WTC dust

[Dave Rogers]

I came to JREF for a debunking, not instructions on how to proceed with my work.

OK, then. The simple answer is that the structural members of the WTC towers were not turned to dust. You claim that they were, but this is no more than bare assertion which is contradicted by the entire body of evidence available. You are therefore insane, lying or joking. The same is certainly true of Judy Wood, most of whose calculations are based on violations of Newtonian physics; in her case, I lean towards insanity. In yours, I haven't enough information to decide, nor enough interest in you to speculate.

In short, your unsupported assertions are worthless, and no further debunking is warranted.

Dave

 

[Newtons Bit]

Newton,

You have made a false statement about my beliefs in the form of a question, so I decline to respond.

Liar.

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.

 

[Sabretooth]

As long as you continue to say she doesn't have a theory, you'll continue to fail to debunk it.

Sad story, for a pro debunker, I'd say.

<fingers in ears>
NA NA NA! Dr. Wood doesn't have a theory! NA NA NA!'

Ok. Moving on.

Perhaps you haven't actually read her website? From her "Conclusions" page:

Our critics have accused us of insisting that beam weapons did their damage from outer space, yet we make no claim about whether the directed energy weapon operated from a space-, air-, or ground-based platform. Nor do we make any claim about what wavelength(s) was used, what the source(s) of energy was, whether it involved interference of multiple beams, whether it involved sound waves, whether it involved sonoluminescence, whether it involved antimatter weapons, whether it involved scalar weapons, whether it was HAARP (more here and here), whether it involved a nuclear process (e.g. NDEW, more info), whether it involved conventional directed energy weapons (cDEW), whether it involved improvised directed energy weapons (iDEW), nor what kind of accelerator was used, nor do we claim to know what the serial numbers of the parts that were in the weapon(s).

What we do claim is that the evidence is consistent with the use of energy weapons that go well beyond the capabilities of conventional explosives and can be directed.

In other words, we have no idea about the "who-what-where-when-why", but, by golly, it was definitely a DEW!

 

[Dave Rogers]

WOW! Why are you even talking about violating the laws of physics? What kind of scientist would even consider this as a possibility?

Most truther hypotheses, most especially those of Judy Wood, and any others who propose that steel was turned to dust, are based on hypotheses that flagrantly violate the Law of Conservation of Energy. A serious scientist would consider them, in the absence of any credible supporting evidence whatsoever, only as subject matter for ridicule. At the moment, you're comfortably within that bracket.

Dave

 

[excaza]

Why don't tell us her supposed theory?

I won't be holding my breath.

"laser dust swiss cheese haarp hurricane laser pointer no airplane"

Sadly, the above is more coherent than judy's

 

[HawksFan]

Perhaps it was Chief Inspector Dreyfus and his Doomsday machine. Did anyone check to see if Inspector Clouseau was in the towers?

 

[BigAl]

I can't say "daily" because I did leave the city a few times, but I did see it very regularly.

Based on what you've posted here, I don't believe you.

 

[leftysergeant]

Captain! Calm down. Did someone say the iron stopped being iron? I didn't.

Then you better show us where it went.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

Having been a research scientist for a quarter of a century, I'm fully able to figure out what actually happened. It's really not very complicated, and it doesn't require the violation of any laws of physics.

WOW! Why are you even talking about violating the laws of physics?

Because you have been telling stories that would have us believe the laws of physics were violated.

What kind of scientist would even consider this as a possibility?

How could we know? You still haven't told us what kind of scientist you think you are.

 

[leftysergeant]

As long as you continue to say she doesn't have a theory, you'll continue to fail to debunk it.

Sad story, for a pro debunker, I'd say.

Get a clue. All the crazy old bat has is paranoid schizophrenic delusions. "Theories" are supposed to have something to do with scientific facts and phenomena known to operate in THIS time/space continuum.

 

[alienentity]

You don't think the WTC was turned almost entirely into dust.
This needs to be corrected, first.

Let's set aside the evidence against your claims for the moment. Please define your claims regarding the creation of dust:

When you say 'the WTC was turned almost entirely into dust', I know this claim includes structural steel. Approximately what percentage of the WTC steel was turned to dust?

An approximate range would be fine. For example, 40 -60% or 70 - 80%.

 

[aggle-rithm]

What caused all that dust, if it wasn't the WTC?

I'm starting to think you're nothing but a troll. But you're definitely not a research scientist.

A research scientist would consider some of the following:

1. The amount of solid matter in a dust cloud, by volume, is much smaller than the amount in a solid object with the same volume. The rest is air.
2. The amount of solid matter in a building, by volume, is smaller than the amount in a solid object of the same volume, but more than the amount in a dust cloud.
3. Because of the two previous points, when a building collapses you typically see 1) a dust cloud much bigger than the original building, and 2) a pile of rubble much smaller than the original building.

Look at building collapses everywhere around the world, and you'll see the same thing, again and again. There's nothing unusual about it at all.

I suspect you already know this, however, and are just yanking our chains.

 

[alienentity]

Anyone who says that was normal dust is wrong. I've got some of the dust. It is very, very strange dust, and there is more than one type of it.

Hold it right there. That's all you're going to do with your dust? Call it 'strange' and declare that it couldn't be created by the plane impacts, fires and subsequent collapses?

You haven't even got a theory yet, as you haven't properly identified what you're trying to describe. 'Strange' is an utterly subjective, emotional term - why don't you use the scientific method and refer to a proper analysis of its composition?

If you are indeed some kind of trained scientist, you seem to have thrown your training out the window. This is not helping you at all.

What is the composition of your dust samples? What labs have you sent them to and when are you intending to publish your research for peer review?

 

[ElMondoHummus]

Anyone who says that was normal dust is wrong. I've got some of the dust. It is very, very strange dust, and there is more than one type of it.

Again, you characterized the dust as following:

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.

To which I asked:

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

I'm sorry you missed this earlier, but: Do you happen to know the composition of the material yet? It would really help understanding to characterize it beyond the macro descriptions. Its makeup would be of enormous help in understanding things.

 

[Oystein]

As long as you continue to say she doesn't have a theory, you'll continue to fail to debunk it.
...

Please, oh enlightended research scientist, give us a short summary of Mrs. Wood's theory!

And while you are at it, maybe a short summary of your theory, too?

I mean an explanation of what happened with those planes, and what made those big holes in the towers, and what started those fires, and what caused the collapse, and what created the dust and debris.

Please.

 

[Oystein]

What caused all that dust, if it wasn't the WTC?

About 1/3 of the potential energy of the towers was converted into fracture energy while the towers fell.

150000000000 Joules are plenty to bend and break a lot of steel and pulverise a lot of gypsum and concrete on top of that.

Most of the remaining 350000000000 Joules of formerly potential energy produced even more dust and debris.

Pretty much the same that happened in these videos:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c5iFW89tw2k
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NwFHEoiUZ7o
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=prwvj-npt5s
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OW9z08ml230
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-1X8j53U1So
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fwjcQOlX8Xw

I chose those because they don't involve any or much explosives
In the next, you will notice that the explosions create only little dust, by far the most is created by the collapse itself:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oOdjOrnnWg0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QbauH-mvmDw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UsePUn5-88c - even though it collapsed only half!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LArxg0zMANQ

etc. etc. etc.

 

[tsig]

Why on earth would you come to JREF for a debunking?

He's got too much bunkum?

 

[tsig]

What caused all that dust, if it wasn't the WTC?

Drywall.

 

[tsig]

Perhaps you haven't actually read her website? From her "Conclusions" page:



In other words, we have no idea about the "who-what-where-when-why", but, by golly, it was definitely a DEW!

Whatever DEW is;

whether it involved antimatter weapons, whether it involved scalar weapons, whether it was HAARP


DEW= Do Everything Woo.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Captain! Calm down. Did someone say the iron stopped being iron? I didn't.

How was steel turned into dust? If it was a Directed Energy Weapon, adding energy would heat the steel up and it would melt, turning to liquid, not to dust.

What was the mechanism for turning the steel into dust?