WTC dust

[W.D.Clinger]

What kind of "research scientist" has never used a Bunsen burner?

Again, this thing you have about me being a fraud isn't going to work out with you. Bunsen burners are used in high school, so think of what you're actually claiming, that I haven't even achieved high school science level of ability and knowledge.

You can continue to think I'm a fraud if it makes you feel better.

Perhaps you are confusing me with someone else. I have not accused you of being a fraud. I was trying to figure out what kind of "research scientist" you might be. The reason I was curious is that the gaps in your knowledge and the nature of your arguments are incompatible with the knowledge and training of the research scientists I happen to know. In this particular example, I was hoping that the other members of this subforum could explain how a "research scientist" could know so little about the temperatures that can be reached in a hydrocarbon fire.

Subsequent to my question, other members of this subforum have suggested you might work in the biological or medical sciences. As evidence, several people have pointed out that your ignorance and arguments resemble those of a particular person who is believed to have earned a PhD in pharmacology from the University of Texas Medical School at Houston.

That sounds plausible to me. I don't know anything about the biological or medical sciences, and I am willing to believe that some of the research scientists who have been trained in those areas know as little about the physical sciences as you do.

(As an aside, addressing something alienentity wrote earlier: I myself am a graduate of the University of Texas. I'd like to point out that the University of Texas System has many branches and campuses, and that the university campus at Austin is the only one whose name is commonly abbreviated to "University of Texas" or "U Texas" or "UT". The name of the UT Medical School at Houston should not be abbreviated to "UT".)

 

[WTC Dust]

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.

The dust isn't monotypical. There is more than one type of dust. Some of it is metallic. Much of it is not metallic.

 

[WTC Dust]

Perhaps you are confusing me with someone else. I have not accused you of being a fraud. I was trying to figure out what kind of "research scientist" you might be. The reason I was curious is that the gaps in your knowledge and the nature of your arguments are incompatible with the knowledge and training of the research scientists I happen to know. In this particular example, I was hoping that the other members of this subforum could explain how a "research scientist" could know so little about the temperatures that can be reached in a hydrocarbon fire.

Subsequent to my question, other members of this subforum have suggested you might work in the biological or medical sciences. As evidence, several people have pointed out that your ignorance and arguments resemble those of a particular person who is believed to have earned a PhD in pharmacology from the University of Texas Medical School at Houston.

That sounds plausible to me. I don't know anything about the biological or medical sciences, and I am willing to believe that some of the research scientists who have been trained in those areas know as little about the physical sciences as you do.

(As an aside, addressing something alienentity wrote earlier: I myself am a graduate of the University of Texas. I'd like to point out that the University of Texas System has many branches and campuses, and that the university campus at Austin is the only one whose name is commonly abbreviated to "University of Texas" or "U Texas" or "UT". The name of the UT Medical School at Houston should not be abbreviated to "UT".)

Clairvoyance is an unattractive trait for a JREFer, I'd say. You can't possibly know what I know, and saying it makes you sound creepy. What's this about UT? Why is this important to you?

 

[WTC Dust]

Should read "of" not "or", rather clear imo but ok, dodging the issue then?



Then stop picking on words and respond to the actual rebuttal. Should I link to the post a second time, perhaps you missed last time as you were more fascinated with some extra wording?

If you don't debunk the actual theory, it's not a debunking of the theory no matter how many words you use.

 

[WTC Dust]

I've got a better one: how can you tell that the dust was steel ?

You got the question wrong. The dust wasn't steel. It used to be steel.

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

You're the one who said an airplane crash did this, an outrageous claim.

 

[WTC Dust]

First, you need to learn what is supposed to be there. I see no sign that you or whacky old Judy have a clue. Not even old chuckle nuts S. Jones found any sign of dustified steel when he was picking his paint chips out of the dust samples.



I assume that you are talking about the "desicated" concrete that some clean-up workers found.

Get a freaking clue. It was built into the towers when they were erected. You people need to learn how to do some really simple fire investigations.

AS for jet fuel getting hot enough to damage steel, you are talking through your knickers. SUNLIGHT will warp steel if it causes it to expand unevenly. A friend of mine once described sabotaged about half a mile of railroad track using sunlight and a few coins.

Jet fuel will melt aluminum when it burns. Hot enough to melt aluminum is hot enough to warp steel, by hundreds of degrees, even Farhenheit.

And what really kicks your blather about "jet fuel fires" into the latrine pit is that the Class B (liquid hydrocarbon-fueled) fires were of short duration, having been set only to cause a more massive Class A (solid flammables-fueled) fire. In the jargon of fire science, the jet fuel was used as an "accelerant" to start and rapidly spread the Class A fires.

Stick to biology.

Your post was too filled with sad mistakes for me to make a comment.

 

[NutCracker]

You got the question wrong. The dust wasn't steel. It used to be steel.

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

You're the one who said an airplane crash did this, an outrageous claim.

Well, let us rephrase the question: how do you know the dust had been steel?

 

[W.D.Clinger]

Clairvoyance is an unattractive trait for a JREFer, I'd say. You can't possibly know what I know, and saying it makes you sound creepy.

Not knowing what you know is a good thing, because much of what you know isn't true.

 

[TjW]

The dust isn't monotypical. There is more than one type of dust. Some of it is metallic. Much of it is not metallic.

Nevertheless, overall, there would be anomalously large amounts of iron. If you want to show your hypothesis to be correct, you should show how the data taken is consistent with your hypothesis. Not one or two samples, but all the data available.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Watch the videos again.

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

God, this is idiotic. Of course the collapses kicked out a load of dust. Of course that's all you can see after a while, because you can't see through the dust to what's inside it.

Now look at the photos taken after the dust settled. Scene 3: Huge girders lying around everywhere with lumps of concrete all around them. Your theory, whatever bizarre fantasy it may turn out to be, is trivially refuted.

Dave

 

[twinstead]

Now I'm confused. WTC Dust are you claiming that the very presence of dust is evidence the buildings were 'dustified'? How much dust from other sources besides 'dustified steel' did you expect to see when they collapsed compared to what was observed?

 

[djlunacee]

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.

The science of John Hutchison? An admitted and proven fraud, sweet!!!

 

[Hokulele]

You must be joking. Burning plant material isn't orange, anyway.

What? Try living on Maui during a cane burn. The following image isn't from a Hawai'ian cane fire, but it gives you the general idea.

http://www.fortunecity.com/skyscraper/hudson/376/canefire.jpg

 

[twinstead]

I always thought cane burn was what you felt if you lived in Malaysia and got caught writing graffiti.

 

[Thunder]

Originally Posted by WTC Dust
Watch the videos again.

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

and 300,000 tons of steel behind the dust.

 

[Hokulele]

I always thought cane burn was what you felt if you lived in Malaysia and got caught writing graffiti.

Singapore, get it right.

 

[twinstead]

Singapore, get it right.

Curses, foiled again

 

[DGM]

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.

Ignorance bothers me too. Why do you claim to understand how the towers were built and then make a post like this? It show very clearly you don't know what your talking about.

 

[ktesibios]

What? Try living on Maui during a cane burn. The following image isn't from a Hawai'ian cane fire, but it gives you the general idea.

http://www.fortunecity.com/skyscraper/hudson/376/canefire.jpg

I couldn't see the image Hoku linked to, but-
living in southern California I've seen the smoke plumes from dozens of wildfires, and it's quite common for the smoke to have an odd orangey tint, as seen here

 

[ElMondoHummus]

The dust samples are the strangest material you've ever seen, if you've seen it. Very, very crumbly. The interior structure is that of a foam that has somewhat solidified. And there's more than one distinct kind of dust.

That sounds an awful like the spray on fire resistant material. Have you got any information as to its composition?