WTC dust

[WTC Dust]

As a preview, care to outline your theory? Some words on the physics... I expect that paper will include some quantitative data, such as the amount of steel and dust involved, the amount of energy transferred, right?
it will also explain by what physical principal steel gets dustified, and you will describe actual experiments that show how this works, or you will reference other published scientific papers that prove how steel can get dustified by directed energy. right?
I am asking, because that is what it would take to make Judy's ideas worthy of consideration, and is, lamentably, the stuff that is entirely missing from her website.

Step by step. You expect me to argue HOW the WTC got turned into dust before you and I agree THAT it got turned into dust. You deny it. I'm pointing it out.

 

[WTC Dust]

You didn't ask what she says is the reason. You asked what is the reason.

You didn't read carefully. I asked if you all knew why Dr. Wood is writing about John Hutchison.

If you say anything other than the answer to this question, it isn't an answer.

She talks about the science of John Hutchison for a scientific reason. If you don't know what this is, then you can't even begin to debunk her.

 

[twinstead]

Step by step. You expect me to argue HOW the WTC got turned into dust before you and I agree THAT it got turned into dust. You deny it. I'm pointing it out.

So, until we admit that it was turned into dust you are holding back the actual science that would have to be involved, right? Very clever of you.

If you are wrong about the dust, then your theory is lost. If you are right, and you can't explain how it could be possible, your theory is lost. Loose loose.

 

[nvidiot]

Step by step. You expect me to argue HOW the WTC got turned into dust before you and I agree THAT it got turned into dust. You deny it. I'm pointing it out.

Can you in any way substantiate this claim? Got any maths?

 

[WTC Dust]

WTC Dust --

Thank you for responding. I'm not on this subforum often and the thread has doubled since my last entry.



I have some follow-up questions if that's alright.

5a, 6a. If the debris below street level and outside the footprint was considered, does this impact the expected height of the pile?
7a, 8a. You're right, I shouldn't be asking for extra work. The thrust of my question was that you saw that the pile was too small and the dust cloud too large for a gravity collapse, and I was wondering how big you would expect them to be if that was the case. Perhaps when you answer you could give your reason verbally rather than mathematically, that would be great.

Thank you.



I'm sorry, I wasn't clear. I intended to ask what type of research you do for a living.

I'm not going to do work on the mathematics of a failed theory. You can do this work, and I'll discuss your results with you.

I'm talking about the pile of debris that was visible above a ten foot fence from ground level: namely, not that much.

How do you make your living? How much money do you have in the bank? These questions must be answered before anything you say has credibility.

Right? Or is this of particular importance to you?

 

[WTC Dust]

This might be the reason why Judy Wood refuses to calculate the energy required and available to turn lots of concrete into dust.

Where she does run calculations, she gets them terribly wrong (e.g. "billiard balls" page).
Where you do run calculations, you get them terribly wrong (e.g. expected hight of rubble pile).

Obviously, your theories don't work.

Hee hee. Oh, do tell me how the billiard ball example gets it wrong. I'd like to hear it.

 

[WTC Dust]

Sure, why wouldn't it be?

Not to mention the fact that there were main PATH lines under the WTC that were destroyed.

Makes sense to me. Certainly seems plausible.

BUSTED YA, TRIFORCHARITY!!!!

The PATH train stations were not destroyed.

 

[WTC Dust]

That leaves Judy to do what, exactly?

Dr. Wood is the only sensible scientist in the United States, other than me, who is discussing the correct aspect of 9/11: Where did the towers go?

Both of our studies are forensic studies. The Twin Towers went away on 9/11. What was left over? Dust.

You tell me how this could happen, and then we can criticize your theory. But don't say the Twin Towers weren't turned into dust, or you will start out wrong.

 

[nvidiot]

Others aren't claiming credentials. When you make a positive claim, you better be prepared to back it up. You have been told and know full well that you can substantiate in some small way your claim without giving details that are personal and indentifying if that is your concern. If someone makes statements about astrophysics and says "btw I'm an astrophysicist so I know what I'm talking about", it's not out of line or rude to ask they prove this. Especially if the statement about astrophysics says the sun is powered by the energiser bunny.

How on earth can you say "the dust cloud was too large to be a gravity collapse" and then not try and prove that the collapse was different from what would be expected from said "gravity collapse"? If it's too big what size would you expect?

 

[WTC Dust]

You can be mathematically literate and still have bat-guano crazy ideas that fall so far outside your expertise that you don't even get close to being in the same general area as wrong.

You mean like, "A plane crash can turn a steel building into dust"?

You could do calculations about kinetic energy all you want and be wrong on the general premise.

 

[WTC Dust]

My sister is a degreed pharmacist, and the only among my four sibblings that I never had the idea of discussing anything mathy with. She is okay at adding money amounts, and has a feel for small weights and vollumes and how to mix them. And that's it.

I find it a lot more disturbing how someone who once taught Mechanical Engineering (IIRC) at a major university can have become so illiterate and inept even in basic mechanics?

The important thing for you to realize, eventually, is that she isn't those things. She's quite a genius.

 

[GlennB]

Hee hee. Oh, do tell me how the billiard ball example gets it wrong. I'd like to hear it.

Oh dear.

The billiard ball analogy would be reasonable if applied in the horizontal plane (similar in fact to the Newton's Cradle she also mentions)

But in the vertical plane each 'billiard ball' continues to fall after impact, adding to an accumulating mass of debris. Each floor collapses quicker than the previous for this reason. Think avalanche.

Wood's billiard ball nonsense was laughed out of court years ago. Time you caught up.

 

[Dave Rogers]

We need to be arguing about the same thing. The buildings were turned almost entirely into dust. Yes or no?

No. There's no evidence that any significant part of the structural steel turned to dust, and all the photos of Ground Zero after the collapse show huge numbers of columns scattered over the whole area which had obviously not been turned to dust. Therefore, your bare assertion, which contradicts all the evidence, is rejected.

Dave

 

[WTC Dust]

Do none of your dust samples show red-grey chips ?

Hi, Bill.

My dust samples are of several different types. Some of them are metallic and actually do show rust spots. I have some high quality images that I plan to upload as soon as I can get to it.

Interesting, huh? Rust spots on metallic dust. But there was other kinds of dust that don't show these spots.

 

[WTC Dust]

I'd like to know how its possible that I saw a pile of rubble that was around 40 ft. high.

I'd like to know how there are digital surveying images showing parts of the rubble at 50 feet or more.

I'd like to see a DEWer debunk the FEMA fact that 300,000 tons of steel was recovered from GZ.

There were some tall pieces. You saw these pieces. Do you have documentary evidence about the amount of steel removed? By this I mean something more than verbal testimony.

 

[WTC Dust]

The steel beams around the core elevators might survive (some were quite stout), however the trusses would be bent over sideways. They're rather deep and are comprised of very light steel sections. They can't handle any forces except pure vertical.

This is utter BS. The steel beams of the WTC were made to handle the horizontal forces of a hurricane. Ignorance bothers me. Steel doesn't turn into dust if you subject it to an office fire.

 

[WTC Dust]

The dust was not caused by a fire, the dust was caused by the collapse of millions of pounds on steel and concrete on things like drywall and foam insulation.

This is the false story that you are working with.

 

[WTC Dust]

Here is a sample image of the dust.

 

[TjW]

You're saying a whole lotta stuff, but you are getting ahead of yourself.

Step one: What happened?
Step two: How did it happen?

If you think Step one is "vaporization" then you are not only incorrect, but you're going to get Step two and every other later step wrong.

We need to be arguing about the same thing. The buildings were turned almost entirely into dust. Yes or no? If you agree on this, then we can proceed to the "how it happened" part. Otherwise, we won't be having a debate about the same thing.

No. I made it clear in the post you replied to that vaporization was simply to reduce the energy required for the results you claim.

It is your claim that the steel was turned almost entirely into dust.
I am presuming here that part of your hypothesis is that the dust remaining afterward is the steel dust.
If not, where did the steel dust go?
If so, and large amounts of steel were turned into dust, then regardless of the means of turning the steel into dust, there would be huge amounts of iron in the dust.
Anomalously large amounts of iron in the dust were not observed in samples taken.

 

[WTC Dust]

No. There's no evidence that any significant part of the structural steel turned to dust, and all the photos of Ground Zero after the collapse show huge numbers of columns scattered over the whole area which had obviously not been turned to dust. Therefore, your bare assertion, which contradicts all the evidence, is rejected.

Dave

Watch the videos again.

Scene 1: Huge steel buildings.
Scene 2: Dust.