Stop the madness, Ace
RMackey, I've explained this to you before, stop playing dumb, you're an intelligent man. Apart from numbers typed into a spreadsheet, there is no basis for your assertions. The photographic evidence indicates quite conclusively that only about 20-30% of the steel from the twin towers remained macroscopic. Only about 1% of the concrete, if that.
No, Ace.
My basis is articles such as
this one, or
here or even
here if you prefer. I'm not going by some sinister "spreadsheet."
Photographic evidence trumps a spreadsheet, scientifically speaking.
That's false, but even if you insist on photographs, I can accommodate you. Try
here, for example, especially
this one. Yes, Ace, a whole freighter full of recovered steel, and more where that came from. Or this
whole gallery of images.
It is the overall density of the fluid that I am speaking of. The combination of the dust and air, that fell rapidly, and behaved as a fluid, as a distinct phase.
Fluid is not a "phase," Ace. Both liquids and gases are fluids, and in some situations, solids can be treated as fluids as well. Your assertion is incoherent.
This fluid fell about as fast as water would fall, if the water was poured in a large stream. Thus the notion that the falling dust-fluid had about the same density as water is well supported by the available observations.
Absurd. Water that fell that far wouldn't hit the ground as a large stream. It would be subject to
Plateau-Rayleigh instability and impact as a volume of droplets, the volume -- and terminal velocity -- of each varying but averaging a diameter comparable to that of the initial volume. The speed of falling water has less to do with its density than it does with its initial shape. In other words, "as fast as water would fall" is a poorly defined quantity.
Regardless, measuring falling time is a poor way to estimate density. The best you can hope for is to measure
ballistic coefficient, and that is a strong function of shape. Unless you know the shape, you cannot extract density.
The dust clouds do not become larger than the building until after they have spread out (i.e. become less dense). A truly correct analysis of the density of the dust-fluid would have to be a dynamic one, and would show the decreasing density over time.
A "truly correct" analysis of the "dust-fluid" is impossible. The dust is opaque. You cannot estimate the fluid flow inside the dust cloud, and only roughly approximate the flow at its boundary. I've
explained this to you before, too.
Gumboot, what do you think the density of the dust-fluid is? If it's not very dense, why does it fall so fast?
It falls so fast because of a phenomenon known as
entrainment.
Elsewhere you claimed you could estimate the density of a particle if you measured its falling speed. That's true
if you know its shape, its size, and can assume it falls through a steady stream of clean air. If you know all of these, you can work it out, using an estimated
drag coefficient if the object is large, and using
Stokes' Theorem if the object is small.
The WTC case, however, allows none of these assumptions. Particles are all shapes, all sizes, many densities, and -- most importantly -- they are
not falling through a clean airstream.
Watch any video of the collapse. I know you've got several of them ready to go. In front of those billowing dust clouds, without exception, are large chunks of solid structure. These chunks are quite massive, and thus fall with little regard to air resistance, their terminal velocity being perhaps 200 meters per second or more. And these pieces disturb the airflow.
Right behind these huge chunks, air follows behind them, creating a wide wake that moves downward at up to the same speed as the leading object. You interpret this as a "low pressure area," which is not quite accurate since the phenomenon is purely subsonic, but close enough. Air fills the space behind the object. Any dust that was captured in this wake would be towed along,
regardless of that dust's size, shape, or density.
That's why it travels down so fast. And that's why trying to estimate its density from that picture is completely impossible.
There's no need to throw your piano off a cliff to prove or disprove this notion, it's remarkably simple.
You make fair points about conventional explosives. For these and other reasons, we suspect that exotic weapons must have been used. We're looking at fusion, and Directed Energy.
You can stop looking. I've already
proven that "Directed Energy" of that magnitude is impossible, regardless of the technology behind it. You've been shown this several times, and never saw fit to comment.
Even forgetting the difficulties in remaining covert, conventional explosives are not able to explain the data. Of course, any gravity-driven theory cannot possibly explain the data. You are an engineer, I request that you review the Wood/Reynolds paper.
We've
already reviewed that paper, not to mention its
companion. They're flawed beyond any redeeming value. So flawed, indeed, that some people in the Idiot Movement consider author
Judy Wood (and, even yourself!) to be
"COINTELPRO."
It's hard to be more removed from reality than that. The poor woman needs help, and she's clearly not getting it.
Please, Ace, stop the madness. Even among your fellow Troothers, your claims are considered incredible.
Judy Wood is a much much more reliable source than NIST, I think everyone here would agree.
