WTC dust

[Oystein]

If I understand you correctly, it is you who are claiming that gravity provided sufficient energy for the destruction that was seen on 9/11. Not me. I'm telling you gravity is not energetic enough to do what was done.
...

So you say "the energy quantity provided by gravity was to small to cause the effect of destroying the WTC as seen on 9/11"

If you say "Quantity A is too small to cause effect X", you imply that there is a quantity B that would be large enough to cause X, and that A < B.
You can only make that comparison, if you have values for A and B.

So please provide the numbers:
- Quantity of energy provided by gravity
- Quantity of energy necessary to destroy WTC
State assumptions, give references, and show work!

 

[leftysergeant]

I've talked to firemen who have seen the inside of the Deutsche Bank, and who wouldn't (or couldn't) say exactly what they saw inside there, but who pushed me to study that building.

There is also the possibility that you have a hard time understanding the spoken English language, or reading people's expressions or interpreting certain physiological reactions to your questions, such as their turning to face away from you while their rib cages contract spasmodically.

It could very well be that the fire fighters were trying to tell you that the fact that the Deutsche Bank building was so obviously damaged by a humongous steel projectile that fell from a great altitude that your idea that the tower was dustified rated only one response.

And my uncle is a published fire fighter, and he thinks I have a compelling story, although he won't agree with some aspects of it.

It could be that he is less blinded by your brilliance than baffled by your BS.

NONE of these people has research science experience, and NONE of these people have dedicated themselves full time on 9/11 research.

That leaves thjm at a disadvantage because they have no way of testing whether you are nuts or not, or pulling stuff out of your undies. Or basing youre work on that of obviously deranged twits and shrieking Nazis and people who have thought themselfves into a corner because they think that they have the whole tool kit to solve the problem, like that whackadoodle monk who thinks that Karen Deshore supports his BS theory that there were bombs involved.

Grow up, get out of your shell, and start learning from people who have some really useful experience with the stuff you are adressing.

And did you ever figure out what proportion of your dust was iron? How much of it, by weight and voilumn, sticks to a magnet?

 

[Oystein]

Nothing of what you say explains the metallic dust. Sorry.

LOL

What metallic dust?
How much metallic dust?
How much energy do you need to explain that much of metallic dust?

 

[Newtons Bit]

So you say "the energy quantity provided by gravity was to small to cause the effect of destroying the WTC as seen on 9/11"

If you say "Quantity A is too small to cause effect X", you imply that there is a quantity B that would be large enough to cause X, and that A < B.
You can only make that comparison, if you have values for A and B.

So please provide the numbers:
- Quantity of energy provided by gravity
- Quantity of energy necessary to destroy WTC
State assumptions, give references, and show work!

The unevaluated inequality fallacy is fun, isn't it?

 

[Andy_Ross]

Really? I can prove quite a few things. Over and over.

Fire is hot.

Water is wet.

There are two very simple things that can be definitively proven.

You are not a very good scientist. Whomever gave you your degree should be drawn and quartered.

No. Science doesn't talk about 'proof' Scientific theories can't be proven, only disproven. Scientific theories are supported by evidence some very strongly like the sun rising in the morning but they are always provisional. We don't know what may be discovered tomorrow. Newtonian Mechanics are very strongly supported by observation and experiment but are falsified by Relativity.

 

[djlunacee]

If I understand you correctly, it is you who are claiming that gravity provided sufficient energy for the destruction that was seen on 9/11. Not me. I'm telling you gravity is not energetic enough to do what was done.

If you believe the plane crash conspiracy, you're stuck with fire, gravity and perhaps wind as energy sources, unless you can imagine some other force affecting the buildings at the time of their destruction. Can you? Are there actually any other forces that you believe were at play OTHER than fire, gravity and perhaps wind?

I will take the plane impacts, the subsequent unfought fires, and gravity. Prove me wrong. You can't and you know it.

 

[aggle-rithm]

OK now I'm stumped, Your going to have a seminar to show you have nothing? Are you hoping someone will bring you something?

I can bring cookies.

 

[twinstead]

mmmm....cookies....

 

[excaza]

Nothing of what you say explains the metallic dust. Sorry.

How do you know it's metallic if you don't know the mass composition of your dust?

 

[WTC Dust]

Unless you have better quality pictures than the ones you have posted here, I would say that your photographer's talents are questionable.

I see you have ignored the other points such as location of the "dust", time and date the pictures were taken. You did answer point 5 though and I'll take your word on that.

Now, how about the answers to the other points (1-4)?

Was that an answer to my question? Why is it important WHO took the photograph?

 

[Oystein]

Was that an answer to my question? Why is it important WHO took the photograph?

Well for starters, maybe you have not obtained the right publish the photos from the photographer. Most of what is published here is public domain - things released by government agencies etc. But your stock seems to be exclusive and private, so we might find you in violation of Rule 4 of your Membership Agreement.

As a research scientist, you are also certainly aware of the high importance placed upon the chain of custody of your pieces of evidence. Are you not?

 

[WTC Dust]

But it vanishes rapidly from very small values to incredibly close to zero with distance between objects growing much beyond the size of atoms. It is also not a source of energy - the Casimir effect cannot and does not violate the Law of Conservation of Energy beyond that of quantum fluctuations. Things measured with very many zeros behind the decimal point.

When you say "much" beyond the size of atoms, we are talking 1 micrometer for the Casimir effect compared to 0.00025 micrometer for the distance between iron atoms. That's the width of 4,000 iron atoms.

So what you have to be able to do is to think about 4,000 atoms of iron lined up. If the Casimir effect is attractive up to 1 micrometer, then if you increase the radiant energy or alter the magnetic field such that the Casimir effect is repulsive, it also works only up to 1 micrometer. So the 4,000 atoms of iron lined up in a row would push each other apart to the distance of 1 micrometer, but not much further. In other words, expand 4,000 times.

So you start out with really dense steel and you end up with a dust or, as I've been starting to call it recently, a "foam" that is less dense than the steel. Each molecule pushes on its neighbors until the Casimir effect is negligible.

This explains the "poofing" aka the "gentle explosion" with a measured horizontal velocity of 40 feet per second, maximum. It explains the dust that came from the WTC at the moment of destruction as well as the "fumes" that were coming out of the WTC after the attacks started but before the final destruction. The buildings were being dissolved from the inside out.

 

[WTC Dust]

You've yet to prove:

A) That the dust is actually from the WTC collapse.
B) The dust is actually iron or steel or contains a large amount of it.
C) That the levels of iron or steel in the dust is unusual.

You could run a magnet over the dust. If a large amount of it is picked up by the dust I would probably conclude that it would be unusual and I would petition SEA or ASCE to do a study on it. They would compare the dust in the WTC to dust from other collapses and see if it was unusual. To do this, they would run it through mass spectrometers and other scientific equipment and take qualitative and quantitative measurements of the dust. They wouldn't hire a photographer to take blurry pictures of it at a minuscule magnification.

Just to tell some of my secrets because you actually hit the nail on the head, yes, some of the dust is magnetic (although that is not the only reason that I know it is metallic). I can make my magnet dance on a string, just by bringing the sample up close. Pretty nifty, huh?

 

[WTC Dust]

So you say "the energy quantity provided by gravity was to small to cause the effect of destroying the WTC as seen on 9/11"

If you say "Quantity A is too small to cause effect X", you imply that there is a quantity B that would be large enough to cause X, and that A < B.
You can only make that comparison, if you have values for A and B.

So please provide the numbers:
- Quantity of energy provided by gravity
- Quantity of energy necessary to destroy WTC
State assumptions, give references, and show work!

Why should I do easy calculations that other people can do and that are not relevant to the theory?

My theory isn't a quantitative theory. You don't hear me saying that 78.5% of the steel was turned into dust. You hear me say that the WTC was largely turned into dust, leaving the quantitation out of it.

We know how much energy it is possible to get from gravity, but who cares? Gravity didn't destroy the WTC. It's a pointless calculation, and I don't do such things for show. Gravity plays no role in the destruction of the WTC. It only plays a role in the falling of the dust, which occurred after the WTC was destroyed.

 

[bill smith]

When you say "much" beyond the size of atoms, we are talking 1 micrometer for the Casimir effect compared to 0.00025 micrometer for the distance between iron atoms. That's the width of 4,000 iron atoms.

So what you have to be able to do is to think about 4,000 atoms of iron lined up. If the Casimir effect is attractive up to 1 micrometer, then if you increase the radiant energy or alter the magnetic field such that the Casimir effect is repulsive, it also works only up to 1 micrometer. So the 4,000 atoms of iron lined up in a row would push each other apart to the distance of 1 micrometer, but not much further. In other words, expand 4,000 times.

So you start out with really dense steel and you end up with a dust or, as I've been starting to call it recently, a "foam" that is less dense than the steel. Each molecule pushes on its neighbors until the Casimir effect is negligible.

This explains the "poofing" aka the "gentle explosion" with a measured horizontal velocity of 40 feet per second, maximum. It explains the dust that came from the WTC at the moment of destruction as well as the "fumes" that were coming out of the WTC after the attacks started but before the final destruction. The buildings were being dissolved from the inside out.

You had a theory that the destruction of the WTC was not a picture perfect event and that when the remaining core columns or 'spires' were noticed the perps just pointed their device or whatever it was at the spires and gave them another dose to knock them down.

But the dust does not appear to go 'poof' at all in my opinion.There seems to be no energetic reaction. So do you think the Casimir effect was in operation in the attached video as we see the spires dustifying ? If not do you have a theory to cover what we are seeing ?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-dWBBEtA5bI&NR=1

 

[WTC Dust]

No. Science doesn't talk about 'proof' Scientific theories can't be proven, only disproven. Scientific theories are supported by evidence some very strongly like the sun rising in the morning but they are always provisional. We don't know what may be discovered tomorrow. Newtonian Mechanics are very strongly supported by observation and experiment but are falsified by Relativity.

Thanks for your support, Captain Swoop. A bit of sensibility creeping into this thread.

Specifically: I will never prove a scientific theory in my lifetime. No one else will either. I can just present my data and argue my case. It's up to you all and the rest who see it to evaluate it.

 

[WTC Dust]

I will take the plane impacts, the subsequent unfought fires, and gravity. Prove me wrong. You can't and you know it.

Let's say I have metallic dust that came from the WTC. Pretend I'm not a liar, fraud, kook, etc. and that I somehow theoretically "prove" that the metallic dust came from the WTC.

Wouldn't that prove you wrong? You agree that a plane crash and an office fire wouldn't produce metallic dust, right?

 

[WTC Dust]

I can bring cookies.

I plan to serve refreshments and have entertainment! Someone is busy writing a rap song for me. I've invited an additional speaker. I'm working on getting together the audiovisual crew. It's a challenge to get this thing together, really. Hope some people show up!!!

 

[beachnut]

Let's say I have metallic dust ... ?

Fe is all over the earth; you have nothing to do with the WTC collapse, you have delusions. You can't specify the energy required to dustify steel, you failed.

 

[Mikemcc]

Let's say I have metallic dust that came from the WTC. Pretend I'm not a liar, fraud, kook, etc. and that I somehow theoretically "prove" that the metallic dust came from the WTC.

Wouldn't that prove you wrong? You agree that a plane crash and an office fire wouldn't produce metallic dust, right?

No, umpteen thousand steel components failed during the collapse. Sheared beams, rivets, etc, the idea that there wouldn't be iron dust would be ludicrous.

Now please give us an idea of how far out of the norm your sample is, or are you purely here on a fishing expedition hoping that we will feed your delusions?