Merged The Origin of Two Different Colors of WTC Dust

WTC Dust said:
http://imgur.com/a/G1tmG#0

Pretty hard to deny the two colors in the first two images.
Click to expand...

Pretty hard to deny that the lighter color stuff is dust from the collapse of WTC2 that has not settled, and is still hanging in the air around ALL of the buildings, many of which were undamaged and clearly not being turned to foam.

Pretty hard to deny that the darker stuff that is rising is smoke, as it's coming directly from the raging fire in WTC1.
 
WTC Dust said:
http://imgur.com/a/G1tmG#0

Pretty hard to deny the two colors in the first two images.
Click to expand...

For the first picture, notice the orange things at the source of the dark plume. This is called fire. There were heavy fires raging in the building. The dark plume is the thing we commonly know as smoke. It does contain particles, like dust, albeit far smaller. Also, unlike dust, it contains various gasses. Finally, again unlike dust, smoke is hot. The latter, plus the small size of the particles explains why smoke tends to rise, while dust tends to settle.

The second picture shows a a two colored object of nondescript size, comporition, and origin. For all I know, it could be a pepple you picked up on the beach.

So, no, you have not shown that the dust had two colors.

Hans
 
phunk said:
Pretty hard to deny that the lighter color stuff is dust from the collapse of WTC2 that has not settled, and is still hanging in the air around ALL of the buildings, many of which were undamaged and clearly not being turned to foam.

Pretty hard to deny that the darker stuff that is rising is smoke, as it's coming directly from the raging fire in WTC1.
Click to expand...

Neither is true. The dust rollout from WTC 2 had settled down. It wasn't
pushing up against WTC 1 and rolling upwards 80+ stories. And that dark
stuff is aerosolized steel, not smoke.
 
WTC Dust said:
And that dark stuff is aerosolized steel, not smoke.
Click to expand...

Hi Dr Dusty MD,

Could you explain exactly what you mean by "aerosolized" please?

What device is causing this process?

How do you know that it's only the steel affected by your mystery device (is it HAARP?)? Is this something to do with the colour of the smoke?

Thanks in advance.

Harpo
 
WTC Dust said:
Neither is true. The dust rollout from WTC 2 had settled down. It wasn't
pushing up against WTC 1 and rolling upwards 80+ stories. And that dark
stuff is aerosolized steel, not smoke.
Click to expand...

Complete nonsense. The dust had not settled down, it was still covering the entire area. Are you not looking at the picture you posted?

And if that dark stuff is aerosolized steel, where is all of the smoke from the acres of fire? At what point in the almost two hours between the plane crash and the collapse did the smoke stop and the aerosolized steel begin? Can that transition be seen on any videos?
 
WTC Dust said:
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.
Click to expand...
That is nonsense. Everyone knows that the dust is not an homogeneous mix comprising everything that got crushed into dust by the falling floors. Particles have different weights and fly different distances when pushed by wind. Different regions of the building would crush different materials. The existence of more than one color (and not just two, probably many more) in most collapses and not just WTC's is completely expectable and in itself the mere presence of several colors does not tell us anything about the mechanism of destruction of any building.

As DGM said, you're starting with the conclusion and working backwards to make it true. You haven't addressed his question: why are you doing this, i.e. working backwards to make your conclusion true?

Also, you haven't addressed Scott Sommers' finding of a fire showing two colors of smoke, which refutes your statement that the presence of two colors of smoke indicates anything substantial:

Scott Sommers said:
I have discovered the most amazing thing. This fire happened in 1939
http://www.lafire.com/lastalarm_file/1939-1211_Hough_Kacl/Kacl-Hough.htm
It shows the same distinct pattern that the WTC Buildings displayed when they were foamified. Here is proof - and I mean iron-clad proof - that the foamification technology has been around for decades - and maybe even centuries.

1939-1106_GrayBuildingFire_600.jpg
Click to expand...

I think I'll second daffydd in this:
dafydd said:
Mods, take pity and move this to AAH.
Click to expand...
 
Why is Ms. Blevins dealing only with pictures? Wouldn't video show the nature of the dust and smoke much more clearly?

Oh, right... That's probably why. Silly me.
 
WTC Dust said:
Neither is true. The dust rollout from WTC 2 had settled down.
Click to expand...

Mostly, but the part of the plume in the lee of WTC 1 remained,

It wasn't
pushing up against WTC 1 and rolling upwards 80+ stories.
Click to expand...

No, it just lingered there in the low pressure column that exists in the lee of any large structure.

And that dark
stuff is aerosolized steel, not smoke.
Click to expand...

And you conclude this how? So you are claiming that the extensive fires raging in the building did not produce any smoke?

Hans
 
Harpo said:
Hi Dr Dusty MD,

Could you explain exactly what you mean by "aerosolized" please?

What device is causing this process?

How do you know that it's only the steel affected by your mystery device (is it HAARP?)? Is this something to do with the colour of the smoke?

Thanks in advance.

Harpo
Click to expand...

What I mean by "aerosolized" is "become an aerosol" as in "Some of the
material that made up the WTC was aerosolized and rose up into the
atmosphere."

An aerosol and a foam are different types of colloids. The WTC disintegrated
into particles that had a very wide range of sizes. The tiniest particles
became aerosols. The smallish particles became a foam. Some small
pieces and some huge pieces of the WTC were left over, but much of
the building became foams and aerosols.

The fineness of the particles didn't determine the color. The color was
determined by the color of the material that made up the particles.
The elevator shafts were made of very dark colored steel, so the
disintegrated material that came from this section of the WTC was
dark in color. The main part of the building included a lot of concrete
and other stuff that was lighter in color than steel, which makes the
lighter colored foam.
 
MRC_Hans said:
Mostly, but the part of the plume in the lee of WTC 1 remained,



No, it just lingered there in the low pressure column that exists in the lee of any large structure.



And you conclude this how? So you are claiming that the extensive fires raging in the building did not produce any smoke?

Hans
Click to expand...

That's not at all what I'm claiming. I'm claiming that what are
commonly referred to as "fires" weren't fires as we traditionally
understand them. I attribute ALL of the damage done to the
WTC as coming from the use of advanced weaponry. I don't mix
in jet fuel or explosive devices in with it.
 
WTC Dust said:
That's not at all what I'm claiming. I'm claiming that what are
commonly referred to as "fires" weren't fires as we traditionally
understand them. I attribute ALL of the damage done to the
WTC as coming from the use of advanced weaponry. I don't mix
in jet fuel or explosive devices in with it.
Click to expand...

So all of the flames seen burning for almost two hours were not fire?
 
phunk said:
I see bedrock, some of which is wet, some dry.
Click to expand...
Oh boy. I can't believe that anyone thinks that is dust. Dusty has absolutely no clue what she is looking at in any of her threads.


Oh Dusty
You came and you gave us a Stundie
Every day
From Monday to Sunday.

With apologies to Barry Manilow and his tune "Mandy".
 
WTC Dust said:
What I mean by "aerosolized" is "become an aerosol" as in "Some of the
material that made up the WTC was aerosolized and rose up into the
atmosphere."

An aerosol and a foam are different types of colloids. The WTC disintegrated
into particles that had a very wide range of sizes. The tiniest particles
became aerosols. The smallish particles became a foam. Some small
pieces and some huge pieces of the WTC were left over, but much of
the building became foams and aerosols.

The fineness of the particles didn't determine the color. The color was
determined by the color of the material that made up the particles.
The elevator shafts were made of very dark colored steel, so the
disintegrated material that came from this section of the WTC was
dark in color. The main part of the building included a lot of concrete
and other stuff that was lighter in color than steel, which makes the
lighter colored foam.
Click to expand...
Please supply the metallurgical analysis that allows you to make that claim, so you can show it doesn't come from the place from which the flying monkeys emit.
 
WTC Dust said:
That's not at all what I'm claiming. I'm claiming that what are
commonly referred to as "fires" weren't fires as we traditionally
understand them. I attribute ALL of the damage done to the
WTC as coming from the use of advanced weaponry. I don't mix
in jet fuel or explosive devices in with it.
Click to expand...

Oh! Now I know what you're doing! Taking the Judy Woods approach by making fantasy claims of advanced weaponry(without a shred of evidence proving advanced weaponry) that destroyed all the WTC buildings.
You have already convinced yourself this "advanced weaponry" exists. You have presented no proof of it's existence, but yet here you are trying to convince us that it exists by telling us to look at things differently.

What you're trying to do here is build a house, but have no idea what the house should look like, what material is used to build it, or even what the material is made out of. But yet, you want us to believe the house is there..We just aren't looking at the pictures the "right way". Is that about right?
 
WTC Dust said:
That's not at all what I'm claiming. I'm claiming that what are
commonly referred to as "fires" weren't fires as we traditionally
understand them. I attribute ALL of the damage done to the
WTC as coming from the use of advanced weaponry. I don't mix
in jet fuel or explosive devices in with it.
Click to expand...

What kind of weaponry?
 
WTC Dust said:
I'm claiming that what are commonly referred to as "fires" weren't fires as we traditionally understand them. I attribute ALL of the damage done to the
WTC as coming from the use of advanced weaponry.
Click to expand...


Wizards!

I mean, who else could possibly make fire that isn't actually fire?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom