WTC dust

[WTC Dust]

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

Once someone can tell me what looks absolutely dustified in this picture... I will stop calling the DEW mechanism crazy.

The rising fumes and the dust you can see on the beams. Yay! I'm glad you're done.

 

[dtugg]

You've shown quite well that fire can weaken steel. Very nice. Have you shown that a fire can turn a steel building into dust? No, but I'm listening for more.

Why would he have to show that fire could do something no sane person believes happened?

 

[Grizzly Bear]

EDIT: This thread is unadulterated insanity. Screw it... I should have known this would happen after trying to rationalize the DEW theory with Jammonious

 

[WTC Dust]

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.

Yeah, collapse "initiation".

The NIST report stops there. It stops before it describes the mechanism of destruction. It goes all the way up until the point at which the buildings were destroyed and stops.

That isn't a report on the "WTC collapse". The WTC didn't collapse, anyway. It turned almost entirely into dust while standing, and the dust fell to the ground.

 

[dtugg]

You're mean. I put up a picture of my dust. You didn't comment, or maybe even notice.

You call posting a picture of some dust "presenting data"? I don't think so. If you actually had conducted some analysis of the dust and determined what was in it sure. Why haven't you done that again?

 

[dtugg]

They may not be American citizens, but they are still innocent before being proved guilty.

I love the Constitution of the United States.

Of course, you will still claim that KSM had nothing to do with it even after he is found guilty and sentenced to death.

 

[WTC Dust]

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.

BINGO!

Which is actually the bright side of things. We've seen a demonstration of incredible power using technology that not many are aware of. When we finally get this whole 9/11 thing figured out, that technology will still exist, and then we can use it for good.

We don't need to be fighting these wars for oil or even growing hemp, so in this way, two of my previously important activist activities has been usurped by what I've learned about the mechanism of destruction of the WTC.

Peak oil? Doesn't matter. Technology exists that could pretty much power the planet, as you said.

 

[ElMondoHummus]

EDIT: This thread is unadulterated insanity.

Yeah, true. WTC Dust ought to talk with the truthers who thought the event was suspicious because the columns littering Ground Zero just happened to be in "convenient" 30 foot lengths, perfect for being trucked off.

But, truthers contradicting each other. You'd think that'd be a clue as to the unsupportability of their fallacies, but nooooooo...

Anyway, there's nothing to refute with the main. Simple readings of the testimonies about the recycling process is sufficient to put "dust" claims to rest. And as I pointed out above, WTC Dust hasn't even got basic facts correct about the event. There's nothing to debate when most of the discussion is correcting basic errors of fact WTC Dust is committing.

 

[WTC Dust]

You call posting a picture of some dust "presenting data"? I don't think so. If you actually had conducted some analysis of the dust and determined what was in it sure. Why haven't you done that again?

You're saying I haven't done it. Interesting. How you supposedly rational JREFers conclude that you are clairvoyant, I'll never know.

So do you have anything to say about the data that I have presented so far? Namely, the image of the dust in situ?

 

[WTC Dust]

Of course, you will still claim that KSM had nothing to do with it even after he is found guilty and sentenced to death.

First clairvoyance, now precognition. You really are a believer in the supernatural. Have you tried to win that million dollars, yet?

 

[dtugg]

Yeah, collapse "initiation".

The NIST report stops there. It stops before it describes the mechanism of destruction. It goes all the way up until the point at which the buildings were destroyed and stops.

Looks like someone did some quick investigoogling.

You were whining about what happened to initiate the destruction of the WTC. I tell you that NIST did in fact study that and released a report extensive report detailing their findings. So you then move the goal posts and complain that they didn't study the collapse all the way down. When it is patently obvious to anyone with a properly functioning brain just from watching the video that what happens is that the top, falling part crushes the bottom, all the way to the ground.

That isn't a report on the "WTC collapse". The WTC didn't collapse, anyway. It turned almost entirely into dust while standing, and the dust fell to the ground.

Repeating a lie over and over again doesn't make it true.

 

[WTC Dust]

Yeah, true. WTC Dust ought to talk with the truthers who thought the event was suspicious because the columns littering Ground Zero just happened to be in "convenient" 30 foot lengths, perfect for being trucked off.

But, truthers contradicting each other. You'd think that'd be a clue as to the unsupportability of their fallacies, but nooooooo...

Anyway, there's nothing to refute with the main. Simple readings of the testimonies about the recycling process is sufficient to put "dust" claims to rest. And as I pointed out above, WTC Dust hasn't even got basic facts correct about the event. There's nothing to debate when most of the discussion is correcting basic errors of fact WTC Dust is committing.

How the steel of the WTC lost its strength is of great importance. You say it was gravity, for the most part. I say gravity isn't strong enough to do it.

 

[dtugg]

You're saying I haven't done it. Interesting. How you supposedly rational JREFers conclude that you are clairvoyant, I'll never know.

Of course you haven't done it. I don't have to have psychic powers to know that. Just not be an idiot.

So do you have anything to say about the data that I have presented so far? Namely, the image of the dust in situ?

It is an image of nine year old dust (assuming you are telling the truth). So what?

 

[WTC Dust]

Looks like someone did some quick investigoogling.

You were whining about what happened to initiate the destruction of the WTC. I tell you that NIST did in fact study that and released a report extensive report detailing their findings. So you then move the goal posts and complain that they didn't study the collapse all the way down. When it is patently obvious to anyone with a properly functioning brain just from watching the video that what happens is that the top, falling part crushes the bottom, all the way to the ground.



Repeating a lie over and over again doesn't make it true.

Floors falling down on top of each other doesn't explain the top part of WTC 2. You know, the part that leaned over?

If it was floors falling down on top of each other that caused the destruction, the floors on the top part would have ended up intact on the ground.

They never found that huge chunk of the top of WTC 2 that leaned over. By the time it hit the ground, it was in tiny pieces. Explanation, anyone?

 

[ElMondoHummus]

How the steel of the WTC lost its strength is of great importance. You say it was gravity, for the most part. I say gravity isn't strong enough to do it.

Man, I hate using an overused response, but: Creating a straw man to knock down is the sign of a weak argument.

Gravity did not "make the steel lose it's strength". Nowhere can you find me or anyone else saying that. Don't ignore the structural damage from the jet impacts or the fires. Also, don't ignore the fact that all the steel components had connection points to each other. You oversimplify to your detriment; it shows how simplistic your thinking is.

 

[WTC Dust]

Of course you haven't done it. I don't have to have psychic powers to know that. Just not be an idiot.



It is an image of nine year old dust (assuming you are telling the truth). So what?

What do you have to say about it?
Photographs are evidence. I've presented evidence. What do you say about it?

 

[dtugg]

First clairvoyance, now precognition. You really are a believer in the supernatural. Have you tried to win that million dollars, yet?

I don't claim to have supernatural powers. I am just not an idot. Thus I know it is extremely likely that KSM will be convicted (he says he did it and there is a load of evidence against him) and that twoofers will dismiss the conviction because they always dismiss evidence that is inconvenient to their fantasies.

 

[ElMondoHummus]

Oh, BTW: Any acknowledgement that you were wrong about basic facts in one of your posts?

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.

(*Facepalm again*)

We've already known about Spooked911's experiment, and we've already discussed it into the ground. And comprehend that modeling an event or phenomena involves more than just providing the basic components without regard to scale issues.

On top of that, you know nothing of the fires in the Twin Towers; you're trusting an unsupported claim. If you had elected to study the actual evidence, you wouldn't be stating such a patently foolish thing. For starters, the 1975 North Tower fire was not set off across large horizontal portions of the affected floors at once like the 9/11 fires did, nor did it cover 8 floors. The '75 fire started on the 11th floor and propogated down to the 9th and up to the 14th, for a total of 6 floors. And again, it didn't engulf the entire floor areas on all or even some of those floors; on the contrary, the only floor that had significant area covered was the 11th one, which had around 25% of it's area engulfed. As NCSTAR 1-4 noted about the '75 event: "Fire damage on other floors was confined to the utility closets". So it was really a single story fire that didn't even cover the entire floor, with some spillover into commercial closet-sized spaces on 5 other floors. That's it. Compare that to the observations in NCSTAR 1-5A for the September 11th event, and note how widespread the fires were. Flames were visible on all four sides of the North Tower across multiple floors, and were visible on at least 2 sides on others.

It is the opposite of truth to state that the 9/11 fires were "at least an order of magnitude smaller than the fire that had already taken place in the WTC in the mid '70s". It is verifiably, patently untrue, and deliberately deceptive to boot. In any measurement you wish to use - number of floors involved, area of any single floor involved, etc. - the September 11th fires were larger. In fact, in terms of floor area, most individual floor's fires on 9/11 were larger than the entire 1975 one.

Read NCSTAR 1-5 and its sub reports for an accurate description of the fires. You have proven that you are working from abysmally inaccurate information, and you are also willing to misrepresent details of past events to minimize the magnitude of the September 11th disaster. You need to review basic facts about 9/11. And learning where you got the above claim wrong is a good starting point for you.

 

[WTC Dust]

Looks like someone did some quick investigoogling.

.

Or, I actually know what I'm talking about.

 

[dtugg]

What do you have to say about it?
Photographs are evidence. I've presented evidence. What do you say about it?

It's a picture. So what? Doesn't prove anything at all, certainly not that any steel got dustified.