Merged The Origin of Two Different Colors of WTC Dust

[MRC_Hans]

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.

Essentially correct.

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.

No. The steel parts, while broken and distorted, mostly ended up as a large heap of wreckage at the collapse site. It took months to truck it to a storage place, whereafter it was sold as steel scrap.

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,

Actually, the dust was analyzed http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/dust.html
It is mainly from glass, gypsum and concrete.

but the steel being broken up like this is the strangest thing, because steel is so much stronger than those other material.

That would indeed have been strange, had it happened. It didn't however. As you can see from the analysis above, iron (Fe for your information) constitutes only a small fraction of the dust.

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.

No.

Some of the fragments were so small that they became an aerosol and floated up into the atmosphere.

No.

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.

No.

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

The two colors in the picture is smoke and dust. The picture shows the NT shortly after the collapse of the ST. The dark plume is smoke from the fires raging in the NT. The lighter plume is dust from the ST collapse. It looks like it is coming from the NT because it is caught in the wind shadow of the tower.

Critique: Misinterpretation and nonsense. This is not impolite, it is an observation of fact.

Hans

 

[aggle-rithm]

Oh, my freaking GOD.

 

[MRC_Hans]

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.

The audience would have to be very naïve, indeed. And it is not a 7 image explanation of what happened to the WTC, it is a 7 image load of nonsense, no matter at whom it is addressed.

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.

No, it does not. It does not even state your theory, much less explain it. It doesn't really explain anything except that you call what verybody can see is smoke foam.

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?

It does not even come across that you have a point. The newbie sees a picture of smoke, a drawing where you call that foam, and some pictures of nondescript substances. What exactly do you expect that to tell anybody?

Hans

 

[WTC Dust]

Would you not expect dust to be created by the collapse of a building?

That's a strange question, because it assumes something about me that isn't true. Answering either way without addressing this misconception wouldn't do your question justice.

Collapsing buildings produce dust. The WTC didn't collapse. It was destroyed while standing. The dust fell to the ground or rose up into the atmosphere, depending on the particle size.

 

[WTC Dust]

Essentially correct.



No. The steel parts, while broken and distorted, mostly ended up as a large heap of wreckage at the collapse site. It took months to truck it to a storage place, whereafter it was sold as steel scrap.



Actually, the dust was analyzed http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/dust.html
It is mainly from glass, gypsum and concrete.



That would indeed have been strange, had it happened. It didn't however. As you can see from the analysis above, iron (Fe for your information) constitutes only a small fraction of the dust.




No.



No.



No.



The two colors in the picture is smoke and dust. The picture shows the NT shortly after the collapse of the ST. The dark plume is smoke from the fires raging in the NT. The lighter plume is dust from the ST collapse. It looks like it is coming from the NT because it is caught in the wind shadow of the tower.

Critique: Misinterpretation and nonsense. This is not impolite, it is an observation of fact.

Hans

What you are missing is the heterogeneity of the dust. You are still speaking
of the WTC dust as if it is one type of material, when it isn't. It's at least
two different types.

 

[WTC Dust]

The audience would have to be very naïve, indeed. And it is not a 7 image explanation of what happened to the WTC, it is a 7 image load of nonsense, no matter at whom it is addressed.



No, it does not. It does not even state your theory, much less explain it. It doesn't really explain anything except that you call what verybody can see is smoke foam.




It does not even come across that you have a point. The newbie sees a picture of smoke, a drawing where you call that foam, and some pictures of nondescript substances. What exactly do you expect that to tell anybody?

Hans

Not everyone learns in words, and not everyone speaks English. A mostly-
image and diagram of the WTC destruction has utility in these cases.

 

[MRC_Hans]

Getting to your critique: That the buildings became foam is precisely what I am showing in these images.

Where is the foam? All I see is smoke and dust.

Hans

 

[DGM]

Collapsing buildings produce dust. The WTC didn't collapse. It was destroyed while standing. The dust fell to the ground or rose up into the atmosphere, depending on the particle size.

This is where you have to start. You need to show this to be true and show how it could be true. This is where you fail miserably.

Maybe you just forgot to start with a theory and work from there. You clearly started from a conclusion and are working backwards to make it true.

Why are you doing this?

 

[MRC_Hans]

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.

No, it did not pour out of WTC 1. It was trapped in the wind turbulence behind the building for a while after the rest of the dust from WTC2 had mostly settled. And the dark stuff was smoke, not dust (or foam).

Hans

 

[DGM]

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.

Can you show images where the dust had subsided and that this "foam" started up again?

 

[MRC_Hans]

What you are missing is the heterogeneity of the dust. You are still speaking
of the WTC dust as if it is one type of material, when it isn't. It's at least
two different types.

No, I'm not. I showed you an analysis of the dust; it contained many different substances.

Hans

 

[MRC_Hans]

Not everyone learns in words, and not everyone speaks English. A mostly-
image and diagram of the WTC destruction has utility in these cases.

Perhaps, but it still has to make some kind of sense.

Hans

 

[phunk]

What you are missing is the heterogeneity of the dust. You are still speaking
of the WTC dust as if it is one type of material, when it isn't. It's at least
two different types.

Oh it's a lot more than two. There's drywall, glass, ceiling tiles, concrete, and a variety of other things crushed and/or burned in the towers.

 

[dafydd]

Mods, take pity and move this to AAH.

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

Steel buildings don't do that if they catch fire. They do this. A severe, long lasting fire in a less strongly constructed building produced this. There was a partial collapse, but it wasn't global, and the Windsor building was still standing after the fire was extinguished.

That's not a steel structure in the same way that the Twin Towers are steel structures. Keep in mind that the building in your picture was not stepped before the fire. Obvious conclusion? The steel members exposed to the most intense fire did indeed fail. The entire building also had to be demolished because of the damage.

The other characteristics that make it different from the Twin Towers and prevented its global collapse are 1) the concrete technical floor, and 2) its concrete core column. The Twin Tower had neither of these features and might well have remained standing if they did. Of course, the damage would likely have been so severe that the Twin Towers would have been dismantled.

I'm pretty sure this has been explained to you in the past. Shame on you, Ms. Blevins.

 

[Wolrab]

#1 I don't see clear, relatively long lasting, distinct areas of dark and light colored fumes, as was the case with the WTC.

#2 I don't have samples of the remnants of this particular fire, but I do have
samples of WTC dust!

The difference is the Manila building fell over and was not on fire so it only has dust and not smoke and dust like the WTC. Dust clouds are always visible in building collapses just as smoke is common with buildings on fire. Here is the rub, the WTCs were on fire and then collapsed so had both smoke and dust! Pretty amazing, eh? Cripes.

 

[WildCat]

Steel buildings don't do that if they catch fire. They do this. A severe, long lasting fire in a less strongly constructed building produced this. There was a partial collapse, but it wasn't global, and the Windsor building was still standing after the fire was extinguished.

Bwahahahaha!

Nice pic ilustrating how the steel portion of that structure collapsed all the way down to a concrete mechanical floor, The concrete core is all that remained, and the concrete floor system was the only thing that prevented the steel portion from collapsing all the way to the ground.

Pro tip: the WTC didn't have any concrete floor systems, nor a concrete core.

 

[WTC Dust]

This is where you have to start. You need to show this to be true and show how it could be true. This is where you fail miserably.

Maybe you just forgot to start with a theory and work from there. You clearly started from a conclusion and are working backwards to make it true.

Why are you doing this?

This is a very good comment, and this is a very good question.

"Why am I doing this?"

The answer has several parts, depending on what you're talking about.
If what you mean is "Why are you studying 9/11?", the answer is:

Because I witnessed the aftermath of 9/11 near Ground Zero, which included elements that were not commonly discussed or properly discussed anywhere.

In other words, if anyone else had come to the correct conclusion before me, then I wouldn't be involved in this. I'd be pointing people to them, if anybody asked, but there's nobody to point to, except maybe Judy Wood, and even she does not have all the answers. She has a compendium of effects which is very nice, but it isn't a final answer.

If your question was more along the lines of "Why are you studying two types of WTC dust?" a.k.a. "Why are you making such a big deal about two colors of WTC dust?" then I have the following reason:

I'm studying the two colors of WTC dust because I believe that this heterogeneity will lead to a more perfect understanding of the mechanism of destruction of the WTC. It's what I'm working on and it is what no one else on the planet is working on. Two colors of WTC dust. My first task, if you want to call it that, is to address attention to the existence of two colors of WTC dust. Most people, even within the WTC truth movement, do not consider or actively acknowledge the two colors of WTC dust.

And, since I've made my discoveries, I now know that the two colors of dust mean everything! I've solved the puzzle, and I'm very happy about it. Yes, I still have the arduous task of formalizing everything and eventually convincing everyone. But I know I've found it. !! Heterogeneity. Wow. The dust has two colors. Wow. This is real, guys.

 

[Garrison]

I've considered it, but rejected it after years of investigation.

Then you've wasted all those years...

 

[Garrison]

That's a strange question, because it assumes something about me that isn't true. Answering either way without addressing this misconception wouldn't do your question justice.

Collapsing buildings produce dust. The WTC didn't collapse. It was destroyed while standing. The dust fell to the ground or rose up into the atmosphere, depending on the particle size.

Thanks for that I don't often get a chance to nominate something for a stundie.