• 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.
leftysergeant said:
The fact that fire fighters survived in the core of one of the towers and that there were no indications of fiendishly bright white light around any of the exterior columns rules out any great deal of heat outside of that generated by the Class A fires on the office floors. Your willy-willy is just a perturbation of the flow of the wind through the canyon.
Click to expand...

Are there any live videos of the firefighters being discovered in the stairwell that you know of ? There must have been camera crews all over for weeks.
 
WTC Dust said:
Support of the official theory, therefore boring. He also did not properly explain the smell, but at least he mentioned the smell.
Click to expand...
Don't look now Dusty, but your dustification beam evildoers are in Norway now!
The BBC reported residents as saying there was a smell of sulfur in the air and asked Furniss about this.

"I was in New York three weeks after 9/11, there was still a lingering smell [and] I would compare it to that, it's very similar to that," he replied.
Click to expand...
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43854355/ns/world_news-europe/?GT1=43001

Maybe you should rush to Oslo and get some samples, or will you wait 8 years again? :rolleyes:
 
WTC Dust said:
typo

it's wtcdust.blogspot.com
Click to expand...

First thing I saw was this:

do%2Byou%2Bsee%2Ba%2Bsimilar%2Bshape.jpg


And no I don't see a similar shape and you are also comparing a still image. No idea what you're trying to imply, but its cleary based on crazy :rolleyes:
 
Not really, because if an airplane hit a single beam it would have shown deceleration.

No plane could have pierced through even one single steel beam of that size.

It might bend it if it rammed into it, but not pierce straight through it.

aggle-rithm said:
I would start with calculating the force of a 300,000 lb airliner hitting a building at 500 mph.



Determining the acceleration would be problematic. How fast would the airliner change velocity upon hitting the building? If we take your claim at face value, that the parts would bounce off the building, then you have to assume a HUGE amount of acceleration; because the parts would move from 500 mph to zero in the distance less than or equal to the maximum allowed by the length of the columns before severing.

A more reasonable estimate would be based on how long it took a large amount of the airliner to travel through the building and exit on the other side. This would be extremely imprecise, because of the chaotic nature of the crash, but I could make a conservative estimate.

Strength of steel is measured in pressure rather than force, so the next step would be converting from one to the other, then comparing the results to the strength of the structural steel used in the WTC.

I'm guessing that the pressure of an airliner colliding at that speed will be so overwhelming that it render a precise calculation moot.
Click to expand...
 
bill smith said:
Are there any live videos of the firefighters being discovered in the stairwell that you know of ? There must have been camera crews all over for weeks.
Click to expand...

Surely you've heard of the famous Stairwell B?
 
You've seen my game 1000 times before?

Proving my assertion correct. All those things you said were things that have nothing to do with me.

The Platypus said:
Such narcissism exposes you...

It's funny how you kooks always hack on JREF and the people here, meanwhile your the one that came to a skeptic forum and is attempting to peddle the most pathetically told lies that have been tried countless times before you and you actually have to wonder why noone believes you...WOW.:boggled: Duuuuh!

I've seen your game 1000s of times. All you have presented is a bunch of made up nonsense and lies, that don't make any sense at worst and are laughable at best. And then you arrogantly prance around like we should just believe you because you and you alone have "the truth". And when this performance doesn't fly, instead of just realizing that you can't win em all, we get more narcissism, laughable claims of superiority along with the demonizing of everyone that doesn't believe you. Which is all a typical pattern i've often found in people that aren't being truthful. IE: The snake oil salesmen that must save the sales pitch from doubters that speak up, or the cult member trying to believe them and join the cult must demonize those that don't accept "the truth".

It's not hard to see that this is why you all get called kooks and liars by people, because that's what you show. You have to be nuts to think anyone is going to just play along with such delusions and lies that are so pathetic and obvious it's ridiculous, just because you come along and tell them too. Not everyone is a gullible fool, a mark, a recruitment target, that is just waiting for someone to come alone and "save" them with their "truth". Such as your road runner cartoon concepts of physics, or your admiration for Judy Woods and her imaginary beam weapons, or your BS dust stories that you alone found some dust 8 years later, and figured out all this crap. Yeeeeah riggggghhhht :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
 
WTC Dust said:
Not really, because if an airplane hit a single beam it would have shown deceleration.

No plane could have pierced through even one single steel beam of that size.

It might bend it if it rammed into it, but not pierce straight through it.
Click to expand...

So how did this happen?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RZjhxuhTmGk


And if water can destroy a car why cant a plane destroy a few steel columns?
 
Last edited:
Just do it so we know we are talking about the same thing. Sheesh! It's not that hard.

Redtail said:
First you wanted video of the debris. It was provided.
Then you wanted a time where the debris bounced back. It was provided.
Then you wanted the debris to reasonably look like it was from the plane. It was provided.
Then you wanted it at the site & moment of impact. It was provided.
Now you want a jpeg with the debris circled.

That is moving the goal post dust.

Now, I tend to post from my phone. It doesn't have MSpaint. Granted I could go to the site office & use the PC there to do it but since you refuse to accept what has been provided by myself & others, why should I believe you when you say if this piece of info is provided you'll reconsider when you've clearly shown that is not true.
Click to expand...
 
I thought you were one of the people who were going to start ignoring this thread. Weren't you? If not, why not add something interesting?

Craig4 said:
This is just sad. Dust is impervious to reason and continuing to give her attention is probably not helping her.
Click to expand...
 
When I first began reading your message, I thought that you were being polite. By the time I got to the end of it, I had changed my mind.

I didn't come here to convince anyone of anything. Why would I do that here? You aren't seriously researching 9/11, most of you. I came here for a debunking, and am quite interested in it.

I don't need a debunking of the energy weapon theory, because it isn't my theory. I don't need a debunking of the no plane people, because I'm a no hijackings person.

I found a good amount of WTC dust. It is in the form of a metallic foam.
This is my discovery. Nobody has touched it yet, except for to suggest fatal contamination without really backing it up and to suggest (I'm guessing) fakery in my magnetism demonstration without really back it up either.

Pretty sad case, for a set of supposed premier debunkers.



Porkpie Hat said:
WTC Dust, I've been lurking on this thread for a while now and would like to ask a few questions regarding your claims that no planes were present during the tragedy at the WTC complex on September 11 2001.

I am a layperson and will be approaching this as such, obviously. I would ask that you, as a scientist, answer my questions by giving me a technical response suited to a laypersons understanding including any relevant calculations required to support your answers.

My first query would be regarding the videos of bullets you posted yesterday (excellent videos btw) and your use of it as well as the physics behind what we saw in relation to the impact video alienentity posted in response.

My question is, how does the high resolution, high frame rate video of bullets impacting solid materials correlate to the low resolution, low frame rate video of the plane impact video?

More to the point, is it possible that the low resolution, low frame rate video of the plane impact was not capable of capturing the same detail that we saw in the bullet impact videos?

My own opinion, aside from the fact that we do see debris being blown back in the plane impact video, is that the bullet impact videos were designed to show the detail that they did and using the same equipment and methodology as was used in the plane impact video may not garner the same result.

Can you please explain why we should accept the bullet impact videos as a valid comparison for the plane impact videos we've seen, include all technical data in support of your answer please.

Second question, this one involves scale.

On top of the issue of resolution we must also consider the scale of your bullet impact video and its relation to the plane impact video.

I ask, is the scale comparable?

The reason I ask should come as no surprise to a scientist of your stature and again involves what we should expect to see in terms of detail for both videos. Once again we have a very high resolution, high frame rate video of a bullet impacting solid materials from a relatively close distance (around 2-3'). In the plane videos we have a low resolution, low frame rate capture from around 700' (just a guess).

Can you explain how the second scenario would result in comparable detail to the first please? Also, given the size of the projectiles in question would it be fair to say the distances each video was shot from in relation to the impacts was comparable thus resulting in the same degree of detail for both videos (disregarding resolution and frame rate for the moment)?

My third question relates to your claim that we should see evidence of a wake created by the plane at impact. Now as a layperson I can almost accept your claim at face value save for a few niggling questions provided by the sceptic inside me.

Firstly, how does the impact itself affect the vortex of air "following" the plane and how quickly does this affect take place?

Secondly, what should we see in the smoke created by the plane impact and would the detail be captured by a low resolution, low frame rate recording device from the given distance?

Thirdly, can you point out what we should see in the plane impact videos by using the bullet impact videos you posted previously?

I've watched this video twice and can't see anything at impact that would indicate a disturbance in the blast pattern created by a wake vortex (which is present regardless of the projectile in question, correct?).

Are the bullet impacts fake too?

Lastly, you claim that the explosion we see in the plane impact video was not related to the plane impact itself but present nothing to support your claim.

So I ask, when should the explosion have occurred and how would material densities affect the timing of such an explosion?

Please answer these questions as a scientist, not as an ideologue.

In order for your claims to have any impact in the world at all you first need to convince laypeople like me and the best way to do that would be to answer our questions regardless of whether or not you deem them relevant.
Click to expand...
 
There is no such thing as an utterly non-flexible object.

You mention "fibers" when referring to the exterior steel columns of the WTC? Talk about a misrepresentation! Steel is steel. You're claiming that an airplane pierced through steel beams, not me.

leftysergeant said:
First, to address the back splatter of a bullet impact, this phenomenon is only observed when the target is something hard enough to resist the bulet for any reasonable time. This is most observable in the impact of the bullet or shotgun pellets against a steel target thicker than the sheet steel used in an automobile.

When a bullet with sufficient enrgy hits a steel target which does not yield immediately, both objects tend to melt partially. This is the reason that there will usually be a raised margin around the point of impact in the steel. The melting and deformation of the lead in the bullet cause the bronze jacket to split open. If you look closely at the debris that spreads out in the time that it takes for the steel to yield, you will see that the jacket tends to move laterally.

This can be compared easily to what happened at the Pentagon. The wall which the plane struck was utterly non-flexible, and had to be literally crushed by the impact. Bits of the fuselage and wings would, neccessarily, have shattered as does the jacket of a bullet striking a heavy steel plate. Thus, we have the little bits of sheet metal on the ground up-range of impact, while the heavier and denser parts, such as the longitudinal deck (to which the seats and nearly all really heavy internal structures, such as seats, are attached, continues on into the hole crushed by the weight of the aircraft.

But, if we examined the impact of a bullet with a paper target, we see that the paper yields almost immediately and does not even offer eenough resistance to deform the bullet in any manner. Thus, a bullet hole through a paper target will always have margins which are depressed on the impact side. (Trust me on this one. I have made enough holes in paper with various sorts of munitions that I can state categoricly that this always occurs barring the presence of a very sensitive explosive charge in either the projectile or target.)

Another interesting phenomenon occurs when the target is a milk jug full of water, or a watermelon or a human body. When a bullet enters a plastic jug of water, the water becomes pressurized and must escape. Generally, it does so out the exit hole down-range. Thus, the jug is propelled up-range while the water goes down-range.

The walls at the WTC did not need to be crushed. They were just shoved in like the fibers of a paper target until the fibers (in this case the bolted-together perimeter columns) broke and bent inward, down-range.

The interiors of the towers were briefly over-pressurized and a shock wave was established inside the buillding, but that shock wave and over-pressurization did not rebound significantly out the entry hole until, apparently, deflagration of the fuel started inside the building. Thus we see windows popping out parallel to the neccessary path of the shock wave, releasing pressurized fuel vapors and air, and the cloud of fuel vapor and the fireball are significantly larger down-range, out the other side of the building, and the denser materials that ade it that far, such as at least one engine and a landing gear, continue down-range. There is no reason for there to have been any back-splatter because the towers behaved more in the manner of a paper target than in that of a steel plate or brick wall.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
WTC Dust said:
Just saying, if you know almost nothing about the work of Judy Wood except what her detractors say about it, you are underinformed.
Click to expand...

Nope. I have read enough of her stuff to know beyond a shadow of a doubt that reading any more would make someone overly misinformed.

Same as the Bible.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom