• 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.

Mushroom Cloud and Pyroclastic Flow

TruthSeeker1234 said:
[qimg]http://www.acebaker.com/9-11/Fizzy1.gif[/qimg]

The trailing dust does not cease. Rather, it continues to be produced from the falling piece of debris throughout its journey to the ground.
Click to expand...


Or throughout its journey as far as we see it - which in your gif is about halfway to the ground. Also note, the piece you highlight comes out of the huge dust cloud in the middle, which would be almost perfect conditions for drafting lots of dust and smoke.


Not that you believe in drafting, of course.


One question: If all this dust is "steel" being "dustified", and it is "dustified" to such an extent that we cannot find 80%+ of the steel afterwards, why isn't the piece you highlight getting smaller as it falls?
 
TruthSeeker1234 said:
Fizzies are individual pieces of falling debris which trail voluminous quantities of opaque dust behind them. The trailing dust does not cease. Rather, it continues to be produced from the falling piece of debris throughout its journey to the ground.
Click to expand...

Holdonwaitjustaminute.

You are claiming that these "fizzies" you see are the dust trails of debris "dustifying" as they fall. Amongst them are large steel beams.

... 'dustifying'

... as

... they

... fall.

We need a whole new category of smiley for this one.
 
Fizzies are individual pieces of falling debris which trail voluminous quantities of opaque dust behind them. The trailing dust does not cease. Rather, it continues to be produced from the falling piece of debris throughout its journey to the ground.
Click to expand...

Hint: this only means that something attached to the steal is beign knocked off it.
 
TruthSeeker1234 said:
Fizzies are individual pieces of falling debris which trail voluminous quantities of opaque dust behind them. The trailing dust does not cease. Rather, it continues to be produced from the falling piece of debris throughout its journey to the ground.
Click to expand...
Thank you for your definition. However, I feel some further clarification is needed. Because as it stands your definition of "fizzies" is:
Debris falling from any source, through any medium, under any conditions; made up of any material; giving off a dust trail of any shape, color, and size; that is opaque in nature; and continues to give off the trail until coming to rest.
  • Does the source of the falling debris matter?
  • Does the composition of the falling debris matter?
  • Is "voluminous" a measurement relative to the debris' size? If so, what is the factor, or formula, that describes it?
  • Does the composition of the dust matter?
  • Must the dust trail be opaque in nature, or can it be translucent? If translucent, what percentage of light penetration is acceptable?
  • Must the "continuous" production of the dust trail be uniform in quantity, volume, opaque/translucent/transparent-cy?
  • Does "produced" in your definition mean that the dust trail is the result of a chemical reaction, a physical action, or both?
  • Once the debris strikes the ground, is any further product of the chemical and/or physical (re)actions occuring with the debris become moot?
 
I seriously don't understand why you wouldn't want this guy on Hardfire! It would be a great way to introduce some people to the "extreme Truth" or whatever you want to call it.

Actually...nvm, I can see more than ever why it would be a bad idea.
 
Arkan_Wolfshade said:
Thank you for your definition. However, I feel some further clarification is needed. Because as it stands your definition of "fizzies" is:
Debris falling from any source, through any medium, under any conditions; made up of any material; giving off a dust trail of any shape, color, and size; that is opaque in nature; and continues to give off the trail until coming to rest.
  • Does the source of the falling debris matter?
  • Does the composition of the falling debris matter?
  • Is "voluminous" a measurement relative to the debris' size? If so, what is the factor, or formula, that describes it?
  • Does the composition of the dust matter?
  • Must the dust trail be opaque in nature, or can it be translucent? If translucent, what percentage of light penetration is acceptable?
  • Must the "continuous" production of the dust trail be uniform in quantity, volume, opaque/translucent/transparent-cy?
  • Does "produced" in your definition mean that the dust trail is the result of a chemical reaction, a physical action, or both?
  • Once the debris strikes the ground, is any further product of the chemical and/or physical (re)actions occuring with the debris become moot?
Click to expand...

You have the cart before the horse. Fizzies refers to a phenomenon observed on 9/11. We'd like to find out what it is. Judy Wood said that it looks like steel disintegrating. Steven Jones has said it looks like thermite. Frank Greening and several others have said it looks like drafting drywall.

If it is possible that crushed building materials falling off of a piece of steel can produce this effect, it ought to be possible to recrete it.

For now, the definition is specific to 9/11. When we have established what actually produced these effects, perhaps we can then give a more general defintion, or some better term.
 
How long does the steel "dustify" before the laser beam in outerspace quits focusing on it? Because I was looking at a few pictures and noticed this:
dustifyingsteelAHHH.jpg


Looks like the "fizzie" is about to stop and guess what?! The steel is still there!! Who would have thought that would happen?
 
Unfit4Command said:
How long does the steel "dustify" before the laser beam in outerspace quits focusing on it? Because I was looking at a few pictures and noticed this:
[qimg]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v721/rhearhy/dustifyingsteelAHHH.jpg[/qimg]

Looks like the "fizzie" is about to stop and guess what?! The steel is still there!! Who would have thought that would happen?
Click to expand...



Sorry, no true fizzie wear underwear under their kilt......or something.......
 
TruthSeeker1234 said:
You have the cart before the horse. Fizzies refers to a phenomenon observed on 9/11. We'd like to find out what it is. Judy Wood said that it looks like steel disintegrating. Steven Jones has said it looks like thermite. Frank Greening and several others have said it looks like drafting drywall.

If it is possible that crushed building materials falling off of a piece of steel can produce this effect, it ought to be possible to recrete it.

For now, the definition is specific to 9/11. When we have established what actually produced these effects, perhaps we can then give a more general defintion, or some better term.
Click to expand...
I most certainly do not have the cart before the horse. What I have, is you providing an overly vague definition. At the moment, your definition of "fizzies" is akin to you asking me to define "dog" and me telling you it is furry and has four legs. If "fizzies" are to be recognizable by someone that is neutral, and unfamiliar with the discussion, then the definition must be detailed enough, and descrete enough, for them to be able to identify them accurately, and within mistaken other things that are not "fizzies" for being "fizzies".

Look at my questions again, I think you are reading too much in to them. I'm not asking you to tell me what the composition of the falling debris is; I'm only asking if its makeup matters when defining/recognizing "fizzies". etc.
 
Arkan_Wolfshade said:
I most certainly do not have the cart before the horse. What I have, is you providing an overly vague definition. At the moment, your definition of "fizzies" is akin to you asking me to define "dog" and me telling you it is furry and has four legs. If "fizzies" are to be recognizable by someone that is neutral, and unfamiliar with the discussion, then the definition must be detailed enough, and descrete enough, for them to be able to identify them accurately, and within mistaken other things that are not "fizzies" for being "fizzies".

Look at my questions again, I think you are reading too much in to them. I'm not asking you to tell me what the composition of the falling debris is; I'm only asking if its makeup matters when defining/recognizing "fizzies". etc.
Click to expand...

Arkan, for crying out loud. The twin towers exploded into dust. Many, many chunks of building, from huge to small, were propelled sideways, and fell down. These chunks had dust trails. Huge dust trails. Opaque dust trails. Thick, dense dust trails. The dust then fell, almost as rapidly as the aforementioned chunks of building.

If there is a chunk of building falling, and it is giving off a huge trail of dense dust which falls rapidly, it is a fizzy. If you have a questionable chunk, post a video, and I will examine it.

Goodness gracious you folks are great at missing the point.

The point is: Steel turned to dust. Below is not a fizzie. Below is something even more astonishing.

dustspire.gif


If you think the fizzies can be explained by something innocent, like drafting drywall, then let's have an experiment. If it is drafting drywall, we should be able to recreate a small fizzy.
 
I suggested an experiment for you before Ace. How did that work out?

Here's another one:

Take a sheet of Gyprock(plasterboard, wallboard, sheetrock whatever you guys call it) The type that has thick paper on either side of gypsum, lay it on a flat surface and bash it with a hammer so that the gypsum is shattered, but the paper remains intact. Then attach this to a beam of some sort(metal or wood, not laser) and throw it off your roof(watch out below!). Tell me it won't leave a trail of dust as it falls.
 
TruthSeeker1234 said:
Goodness gracious you folks are great at missing the point.

The point is: Steel turned to dust. Below is not a fizzie. Below is something even more astonishing.
Click to expand...

No, you are missing the point. Or, I suspect, you are carfully ignoring the point: We have better methods of determining the composition of the dust than watching videos and speculating. We have better methods of determining the composition of the dust than throwing things down.

We can, or rather could, examine the dust itself. This was done, and it consisted of gypsum, some concrete and a number of other ingredients that have already been listed in detail in this thread. There was no steel powder. There were no chemical derivatives of steel powder. There were no mystical components at all in that dust. It contained just the range of easily crushable, fairly light parts that that you would expect the dust from a collapsing skyscraper to contain.

Hans
 
TruthSeeker1234 said:
You have the cart before the horse. Fizzies refers to a phenomenon observed on 9/11.
Click to expand...

And ONLY to this phenomenon ?

We'd like to find out what it is.
Click to expand...

No, you already "know" what it is.

Judy Wood said that it looks like steel disintegrating. Steven Jones has said it looks like thermite. Frank Greening and several others have said it looks like drafting drywall.
Click to expand...

Now, which one seems more credible, considering what's happening ?

Arkan, for crying out loud. The twin towers exploded into dust. Many, many chunks of building, from huge to small, were propelled sideways, and fell down. These chunks had dust trails. Huge dust trails. Opaque dust trails. Thick, dense dust trails. The dust then fell, almost as rapidly as the aforementioned chunks of building.
Click to expand...

The problem, Seeker, is that you're comparing it to actual building demolitions, in which the drywall and other non-structural elements have been removed prior to collapse, so you'll find very few instances of this happening.

The point is: Steel turned to dust.
Click to expand...

No, it didn't, since we find LOTS of steel in the debris after the collapse. And by "lots" I mean "all of it".

Below is not a fizzie. Below is something even more astonishing.
Click to expand...

What's astonishing ?
 
You know...

I am pretty sure a column of steel that just had 110 stories of building collapse around it would be literally coated in dust after something like that.
 
I sincerely hope Ace decides to try the experiments I suggested. I also hope he gets someone, maybe one of his kids to video it for us.

I have a vision of Ace wearing overalls and safety goggles flinging bits of steel coated in self raising flour from the roof of his garage while we listen to his kid saying: "That's my dad on the garage roof throwing stuff around to prove that a laser beam destroyed the world trade center".

It would be the funniest CT scenario since Spooked destroyed the rabbit cage.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom