• 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:
The fumes smelled the same on Day 100 as they did on Day 3. Whatever was generating that smell was ongoing.

And thermite works quickly, especially "nanothermite". Not slowly. There are exactly zero images of a large pool of molten metal in the basement, so it's really time to throw away the thermite theory en toto.

It doesn't explain the actual destruction. It's a waste of time.
Click to expand...

I heard that there are more than 100 credible witnesses to molten steel. I don't have to post the videos of the firemen..'running like lava' and the like. I really wouldn't expect to see photos of the pool of steel if it was- or is- there.

As regards the destruction why do you rule out nanothermite so completely ? Is there an overwhelming reason ?

PS. Did anybody characterise what the smell of the fumes resembled ?
 
Last edited:
bill smith said:
I heard that there are more than 100 credible witnesses to molten steel. ... ?
Click to expand...
You are debunking WTC dust with lies; double fail.
Zero melted steel witnesses. You can't anything right. There was zero melted steel. No body found melted steel. You are spreading lies.

The Casimir effect is old, over 50 years. And it does not make the WTC turn to dust. Another idiotic delusion.
 
Sorry I wasn't going to post on this thread again but Bill Smith seems to think there was 15,000 tons of molten steel at ground zero??

This is Redcar Blast Furnace, it is the largest in Europe. It produces 8,000 tons of Iron a dfay.

Look at the size of it! read up on how much coke it uses to fuel the furnace every day. Take a trip to Tees bay and see the Giant Bulk Carriers at anchor waiting for their place alongside to offload coal for the Coke Ovens at South Bank, they produce thousands of tons of the stuff a day to fuel the furnace. You seriously think there could have been up to 15,000 tons of molten steel under Ground Zero?

How much Thermite do you think was needed to do this?
Why do steel makers bother with huge coke ovens and giant blast furnaces and their own power stations when all they have to do is mix up a few tons of thermite?

WHat happened to this 15,000 ton lump of steel? is it still there?
 
If I heard correctly for every pound of steel you want to melt you need abotu 2 pounds of thermite, sound roughly 30,000 tons of thermite
 
WTC Dust said:
ENERGY takes many forms, and it's important to keep this in mind before you start calculating.
.....
But the theory I'm working on has nothing to do with heat energy. Any calculations about vaporization energies are irrelevant to the theory.
Click to expand...


But there's no way around one critical fact...anything that can turn steel to dust in a short period of time would produce a LOT of heat energy as a byproduct.

I used to sever metal bands by bending them back and forth until they broke. They got very hot in the process; too hot to touch.

Multiply that by billions, perhaps trillions, and you've got the results of "dustification" of the WTC.

You could get around this heat by saying that the dustification occured slowly, but I don't think you're arguing that the WTC disintegrated over a period of months or years.
 
ask Tesla ---

9/11 Chewy Defense said:
I wrote WTC Dust a question 4 pages ago, & still he/she ignores it. Maybe if I size it up & bold it I might get a response, or not.

How can steel turn into "dust", when it doesn't turn into a liquid first, then evaporate & then turn to dust?
Click to expand...

WTC Dust said:
OK, good answer. Metal dust can be generated by physical abrasion. Any other methods?
Click to expand...

Fonebone < Here is a clue--
http://tesladownunder.com/Pulse_Power.htm#Exploding stuff

The iron wire has melted and tiny droplets of liquid iron (the orange spray) have sprayed out the ends along with a puff of grey smoke. Note that an AK47 bullet has about 2kJ of energy and the power used here is 10 kJ.
Click to expand...
--and--
Note that 3500 joules is barely enough to melt 100 g of chocolate or heat water for a cup of coffee. It is just one 2000 watt electrical kettle for 2 seconds after all. This power is underwhelming when delivered slowly. But deliver it in 30us and the instantaneous power rises to 116 MW (megawatts). Think of a power station output for that time. In that timeframe things happen fast and furious. Local heating doesn't have time to escape and things vaporize, magnetic fields due to the huge currents are intense and rapidly changing.
Click to expand...
 
After studying Dusty's "data" slide #1, and after reading her statement about the dust being found in a home, I think my original thought might be correct. It looks like something that Roto Rooter left on the floor after cleaning out the septic pipes.
 
WTC Dust said:
But what about my metallic dust samples?
Click to expand...

Dr Blevins, you're getting ahead of yourself. You haven't proven that your dust is metallic. Your photos do not constitute anything but the most vague reference.

To establish that your dust is metallic, you'd have to have a lab analyze it. You have already stated that you have not sent it to an independent lab for such work.

I call fraud, once again. You are claiming something for which you have no proof, and you know that you lack the proof.
But carry on with your attention-seeking hoax. :)
 
bill smith said:
I heard that there are more than 100 credible witnesses to molten steel. I don't have to post the videos of the firemen..'running like lava' and the like. I really wouldn't expect to see photos of the pool of steel if it was- or is- there.

As regards the destruction why do you rule out nanothermite so completely ? Is there an overwhelming reason ?

PS. Did anybody characterise what the smell of the fumes resembled ?
Click to expand...

Unless you show me a picture of these large pools of molten metal in the basement, I won't believe it. I've seen what has been called evidence of these large pools. I've seen the videos of witnesses saying similar things.
Don't bother trying to convince me unless you have
1. an image of
2. a large pool of
3. molten metal
4. in the basement of the WTC.

Unless it has all four qualities, it will not be an image of a large pool of molten metal in the basement of the WTC and it will not suffice as such.

An example of something that won't count is verbal testimony of large pools of molten metal in the basement of the WTC, because that isn't an image. Another thing that won't count is an image of anything that isn't located in the basement of the WTC. Things dripping out of the WTC doesn't count because it isn't in the basement. Also, a tiny, inconclusive amount of orange stuff isn't a large pool, so it doesn't count. I make all these caveats because I've been around the block many times with individuals who are making the same claim that you are making, Bill, and none of them can provide an image of what they seem to wholeheartedly believe.
 
Last edited:
aggle-rithm said:
But there's no way around one critical fact...anything that can turn steel to dust in a short period of time would produce a LOT of heat energy as a byproduct.

I used to sever metal bands by bending them back and forth until they broke. They got very hot in the process; too hot to touch.

Multiply that by billions, perhaps trillions, and you've got the results of "dustification" of the WTC.

You could get around this heat by saying that the dustification occured slowly, but I don't think you're arguing that the WTC disintegrated over a period of months or years.
Click to expand...

You might be stuck on heat energy, but I'm not. I know about things like chemical energy, which isn't always heat. I know about things like potential energy, which isn't always heat. There are many forms of energy. I refuse to agree that every highly energetic process involves heat.
 
alienentity said:
Dr Blevins, you're getting ahead of yourself. You haven't proven that your dust is metallic. Your photos do not constitute anything but the most vague reference.

To establish that your dust is metallic, you'd have to have a lab analyze it. You have already stated that you have not sent it to an independent lab for such work.

I call fraud, once again. You are claiming something for which you have no proof, and you know that you lack the proof.
But carry on with your attention-seeking hoax. :)
Click to expand...


I just haven't proved it to you.
 
49 pages people!! Why are you subjecting this forum to this nonsense?!!!!

yoU are all INSANE FOR ARGUING WITH A JUDY WOOD SUPPORTER!!!!!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom