WTC dust

[Mikemcc]

1 kilogram of Iron is 18.182 moles. That's 1.09*10²⁵ atoms of iron. You tell us how big a sphere that's going to make if they're spaced 1 micrometer apart.

The interatomic distance for iron is 280pm. If this was magically transformed to 1um, that would mean that it would expand 3570 times in each direction, so it's volume would increase 4.55 x 10¹⁰ times! This would reduce its density to 1.73 x 10^-7 kgm^-3, significantly less than the density of hydrogen gas. Therefore this 'dust' couldn't possibly have settled anywhere!

 

[Dave Rogers]

If you dissociate the molecules you don't have iron anymore.

Well, actually, no, but the phrase "dissociation of every molecule of iron" is a great deal stupider than you're suggesting. First of all, iron is an element, so a single atom of iron (which is, one might suppose - wrongly in this case - is what you get when you dissociate a molecule of iron) is still iron. However, it was never in molecules, because iron doesn't exist as molecules in the metallic state - metals are polycrystalline solids. The use of the word "molecule" to describe iron in the metallic state is an indicator, primarily, of a rather basic level of ignorance of materials science.

Dave

 

[TruthersLie]

Here's a quote attributed to Nikola Tesla:

Tesla also claimed that his OSCILLATOR could knock down any building and even split the earth in half:

"So powerful are the effects of the telegeodynamic oscillator", said Tesla in reviewing the subject in the thirties, "that I could go over to the Empire State Building and reduce it to a tangled mass of wreckage in a very short time. I could accomplish this result with utmost certainty and without any difficulty whatever. I would use a small mechanical vibrating device, an engine so small you could slip it in your pocket. I could attach it to any part of the building, start it in operation, allow it twelve or thirteen minutes to come to full resonance. The building would first respond with gentle tremors, and the vibrations would then become so powerful that the whole structure would go into resonant oscillations of such great amplitude and power
that the rivets in the steel beams would be loosened and sheared. The outer stone coating would be thrown off and then the skeleton steel structure would collapse in all its parts. It would take about 2.5 horsepower to drive the oscillator to produce this effect." (O' Neill, Prodigal Genius, p. 165).

You do realize that Mythbusters did a show on the oscillator... and guess what? It didn't work.

at all...

You might want to look it up.







Doh.

 

[Dog Town]

You want me to give you the lady's phone number and address? She doesn't want to be contacted by you folks.

Did an artist who worked with metal, live in said dwelling?

 

[TruthersLie]

Since practically every picture of a plane crash I've ever seen resembles this image, I agree.

Sometimes the plane is more broken up, but the tail section survives.

The reason the tail section survives more often than the nose of the plane is because the impact of the nose onto the ground actually slows the plane quickly. By the time the tail has a chance to reach the ground, the plane has already stopped, so the tail section survives.

No tail section of a plane at Shanksville? That is a reason to ask questions about that flight, even leading all the way up to the original claim of a hijacking.

Please look up psa 1771


try again. we understand that the woo you are drinking makes it hard to actually do RESEARCH....

 

[tsig]

If you dissociate a molecule you still have the constituents, so you'll still have iron. Iron can form covalent bonds.

Iron is an element so "molecule of iron" is a misnomer to begin with.

Iron (play /ˈaɪ.ərn/ or /ˈaɪərn/) is a chemical element with the symbol Fe (Latin: ferrum) and atomic number 26. It is a metal in the first transition series.

I think that's what I was groping for.

 

[tsig]

Well, actually, no, but the phrase "dissociation of every molecule of iron" is a great deal stupider than you're suggesting. First of all, iron is an element, so a single atom of iron (which is, one might suppose - wrongly in this case - is what you get when you dissociate a molecule of iron) is still iron. However, it was never in molecules, because iron doesn't exist as molecules in the metallic state - metals are polycrystalline solids. The use of the word "molecule" to describe iron in the metallic state is an indicator, primarily, of a rather basic level of ignorance of materials science.

Dave

Yes.

 

[excaza]

Iron is an element so "molecule of iron" is a misnomer to begin with.

Iron (play /ˈaɪ.ərn/ or /ˈaɪərn/) is a chemical element with the symbol Fe (Latin: ferrum) and atomic number 26. It is a metal in the first transition series.

I think that's what I was groping for.

Well, yeah, but they don't build things out of pure iron

 

[TruthersLie]

did any of you actually think that "dr" blevins was actually a phd?

Personally she sounds like several wonderful paranoid schizophrenics with delusions of granduer...

But keep on feeding those delusions.

 

[excaza]

did any of you actually think that "dr" blevins was actually a phd?

Personally she sounds like several wonderful paranoid schizophrenics with delusions of granduer...

But keep on feeding those delusions.

It doesn't really matter if she is a PhD or not, it doesn't change the stupidity of the 'theory.'

 

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

Why does WTC Dust focus on the dust?

What's in the dust, WTC Dust?

If there's evidence of explosive residue in the dust, why not show it WTC Dust?

 

[Jack by the hedge]

Why don't you show us how you got to the 250m sphere? I can comment on your calculations.

Well, if you think it'll help:

1 mole of iron = 56g approx.

1kg of iron = 1000/56 moles = 17.9 moles

So 1kg of iron = 17.9 x Avogadros number of atoms = 17.9 x 6.02 x 10²³ = 1.08 x 10²⁵ atoms.

If these were packed in a square matrix at 1um spacing they would occupy 10.8 million cubic metres. A quick bit of googling for a more efficient packing arrangement ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sphere_packing ) led me to believe that efficient hexagonal packing could occupy 0.707 of the same space, which is 7.62 million cubic metres.

Volume of a sphere is 4/3 Pi r³, so 7.62 million m³ would form a sphere of radius 122m, or diameter 244m.

Does that help at all?

I'm now starting to wonder why the dust did not turn a brick red when freed elemental iron met atmospheric oxygen and why, after the local oxygen was depleted, everything surrounding the WTC was not coated with a gleaming layer of iron.

 

[aggle-rithm]

Why does WTC Dust focus on the dust?

What's in the dust, WTC Dust?

If there's evidence of explosive residue in the dust, why not show it WTC Dust?

Dusty isn't claiming explosives, "she" is claiming space rays.

 

[excaza]

Dusty isn't claiming explosives, "she" is claiming space rays.

She's carefully avoiding saying it was from space, instead just saying it was some mysterious device powered by some mysterious power source and fired from some mysterious location that just happened to require the same line of sight as well, something in space.

 

[Architect]

Indeed: notwithstanding that the collapse can be explained using conventional structural analysis and fire engineering assessments, Dusty proposes the use of a hypothetical directed energy-type weapon which in some way converted the steel frame to dust.

 

[Drs_Res]

If I don't understand the question, I don't understand it. I feel like you're trying to do some kind of gotcha on me, so I decline. If you don't want to explain yourself, that's ok.

I gave you an option to answer the other points and I would give you the answer to why it's important to know who took the photo. Other people have given a reason or two why it might be important, I have a couple more reasons why it just might be important.

The bottom line here is you can't show origin of your "dust" / "foam" or you refuse to. This IS your problem because anything you say about it is null and void unless you can show it's from the WTC.

It's much to difficult to get an answer out of you. So congratulations, you are only the second person to make it to my ignore list. Buh Bye.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Well, if you think it'll help:

1 mole of iron = 56g approx.

1kg of iron = 1000/56 moles = 17.9 moles

Just out of interest, I looked up the Fe-Fe bond energy and found a value of roughly 75kJ/mol. Iron is body centred cubic, so each atom has eight nearest neighbours; that means, as far as I can tell, something like an average four bonds to be broken to liberate a single iron atom, so about 300kJ/mol would be required to dissociate polycrystalline iron into monatomic iron. It looks to me, therefore, like we need about 5MJ to convert 1kg of iron to dust. I'm a physicist rather than a chemist, so I'm not sure whether this is along the right lines - can any of our resident chemists comment?

Dave

 

[starri]

Yes. Data slide number two shows the dust heterogeneity.

Forgive me for just jumping in here, but I can't seem to stop looking at this discussion for any length of time.

I just have to ask, even assuming that your picture shows that your dust is heterogeneous, what are you saying that proves? Maybe I've missed something, but I thought your contention was that the structural steel, and ONLY the structural steel was pulverized by some unknown force.

And as a corollary, even if your dust IS the pulverized iron from the steel, where is the carbon that was alloyed with it?

 

[WTC Dust]

The interatomic distance for iron is 280pm. If this was magically transformed to 1um, that would mean that it would expand 3570 times in each direction, so it's volume would increase 4.55 x 10¹⁰ times! This would reduce its density to 1.73 x 10^-7 kgm^-3, significantly less than the density of hydrogen gas. Therefore this 'dust' couldn't possibly have settled anywhere!

It's good you're thinking about it, but I think one of your assumptions is a perfectly smooth implementation, where every single bit of the building was zapped by the weapon at the right intensity and power.

This didn't happen. Some steel was left over, and the dust didn't seem to be fully dissociated into the atoms.

Also, the Casimir effect becomes negligible at 1 micrometer, but that doesn't mean that every molecule pushed its neighbor apart by exactly 1 micrometer. Maybe they only pushed each other a fraction of that distance apart.

 

[WTC Dust]

So far it looks like your building your case for something unusual from things that would be expected to be there. Have you made any attempt to identify this stuff?

Data slide number one is important, here. It shows the dust in situ. This was no ordinary street dust. The macroscopic structure of the dust is the consistency of a somewhat hardened foam.