Mushroom Cloud and Pyroclastic Flow

[TruthSeeker1234]

Let's Experiment

Originally Posted by TruthSeeker1234

Where does NIST say that [the floors pancaked]?



Originally Posted by Pomeroo

In its ten thousand pages of graphs, charts, illustrations, calculations, analysis, and commentary. You missed it; we get the idea.

You "get the idea" that NIST says the floors pancaked, despite the fact that NIST says their conclusions don't support the pancake theory of collapse?

You "get the idea" from ten thousand pages of graphs, charts, illustrations, calculations, analysis, and commentary, despite the fact that NIST says that they did not study the "collapse", only the events leading up to "initiation"?

Ron, wake up. They didn't study the "collapse". It's that 12 seconds AFTER "initiation" that is so darn interesting.

Originally Posted by TruthSeeker1234
Quote:
Not on Hardfire [do I wish to talk about "pull it"].

But elsewhere perhaps? Maybe there is a demolition specialist--one demolition specialist--somewhere in the country who thinks that "pull it" means "blow it up"? What about it, Ace? Does such a person exist? Is this staggeringly silly canard ready for the scrap heap or not? Did Larry Silverstein really ask the FIRE DEPARTMENT to blow up his building? Do you suppose he would ask his mail carrier to fix the leak under his sink?
Why not?

I certainly don't think Silverstein said "pull it" by accident. I think it was an effective disinfo tool, incriminating to truthers, but vague enough to be deniable. Remember, just to make sure we didn't miss it, the very same PBS show had the guy say, "We're gettin' ready to pull buildin' six.".

Originally Posted by TruthSeeker1234
Quote:
Shhhhhh. Ron, we said we weren't going to talk about [no planes]. I can't help it if the plane videos depict impossible physics, and that the nosecone accidentally popped out of the other side on the one live shot. I agreed to your terms of not discussing the "planes".

But it isn't totally deranged idiocy that has been debunked a thousand times. Maybe there's something to it, huh?

I spent two years plane-hugging. Then I studied the evidence.

Originally Posted by TruthSeeker1234
Quote:
Dr. Greening has already agreed to debate me on video. This occured prior to your being invited to moderate. Greening asked about a moderator, and I suggested you. Greening liked the idea of you, he contacted you, Greening then told me you had agreed to moderate.

After you became involved, Dr. Greening and I exchanged a few emails as an "evidence hearing" and we have agreed on which pictures and videos I'm allowed to show. I'll have one interpretation of the pictures, and Greening will have another, both in the context of Greening's theory. What's the fear? I'm going to say the buildings were blown up, you and Greening are going to say they fell down. What's the big deal?

The big deal is that you have provided abundant evidence that you are not a serious person. You have no background in science, and your understanding of its principles and methods is shockingly poor. You seem unable to process any information that highly-qualified people who post on this forum present to you. Thirty minutes of Greening explaining the science and you failing to comprehend a word he says doesn't sound like much of a show.

Oh, it'll be a great show. Sounds to me like you're scared to death of me, for fear that I will show compelling evidence, and explain concisely why the data cannot be explained by gravity collapse.

I understand the principles of science quite well, thank you. For example, one important hallmark of the scientific method is repeatability. I'll ask again: Shouldn't NIST release their input values, so that others could try to repeat their results? Even better, shouldn't the Port Authority release the structural drawings of the towers, so that others could build a model using AnSys? Until they do, it ain't science.

Another important hallmark of science is testing an hypothesis with experimentation. I have proposed a simple, yet very important experiment. I ask for input on the experimental design. See below.

Originally Posted by TruthSeeker1234
Quote:
If you don't want to be involved, or if you can't sell the idea to Hardfire's producer, that's OK. Greening and I will try to make other arrangements, diappointed though I may be. I am so looking forward to having a nice conversation with you.

You have ducked almost all of the pertinent questions directed at you. Try this one: Why are you impervious to everything real scientists say to you? Are they attempting to deceive you, or are they simply misinformed?

What do you know that they don't? What is it that makes your fabrications more valuable than their knowledge of the relevant science?

No, actually you OCTs have ducked my important questions.

Let's try again. Greening and many others have said the stuff coming out of the falling steel beams is crushed drywall, and/or concrete, and/or fireproofing, and that it is drafting behind the steel sections. I say that is impossible, because the stuff comes out far too long, there's too much of it, it's too dense, it behaves too energetically, etc.

The scientific thing to do is experiment. If it is really so obvious that drafting drywall can cause this effect, then we should be able to recreate it. I propose getting a steel beam, or other hard dense object, and attaching some dust to it, then throwing it over a cliff.

Please, everyone, tell me what materials and methods to use that would give the best chance of reproducing the effect seen so often on 9/11. Should I just pile the dust on, or glue it, or wedge chunks of drywall into the beam, or what?

And please answer my questions about releasing the drawings, and the input values.

Thank You.



Last edited by pomeroo : Yesterday at 10:08 PM.

 

[Brainache]

Dear Ace,
You are to ignorance what Mozart was to music.

You are to music what Mozart was to weight lifting.

 

[R.Mackey]

I certainly don't think Silverstein said "pull it" by accident. I think it was an effective disinfo tool, incriminating to truthers, but vague enough to be deniable. Remember, just to make sure we didn't miss it, the very same PBS show had the guy say, "We're gettin' ready to pull buildin' six."

Holy bad formatting, Batman!

OK, let me get this straight... Silverstein set you up? By using a word that only a yokel like yourself would interpret, incorrectly I might add, as meaning "controlled demolition," something that was not only useless but totally impossible, not captured on film, and insane? This is his fault?

What, pray tell, does it mean when he has an onion bagel for lunch instead of his regular? That's the fake secret sign designed to trap Troothers into thinking today is FEMA Camp day?

Give the poor (well, rich, but unfairly vilified) man a break already.

I spent two years plane-hugging. Then I studied the evidence.

There were planes, Ace. Several people saw the first one, and thousands of people saw the second one. Some of those people were inside. Many people who saw them are posters here. If you can't deal with that, you're not ready for life. Sorry, that's just how it is.

Oh, it'll be a great show. Sounds to me like you're scared to death of me, for fear that I will show compelling evidence, and explain concisely why the data cannot be explained by gravity collapse.

Seeing as how you've burned almost 1,000 posts and haven't shown compelling evidence of anything, including your own ability to read, I daresay Ron isn't "scared to death" in the least.

Please, everyone, tell me what materials and methods to use that would give the best chance of reproducing the effect seen so often on 9/11. Should I just pile the dust on, or glue it, or wedge chunks of drywall into the beam, or what?

I was tempted to say "jump after it to get a good look," but that would be impolite, not to mention too obvious.

Here's a real answer. If you're so fascinated by the study of entrainment, then find yourself a wind tunnel. There are lots of them in the area. I used to teach with a small one at Caltech, the so-called Student Tunnel, and chances are they'd let you use it under the right circumstances. Give the Aeronautics Department a call. Jerry Landry used to be the lord of wind tunnels, if he hasn't retired yet. (ETA: Now that I think about it, I believe Chris Krok has authority over the tunnels now. Say "hi" to him for me.) I believe there's also one at USC, and you can build your own following plans on the 'net.

The simplest way to test it is to run the wind tunnel with a fixed object suspended in the air stream, a so-called "bluff body." The Caltech Student Tunnel is all ready to go in this respect. You can then stick a smoke wand into the airflow and deposit smoke behind the structure, and watch it persist, watch it illustrate the streaklines behind the object, etc. If it works for smoke, it will work for dust, because more massive particles will have an additional gravity force component pulling them towards the leading bluff body, so they should be even more prone to entrainment.

Large chunks in a wind tunnel are a no-no, though. Too hard to clean. But you can run a "chunk" experiment on a city street with a leaf blower. Set up a cinder block, pour grit of a known granularity behind it, hit it with the leaf blower, and measure how long it takes it to disappear, or remaining weight as a function of time. Back the leaf blower off to several distances to simulate different falling speeds. Very simple, very cheap, very effective.

If you still want to throw something off a cliff, go right ahead. But please be considerate of the environment.

And please answer my questions about releasing the drawings, and the input values.

I answered you here Ace, yesterday. See why abandoning threads is a bad idea?

-----

Now, then, Ace, I'm afraid you're starting to give me some concern. Your fixation on throwing stuff off cliffs is troublesome. So too is your inability to read the NIST FAQ or to properly interpret pictures on your own site. You're looking right at them, but what you see, only you see. These are possible hallmarks of obsession, paranoia, maybe even more severe mental problems.

I am not a doctor, and I would not presume to make a diagnosis. However, I also have run out of patience. It is quite clear that not even the best education is helping here, perhaps because you thrive on the adversarial relationships you forge everywhere you go. So, in your best interests, I will therefore ignore you, completely and evermore, effective at the end of this post. There are plenty more Troothers where you came from, and some of them may benefit more from discussion.

In other words, Congratulations! You have joined the ranks of such storied individuals as geggy, david carmichael, and Christopher7 in the hallowed halls of what I will call, in order of its founder and First Citizen, ChristopheraVille.

I hereby award you the Key to the City:

You will note the Key does not unlock the padded walls around the City. This is by design. We wouldn't want you to get lost or anything.

Furthermore, as you once did for your hero Judy Wood, I will now do for you -- I have composed a song in your honor. I'm not a professional musician, and I don't claim that it's very good, but perhaps you'll get a chuckle out of it nonetheless:

Ace spent a lifetime seeking the Truth
Billiard balls and tower free-falls, not much use
Posting on JREF, hoping to win
Typing out nonsense and losing again

He was looking for steel in all the wrong places
Looking for columns and outer faces
Searching the Pile and finding no traces
Of girders on the ground
Hopin' to find debris from the Towers
Ace sees only falling powder
You can't keep a Truther down

Ace keeps insisting, "No steel in sight
It all got dustified somehow, the pictures prove I'm right"
He don't know how it happened, space beams or some nukes
He turns to the "Scholars," his fellow kooks

He was looking for steel in all the wrong places
YouTube and Google, Jones's embraces
Nobody eyes are sharper than Ace's
The steel just can't be found
He'll never ask the folks at Fresh Kills
They're all just government shills
Just look how fast the dust fell down

Judy Wood says rays blew out the core
It's everything Ace was hoping for

No more looking for steel in all the wrong places
Safe in the madness that logic erases
Rational thinking, the sci-fi replaces
It's all that he'd dreamed of
Now that he's got his pet crackpot story
Someday we'll crown him with glory
Ace, and the loonies he loves

Farewell, Ace. I hope someday you do in fact find the truth about Sept. 11th. Stay safe.

 

[tsig]

I don't want to get into such falsely-premised hypotheticals. The fact is, the floors did not fall intact to the ground. Something made them turn into powder, and shoot sideways in all directions.

I've seen several photos that show basement areas clear, with guys walking around in there.

I've seen no photos of any stacked up floor pans.


If you can show me evidence of pancaking, or stacked up floor assemblies, (in any condition), or debris crashing through the ground level and piling up in the basement, I'll have a look.

No one has any obligation to show you anything.

 

[stilicho]

I looked at your site just now. Are you postulating that there was no rubble at Ground Zero? What were they removing over the course of several months after 9/11?

A helpful hint: You need better frames of reference (scale, distance, direction) in your images if you intend to use them for instruction.

 

[JimBenArm]

In other words, Congratulations! You have joined the ranks of such storied individuals as geggy, david carmichael, and Christopher7 in the hallowed halls of what I will call, in order of its founder and First Citizen, ChristopheraVille.

Wastin' away again in ChristopheraVille
Lookin' for that lost concrete core
Some people say I'm Batcrap insane
But I know I'm just a great big bore!

 

[pomeroo]

Lowest of the Low

Probably I should get some sleep before writing anything about the despicable villains who claim that no planes hit the Twin Towers. I just watched a Discovery Times documentary on Flight 175 and I'm a bit agitated. Normally, I'm not the sort of person who wears his emotions on his sleeve. I appreciate reasoned arguments. But I have spent an hour watching people recall their last conversations with their spouses and children. When I look at the faces of the victims and hear the voices of the devastated people they left behind, I want to spit in the faces of the psychotic morons who would call them liars. Again, I'm not a violent man and hate is not a feeling easily aroused in me.

The liars and fools who promote these nonsensical and baseless conspiracy theories are contemptible fools, but I am willing to continue seeking them out to expose their wrong-headedness. The ones who deny the reality of the planes that thousands of horrified New Yorkers observed crashing into the World Trade Center are a special breed. The foulest pit of Hell is too good for them. Their insanity does not excuse their evil. I realize that I don't sound too rational at the moment, but these creeps deserve to be mocked, discredited, and scorned to the end of their days.

 

[pomeroo]

You "get the idea" that NIST says the floors pancaked, despite the fact that NIST says their conclusions don't support the pancake theory of collapse?

You "get the idea" from ten thousand pages of graphs, charts, illustrations, calculations, analysis, and commentary, despite the fact that NIST says that they did not study the "collapse", only the events leading up to "initiation"?

Ron, wake up. They didn't study the "collapse". It's that 12 seconds AFTER "initiation" that is so darn interesting.

I have spoken with Mike Newman of NIST five or six times. Contrary to your nonsense, there is NOTHING interesting after the initiation of collapse. Will it ever register with you that PANCAKING DOES NOT EXPLAIN THE COLLAPSE, BUT OCCURRED AFTER THE COLLAPSE WAS INITIATED? How often do you need to hear this?



Originally Posted by TruthSeeker1234
Quote:
Not on Hardfire [do I wish to talk about "pull it"].

I certainly don't think Silverstein said "pull it" by accident. I think it was an effective disinfo tool, incriminating to truthers, but vague enough to be deniable. Remember, just to make sure we didn't miss it, the very same PBS show had the guy say, "We're gettin' ready to pull buildin' six.".

Originally Posted by TruthSeeker1234
Quote:
Shhhhhh. Ron, we said we weren't going to talk about [no planes]. I can't help it if the plane videos depict impossible physics, and that the nosecone accidentally popped out of the other side on the one live shot. I agreed to your terms of not discussing the "planes".

To "pull" means, to a demolition specialist, to attach cables and literally pull a small structure off its center of gravity. Again, will this ever sink in? They tried to pull building 6, but although it was much smaller than building 7, it was still too big.


There is absolutely nothing impossible about the physics of the planes that crashed into the WTC. You are insane.

I spent two years plane-hugging. Then I studied the evidence.

I repeat that I have concluded that you are insane. I mean this in two senses: 1) the nonsense you are promoting is mad and vile beyond my powers of description; 2) to believe this idiocy, you must be clinically insane.

I understand the principles of science quite well, thank you. For example, one important hallmark of the scientific method is repeatability. I'll ask again: Shouldn't NIST release their input values, so that others could try to repeat their results? Even better, shouldn't the Port Authority release the structural drawings of the towers, so that others could build a model using AnSys? Until they do, it ain't science.

You are an ignoramus who has ignored everything genuine scientists have attempted to explain to you. You are impervious to reason and evidence.

No, actually you OCTs have ducked my important questions.

You have been answered over and over. You are insane.

 

[Horatius]

Nominated!

Holy bad formatting, Batman!

OK, let me get this straight... Silverstein set you up? By using a word that only a yokel like yourself would interpret, incorrectly I might add, as meaning "controlled demolition," something that was not only useless but totally impossible, not captured on film, and insane? This is his fault?

What, pray tell, does it mean when he has an onion bagel for lunch instead of his regular? That's the fake secret sign designed to trap Troothers into thinking today is FEMA Camp day?

Give the poor (well, rich, but unfairly vilified) man a break already.


There were planes, Ace. Several people saw the first one, and thousands of people saw the second one. Some of those people were inside. Many people who saw them are posters here. If you can't deal with that, you're not ready for life. Sorry, that's just how it is.


Seeing as how you've burned almost 1,000 posts and haven't shown compelling evidence of anything, including your own ability to read, I daresay Ron isn't "scared to death" in the least.


I was tempted to say "jump after it to get a good look," but that would be impolite, not to mention too obvious.

Here's a real answer. If you're so fascinated by the study of entrainment, then find yourself a wind tunnel. There are lots of them in the area. I used to teach with a small one at Caltech, the so-called Student Tunnel, and chances are they'd let you use it under the right circumstances. Give the Aeronautics Department a call. Jerry Landry used to be the lord of wind tunnels, if he hasn't retired yet. (ETA: Now that I think about it, I believe Chris Krok has authority over the tunnels now. Say "hi" to him for me.) I believe there's also one at USC, and you can build your own following plans on the 'net.

The simplest way to test it is to run the wind tunnel with a fixed object suspended in the air stream, a so-called "bluff body." The Caltech Student Tunnel is all ready to go in this respect. You can then stick a smoke wand into the airflow and deposit smoke behind the structure, and watch it persist, watch it illustrate the streaklines behind the object, etc. If it works for smoke, it will work for dust, because more massive particles will have an additional gravity force component pulling them towards the leading bluff body, so they should be even more prone to entrainment.

Large chunks in a wind tunnel are a no-no, though. Too hard to clean. But you can run a "chunk" experiment on a city street with a leaf blower. Set up a cinder block, pour grit of a known granularity behind it, hit it with the leaf blower, and measure how long it takes it to disappear, or remaining weight as a function of time. Back the leaf blower off to several distances to simulate different falling speeds. Very simple, very cheap, very effective.

If you still want to throw something off a cliff, go right ahead. But please be considerate of the environment.


I answered you here Ace, yesterday. See why abandoning threads is a bad idea?

-----

Now, then, Ace, I'm afraid you're starting to give me some concern. Your fixation on throwing stuff off cliffs is troublesome. So too is your inability to read the NIST FAQ or to properly interpret pictures on your own site. You're looking right at them, but what you see, only you see. These are possible hallmarks of obsession, paranoia, maybe even more severe mental problems.

I am not a doctor, and I would not presume to make a diagnosis. However, I also have run out of patience. It is quite clear that not even the best education is helping here, perhaps because you thrive on the adversarial relationships you forge everywhere you go. So, in your best interests, I will therefore ignore you, completely and evermore, effective at the end of this post. There are plenty more Troothers where you came from, and some of them may benefit more from discussion.

In other words, Congratulations! You have joined the ranks of such storied individuals as geggy, david carmichael, and Christopher7 in the hallowed halls of what I will call, in order of its founder and First Citizen, ChristopheraVille.

I hereby award you the Key to the City:
[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_919345fe2970a3476.jpg[/qimg]
You will note the Key does not unlock the padded walls around the City. This is by design. We wouldn't want you to get lost or anything.

Furthermore, as you once did for your hero Judy Wood, I will now do for you -- I have composed a song in your honor. I'm not a professional musician, and I don't claim that it's very good, but perhaps you'll get a chuckle out of it nonetheless:



Farewell, Ace. I hope someday you do in fact find the truth about Sept. 11th. Stay safe.

 

[Belz...]

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.

noted.

I have looked carefully at the falling flows. The steel sections all appear to be disintegrating into dust as they fall.

Steel desintegrating into dust. Yes, contrary to the laws of physics, I'm sure. Pray tell, what's desintegrating them ? Oh, no. Let me guess ? The DEATH STAR ?

I arrived at this estimate because the stuff falls rapidly, more rapidly than raindrops, certainly.

How the hell did you make THAT calculation ?

Obviously the government reports are written to agree with the government story.

Circular reasoning.

To repeat, my statement that the dust-fluid is very dense is based on its fall time. It falls nearly as fast as solid steel

Yet faster than rain...

and the notion of this being related to "drafting" is nonsense.

So drafting doesn't exist ?

We're looking at fusion, and Directed Energy.

No, YOU're looking at those things. But just because it dawned on you that reality may not be as it seems... DOESN'T MEAN ANYTHING'S AMISS.

The vast majority of engineers and scientists will not speak about 9/11 at all.

That's right. Lest the EVIL konspirators get to them.

We observe that something made steel disintegrate.

No, we don't. You're just as delusional as Christophera.

Best ideas are Directed Energy Weapons, or micro nuclear fusion. I'm open to other ideas, should they emerge.

Brain surgery.

 

[Belz...]

Those articles simply echo the official line. There is no proof of the quantity of steel or concrete. None. The best evidence we have is the photographic record from ground zero, and clearly, sir, you gotta lotta steel missing. Like 80% of it.

And how did you make that estimate if you only looked at pictures ??

The falling dust-fluid on 9/11 was a distinct state of matter, as evidenced by the distinct boundries that it maintained against the air, that I keep harping on. It behaved as a fluid, and was a separate phase.

 

[Pardalis]

noted.

 

[Horatius]

We should all save a copy of that one. Now If I could just edit it to replace the guys with cats, it'd be perfect!

 

[T.A.M.]

Mackey:

That poem is one of the greatest I have ever read...and I have read quite alot. However, my opinion is bias.

TAM

 

[Belz...]

I might point out, at this time, that iron is among the most stable of nuclei.

That might be why you can't use it as fuel for fusion, which in turn explains supernovae.

 

[Belz...]

I expect to see a pile of perimeter sections north of the north face of the north tower. There would be about 600 of the 3x3 sections. We see about 10 of them. That's quite a discreapancy.

Funny, I see a whole lot more.

If my science knowledge is so lacking, this will be quite clear to your audience

I wish it would be so clear to you, as well.

Even NIST has abandoned the pancake theory. If the floors had pancaked, they quite possibly would have penetrated the ground floor and piled up in the basement. The core would have remained standing, and there would be something like a 104 layer sandwich:

Sure thing, Seeker. Whatever you say.

So, get to the part where NIST endorses the pancake theory. And why do they say that their findings don't support the pancake theory of collapse?

 

[Belz...]

The first thing people should notice about the crater rim picture, is that people are standing on the rim of a huge smoldering crater. Think.

Well, gee darn. Two huge towers collapsed there.

R, yes, there is would be 121 times the potential energy in a twin tower, which is why it would be built with 121 times the strength, at least.

Incredible.

1) Your contention that it would be built with 121 times the strength is based on nothing more than "common sense". Not calculations, not expertise, just armchair analyses, as usual.

2) This wouldn't change the fact that the materials would be SUBJECT to 121 times the force during the collapse, once said collapse was initiated, which of course means your entire point is irrelevant to the discussion.

3) Your addition of the words "at least" is dishonest, because you're trying to make the towers appear even sturdier than your common sense estimate, for no reason other than, I can only assume, giving it the appearance of bolstering your claim.

In fact, the twin towers were about the strongest structures ever built.

And here you are at it again. How would you know ?

I do not agree with your approach of assuming the whole pile these people are standing on is macroscopic concrete. It sure doesn't look like it.

And looks are all that matters for you. This is why you're so detached from reality: you're fat too enamoured to your subjective fantasy to let go.

And I most assuredly do not agree with any assertion that floor slabs pulverized upon hitting the ground.

Isn't that: during the collapse ?

Clearly, whatever broke up the floor assemblies did so in mid air.

Clearly.

All of the video and photos support this, and I have yet to see one shred of evidence to support the notion that floors fell all the way down. Not a shred.

Well, that is one of the most inane logical inconsistencies I've seen this year. Obviously, since the WHOLE TOWERS were destroyed in the collapse, SOMETHING made its way to the ground.

 

[Belz...]

I don't want to get into such falsely-premised hypotheticals. The fact is, the floors did not fall intact to the ground. Something made them turn into powder, and shoot sideways in all directions.

Well, that's fine. I'm going to provide you with the answer you've been looking for the last 5 years:

It's called gravity.

Ron, wake up. They didn't study the "collapse". It's that 12 seconds AFTER "initiation" that is so darn interesting.

No, it isn't. Once the thing began to collapse, no force could possibly stop it, and this is the most important fact that the Twoof movement fails to acknowledge.

I certainly don't think Silverstein said "pull it" by accident. I think it was an effective disinfo tool, incriminating to truthers, but vague enough to be deniable.

Then you are certainly making stuff up, because it doesn't make one bit of sense.

I understand the principles of science quite well, thank you.

You missed the important FIRST step, mate.

For example, one important hallmark of the scientific method is repeatability.

Yes. Gravity is one of the most repeatable things around.

The scientific thing to do is experiment.

No need, because your theory is ridiculous, impossible and laughable to anyone with either half a brain or half an education.

 

[TruthSeeker1234]

Mackey:

That poem is one of the greatest I have ever read...and I have read quite alot. However, my opinion is bias.

TAM

I think Mackey's poem is quite good also. I disagree with the message, obviously, but it does a pretty good job of nailing me, and has nice meter.

Is there a melody?

 

[TruthSeeker1234]

RMackey advised:

Here's a real answer. If you're so fascinated by the study of entrainment, then find yourself a wind tunnel. There are lots of them in the area. I used to teach with a small one at Caltech, the so-called Student Tunnel, and chances are they'd let you use it under the right circumstances. Give the Aeronautics Department a call. Jerry Landry used to be the lord of wind tunnels, if he hasn't retired yet. (ETA: Now that I think about it, I believe Chris Krok has authority over the tunnels now. Say "hi" to him for me.) I believe there's also one at USC, and you can build your own following plans on the 'net.

The simplest way to test it is to run the wind tunnel with a fixed object suspended in the air stream, a so-called "bluff body." The Caltech Student Tunnel is all ready to go in this respect. You can then stick a smoke wand into the airflow and deposit smoke behind the structure, and watch it persist, watch it illustrate the streaklines behind the object, etc. If it works for smoke, it will work for dust, because more massive particles will have an additional gravity force component pulling them towards the leading bluff body, so they should be even more prone to entrainment.

Large chunks in a wind tunnel are a no-no, though. Too hard to clean. But you can run a "chunk" experiment on a city street with a leaf blower. Set up a cinder block, pour grit of a known granularity behind it, hit it with the leaf blower, and measure how long it takes it to disappear, or remaining weight as a function of time. Back the leaf blower off to several distances to simulate different falling speeds. Very simple, very cheap, very effective.

If you still want to throw something off a cliff, go right ahead. But please be considerate of the environment.

I'm not interested in entrainment per se. I'm interested in attempting to replicate the 9/11 effect which you, Greening, and several others say is easily explainable. That is, that the falling steel members which appear to me to be disintegrating into dust, are actually only shedding pulverized drywall and/or concrete and/or fireproofing.

I will ask again, for the umteenth time. How shall I attach the dust, and what sorts of dust, in order to have the best chance of replicating the effect seen so often on 9/11?

Anybody else want to chime in on the Drafting Drywall experiment?

Currently I think you are all scared to death of this experiment, because you all know perfectly well that it will look nothing like the 9/11 fizzies.