• 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

Here we go again. Evidently, JREFs are not able to understand that fall time is an indication of density. Specifically, it is an indication of the ratio of mass to surface area. That stuff fell very fast.

If you cannot understand that the fall time is proof of high density, I cannot help you.
 
TruthSeeker1234 said:
Here we go again. Evidently, JREFs are not able to understand that fall time is an indication of density. Specifically, it is an indication of the ratio of mass to surface area. That stuff fell very fast.

If you cannot understand that the fall time is proof of high density, I cannot help you.
Click to expand...


Do you still maintain that the dust clouds were, at a minimum, three times as dense as the standing buildings? Where did the additional mass come from, in your opinion?

-Gumboot
 
R.Mackey said:
No, Ace, no no no.

Over 35% of the tower mass was recovered as solid steel. That's just steel. That alone is enough to invaliate your "70-80% turned to dust" nonsense above.

You've been shown this before.

Everything else you wrote above, being dependent on this assertion, is also false.
Click to expand...

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.

Please observe the photos which ought to show the existence of the north wall of WTC1. It's not down in WTC6, it's not in Vessy street.

Photographic evidence trumps a spreadsheet, scientifically speaking.
 
TruthSeeker1234 said:
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.
Click to expand...
This would require some rather advanced image processing and analysis. Please, don't point me to images and tell me that your common sense allows you to intuit 20-30%. Frankly, you made those numbers up out of thin air.
Photographic evidence trumps a spreadsheet, scientifically speaking.
Click to expand...
Wow. Wow.
 
@Gumboot, et al -

No, when I said "smoke" I meant smoke, and when I said "dust" I meant dust.

The tower dust not turn to dust upon hitting the ground, as you imply. It does so in mid air, from the beginning. Please observe. The dust is ejected horizontally from the beginning.

Anyone who cannot observe the change in the behaviour of the smoke is visually impaired. Please review the video linked in the OP. Even Frank Greening has admitted this, and will no doubt be a topic in our televised debate.
 
TruthSeeker1234 said:
The tower dust not turn to dust upon hitting the ground, as you imply. It does so in mid air, from the beginning. Please observe. The dust is ejected horizontally from the beginning.
Click to expand...


Don't forget to mention it triples in volume.

-Gumboot
 
Horatius said:
You're forgetting, that's all based on "reports", which BS doesn't believe. Just like the report that found almost no steel or iron in the layers of dust.
Click to expand...

TruthSeeker1234 said:
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.
...

Photographic evidence trumps a spreadsheet, scientifically speaking.
Click to expand...




See what I mean? All the testimony of the workers about how much material was removed, all the tracking that was done, all the samples examined by the engineers, all dismissed as "a spreadsheet", in favour of him looking at a few photos. Photos which we know he can't actually see correctly, as he on more that one occassion has referred to the pile of debris as a "crater". That is, a hole.....

We will never convince him otherwise.
 
Horatius said:
See what I mean? All the testimony of the workers about how much material was removed, all the tracking that was done, all the samples examined by the engineers, all dismissed as "a spreadsheet", in favour of him looking at a few photos. Photos which we know he can't actually see correctly, as he on more that one occassion has referred to the pile of debris as a "crater". That is, a hole.....

We will never convince him otherwise.
Click to expand...


Not to mention the photos' not showing the debris in the 6 basements
 
Jennie C. said:
Not to mention the photos' not showing the debris in the 6 basements
Click to expand...



Yeah, that too. One must wonder what TS1234 thinks the workers were doing there all those months. "Hey, guys, slow down! We don't want to clean this up too fast or it'll give the whole thing away! Take more coffee breaks or something!"

Or, maybe, every night, they'd truck back in the debris they had trucked out during the day! Yeah, that must be it!
 
TruthSeeker1234 said:
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....Photographic evidence trumps a spreadsheet, scientifically speaking
Click to expand...
This really says it all, thanks BS1234. This shows you have no intellectual capability to understand math. All you can do is look at videos and play pretend, like the adolescent you really are.
 
Last edited:
I've heard they have Mushroom Cloud & Pyroclastic Flow on special at Applebee's this week. $12.95, with Apple Thermite Turnovers!
 
TruthSeeker1234 said:
Here we go again. Evidently, JREFs are not able to understand that fall time is an indication of density. Specifically, it is an indication of the ratio of mass to surface area. That stuff fell very fast.

If you cannot understand that the fall time is proof of high density, I cannot help you.
Click to expand...

So... you don't see a problem with that, following Gumboot's post ???

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.
Click to expand...

I'd like to see a layman try to refute the findings of a forensic pathologist following an autopsy, by looking at bruises on pictures of the corpse...

Yea, CTers are odd.
 
TruthSeeker1234 said:
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.
Click to expand...

"Let's see, now. I can spot about 673 pieces of metal in that picture... and er... I ... I just can't count the number of dust particles... so I'll just estimate about... 2700 of them... yeah that means 20-30%!!"


Photographic evidence trumps a spreadsheet, scientifically speaking.
Click to expand...

And common sense trumps photographic evidence. And wishful thinking trumps common sense. And acid trips trump wishful thinking.

Anyone who cannot observe the change in the behaviour of the smoke is visually impaired.
Click to expand...

And anyone who can't understand the scale of the towers, thinking that the huge, falling 30' columns are really, really tiny, are mentally impaired.

The tower dust not turn to dust
Click to expand...

Thou dust not know!!
 
gumboot said:
Interestingly, water is a little less than 1000 times as dense as air.

Given that the Landmark dust settles, that means it's more dense than air. therefore, TS, in order for you to be correct, the WTC Dust would have to be more dense than water.

Let's look at that.

The dimension of each tower were 63m x 63m x 417m, giving a total volume of 1,655,073m3.

Based on the density of water at 20oC (998.2071kg/m3) that would give us a total mass of 1,652,105,619kg, or 1.6 million tonnes (1.8 million tons).

But how heavy WERE the towers?

Well, for that answer, I turned to an article by Thomas W. Eagar and Christopher Musso that appeared in JOM, 53 (12) (2001), pp. 8-11.

JOM is the monthly technical journal published by TMS - The Minerals, Metals & Materials Society - an International professional organisation for professional scientists and Engineers.

Thomas W. Eagar is the Thomas Lord Professor of Materials Engineering and Engineering Systems, and Christopher Musso is a graduate research student, both at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology MIT)

According to them each tower weighed roughly 500,000t. That would give the errect towers a density of 302kg/m3.

What this means is for your "1000x as dense" assertion to be true, the dust from the WTC collapses would have to be over THREE TIMES as dense as the standing towers were.

Even ignoring the rather blatantly obvious fact that the dust clouds had many magnitudes the volume of the standing towers, only a truely ignorant person would fail to see the absurdity of this notion. Thus, you are left with two options.

1) You 1000x as dense claim is utterly, irrefutably false, and more so incorrect by at least an order of magnitude

OR

2) During the collapse each of the towers accquired additional mass equating to multiple times its previous mass.

I would propose that one of these explanations indicates sanity, and one does not.

-Gumboot
Click to expand...

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. 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.

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. The point of my post is to point out what is truly obvious to any scientific observer of the twin tower events, that is that the dust that falls is very dense, in stark contradistinction to the landmark tower demolition.

Gumboot, what do you think the density of the dust-fluid is? If it's not very dense, why does it fall so fast?
 
TruthSeeker1234 said:
Thus the notion that the falling dust-fluid had about the same density as water is well supported by the available observations.
Click to expand...




In a strange way, it's almost comforting to see TS1234 has completely missed the point, once again.
 
TruthSeeker1234 said:
The point of my post is to point out what is truly obvious to any scientific observer of the twin tower events, that is that the dust that falls is very dense, in stark contradistinction to the landmark tower demolition.
Click to expand...

And again, what is the point of that? What does that get us?
 
TruthSeeker1234 said:
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. 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.
Click to expand...

If you look closely at these falling flows, you will see they are preceded by large dense objects such as girder sections, which create a low pressure path behind them for less dense objects to follow.

Similar effect is a motorcycle drafting behind a large truck.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom