• 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's not a simple request to explain 9 years of work. Besides, I think I've made it clear that I am presenting my data for debunking, not following orders.

You haven't begun to comment about the data that I've already presented. When you begin to talk about my data, then I will begin to answer your questions. If you never contemplate my data, then you will just miss out.
Click to expand...

You haven't presented any data whatsoever, liar.
 
WTC Dust said:
It's not a simple request to explain 9 years of work. Besides, I think I've made it clear that I am presenting my data for debunking, not following orders.

You haven't begun to comment about the data that I've already presented. When you begin to talk about my data, then I will begin to answer your questions. If you never contemplate my data, then you will just miss out.
Click to expand...

Please point out what data you have presented. I've read this entire thread, and I can't see any data presented by you.
 
Dave Rogers said:
No, it didn't. The fact that you saw dust where there was previously a structure doesn't mean the structure turned to dust; it means the structure collapsed, and that the dust on the structure fell more slowly, leaving it behind.



Well, for a start, you didn't say it was an electrical weapon.



Melting it, fine, although you'll need a ******** of power. But turning steel to dust by passing an electric current through it? Utterly insane. It simply soesn't so that/

WTC Dust said:
Can you explain it? Why are most of you angry and name-calling when someone suggests that it is possible to destroy steel with electricity. It doesn't seem like something that would engender any kind of hatred.[/quopte]

You're accusing innocent people of mass murder, and trying to exonerate the people who claimed in advance that they were going to do it, and then went on and did it. People get upset about attempted gross miscarriages of justice.



But your suggestions are either stupid or insane. You're claiming things we know to be false, and making up fantasies that we know violate the laws of physics. These things are neither sane nor sensible.

Dave
Click to expand...

Who am I accusing of mass murder? I have no idea who destroyed the World Trade Center, so I'm not accusing anyone of murder.

Yeah, I'm saying Mohammed Atta had nothing to do with it, but you think he's already dead, so why get upset?

Oh, and you won't hear me talking about "melting" anything. The steel was destroyed in a process that was not extremely hot, certainly not hot enough to melt or vaporize steel.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
WTC Dust said:
Yeah, I'm saying Mohammed Atta had nothing to do with it, but you think he's already dead, so why get upset?
Click to expand...

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and Osama bin Laden are not dead. You wish to pretend that they had nothing to do with it (even though they proudly admit they did). There is your attempted gross miscarriage of justice.
 
WTC Dust said:
I agree that scientific theories can be tested. Let's take the theory that a jet fuel office fire can destroy a steel building.

Here's a simple model: Take a steel cage, a plain and simple steel cage. The size doesn't matter, but let's say it's one foot cubed. Put this steel cage in a large bucket, one completely filled with kerosene. Light the kerosene and step away.

What is your expected result? Will the steel break apart into a zillion pieces?

My prediction: Not much will happen to the steel cage.
My reasoning: Such things already exist. They're called "propane grills".

No matter how much propane you have, your grill doesn't break apart like the steel of the WTC did. You might say, "But the steel broke because of gravity." But this would ignore the initiation event. You say the steel got weak. From ... an office fire? An office fire that is at least an order of magnitude smaller than the fire that had already taken place in the WTC in the mid '70s? You have to prove this to me, because I think it's a ridiculous theory.
Click to expand...

uke2se said:
Don't you know that the best way to empirically simulate the WTC towers is by using cardboard boxes? Pizza boxes or office sorting trays also work.

How would you go about to dustify the cage?
Click to expand...

Ah another truther who can't grasp scaling.

There have been many tests of what large fires can do to steel structures. Gasoline tankers seem to have a nasty habit of getting into accidents under overpasses. In some cases you have HUGE hydrocarbon fire attacking a steel structure. The results are almost always the bridge is damaged, warped, buckled, and in a lot of cases they completely collapse. Happened to one not far from where I live in 1994 (Sagtikos Pkwy and Long island Exp.) A one year old steel overpass had to be torn down and rebuilt.

Point: Fire ****s up steel.
[and I now put you in the (b) category as well]
 
Dave Rogers said:
The ridiculous lies aren't coming from that side.



Then you're either insane, stupid, or lying, if you claim your post was a rational response to a comment about the kinetic energy of the airliners at impact.

Dave
Click to expand...

P'shaw. Even if you believe that ridiculous lie about hijackings, your story includes two stationary buildings after this "plane crash".

You're forgetting to even THINK about what caused the initiation of the final destruction. Was it jet fuel? An office fire? Can't say it was gravity, because gravity doesn't change. Something happened to begin the final phase of the destruction of those buildings. What was it?

You say it was an office fire. This is silly. Steel buildings regularly suffer office fires, and this doesn't happen to them. AND those buildings were rock solid structures, made of steel. An airplane crash wouldn't have damaged the steel very much, compared to the strength of the building.

Airplanes had NOTHING to do with the destruction of the WTC. If you haven't heard this before, you're at least hearing it now. It might take you a few years to come to this conclusion, as it did me, but you can get there.
 
Dave Rogers said:
Most of it snapped at welded or bolted connections due to the fact that those were the weakest points. Conversion of gravitational potential energy to kinetic energy due to falling, followed by conversion of kinetic energy to fracture energy due to collisions, did all this. The calculations have been done, and it's been shown that there was ample energy available to do this.

Dave
Click to expand...

Yeah, but not enough TIME.

The buildings were destroyed faster than gravity would allow.
 
Dave Rogers said:
Congratulations. You have just denied the existence of the entire class of ball games that includes pool, snooker, billiards and croquet.

Dave
Click to expand...

So what was the horizontal force that threw the building debris sideways?

Wind?
 
WTC Dust said:
P'shaw. Even if you believe that ridiculous lie about hijackings, your story includes two stationary buildings after this "plane crash".

You're forgetting to even THINK about what caused the initiation of the final destruction. Was it jet fuel? An office fire? Can't say it was gravity, because gravity doesn't change. Something happened to begin the final phase of the destruction of those buildings. What was it?

You say it was an office fire. This is silly. Steel buildings regularly suffer office fires, and this doesn't happen to them. AND those buildings were rock solid structures, made of steel. An airplane crash wouldn't have damaged the steel very much, compared to the strength of the building.

Airplanes had NOTHING to do with the destruction of the WTC. If you haven't heard this before, you're at least hearing it now. It might take you a few years to come to this conclusion, as it did me, but you can get there.
Click to expand...

Read the NIST report. The entire report is basically about collapse initiation. The fact that you are ignorant of what the "official story" says even though you claim it is a lie says a lot about you.

I gave you the link a few days ago. Here it is again in case you wish to relieve your extreme ignorance. wtc.nist.gov Yeah, I know, fat chance.
 
Oystein said:
Can you justify your estimate of "five miles"? Thanks.
That would work out to about 20 core columns of the entire height of the tower, 40 columns of half the height, or 80 columns of quarter height.

How high was that core remnant that fell last, and how many columns did it contain?
Click to expand...

You should be asking yourself about the entirety of the steel. 48 core columns, and 240-something exterior columns. The steel that made up the horiztonal "trusses" and the pan that the concrete was poured into. Also, don't forget the spandrel plates that wrapped around the entire building.

Why did all this steel break apart?
 
WTC Dust said:
Why are you talking about vaporization? The WTC was not vaporized. It was turned almost entirely into dust. Dust isn't vapor.
Click to expand...

:rolleyes: Sorry, my mistake.

Given that lightning rods don't get vaporized dustified when they're hit by lightning, we're looking at a pretty powerful energy source. One that could pretty much power the planet if it actually existed.
 
djlunacee said:
Yes really, what kind of energy was used? Delivery method? Steel turns to dust? Hardly, and earlier I saw you claim electricity, sory wrong answer, I was a welder for 8 years, never saw dust one time from steel. Seriously, all the steel turned to dust? Then what was the need for cranes at the clean up? All that would have been needed was a couple of brooms and dust pans.
Research Scientist? Hardly. Internet troll? Agreed.
Click to expand...

The dust was there, and the buildings were gone.

An office fire can't explain this.
 
Grizzly Bear said:
"The Steel was turned to dust"

[qimg]http://img200.imageshack.us/img200/9569/image276pf.jpg[/qimg]

Absolutely not, thread ended.

"Things were laterally ejected!!!ONE!!! This could not have been gravity alone!!ONE"

In physics we make references to horizontal and vertical velocities. Horizontal velocities are independent of the vertical, and may be induced by impacting with other objects...

This thread needs to peter out if the only issues the OP can muster is Judy wood style beam dustification and laterally velocity....
Click to expand...

Notice that the "pile" isn't very tall? I love being proved right with the evidence provided by my detractors. <smooch>;)
 
Grizzly Bear said:
Well as wholly bat crap crazy as Judy Wood's theories are I'm sincerely fascinated by the depths of the woo it must take to still think the steel was absolutely vaporized by the equivalent of a massive shoop da whoop laser beam:

[qimg]http://img5.imageshack.us/img5/2641/shoopm.th.jpg[/qimg]


But I should expect nothing less from the "dustification'ers"

Anyway enough of this silly play... :)
It doesn't answer the OP's question as to whether the steel was completely turned to dust, the answer to which is: Absolutely not. [/thread]
Click to expand...

Most of the steel was.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom