• 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.
WTC Dust said:
Which fact? I'm not afraid of being wrong. In fact, I delight in discovering that I've made an error. If you've found a factual error that I've made, you'd be doing me a favor in pointing it out.
Click to expand...

Your days must be filled with an endless streak of happiness :D
 
WTC Dust said:
You're forgetting to even THINK about what caused the initiation of the final destruction. Was it jet fuel? An office fire? Can't say it was gravity, because gravity doesn't change. Something happened to begin the final phase of the destruction of those buildings. What was it?

You say it was an office fire. This is silly. Steel buildings regularly suffer office fires, and this doesn't happen to them. AND those buildings were rock solid structures, made of steel. An airplane crash wouldn't have damaged the steel very much, compared to the strength of the building.
Click to expand...

What destroyed the buildings was a gravity-driven collapse, initiated by an unprecedentedly large, multi-storey, fast-spreading contents fire accelerated by tons of kerosene. No building fire with even remotely similar dynamics has been seen before or since; this was an extraordinary event, with a unique cause. And we know that an airplane crash, in each case, severed the majority of the perimeter columns on one side of the building, which on its own is a significant reduction of structural strength.

WTC Dust said:
The buildings were destroyed faster than gravity would allow.
Click to expand...

I've calculated how fast gravity would allow the buildings to be destroyed. Have you? No, I didn't think so. Frank Greening, Gregory Urich, Newtons Bit, femr2, and several others, on both sides of this argument, have done similar calculations. They fall into two categories: either they give results that generally agree with the observed collapse times, or they flagrantly violate the laws of physics. The buildings were destroyed, in fact, exactly as fast as we'd expect.

WTC Dust said:
So what was the horizontal force that threw the building debris sideways?
Click to expand...

You missed the clue. Watch a game of pool some time, and tell me what was the lateral force that made the object ball move at a different angle to the cue ball. It's the same force that threw the building debris sideways: glancing impact forces.

Dave
 
WTC Dust said:
You've shown quite well that fire can weaken steel. Very nice. Have you shown that a fire can turn a steel building into dust? No, but I'm listening for more.
Click to expand...

We're waiting for you to refute all the mountain of evidence that clearly shows that the building wasn't turned into dust.

WTC Dust said:
Or, I actually know what I'm talking about.
Click to expand...

No, we've all pretty much ruled that out.

Dave
 
Dave Rogers said:
We're waiting for you to refute all the mountain of evidence that clearly shows that the building wasn't turned into dust.
...
Click to expand...

I am more waiting for him/her to first define the claim (ballpark figures: How much of the building, and of the steel, was turned into dust, in either % or tons, and the grain size distribution of that dust).

And then provide some evidence as reason for that claim.

So far we have been shown (although I missed it) a picture of some dust. This would indicate at a minimum that at least as much dust as is seen in the image was produced, but would not nearly constitute a satisfying definition of the claim. It wouldn't give us a grain size estimate, its composition, or a total amount. It shows there was dust, which no one denies. That was more than obvious 9 seconds after collapse initiation. After 9 years of research, if all WTC Dust can show is proof that there was dust, he/she must be the slowest research scientist of all times.

We all agree that some fraction of the building turned to dust: Probably estimates of like 50% of the gypsum, 5% of the concrete and 0.005% of the steel would not meet with much opposition.

WTC Dust probably won't claim 100%, 100% and 100%, I think.


So what is WTC Dust's claim?
 
Last edited:
WTC Dust said:
I won't try. I'm presenting my data for debunking. That doesn't involve following the directions of other people, especially belligerent people.
Click to expand...

Then you are no research scientist. Please stop claiming that you are, or that you use science to come to any conclusions. "Science" and "research" are apparently just fancy-sounding words to you; you clearly don't grasp their meaning.
 
WTC Dust said:
Who says this was the work of the US military? NOT ME!

Steven Jones will tell you that 9/11 was the work of the US, but then again, he'll also tell you about thermite bombs.
Click to expand...

WHOEVER it is. Why develop such a fearsome weapon and keep it secret? Even using it in such a way that it is indistinguishable from the natural consequences of a disaster?

Many different governments have tried to develop a weapon capable of doing something like this, without success. The physics are mind-boggling. It is far simpler and more cost-effective to just fly over and drop bombs.
 
Last edited:
Grizzly Bear said:
Dave. You're absolutely cruel. If a building is 110 stories high there damn well better be a 110 story pile! ;)
Click to expand...

And I can prove it!

You see, in every story, there were columns both in the core and the perimeter that were about 3.75m high.

Now if you pile then all on top of each other, you get a pile that is 110 * 3.75m = 412.5m high!

Now go find me a picture that shows a pile that high! You won't! Therefore, inside jobby job and giant invisible electrical toasters!

:boxedin:
 
WTC Dust said:
The dust was there, and the buildings were gone.

An office fire can't explain this.
Click to expand...

Oh yes, there was dust, from things like concrete, drywall, and many other office items and building materials, but from steel, hardly. You have already been proven wrong. Your strawman closer is not worthy of a response.
 
Intact building = rubble + dust cloud

volume(rubble) < volume(intact building) < volume(dust cloud)

It's really not that complicated...
 
WTC Dust said:
How is it oversimplifying it?

According to the official 9/11 story, the forces acting on the buildings at the moment before the initiation of the final destruction are: gravity, wind, and the fire. Anything else?
Click to expand...

Ah. That's different from what you said earlier. Remember?
WTC Dust said:
How the steel of the WTC lost its strength is of great importance. You say it was gravity, for the most part. I say gravity isn't strong enough to do it.
Click to expand...
I was responding to that. The steel never "lost strength" because of gravity. Heat from the fires is what caused it to lose load bearing ability. Remember:
  • Jet impacts destroyed some structural elements, causing load shifts within the structure.
  • Fires were set off by the impact. These further weakened remaining structural elements in the impact zone. As those elements weakened, loads continued to shift until remaining elements failed.
  • The structure no longer bears loads in the impact/fire zones, and fails as a result. The upper section crashed into the set of floors immediately below that failure zone.
  • Collapse progresses.
Nowhere in that explanation is any sort of allusion that gravity is what weakened the steel. Gravity had been acting on the structure ever since the day it was built, and when loads shifted and structural elements failed, gravity pulled those elements down. But gravity never, ever "weakened" the structure. The impacts started that, and the fires continued the weakening. Yet, you phrased it "...How the steel of the WTC lost its strength is of great importance. You say it was gravity". No, we didn't.

WTC Dust said:
Which fact? I'm not afraid of being wrong. In fact, I delight in discovering that I've made an error. If you've found a factual error that I've made, you'd be doing me a favor in pointing it out.
Click to expand...

And as I demonstrated and reminded you of last night, you were wrong about your characterizations of the '75 and '01 fires. On top of that, we pointed out that the recovery/recycling effort gives lie to your statement that the steel supposedly turned to dust. So that's two broad categories of error, each containing more than one error. The discovery has been made. Perhaps you're displaying your "delight" privately?
 
Last edited:
WTC Dust said:
So what was the horizontal force that threw the building debris sideways?

Wind?
Click to expand...


OMG, WTC Dust, you are onto something! I just became to realize how extremely lucky and privileged I am to be still alive. You see, as a 3 years old numerous times the towers I built from my blocks set collapsed. The blocks being strewn all over the place! OMG! OMG! Since gravity pulls straight down the velocities of the blocks should have been straight down!!1! They where not!!1! Now, what caused the falling blocks to have sideways motion? Wind? No! That means my blocks set towers where shot down by a DEW weapon from space. OMG, OMG!1!! That means that thousands and thousands of times the DEW beams missed me... only just!! I should not have made it beyond my 4th birthday! :relieved: Thank you, WTC Dust, thank you. I am moved.

NutCracker
Blinking away a tear
 
Last edited:
NutCracker said:
OMG, WTC Dust, you are onto something! I just became to realize how extremely lucky and privileged I am to be still alive. You see, as a 3 years old numerous times the towers I built from my blocks set collapsed. The blocks being strewn all over the place! OMG! OMG! Since gravity pulls straight down the velocities of the blocks should have been straight down!!1! They where not!!1! Now, what caused the falling blocks to have sideways motion? Wind? No! That means my blocks set towers where shot down by a DEW weapon from space. OMG, OMG!1!! That means that thousands and thousands of times the DEW beams missed me... only just!! I should not have made it beyond my 4th birthday! Thank you, WTC Dust, thank you. I am moved.

NutCracker
Blinking away a tear
Click to expand...


I, on the other hand, build towers with LEGO that could not possibly collapse, especially when I set fire to them! :cool:

Since they are gone now, that, too, proves they must have been dustified. Or vaporized. Or fumified. Whatever. Anyway. At millions of volts of electricity I presume.
 
Reminds me of Dr. Strangelove

aggle-rithm said:
WHOEVER it is. Why develop such a fearsome weapon and keep it secret? Even using it in such a way that it is indistinguishable from the natural consequences of a disaster?
Click to expand...

That reminds of a scene from Dr. Strangelove. After the Russian guy says they have a doomsday device and Dr. Stranglove screams

Strangelove:

Yes, but the... whole point of the doomsday machine... is lost... if you keep it a secret! Why didn't you tell the world, eh?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom