• 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.
Hard to ignore when this THREAD is always on the top page.

I dont find it hilarious one bit. This is a person who thinks that buildings was turned into "dust". There is nothing funny about that. 3000 people died those buildings and he is pretty much claiming that they also turned to "dust".

tell that to the family members, who till this day are learning that DNA evidence are still being found in the area around Ground Zero from those who died that day.
 
It is hardly my problem if you cannot ignore a thread. If I didn't like a certain thread topic, I would have no problem ignoring it, even if it was at the top of the page.

ETA: And if you are actually unable to ignore a thread on your own, you can use the forum software to do it. Thread tools>ignore thread. It won't appear at all for you.
 
Last edited:
Arus808 said:
49 pages people!! Why are you subjecting this forum to this nonsense?!!!!

yoU are all INSANE FOR ARGUING WITH A JUDY WOOD SUPPORTER!!!!!
Click to expand...

Compulsive, more like...:cool:

The real headline should be: 49 pages and still no evidence from Dr Blevins!!

And now the details:
Another truther fails....next!
 
Last edited:
WTC Dust said:
You might be stuck on heat energy, but I'm not. I know about things like chemical energy, which isn't always heat. I know about things like potential energy, which isn't always heat. There are many forms of energy. I refuse to agree that every highly energetic process involves heat.
Click to expand...

Give me one example of a fast-acting, highly energetic process that doesn't involve heat either directly or as a by-product.
 
WTC Dust said:
No magic here.

I'm saying that if the magnetic field overcomes the Casimir effect, molecules of a solid metal can theoretically be pushed apart. It's normally talked about as an attractive force that is sensitive to the magnetic field.

Change the magnetic field ---> change the attractive force between the molecules into a repulsive force.

No one has really written about this. I'm just suggesting it as an actual, real life, mechanism where steel can be dissociated without heat. Thermodynamic calculations not necessary.

More from that article:

An important physical quantity when discussing the Casimir force is the "field radiation pressure". Every field - even the vacuum field - carries energy. As all electromagnetic fields can propagate in space they also exert pressure on surfaces, just as a flowing river pushes on a floodgate. This radiation pressure increases with the energy - and hence the frequency - of the electromagnetic field.
Click to expand...
So you are pushing for an effect that has NEVER been witnessed and does not hold with present theories on the Casimir Effect that are supported by experimental data? You also want to expand the effect from a microscopic scale to a scale where it's NEVER been witnessed and is not supported by experimental evidence?

On top of that, these energetic reactions have to happen quickly and affect many thousands of tonnes of steel, without affecting the temperature? An effect that's localised to one building at a time without affecting any other structures, and is invisible to the naked eye or TV cameras.

I think I'll stick to calling it woo!
 
WTC Dust said:
I know the origin of my dust! I discovered it.
Click to expand...

Well isn't that special! You know the location you found it in, but from your previous post (quoted below in blue) you don't know the ORIGIN of the "dust".

WTC Dust said:
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.
Click to expand...

Very likely does not equal known fact.



WTC Dust said:
I didn't say I found my dust in the street. I said that most studies found their dust in the streets. My dust was not discovered on the streets. It was discovered inside a home.
Click to expand...

Well, we are kind of getting somewhere, but you still have some major hurdles to overcome before you can even discuss what you may or may not have done to/with your "dust" samples.

Let's start off with the following for starters.
  1. What is the location of the dust in the picture "in situ" as you say? And I don't mean the location IN the house, I am talking about an address of the house in question.
  2. Now we can ask: WHERE in the house was it?
  3. Who took this picture?
  4. When was the picture taken? (date and time)
  5. Is the "dust" in the picture the "dust" you actually are looking into testing, or is the "dust" you are talking about examining in relation to your case found someplace else, either in the house in question or some other totally unrelated place? (I know I should not have to ask this question, but look at who we are dealing with)

Let's start there. If you can't even answer these simple questions and provide documentation for your answers there is no need for you to go any further.

Note: Your answers to these questions will determine whether you are the second person to make it onto my ignore list on ANY forum I have been a member of or am currently a member of.

Thank you in advance.
 
WTC Dust said:
I refuse to agree that every highly energetic process involves heat.
Click to expand...

Well, those that cause solid materials to discombobulate neccessarily would. You cannot, as far as any scientific works I have read demonstrate, break the bonds between to molecules without generating some heat.
 
WTC Dust said:
Unless you show me a picture of these large pools of molten metal in the basement, I won't believe it. I've seen what has been called evidence of these large pools. I've seen the videos of witnesses saying similar things.
Don't bother trying to convince me unless you have
1. an image of
2. a large pool of
3. molten metal
4. in the basement of the WTC.

Unless it has all four qualities, it will not be an image of a large pool of molten metal in the basement of the WTC and it will not suffice as such.

An example of something that won't count is verbal testimony of large pools of molten metal in the basement of the WTC, because that isn't an image. Another thing that won't count is an image of anything that isn't located in the basement of the WTC. Things dripping out of the WTC doesn't count because it isn't in the basement. Also, a tiny, inconclusive amount of orange stuff isn't a large pool, so it doesn't count. I make all these caveats because I've been around the block many times with individuals who are making the same claim that you are making, Bill, and none of them can provide an image of what they seem to wholeheartedly believe.
Click to expand...

You sure set tough conditions. I can't come up with pictures of the pool of iron molten or otherwise for obvious reasons. The perps could not afford pictures like that to circulate.

But I can come up with interesting circumstantial information that tends to support my theory.

For instance the 'Meteorites'. Those strange half-melted massive chunks of fused steel,concrete and other rubble that were recovered deep in the pile ?

Plainly they were rubble that surrounded the massive molten pool and were melting into it when they were hit by the 'lakes of water' that the fire department pumped into the pile. They were kind of frozen in time you might say. I would be interested in your alternative explanation. Listen to the architect at the end of the attached video describing the meteorites.

http://www.metacafe.com/watch/yt-9e...t_fuel_did_not_cause_this_destruction_period/ .

http://img15.imageshack.us/img15/5989/meteorite.jpg
 
Last edited:
Bull flops. There is no indication that the "metyeorite" was even hotter than 451 degress Fahrenheit. It was nowhere near melted steel.
 
Fonebone said:
Fonebone < Here is a clue--
http://tesladownunder.com/Pulse_Power.htm#Exploding stuff


--and--
Note that 3500 joules is barely enough to melt 100 g of chocolate or heat water for a cup of coffee. It is just one 2000 watt electrical kettle for 2 seconds after all. This power is underwhelming when delivered slowly. But deliver it in 30us and the instantaneous power rises to 116 MW (megawatts). Think of a power station output for that time. In that timeframe things happen fast and furious. Local heating doesn't have time to escape and things vaporize, magnetic fields due to the huge currents are intense and rapidly changing.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Two points worth mentioning:

a) 116 MW for 30us is still only 3500 joules and barely enough to melt 100 g of chocolate. Sustaining that power in a controlled fashion for longer times than miliseconds with technical devices is far trickier. Any device delivering 116MW electrically (or electromagnetically) is also processing 116MW internally. This will either overheat the device in no time, or the device has to be ridiculously massive (on the scale of an electrical substation at or near a major power plant.) and could not possibly be mobile (Click for a picture of a 380kV substation, that can handle 116MW.)

b) On the other hand, the collapse of one twin tower released potential energy at an average of of 30,000MW of power during the 15 seconds collapse - that is the output of 30 large nuclear power plants. There exists no technical device in this world that can handle an output of 30,000MW and not self-destruct instantly. The largest high-voltage direct current line, for example, is the Yunnan–Guangdong HVDC - its transmission capacity is "only" 5,000MW, at 800kV.
 
Last edited:
Bill Smith.

Visit a steel works. go and actualy see what is needed to melt thousands of tons of stell and keep it liquid.

How much fuel or energy do you think is needed to melt a ton of steel?

Why do you think a steelworks has it's own power station to supply it's furnaces or coke ovens producing many thousands of tons of coke a day to fuel it's blast furnaces?

How much Thermite do you think was planted in the towers? By my calculations they would have had to be piling sack loads of it in each office to produce up to produce your lake of molten steel.
 
Mikemcc said:
So you are pushing for an effect that has NEVER been witnessed and does not hold with present theories on the Casimir Effect that are supported by experimental data? You also want to expand the effect from a microscopic scale to a scale where it's NEVER been witnessed and is not supported by experimental evidence?

On top of that, these energetic reactions have to happen quickly and affect many thousands of tonnes of steel, without affecting the temperature? An effect that's localised to one building at a time without affecting any other structures, and is invisible to the naked eye or TV cameras.

I think I'll stick to calling it woo!
Click to expand...

The Casimir effect has been observed.
 
bill smith said:
You sure set tough conditions. I can't come up with pictures of the pool of iron molten or otherwise for obvious reasons. The perps could not afford pictures like that to circulate.

But I can come up with interesting circumstantial information that tends to support my theory.

For instance the 'Meteorites'. Those strange half-melted massive chunks of fused steel,concrete and other rubble that were recovered deep in the pile ?

Plainly they were rubble that surrounded the massive molten pool and were melting into it when they were hit by the 'lakes of water' that the fire department pumped into the pile. They were kind of frozen in time you might say. I would be interested in your alternative explanation. Listen to the architect at the end of the attached video describing the meteorites.

http://www.metacafe.com/watch/yt-9e...t_fuel_did_not_cause_this_destruction_period/ .

http://img15.imageshack.us/img15/5989/meteorite.jpg
Click to expand...

OK, Bill. I'm done discussing thermite. Until and unless you provide that image of large pools of molten metal in the basement of the WTC, that concept is debunked. I've looked at hundreds of images of the clean up. No large pools. Sorry, buddy, but I'm pretty sure I'm right about this because I have challenged thermite proponents again and again for at least several years, and exactly none of them can provide even a single image of what they swear existed.
 
ozeco41 said:
Let 'em go. It is unusual to see two different denominations of truther having a theological disagreement over their different versions of "truth". :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

The vast majority of 9/11 truthers believe that thermite was used to destroy the World Trade Center. I've been arguing with them for years.
 
Oystein said:
Two points worth mentioning:

a) 116 MW for 30us is still only 3500 joules and barely enough to melt 100 g of chocolate. Sustaining that power in a controlled fashion for longer times than miliseconds with technical devices is far trickier. Any device delivering 116MW electrically (or electromagnetically) is also processing 116MW internally. This will either overheat the device in no time, or the device has to be ridiculously massive (on the scale of an electrical substation at or near a major power plant.) and could not possibly be mobile (Click for a picture of a 380kV substation, that can handle 116MW.)

b) On the other hand, the collapse of one twin tower released potential energy at an average of of 30,000MW of power during the 15 seconds collapse - that is the output of 30 large nuclear power plants. There exists no technical device in this world that can handle an output of 30,000MW and not self-destruct instantly. The largest high-voltage direct current line, for example, is the Yunnan–Guangdong HVDC - its transmission capacity is "only" 5,000MW, at 800kV.
Click to expand...



And you're claiming all this energy came from a plane crash and gravity?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom