WTC dust

[Sam.I.Am]

Lets start off with the fact that the floors used lightweight trusses and not steel beams, then lets go into what constitutes lightweight concrete and what makes it lightweight and how those materials might react (or not react in your case) in a collapse. You clearly have no clue as to the design of, or materials used (both of type and quantities), in the towers. If you can't even get the most basic rudimentary details correct then there's no way that anything that you say will ever be taken seriously on the subject.

 

[BigAl]

If you were attempting to account for previously undescribed phenomena, you would utilize every resource available.

Tell me, what do you know that can turn billions of pounds of steel into caustic dust?

You never saw Ground Zero pile, did you?

 

[dtugg]

Tell me, what do you know that can turn billions of pounds of steel into caustic dust?

Since you and your hero Judy Wood are about the only people in the world who say this happened, you are the ones who have to propose a mechanism if you want sane people to believe it is possible. For some reason you have produced nothing.

 

[WTC Dust]

So, you were able to see the entire pile from your vantage point?

Liar.

Sorry, I have showed that you are incorrect.

I told you that NOT ONE TINY BIT of the pile poked up above a ten foot fence from two blocks away. A few parts of the exterior steel were poking up. Don't misquote me and then call me a liar.

Eventually, they built a platform for easy viewing of the entire site, but I'm not talking about when they did that. I'm talking about immediately after the attacks. I expected to see a devastated building, but nope. Nothing to see but a few pieces poking up and some fumes.

 

[BigAl]

I told you that NOT ONE TINY BIT of the pile poked up above a ten foot fence from two blocks away. A few parts of the exterior steel were poking up. Don't misquote me and then call me a liar.

You never saw the pile before the cleanup, did you?

 

[WTC Dust]

Our resident research scientist, WTC Dust, knows remarkably little about the limits of current technology.


In the text you quoted, the highlighted word "No" linked to another post, which linked to a 2004 press release by Boeing announcing its first test firing of the most powerful airborne laser that had been constructed to that date.

Today, the most powerful ground-based laser is housed in a building the size of three football fields, at the National Ignition Facility at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. From the NIF web page:

As a research scientist, you should be able to confirm that the 2 MJ deliverable by the world's largest laser (as of 2010) is three decimal orders of magnitude less than the kinetic energy of the aircraft that hit the WTC towers.

If you need help with that calculation, you might consult another of the links Ryan gave in the post you quoted.


Anywhere? You really believe the beam weapon could have been fired from Afghanistan? Or from the far side of the moon?

Oh, please. I didn't say it was a laser. Plus, don't try and tell me that any one individual knows every weapon in existence.

 

[bill smith]

OK. How about a very simple example that is only approximately true, just to get you into the ballpark?

Let's ignore the walls of the WTC and just pretend that the WTC was made up of floors only. 4 inches of concrete. Let's say 8 inches of steel beams. 4+8=12.
12X110=1320 inches, or 110 feet.

Piled up perfectly with no gaps or imperfections, just the flooring would have been 110 feet in the sky. That's 9-10 stories tall, which would have been visible above a ten foot fence from two blocks away 3 days after the attacks.

All this is silly to talk about, because floors didn't fall. Dust that had very recently comprised the material that made up a floor was falling, but nothing like an intact floor was ever falling during the final destruction of WTC 1 and 2. "What used to be a floor" was falling, but so was everything else that used to make up the World Trade Center.

The reason you had such a short pile at Ground Zero is because almost the entire building became dust. No, they didn't sell the steel to China. What used to be steel spread out over lower Manhattan in the form of particles.
Not much was left to pile up (compared to the mass of the buildings).

Was there nanothermite and molten steel ?

 

[WTC Dust]

Scientists do not hide or obscure their methodology and data. Nor do they get belligerent or sulky if they are asked to share their work, at least not when they are ready to present. Given your chest-beating on this thread I would say you seem to think you are ready to present, yet you give us this line instead.

You are not a scientist. I don't think you've ever even been to ground zero. I doubt you even live in NYC.

This is not the first internet group I've participated in, and there are always folks that insist that I'm not a scientist. <shrug> Persistent denial is fine for keeping your ego intact, I suppose.

 

[BigAl]

Oh, please. I didn't say it was a laser. Plus, don't try and tell me that any one individual knows every weapon in existence.

A "research scientist" would know in what every kind of weapon has in common and it's impossible for such a weapon large enough to destroy a building can exist.

 

[WTC Dust]

Was there nanothermite and molten steel ?

Heck no. Steven Jones is a stupid jerk, in my opinion. I need to add that to my signature.

 

[BigAl]

This is not the first internet group I've participated in, and there are always folks that insist that I'm not a scientist. <shrug> Persistent denial is fine for keeping your ego intact, I suppose.

You demonstrate that you have no technical education with most of your posts.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

This is not the first internet group I've participated in, and there are always folks that insist that I'm not a scientist. <shrug> Persistent denial is fine for keeping your ego intact, I suppose.

In all seriousness, from one research scientist to another: You may not be as funny as our previous champion parodist, but you're much better at staying in character. So far as I can recall, no JREF parodist has surpassed your portrayal of the utter cluelessness and Dunning-Kruger^WPness we've come to associate with arrogant, lying truthers.

 

[dtugg]

Heck no. Steven Jones is a stupid jerk, in my opinion. I need to add that to my signature.

True. But at least thermite actually exists. Unlike your magical beam weapon that you refuse to define.

BTW, do you have anything to say about getting the basics of the WTC construction wrong (there were no steel beams in the floors)?

 

[bill smith]

Heck no. Steven Jones is a stupid jerk, in my opinion. I need to add that to my signature.

What about the fires burning for six months under the rubble ? Was that just disinfo ?

 

[WTC Dust]

A "research scientist" would know in what every kind of weapon has in common and it's impossible for such a weapon large enough to destroy a building can exist.

Haha! You should really read up on the history of science. Deniers until the end, then radical shifts are the norm. You might not believe what Dr. Wood says, but I highly doubt many of you understand it.

Does anyone understand Dr. Wood's point about John Hutchison? I mean actually understand what SHE says about it, not what her detractors say about it. Let's hear it JREFers! Somebody tell me in their own words why Dr. Judy Wood writes about John Hutchison. If you can't easily do this, that means you don't understand Judy Wood, which means you cannot debunk her.

I've never met a Judy Wood detractor who seriously addressed her science, and the woman is a scientist. It doesn't matter if she has a 1980's hairstyle.

 

[Oystein]

OK. How about a very simple example that is only approximately true, just to get you into the ballpark?

Let's ignore the walls of the WTC and just pretend that the WTC was made up of floors only. 4 inches of concrete. Let's say 8 inches of steel beams. 4+8=12....

Assumption wrong, therefore conclusion wrong.

Could there have been 8 inches (20cm) of steel beams across all of each floor of the towers? Let's see (Excuse me for using metric system, I am in Europe):

Tower is 63m x 63m wide. 20cm * 110 would be 22m high.
Your floor beams would thus be (63*63*22)m³ of steel, or 87,318m³Density of iron is 7874kg/m³The mass of these floor beams would thus total 687,541,932kg.
That is 37.5% more than the total mass of the towers as given by many researchers, and, IIRC, given by Judy Wood. I actually like to go with the more conservative estimate of 288,000 tons given by G. Urich, and with that, your floor beams would have 2,3 times the total tower mass.

So this proves your assumption is waaaaay off.


Another wrong assumption implied in your calculation is: All debris lands on a pile that only covers the 6xm x 63m footprint of the tower. This is of course far from true. The debris field of either tower covered much more than that, with 9 times the footprint being a reasonable approximation for the bulk of material.





Here is a better calculation:
Total mass of tower = 300,000,000kg (rounding Urich's estimate up)
I assume that half that mass is steel, at a density of about 8000kg/m³The other half of the mass is assumed to have an averagy density of 1000kg/m³ (lightweight concrete has a density of around 1,800kg/m³, but when it crumbles and is turned to dust, density decreases somewhat. My low assumption is in favor of a higher pile)
So average density is 4,500kg/m³
Total volume of debris is then 300,000,000kg / 4,500kg/m³ = 66,667m³Spread these out over 9 x 63x63 m² = 35721m², and you get an average hight of the pile of (66667/35721)m = 1.87m = 6'2"

Now you might expect the pile to higher in the center, but on the other hand, as has been pointed out before, the WTC had several basement levels underground - about 6, IIRC, which would make them something like 18-24m deep. Even if the debris pile was not spread out over 9 times the tower footprint but neatly stacked inside the footprint, it would be only 16.8m high and could be entirely disappeared in the basement levels!

 

[dtugg]

Haha! You should really read up on the history of science. Deniers until the end, then radical shifts are the norm. You might not believe what Dr. Wood says, but I highly doubt many of you understand it.

Does anyone understand Dr. Wood's point about John Hutchison? I mean actually understand what SHE says about it, not what her detractors say about it. Let's hear it JREFers! Somebody tell me in their own words why Dr. Judy Wood writes about John Hutchison. If you can't easily do this, that means you don't understand Judy Wood, which means you cannot debunk her.

I've never met a Judy Wood detractor who seriously addressed her science, and the woman is a scientist. It doesn't matter if she has a 1980's hairstyle.

It is pretty simple really. She found pictures of stuff at ground zero which kind of resembles stuff photographed by some fraud named John Hutchinson who claims they were the result of some unexplained phenomenon. Therefore some kind of DEW destroyed the WTC.

In other words, she is batcrap crazy and has produced no science whatsoever.

 

[sts60]

A masterful Poe-job impersonating a Judy Wood parrot like poor jammonius. My favorite parts are calling himself a "research scientist" and the repeated fail-from-square-one of referring to "billions of pounds of steel", when there wasn't even that much steel in the towers when they were built. Funny stuff.

BTW, for those of you looking for the previous analyses of poor crazy Ms. Wood's handwaving, there was myself , myriad , R. Mackey, and BenBurch.

 

[BigAl]

Haha! You should really read up on the history of science.

As a "research scientist", you would know about the energy requirements needed support your claims and how "history of science" is irrelevant to those requirements.

 

[beachnut]

.... I've never met a Judy Wood detractor who seriously addressed her science, and the woman is a scientist. It doesn't matter if she has a 1980's hairstyle.

Judy is insane. You can't support her work with evidence or science.


Please present her science. Please support anything she said with real numbers instead of failed talk.