical buildings. They were both constructed with an inner cage made of steel that formed the elevator shafts surrounded by a perimeter floor made of concrete, steel, and other office furnishings and finally an exterior set of steel columns covered in aluminum cladding and floor to ceiling glass windows in between the columns.

The core columns (made of steel) and the exterior columns (made of steel) and the cross beams and trusses on every floor (made of steel) were broken up almost entirely into tiny, tiny pieces. Consider the material that made up the WTC: steel columns and framework, concrete, glass, ceramics, wood and fibers, aluminum, plastics and everything else located inside an office building. All of this material was turned into tiny fragments, but the steel being broken up like this is the strangest thing, because steel is so much stronger than those other materials. Some large beams were left over, but I'm talking about the steel that became tiny fragments. Tiny fragments of iron that behaved as a colloidal suspension of particles in the air. Some of the fragments were so small that they became an aerosol and floated up into the atmosphere. Some of them were a little larger in size, and formed a foam that fell to the ground and continued to grow in volume after they hit the ground.


What follows is a newly created 7 image depiction of what happened to the World Trade Center. I'd like your critiques, if you have anything to say besides personal attacks. I expect you to be polite and obey the rules of JREF if you choose to respond.

http://imgur.com/a/Fw0Wi

I'd advise that you give the newbie a heavy dose of Thorazine before viewing. This should lessen the violent reactions and keep the convulsions (of laughter) under control.

 

[gabeygoat]

Aha! I see the point of your confusion. This is not a proof. This is a 7 image explanation of what happened to the WTC, intended for the naive audience. How does it do in terms of explaining my theory? Not whether or not my theory is correct, because almost none of you would support it. I already know that much. But does my point come across, if you're thinking in terms of an absolute newbie being introduced to my theory for the first time?

Constructive criticism is highly welcomed.

In all honesty, if I hadn't read about your theory here on the forum before, I would have no idea what I'm looking at in your pictures. I don't mean that to be mean, I just honestly would see a series of 7 meaningless pictures.

 

[Robrob]

Aha! I see the point of your confusion. This is not a proof. This is a 7 image explanation of what happened to the WTC, intended for the naive audience. How does it do in terms of explaining my theory? Not whether or not my theory is correct, because almost none of you would support it. I already know that much. But does my point come across, if you're thinking in terms of an absolute newbie being introduced to my theory for the first time?

Constructive criticism is highly welcomed.

1) You might want to stop calling smoke "foam." It makes you look silly.

2) Did you realize jet fuel burns differently than say the rest of an office fire?

3) Random pictures of fragments you found in dust - seven years after the fact - means what, exactly?

 

[banquetbear]

What follows is a newly created 7 image depiction of what happened to the World Trade Center. I'd like your critiques, if you have anything to say besides personal attacks. I expect you to be polite and obey the rules of JREF if you choose to respond.

http://imgur.com/a/Fw0Wi

...I'd like to focus on image number two.

You do a good job of keeping to the rule of thirds: with the shape that you have drawn to represent the WTC fitting neatly into the first third of the composition. Your captions are clear and in sans-serif font which makes it all the more readable! The shape that you used to represent the WTC is a rectangle that doesn't clearly resemble the photograph above it which is more square. And you didn't put in any windows!

But the biggest problem for me is the smoke. It doesn't look like smoke! It looks like a whole lot of black wriggly lines that were drawn with a ballpoint pen. If you scroll down to picture number three: thats what smoke looks like.

So overall: I like that you stuck to the classic composition but the building doesn't really look like a building and your smoke is rubbish! I give it a 2 out of 10! But congrats on the effort, I know that drawing is a very hard thing for some people to do!

 

[dafydd]

In all honesty, if I hadn't read about your theory here on the forum before, I would have no idea what I'm looking at in your pictures. I don't mean that to be mean, I just honestly would see a series of 7 meaningless pictures.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=234414&highlight=dust

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=234913&highlight=dust

Here is a classic from one of those threads

''You didn't remember correctly. I never said exactly when I
discovered the dust, but it was years later. Also, the cigarettes
were in the general area, but not the parts that I collected.''



Enjoy!

 

[dafydd]

But congrats on the effort, I know that drawing is a very hard thing for some people to do!

Isn't drawing part of a PhD course?

 

[Orphia Nay]

In all honesty, if I hadn't read about your theory here on the forum before, I would have no idea what I'm looking at in your pictures. I don't mean that to be mean, I just honestly would see a series of 7 meaningless pictures.

Exactly this.

 

[MIKILLINI]

I expect you to be polite and obey the rules of JREF if you choose to respond.

http://imgur.com/a/Fw0Wi

I would like it Tracy if you could please argue with a respectful and considerate attitude conducive to learning.

Picture #3 makes me wonder why you can't acknowledge the photo as dust from one collapsed tower mixed with the smoke from the other? Can't you see how obvious that is? How stupid do think people are here? You certainly don't respect our intelligence.
And why do you keep calling that material METAL FOAM when you haven't even had a metallurgist check it out????

 

[brazenlilraisin]

On the contrary, there is the dark smoke from the building that is still standing and the light dust (wallboard, ceiling tile, cement etc) from the building that just collapsed. The picture is carefully chosen to convince the terminally gullible that the dust spreading from the collapse of WTC2 is actually emanating from WTC1.

As for why she calls it foam, well, Judy Wood calls it lather and Dusty wants to distinguish herself...however slightly.

 

[MIKILLINI]

On the contrary, there is the dark smoke from the building that is still standing and the light dust (wallboard, ceiling tile, cement etc) from the building that just collapsed. The picture is carefully chosen to convince the terminally gullible that the dust spreading from the collapse of WTC2 is actually emanating from WTC1.

As for why she calls it foam, well, Judy Wood calls it lather and Dusty wants to distinguish herself...however slightly.

Tracy actually believes it is metal foam, but she hasn't had a metallurgy expert examine that "foam sample".

She carries on with her own "investigation", which is resistant to the official story, because...well, because she doesn't like the official story. That includes the use of actual physics....She won't acknowledge physics because physics explain the destruction of the towers in correlation to the official record. Just giving you a heads up on what to expect...

 

[pgimeno]

If we call the smoke foam, how much foam did emanate from the WTC?

 

[WTC Dust]

Well I guess it would have been alot easier to clean up if it was just a case of sending a team of road cleaners in to sweep up the dust.

Do you have any evidence of the pile of dust ?

When you ask for evidence of the pile of dust, I honestly don't know what you mean. Which pile of dust? There were many piles of dust. Do you mean the pile of dust that I personally discovered in a nook at 75 West Street? Or which piles?

 

[WTC Dust]

My mistake. If you are looking purely for comments about how well the photos explain your theory: not too well, I'm afraid. There is a cartoon saying that dark foam came from the elevators, and light foam from elsewhere. A newbie would not in a million years guess that you are claiming that those parts of the building actually became foam. The other photos do not have any clear relation to your claims to anyone who has not read a substantial part of your previous threads. Plus, I and most non-experts would have no idea what the dust in those magnified images is made of, so that does not really help anyone either.

Also, to avoid being misleading, the beginner should be informed just how contrary to all existing evidence the theory is. You should include photos showing all the steel in piles after the buildings collapsed. And show that the dark "foam" you identify is rising in a very smoke-like fashion from fires. You should also include some pictures to document how you collected your sample, since that is also important as I recall.

Hope this helps.

It is a genuine criticism. I'm not really looking to add anything to this mini-set. I'd take something away if it didn't help the message, but I want it to be short and tight.

Getting to your critique: That the buildings became foam is precisely what I am showing in these images. I guess I could add to figure 2 a phrase like "The WTC buildings and all if the contents of these buildings, including the steel, concrete, glass, and office furnishings, was turned almost entirely into multiple different types of metallic foam. The foam was different in color because the different parts of the building were constructed differently."

 

[WTC Dust]

I think anyone not smart enough to realize that, in your picture #3, you're comparing the smoke from the fires in one building with the dust from the collapse of the other, will make a perfect addition to the Truth Movement. For anyone smarter than that, this presentation will perfectly encapsulate exactly how insane your theory is.

So, good job all around!

You got this part wrong, Horatio. The dust cloud from WTC 2 had already settled when this image was taken. There was a burst of foaming from WTC 1 in the moments directly after WTC 2 was taken down. Most people aren't aware of this burst, but it happened. The white stuff you see coming out of the side of WTC 1 is coming from WTC 1, not WTC 2. It only poured out of WTC 1 for a few moments, and then it subsided, leaving the dark dust predominating again.

 

[WTC Dust]

http://imgur.com/a/G1tmG#2

Something like this is even tighter, but it misses out on seeing the dust from a microscopic perspective. What I wanted to do was show the dust on a big scale, the scale of the buildings, and on smaller scales zooming into the microscopic scale.

 

[WTC Dust]

I would like it Tracy if you could please argue with a respectful and considerate attitude conducive to learning.

Picture #3 makes me wonder why you can't acknowledge the photo as dust from one collapsed tower mixed with the smoke from the other? Can't you see how obvious that is? How stupid do think people are here? You certainly don't respect our intelligence.
And why do you keep calling that material METAL FOAM when you haven't even had a metallurgist check it out????

The TIMING of that burst of white foam from WTC 1 is important. It came after the dust cloud from WTC 2 had pretty much settled down. Then, for a few moments, a burst of white foam came from the sides, the perimeter of WTC 1, whereas previously what was seen was mostly darker foam coming from the elevator shafts.

I call it foam because the semi-solidified pieces I found have air pockets. The bits of the building that were disintegrated even finer than this became aerosolized, and are therefore more correctly referred to as aerosols. I never collected any of the aerosols because they went up into the sky and floated away. (Both aerosols and foams are colloidal mixtures. In this case, the colloid was made up of particles of building materials mixed in air. Look it up.)

 

[WTC Dust]

On the contrary, there is the dark smoke from the building that is still standing and the light dust (wallboard, ceiling tile, cement etc) from the building that just collapsed. The picture is carefully chosen to convince the terminally gullible that the dust spreading from the collapse of WTC2 is actually emanating from WTC1.

As for why she calls it foam, well, Judy Wood calls it lather and Dusty wants to distinguish herself...however slightly.

LOL. I call it foam because it has air pockets. I don't like the word "dustification" because it sounds like what it is: a made up word.
I don't use the word "dustification" because, now that I've discovered
that the WTC was turned into foams (and aerosols), we don't have to use
a made up word. We can use regular words that already exist.

I also don't like her characterization of "toasted cars" or many of her other
made up words, if that adds a little more fuel to the flame. Her language
usage sets up many problems, and I'm starting to criticize her based on this
and some other things.

 

[WTC Dust]

If we call the smoke foam, how much foam did emanate from the WTC?

An accurate answer isn't possible, as far as I know. The short pile of steel
found in the footprint of the WTC indicates that at least 50% of the WTC
was turned into these foams and aerosols. Look at the pictures of the
dust cloud covering lower Manhattan. The material that you are looking
at is what the WTC became.

 

[beachnut]

... That the buildings became foam is precisely what I am showing in these images. I guess I could add to figure 2 a phrase like "The WTC buildings and all if the contents of these buildings, including the steel, concrete, glass, and office furnishings, was turned almost entirely into multiple different types of metallic foam. The foam was different in color because the different parts of the building were constructed differently."

WTC turned to foam. And the guys who bought the steel? Upset their steel was foam?

What caused the steel to turn to foam?

Oops...
http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/wtclookingforThermitenotfound.jpg
Your study failed, most of the steel was recycled, sold as scrap. Only rust particles were liberated from the steel, not any of the steel turned to foam. Better luck with Santa, T. Fairy, or Peter Cotton Tail. It appears Bigfoot believers have better evidence than your evidence for foam.

 

[Resume]

Is this more performance art?

Foamification Redux.