• 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.

WTC dust

Status
Not open for further replies.
This thread is stupid and I feel dumber from having read it.
 
You are making restrictions that I don't agree with. For instance, there was a heavy amount of fumes. If the dust that had previously been steel had left NYC in those fumes, the proportions of iron in the dust might be different if you scooped stuff off of the ground.

Unless you know of a paper I haven't found yet, nobody sampled the fumes that went high up into the atmosphere.

The density (mass per volume) of iron/steel is much higher than that of 99% of all other dust costituents. If any sort of dust can be expected to stay close and settle to the ground quickly, its iron dust.

Unless you invoke magic whereby the heavy dust gets blown away and the light dust settles everywhere.


I think this is within the realm of things a biological/pharmaceutical researcher should grasp.
 
I hope you aren't saying that the Twin Towers were built in such a way that they had no resistance to horizontal forces. This would be stupid. Hurricanes happen, and those buildings withstood many storms during their years, although not a direct hit from a hurricane.

Wind presses against a building horizontally. Of course the Twin Towers were built with strong resistance to horizontal forces. To say anything else is bizarre.

You think hurricanse produce the same local pressure as plane crashes?

A quick thought experiment: Suppose you own a nice little house on the Florida beach. It is build to the best building codes and certified to withstand a category 5 Hurricane.
Now an evil witch comes to you and tells you that desaster will strike your house while you are in it, watching monday night football. But you get to chose the kind of desaster:
- Either a category 5 hurricane (air speeds over 156 mph)
- Or a 767 crashing smack into your cozy little beach cottage (metal speeds ober 450mph)

Which will you chose, and why?
 
Originally Posted by WTC Dust
The steel of the World Trade Center became dust, almost entirely.

I have been at JREF since 2006, and this is the biggest, purest, 100% lie I have ever seen.

I have never been so confident of a statement being a lie, than this one.
 
Steel is a very specific thing. I do not claim the dust was steel. The steel of the World Trade Center became dust, almost entirely.

There were some pieces of the steel that used to be the WTC left over after the attacks, but most of the steel went away from the scene. It became a strange sort of dust. The dust itself isn't steel. It used to be steel, and concrete, and other things.

They didn't recover any toilets from the WTC, so the dust was partly ceramic material, but I wouldn't call it "toilet dust".

That's because the material that toilets are made of is not called "toilet". We don't expect you to call the dust frum dustified steel columns "column dust.

D'uh!"

You are aware that a diligent analyst could seperate your dust to individual specks and analyse their chemical composition, right? So do you expect in your strange mix of dustified steel, toilets and concrete to find individual specks of iron (steel)?

If one ton of steel gets dustified, would it not be correct to expect one ton of steel dust?

Ar do you expect some kind of magic transmutation that turns steel into toilets or strangelets upon dustification?
Would that be a chemical, a nuclear, or what sort of reaction?





Do you have any theory at all of what happens??
 
If one ton of steel gets dustified, would it not be correct to expect one ton of steel dust?

No.

See, in Trutherland, there are 5 states of matter.

1. solid.
2. liquid.
3. gas.
4. plasma.

and 5......dust.

the 5th state of matter in Trutherland, aka "dust", magically possess 1/2 the amount of mass as all the other states.

how is this explained? its not. this is Trutherland, where nothing needs explanation. its all based on faith.

:D
 
You are making restrictions that I don't agree with. For instance, there was a heavy amount of fumes. If the dust that had previously been steel had left NYC in those fumes, the proportions of iron in the dust might be different if you scooped stuff off of the ground.

Unless you know of a paper I haven't found yet, nobody sampled the fumes that went high up into the atmosphere.

Pick one hypothesis and stay with it. Did the steel turn to dust or to fumes? How do fumes differ from dust? If there is no data regarding the composition of the fumes, you are then admitting that you have no evidence that the steel left NYC in that manner -- or at all.

Remember that disappearance of the steel is your positive claim. No one here is required to disprove it. You need to show evidence, not supposition, that your hypothesis is what actually happened.

In any case, disappearance of the steel is inconsistent with other things that are known to have happened. For example, had there been no steel, Dr. Astaneh-Al would not have expressed his initial dismay at not having access to it, and his later satisfaction as to how authorities responded to his arguments.
 
Nope. You're wrong. Dust appeared before the building was moving fast. At the moment the building began to fail, dust appeared in large amounts.

Hardly surprising really. Fire creates a whole load of ash, which is basically dust, and as soon as the building started moving it compressed the air inside it, expelling it along with that dust.

Floors crashing down on one another would have had very little kinetic energy at that point.

It doesn't take a lot of energy to crush drywall and plaster, both of which are very effective generators of dust.

The lobby of my apartment building filled up with dust and fumes before any of the WTC buildings were destroyed. Concrete floors crashing down has nothing to do with it.

The bolded words may give you a clue. Again, ash is basically dust, and there were some of the largest fires in the history of New York going on a thousand feet up.

Dave

Dave
 
1. Nothing about an airplane crash is sufficient to destroy a steel building.

Bare assertion fallacy. Actual evidence suggests that the combination of a very large input of kinetic energy and the initiation of a fire in the presence of very large quantities of accelerant is sufficient to destroy a steel building. Pretending that the impact was the sole characteristic of the crash and the sole cause of the collapse is, quite simply, dishonest.

2. Dust appeared where a steel building was moments before, at least 3 times on 9/11.

I lack the literary skill to properly describe the stupidity required to regard this as anomalous.

Dave
 
Unless you provide evidence, no sane person in the world is going to believe you.

dtugg: With your experimentations in clairvoyance, you really have nothing to say here. You might want to step back, maybe make a doctor's appointment and get that figured out.
 
Rust would form on iron microspheres I guess.

Can you confirm that in your own research you have seen none of the thermitic red-grey chips described by Neils Harrit and Steven Jones ?

Harrit and Jones did not discover thermite. They discovered rust and are calling it "active thermitic material". Some of my samples are metallic and contain rust spots. Rust is not thermite.
 
dtugg: With your experimentations in clairvoyance, you really have nothing to say here. You might want to step back, maybe make a doctor's appointment and get that figured out.

Psychic powers are not necessary to know that no sane person would believe such a ridiculous story as the WTC being dustified by some imaginary laser without some evidence. I know that you and Judy and a couple other people in the world believe that. But you guys are crazy.
 
The density (mass per volume) of iron/steel is much higher than that of 99% of all other dust costituents. If any sort of dust can be expected to stay close and settle to the ground quickly, its iron dust.

Unless you invoke magic whereby the heavy dust gets blown away and the light dust settles everywhere.


I think this is within the realm of things a biological/pharmaceutical researcher should grasp.

You failed to recognize that you were witnessing advanced technology on 9/11. This was your first mistake.
 
You failed to recognize that you were witnessing advanced technology on 9/11. This was your first mistake.

Define this advanced technology. Unless you can do that, there is no reason for sane people to even consider it.
 
Psychic powers are not necessary to know that no sane person would believe such a ridiculous story as the WTC being dustified by some imaginary laser without some evidence. I know that you and Judy and a couple other people in the world believe that. But you guys are crazy.

I'll bet a thousand dollars you don't have a medical degree.
 
When the steel turned to dust was it still steel but in very tiny particles?

If it was still steel why don't we finf massive ammounts of steel in the dust?

If it stopped being steel when it was 'dustified' what did it become?
 
Define this advanced technology. Unless you can do that, there is no reason for sane people to even consider it.



You don't think the WTC was turned almost entirely into dust.
This needs to be corrected, first.

Why should I do anything to convince you of HOW the dust appeared, when you are denying the dust?

You are still stuck on floors crashing down on one another. That is too far gone. You have too far to travel intellectually for me to bother.
 
I'll bet a thousand dollars you don't have a medical degree.

I never claimed to have a medical degree.

It is not necessary to have one in order to know that anyone who believes the WTC was turned to dust by some imaginary beam weapon is literally insane. I may not know what specific mental illness you have but it is extremely clear that you are not well in the head. Get help.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom