• 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:
It doesn't look flat, but the pile appears to be very short. NOT what I expected to see on Day 3. They said that two huge buildings collapsed. I expected to see a pile of debris much taller than two stories, but nope. Very short pile, relative to street level.
Click to expand...

Nobody cares what you expected to see. You obviously have poor judgement about physics issues, and are not interested in scientific facts.

Stick to studying paranormal fx, reading science fiction and such, but don't pretend that you're interested in verifiable facts and evidence - you aren't.
 
WTC Dust said:
What I see as very suspicious is the amount of dust.


What you are missing is that there is more than one kind of dust.
Some of the dust is almost white in color. Most of it is gray. Some of it is very dark gray. Just like the different colors of fumes coming from Ground Zero.
Click to expand...

No, I'm not missing it. You're attempting to move the goalposts, by first claiming that the dust is some kind of evidence of dustified steel (ala Judy Wood), but then evading clear measurements done by competent scientists
which show what the dust was ACTUALLY comprised of.

Show us that the various dust samples collected and measured by RJ Lee and the USGS were not representative. Prove it or zip it, dude.

Second, Tri has shown you a bunch of his pics from GZ, showing lots of steel beams, which don't look the least bit 'dustified' (whatever that means - nothing I guess -), and of course you're going to avoid recognizing the evidence that he's presented.

Why are you ignoring the clear evidence from Tri? Well, because it directly and succinctly puts the lie to your claims and the guanophrenic theories of 'dustification', that's why.

So far you've shown yourself to be abrasive, arrogant, ignorant, and you've failed to present any evidence to support your non-theory (hence, my referral to the 'not even wrong' status of your 'claim').

The DEW hypothesis as proposed by your mentor, Dr Wood, is so vague and so untestable that it is not actually a theory. Not a scientific theory, anyway.

Your failathon has only just begun. Things look very bad for you.:(
 
Last edited:
WTC Dust said:
It doesn't look flat, but the pile appears to be very short. NOT what I expected to see on Day 3. They said that two huge buildings collapsed. I expected to see a pile of debris much taller than two stories, but nope. Very short pile, relative to street level.
Click to expand...

Well first of all, let's understand the fact that the collapse didn't just stop at ground level, but caved into the quite deep basement levels too (five, six basement floors as well that were filled with debris).

And short pile?

jcc_229.jpg

jc_195.jpg


The rescue workers are tiny in comparison to the height of the piles:
3483.jpg

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evid...ancial_ctr.jpg (20 feet? Two stories? Not exactly, try six-eight floors on the alley's pile)

3224.jpg

3418.jpg


Heck, the lobby section that was still standing is about 70-feet high. I mean come on!?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A8hN-aNWWBE&feature=player_embedded
At 39 seconds into this clip, look at the size of the pile.
Look at 4:00 minutes into the above video clip. Even though the 70 feet exterior lobby-columns are slightly leaning, you can see in this shot that the pile they are hoasing down (so that they can remove it safely) is almost as high. Which is also corroborated by these pictures, same smoldering piles but during the day:
http://stevehagis.com/images/wtc/085.JPG
http://stevehagis.com/images/wtc/072.JPG

So, we have rather large piles that fit the material's volume composition of the WTC's, and this is even through a very largely dispersed collapse scene because the vast amounts of visible steel in the piles were all over the place, not just in the limited footprint zone, therefor the piles were anything but lower than expected.

http://home.hiwaay.net/~langford/wtc/01121614m.jpg (see how deep the basement sink is, ie the one we didn't see in the early photos of Ground Zero because there was a hell of a lot of debris and steel covering it?)

http://home.hiwaay.net/~langford/wtc/01121616m.jpg (Watch the guy in blue jeans at the lower center-right part of this picture. Remember, this is taken after those colums you can see there were cut by the recovery and removal crue, still showing the huge proportions of the piles height, and this guy isn't even standing on the lowest point!)

Obviously, the basement floors caved in as well, thus adding to the depth n height of the piles.

Remember, the building's volume mostly consisted of air. There wasn't even enough material in the building to produce 1/6 of the height if we removed all of the air and stacked the floors and steel nicely, more or less intact upon each other for. And you can remove soft materials and concrete of the floors from the equation in expecting them to provide 'pilage', since from that height which built up quite a lot of continued smashing power over a large area, it would be a moot variable.

Think of a deck of cards. When you have them all vertically stacked nice and neatly with the flat side upon one another, you get a deck-sized height. This height will always, in every circumstance be much more than 6 times higher than any, for example, a collapsed house of cards would render.
Now, this comparison is not made to show how the WTC's structure were a house of cards, it does show however that if you have a building which volume is about 90% air and 10% hard material, you will not get rubble heights of material (unless a portion is still standing) that will be higher than 1/10 of the building's height. Also note that much of the concrete and drywall (etc) material in the building would shatter from collapsing at such heights with increased force smashing down on the remaining floors. Ergo, we can't expect most of the building's material to keep it's volume-integrity, this means you can't expect it to stack as it is shattered and more easily dispersed.

How high would 1/10 of the WTC's be? I.e, if we take the material's volume, how high could it possibly get? 1/10 of the WTC 1 or 2 would in best case scenario if the rubble dispersped at a minimum in only its own footprints (which it didn't, it expanded to a large collapse area) give a rubble pile of 40-41 meters (around 130 feet). And we know that the basement levels were caved in with the collapsing material/debris, so that's 72 feet downard. And remember that the piles were almost as high at places as the 70 feet (mild calculation) lobby exterior.

Multi-story levels of steel upon steel covering an area of at least 5-10 times the architectural footprint, you need to divide any 'ideal' pile-height through the collapse sight, not just the building's footprint, or else you're going to end up with an off the wall estimate to say the least.
 
Last edited:
WTC Dust said:
Why do you use the word "dustified"? Seems like you've been reading Dr. Wood's website!

Scene 1: Huge buildings, made of billions of pounds of steel.
Scene 2: Dust in large amounts spread all over lower Manhattan, and a pile of steel that isn't much taller than 2 stories tall.

You have to punch your brain into submission in order to fail to notice this connection.
Click to expand...

Don't exagurate, the two scenes are not convergently reflective or reality, and you know that very well.
 
WTC Dust said:
Dust moving in the upward direction disproves a gravity collapse. Moving on.
Click to expand...

Flour moving upward after dropping a brick on a bag of flour disproves gravitational collapse too? :boggled:
 
Last edited:
WTC Dust said:
This is utter BS. Falling twelve feet doesn't generate that much kinetic energy, and the floors were only twelve feet apart.
Click to expand...
How would you know, you have no clue what kinetic energy is? Prove it, calculate the kinetic energy of the drop of the floor and then the whole tower. You can't produce a simple formula, how will you calculate the numbers?

Very short pile in truther fantasy is equal to 5 stories. That is funny
 
5 pages of an apparent troll. His post was answered on page 2.. did this really need to go on for 3 more pages.

As Thunder stated, anyone who support insane theories, should be ignored.
 
Wow...I finally get to utter the all soo famous words:

"Don't feed the troll".

DEWers are not worth the time, energy, or effort guys. Every additional response to him enables his ego...and makes us look foolish.
 
Last edited:
Thunder said:
Wow...I finally get to utter the all soo famous words:

"Don't feed the troll".

DEWers are not worth the time, energy, or effort guys. Every additional response to him enables his ego...and makes us look foolish.
Click to expand...

I would amend that to read 'Every additional response to him enables his ego...and makes him look foolish'

However, it does waste our time, and does apparently feed his ego. No argument there.
 
Yeah, feeding this guy truly is an example of "fool me once, shame on you. fool me twice, shame on me."

Shame on us for letting this guy fool us into responding rationally and intellectually, to irrational and unintellectual arguments.

I'm out.
 
Last edited:
WTC Dust said:
I've interviewed dozens of eyewitnesses, some of whom are my closest friends. They talk about the dust. Some of them saw what looked like a plane. Some of them did not. New Yorkers don't tend to hate Arabs because they tend to be liberal people. However, there's a lot of vicious hatred of Arabs floating around as a result of 9/11.

Calling me a fraud isn't going to work for you, because I'm the real deal. I live a few blocks away from Ground Zero. I could throw a softball from my rooftop onto Ground Zero.
Click to expand...

You can throw a softball more than 500'? Why aren't you playing in the World Series?

The standard block in Manhattan is about 264 by 900 feet (80 × 270 m); and in some U.S. cities standard blocks are as wide as 660 feet (200 m)

 
I had an arguement about DEWs a couple of years ago with a troofer, here's the answer I gave him:

The idea that DEWs converted 90% of the material of the top 90 floors of the WTC to dust is absolutely, astoundingly stupid.

There was 200,000 tons of steel in each of the towers (http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2004/EricChen.shtml).

So mass involved in your scheme = 0.90 x 90/116 * 200000 = 139700 tonnes or 1.397 x 10^8 kg

The Enthalpy of Atomization for iron (temperature to complete dissocaiate all the atoms - vapourised) = 414.2 kJ/mol and it's average atomic mass is 55.847 (http://environmentalchemistry.com/yogi/periodic/Fe.html#Physical)

So to vapourise 1kg of iron requires 1000 * 414.2 / 55.847 = 7416.7 kJ = 7.4167 x 10^6 J

the energy to vapourise all that iron then is 7.4167 x 10^6 x 1.397 x 10^8 = 1.036 x 10^15 J

To give you an idea of the energy involved that's 247kt!

This all assumes that the energy is transferred at 100% efficiency, according to this site http://www.ausairpower.net/AADR-HEL-Dec-81.html the efficiency of transfering energy into aluminium (which the WTC was clad with is about 3%, even if I allow for 30% transfer (because the surface may not be smooth and shiny) that still means having to input 1.036 x 10^15 / 0.3 = 3.45 x 10^15 J, then there's the generating efficiency of the laser and propagation losses through the atmosphere (likely to be less than 10%). On top of that add on the mass of concrete and aluminium in the tower (probably tripling the energy required), the energy involved is absolutely ridiculous, somewhere in the region of 3 * 10 * 3.45 x 10^15 = 1.035 x 10^17 J

On top of that the beam has to be focused to affect each tower in turn, without the reflected light affecting anything else!

According to this website (http://www.eei.org/industry_issues/industry_overview_and_statistics/industry_statistics) the generating capacity of the US in Dec 2005 was 1067019Mw = 1.067 x 10^12 W, so to achieve the energy input that I arrived at would take (1.035 x 10^17) / (1.067 x 10^12) = 9700 seconds. This means that each tower would require the entire generating capacity of the US for 2.7 hours!

The most powerful CW laser developed at the time for purposes such as this was M-THEL, this achieved a MW output for 70 seconds. All of 7 x 10^7 J, out of luck by more than 9 orders of magnitude!

Even if the troofers would like to reduce that to a single percent of the material 'dustified', enough to weaken the structure, they would still be out by 7 orders of magnitude!

A terrible thing, actually applying a little bit of maths. It's a pity WTC Dust and Judy Wood with all their qualifications couldn't do that.
 
Suppose it was a resonance of some kind that caused the molecules in the steel to seperate from each other ? Say a frequency of a million cycles a second or something like that ?

Perhaps the power could be drawn up from the Earth through the building frame in some way in a Tesla-style technology ?
 
Last edited:
Mikemcc said:
I had an arguement about DEWs a couple of years ago with a troofer, here's the answer I gave him:

The idea that DEWs converted 90% of the material of the top 90 floors of the WTC to dust is absolutely, astoundingly stupid.

There was 200,000 tons of steel in each of the towers (http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2004/EricChen.shtml).

<snip valid math calculations>
A terrible thing, actually applying a little bit of maths. It's a pity WTC Dust and Judy Wood with all their qualifications couldn't do that.
Click to expand...

Well said, but you're comparing science to Judy Wood theories, which is like apples to fruitcakes. She is claiming, by a virtual appeal to magic, an unknown and unproven process called 'molecular dissociation'.

She can't tell you how it works, apart from some vague ideas about 'interference' with references to Tesla coils and the alleged 'Hutchison effect'.

So you might as well be debating with Doc Brown from Back to the Future about the problems with his time machine.
 
Last edited:
bill smith said:
Suppose it was a resonance of some kind that caused the molecules in the steel to seperate from each other ? Say a frequency of a million cycles a second or something like that ?

Perhaps the power could be drawn up from the Earth through the building frame in some way in a Tesla-style technology ?
Click to expand...

Yes. It's called 'Science Fiction'. Attractive and interesting hypothetical ideas, but not reality.

Suppose I could shape-shift and pour myself into the internet and then seep out of your computer monitor? Wouldn't that be cool? Suppose I could, just by thinking about you, send you to another alternate reality?

Oh wait, you're already in a different reality...too late!:cool:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom