WTC dust

[WTC Dust]

It's dust of unknown composition, against a non-descript wall.

Looks like it was burned to me.

Prove that it is from 9/11.

Fantastic. A real comment. From the picture it is impossible to tell the exact composition of the dust. But you can say things about the color and the placement of the dust. Why does it look burned to you?

And, I do not intend to prove that it is from 9/11, because nothing can ever be proved. But I can get close to proving it. I can give a good argument that it is, in fact, World Trade Center dust. The determined skeptic will never believe that it is WTC dust, but that's fine. It shows their mindset. I'm only out to test my theory, and people who are determined to knock down every theory about what destroyed the WTC except the official story are irrelevant to the process.

Only the curious and only those who question what happened on 9/11 are going to be easy to convince that my story is true. I'm going for those people, first. The other people arrive at the scene with too much prejudgment and too many misconceptions.

Edited by LashL: 

Removed breach of Rule 12 and Rule 0.

What happened on 9/11 was very strange. No traditional explanation has accounted for the destruction seen, especially not airplane crashes.

 

[WTC Dust]

I've already commented on this line, but I think it warrants further comment.

WTC Dust is presenting a classic example of a fallacy that I coined the term "Unevaluated inequality fallacy" to describe. She is claiming that the collapse times of the Twin Towers were greater than those that would be expected from a gravity-driven collapse.
Dave

100% wrong from the get-go, Dave. I am claiming that the "collapse" times of the Twin Towers is SMALLER (not greater) than those that would be expected from a gravity-driven collapse.

Amazing that you could be so wrong, isn't it?

Also, I'm telling you that the WTC buildings did not collapse. They were turned largely into dust while standing, and the dust fell to the ground. Some big pieces of the building fell...but they were turning into dust on the way down. The WTC did not collapse.

You are entirely misstating my views.

 

[Adolph]

Oops, sorry about that. I tried to edit it to remove the offending material but it appears my post is gone.
Thank you for the heads up on the rule. I think I know what rule 8 is though...

 

[Sabretooth]

Fantastic. A real comment. From the picture it is impossible to tell the exact composition of the dust. But you can say things about the color and the placement of the dust. Why does it look burned to you?

And, I do not intend to prove that it is from 9/11, because nothing can ever be proved. But I can get close to proving it. I can give a good argument that it is, in fact, World Trade Center dust. The determined skeptic will never believe that it is WTC dust, but that's fine. It shows their mindset. I'm only out to test my theory, and people who are determined to knock down every theory about what destroyed the WTC except the official story are irrelevant to the process.

Only the curious and only those who question what happened on 9/11 are going to be easy to convince that my story is true. I'm going for those people, first. The other people arrive at the scene with too much prejudgment and too many misconceptions.

Edited by LashL: 

Removed quote of moderated content

What happened on 9/11 was very strange. No traditional explanation has accounted for the destruction seen, especially not airplane crashes.

 

[Thunder]

Edited by LashL: 

Removed quote of and response to moderated content

 

[WTC Dust]

I've already commented on this line, but I think it warrants further comment.

So, WTC Dust's claim that the WTC Twin Towers fell faster than they should have fallen must be rejected out of hand.

Dave

Talking about this issue a little more.

It takes more than 0.5 seconds to fall twelve feet. The lower floors do not begin to fall until the upper floors crash into them (under a collapse scenario). So the first floor-crash (which, remember did NOT happen, but we're talking hypothetical here) takes >0.5 seconds for the floor above to reach the next floor. And then the following floor takes >0.5 seconds to get smashed by the top two floors, etc. going all the way down. The floors can't fall faster than the rate of fall in a vacuum, so they can't take less time to travel the 12 feet between itself getting smashed by the upper floor and itself reaching the lower floor.

A gravity-driven collapse would have taken >0.5 times 100ish floors (because supposedly the top floors were falling intact), which equals >50 seconds.

Did the WTC take about a minute to collapse? No. It took about 10 seconds. Way off.

And even getting this one minute-ish figure forces you to ignore the slowing effects of the exterior steel beams and the interior core steel beams. These would have slowed the "collapse" of any floor at least somewhat, and would have resulted in a larger collapsed time than the calculation that assumes no resistance.

In fact, the steel beams should have provided heavy resistance to the fall of the floors, but they did not because they were dissolved into dust/fumes and had no strength left to provide. By the way, the floors and the supporting steel framework supporting the floors was also largely turned into dust while standing.

 

[phunk]

Ever heard of conservation of momentum? Clearly not if you think the entire thing comes to a stop at each floor.

 

[Alferd_Packer]

Ever heard of conservation of momentum? Clearly not if you think the entire thing comes to a stop at each floor.

Clunkity Clunk

 

[Dave Rogers]

100% wrong from the get-go, Dave. I am claiming that the "collapse" times of the Twin Towers is SMALLER (not greater) than those that would be expected from a gravity-driven collapse.

Amazing that you could be so wrong, isn't it?

You're right, I mixed up my words. Apart from that, I'll look forward to reading your analysis.

Dave

 

[ElMondoHummus]

Bump.

What we're asking for is what it's made of. Sure, we'll understand if it contains more than one substance, but the point is: What is it made out of? You mentioned that "some of it is metallic", but that's not helpful. Which metal? Or if it's not elemental, which alloy?

You see, you keep presenting this dust as though it's something of importance, yet you don't go beyond the broadest, most vague characterizations of it. That doesn't tell anyone anything of substance, and that's why we ask you for the composition. It's a question that you should expect would be asked of you. If you're going to present it, you should explain it.

And forget having "a certain mass of people appear to be paying attention". You are the one choosing to focus on trivial, irrelevent minituae. If you compose a comment of substance on the dust - for example, something more descriptive regarding what it's made of- then you will get attention. But until then, you're making nothing but small talk.

It's up to you to make the thread substantive. So why don't you do it by explaining what you found out about the dust? What's it made of? What have you discovered about it? Post that, and the tenor of the thread will change.

And again, with feeling: Talk about the dust. And not in generalities. Tell us about it. Explain what you've discovered about it. Explain why you're concentrating on it. If you cannot do that, then why are you even posting?

 

[Dave Rogers]

Talking about this issue a little more.

It takes more than 0.5 seconds to fall twelve feet. The lower floors do not begin to fall until the upper floors crash into them (under a collapse scenario). So the first floor-crash (which, remember did NOT happen, but we're talking hypothetical here) takes >0.5 seconds for the floor above to reach the next floor. And then the following floor takes >0.5 seconds to get smashed by the top two floors, etc. going all the way down. The floors can't fall faster than the rate of fall in a vacuum, so they can't take less time to travel the 12 feet between itself getting smashed by the upper floor and itself reaching the lower floor.

A gravity-driven collapse would have taken >0.5 times 100ish floors (because supposedly the top floors were falling intact), which equals >50 seconds.

Did the WTC take about a minute to collapse? No. It took about 10 seconds. Way off.

Oh, I see. You're a gullible idiot who believes whatever she reads on a website created by a mad woman. Do you understand the difference between velocity and acceleration? Do you understand that freefall is characterised by a rate of acceleration, not a constant velocity? And if so, why do you believe that the upper block had to stop dead still whenever it encountered an arbitrary and, in the circumstances, more or less academic level of the structure?

Putting it slightly differently, do you not realise that what you have written above is more than ordinarily moronic even for a member of the truth movement?

Dave

ETA: Still, we can at least forget your lies about being a research scientist. The above isn't even at high school level.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

Ever heard of conservation of momentum?

If you have to ask WTC Dust whether he/she/it has ever heard of a well-known law of science, then you haven't been reading this thread.

Of course he/she/it hasn't heard of it. After all, it has something to do with science.

 

[excaza]

for someone who supposedly doesn't subscribe to judy wood's theory, you sure do parrot a lot of her site

 

[A W Smith]

I don't see how this could possibly be true.

Words are easy to say. It's easy to lie with words. Not everyone is a liar, but you have to assume that anyone might be lying or making innocent misstatements all the time.

Compare this with physical evidence. It doesn't lie. I have discovered several different types of dust. I have documented that it is very likely World Trade Center dust. Since I have been studying the dust ever since the early days (remember Day 3 when I saw only a few tall pieces above a ten foot fence, but did see all those heavy fumes? remember in late December when the fumes were still going strong 100 days later?), obviously I have read and digested the available peer reviewed literature on the WTC dust, as well as reading the non-peer-reviewed work by Harrit, et. al.

My major finding is that the vast majority of the peer reviewed literature describes the lighter colored dust, and that Harrit, et. al, have reported on the darker colored dust. The darker dust is metallic and has rust spots. The two types of dust I found reconcile the descrepancy between Harrit's results and the vast majority of the other work on the dust. For this reason alone, my finding is important and will make a difference.

Notice that I'm telling you the results, but I'm not actually showing you the data or giving you the methods? This is the way that I'm being stingy. Why should I share the details when you mock the results and the experimenter and actually pay no attention to the details that I have documented for you?

I want you to pay attention, first, to where I found the dust. If you can't do that, then you won't appreciate the rest of it.

So you don't even know that it is in fact WTC dust? You don't have to show us the "results". Your research fails to establish a chain of custody proving that it is in fact WTC dust to begin with. It could be subway sweepings containing sintered iron brake dust and wheel flange/rail dust for all we know. You take ignorant incredulity for the events of that day and use confirmation bias to suport a wild fantasy.

Dismissed

 

[djlunacee]

Lots of questions, but none about my dust pic.

Well wooptie freakin doo! You posted a picture of dust. Now what? For somone who is suppose to be a research scientist, you really are not to bright. Basically what I am saying is ****, or get off the pot, put up or shut up, catching the drift? You are not the first on to come through hre with incredible claims of dustification and not back them up, for one reason, you can't. We know it, and now, you know it.

 

[djlunacee]

So you don't even know that it is in fact WTC dust? You don't have to show us the "results". Your research fails to establish a chain of custody proving that it is in fact WTC dust to begin with. It could be subway sweepings containing sintered iron brake dust and wheel flange/rail dust for all we know. You take ignorant incredulity for the events of that day and use confirmation bias to suport a wild fantasy.

Dismissed

My thoughts exactly.....

 

[Architect]

In fact, the steel beams should have provided heavy resistance to the fall of the floors.

Wrong. Very, very wrong.

Now, time to bump the "fire" post again, since you seem to be unable to explain your misrepresentation of your position there....

 

[Architect]

With respect, what you believe is not relevant; what actually happened, and what we can deduce from calculation, are.

So, in actualy fact the debris field was a good 15m or so high above ground level in addition to the material in what had formerly been basement areas. Some authors have shown that this is perfectly reasonable and I challenge you to provide a meaningful critique of their calculations or a substantive alternative analysis yourself.

I could be wrong, WTCDust, but you appear not to have responded to this or the other similar posts.

Essentially, you're demonstrably incorrect when you assert that there was not a sufficient debris pile. The linked paper provides an outlien calculation which strongly suggests you have failed to assess this in any detail, likewise photographs posted by other provide clear evidence of substantial post-collapse debris.

Please clarify your position.

 

[Architect]

I'm sorry, but you don't appear to be analysing this in any sort of objective manner.

Your opening premise is that steel is not susceptible to fire induced failure based on a comparison with an unloaded mild steel mesh in a kerosene fire. You specifically advise that a reduction in strength "seems implausable".

However you now acknowledge that fire can indeed weaken steel. What I must stress to you, however, is that the material I presented quite specifically shows that it weakens it sufficiently under normal fire loadings to induce structural failure. The building codes which I then linked to showed unoquivically that there is a need to incorporate fire protection in order to address this.

You seek, however, to move the goalposts - twice.

Firstly, you claim that the fires are several orders of magnitude less than those which occurred on 1975. This misrepresents the situation. In actual fire, the fire was comparatively modest and although it extended to the 9th and 14th floors, it did not cover a significant proportion of the overall floorplate - in particular it affected in a utility duct. Contemporary reports indicate that areas at the furthest extent of the fire were extinguished almost immediately and the original fire was put out in a few hours. Most importantly, fire protection to the structural steel work was in-situ.

This in no way compares with a floorplate-wide fire over several stories including impact damage which dislodged structural fireproofing. To suggest otherwise indicates either a staggering failure to compare the two events or a dogged determination to compare apples with oranges in support of an unsubstantiated hypothesis.

The second shifting of the posts regards the "conversion" of the structural steelwork into "dust". This is patently ludicrous; the images already posted on this site by many, many others - including Truthers - show quite clearly that massive quantities of structural steelwork (generally heavily deformed, as one would expect in a collapse event) were found on-site following the collapse. To argue this point is, frankly, ludicrous.

I will leave the issue you seem to be raising, specifically speculation regarding the use of high-technology directed energy weapons or electrical charges, to others. But - and let's be quite specific on this - you admit that you have absolutely no evidence that such weapons exist. And on that basis, you may as well suggest that it was all Van Rijn's Invisible Elf.

WTCDust, any reason you're refusing to respond to this and in particular the early part where you claims (or otherwise) regarding the fire resistant characteristics of steel are found wanting?

I'm afraid that, as you now cite 9 years of research and aver a scientific background, I'm going to have to press you for a professional and detailed response.

 

[Sabretooth]

40 pages:

And all we have is a pile of "dust" and a truther that claims to be a scientist...

Other than that...nothing.

This has to be some kind of record. Hell, even Jammy will word-salad the crap out of a post and answer a question or two just to pretend he's playing along...