Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Thermite confirmed in 911 WTC Dust Samples


acidhead

Recommended Posts

Midge, this is not serious what you are saying. Dust is just dust, nothing more, and there can not be giant steel beams or fragments of human remains in it, you confuse the "dust" with the "rubble". It is precisely the dust which was sampled and studied, not the rubble. Dust is always airborne, and 3-mm pieces can not be airborne and can not freely travel in the air, unless we are talking some sort of a sandstorm. Just look at the map of locations, where the dust was collected (somewhere at the thread start)...

There is a detailed map of where the "dust" samples were collected from the enormous collapses of the WTC complex in the PDF of the OP.

Edited by acidhead
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 238
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • MARAB0D

    63

  • Q24

    45

  • aquatus1

    36

  • el midgetron

    36

There is a detailed map of where the "dust" samples were collected from the enormous collapses of the WTC complex in the PDF of the OP.

I hope this did not change the definition of dust :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

and 3-mm pieces can not be airborne and can not freely travel in the air, unless we are talking some sort of a sandstorm.

linked-image

You are just being to scientific about what "dust" is. The fallout from the WTC collapse is commonly know as "dust". Here is a CBS article where they call it "dust" -

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/12/24/...ain534228.shtml

Heres one from USA Today -

http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2004-0...-wtc-dust_x.htm

Heres one form MSNBC -

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3076626/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Then its not me being too scientific, but that "open Physics" journal being too housewifish! Just look at the title of the thread! I also was watching the direct live report on the collapse and saw these clouds the photo shows - so what? If they found thermite in the studied debris (as this seems to be the correct term according to you), then why they stated it was found in the dust? The difference between the debris and the dust is like between a lamb chop and a mince.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Then its not me being too scientific, but that "open Physics" journal being too housewifish! Just look at the title of the thread! I also was watching the direct live report on the collapse and saw these clouds the photo shows - so what? If they found thermite in the studied debris (as this seems to be the correct term according to you), then why they stated it was found in the dust? The difference between the debris and the dust is like between a lamb chop and a mince.

The dust from the WTC collapses was the carrier for the thermetic material and other small debris. The chips the paper discusses were extracted from the dust. The dust and chips are not the same thing.

It is disappointingly clear that you have not taken time to read the paper, marabod. :hmm:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The dust from the WTC collapses was the carrier for the thermetic material and other small debris. The chips the paper discusses were extracted from the dust. The dust and chips are not the same thing.

It is disappointingly clear that you have not taken time to read the paper, marabod. :hmm:

How exactly the dust can be a carrier for the heavier objects for at least few hundred meters? It happened to me to be a couple of times in a dust storm, once in Adelaide and another time in Brisbane; despite the strong wind I can not recall any "chips" flying amid the dust! Even when you drive through a common little dust tornado, called there willy-willy, there is only a fine dust around the car, despite the tornado is strong enough to give car a good shake. I am not even saying that thermite does not come in "chips",it comes in a powdery form (otherwise it can't work as thermite!) - it is iron-based paint which can come in chips...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How exactly the dust can be a carrier for the heavier objects for at least few hundred meters?

With all respect to your “common little dust tornado”, the WTC collapses and debris/dust clouds were something else. Here we are talking about a dense, hot cloud comprised of thousands of tonnes of concrete that some scientists have even compared to a pyroclastic flow as formed by volcanic eruptions! These clouds advanced at approximately 25mph and witness statements give an idea of their power: -

  • “I got down to the end of the block and turned the corner when a wave-- a hot, solid, black wave of heat threw me down the block. It literally picked me up off my feet and I wound up about a block away.”

  • “As I turned to run, a wall of warm air came barrelling toward me. I tried to outrace it, but it swept me up and literally blew me into the wall of a building.”
Now bearing in mind this hot, dense debris cloud was lifting people off the ground, I see no problem with it being able to carry 3mm debris a considerable distance away.

I am not even saying that thermite does not come in "chips",it comes in a powdery form (otherwise it can't work as thermite!) - it is iron-based paint which can come in chips...

You are confining yourself to regular thermite as mixed by amateurs rather than considering nano-engineered thermite for which there is no reason it cannot come in chips, blocks or anything else so long as the reactants are in contact.

You can keep referring to paint but it won't mean anything whilst the tests (listed here) indicating that this is not paint remain outstanding.

Edited by Q24
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What is the difference between God and a teacher?

Answer: God doesn't think he's a teacher. :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I will quote straight from the paper that began this thread: -

  • Initially, it was suspected these might be dried paint chips, but after closer inspection and testing, it was shown that this was not the case.

  • The initial objective was to compare the behaviour of the red layer with paint when soaked in a strong organic solvent known to soften and dissolve paint. Red/gray chips were soaked in methyl ethyl ketone (MEK) for 55 hours with frequent agitation and subsequently dried in air over several days. The chips showed significant swelling of the red layer, but with no apparent dissolution. In marked contrast, paint chips softened and partly dissolved when similarly soaked in MEK.

  • Several paint samples were also tested and in each case, the paint sample was immediately reduced to fragile ashes by the hot flame. This was not the case, however, with any of the red/gray chips from the World Trade Center dust.

  • Given the small size of the red chip, about 0.5 mm x 0.5 mm, we used two probes and obtained a rough value of approximately 10 ohm-m. This is several orders of magnitude less than paint coatings we found tabulated which are typically over 1010 ohm-m.

  • The post-DSC-test residue contains microspheres in which the iron exceeds the oxygen content, implying that at least some of the iron oxide has been reduced in the reaction. If a paint were devised that incorporated these very energetic materials, it would be highly dangerous when dry and most unlikely to receive regulatory approval for building use.

As suggested, that would be some very unusual and dangerous paint. :no:

My suspicion is they did not use a good control. They say they tested paint...but, what paint?

I want to know their control. Until then, the matter is not settled, IMO. And paint, or some other material could be what they are trying to claim as demoltion quality chemical material.

And, I already showed that primer paints of the types used at WTC had various iron and aluminum compounds. The so-called spark by Jones applying a flame to the chip needs independent confirmation.

I showed how the Windsor Tower produced glowing debris stream. No one there claimed "thermite". There was debris stream at the WTC which looked the same, yet, a nearly impossibly complex scenario is proposed to explain it. Secret agents, spies, planes under remote control, hugh explosions followed by demolition materials which were calculated to survive such explosions.

And, people infiltrating the Atta gang. Sorry, I don't believe it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are confining yourself to regular thermite as mixed by amateurs rather than considering nano-engineered thermite for which there is no reason it cannot come in chips, blocks or anything else so long as the reactants are in contact.

Q24 - I do not know whom do you call "amateurs", perhaps those who invented this thermite nearly a couple of centuries ago and were using it to weld metals... Also it is to date unclear, what exactly makes you think that nano-thermite exists and possesses those mystical properties you mention all the time. For some reasons, the "researchers" you refer to, made their bucket tests precisely on the thermite, created by the amateurs, rather then demonstrate the advantages of the superthermite to the public! What are we talking about??? First I hear that superthermite is an explosive, stronger that dynamite - but there was no explosion in WTC! Then it occurres, one needs 10 to 100 tons of this "dynamite" to do the job... And now we have a new feature - the CHIPS! So, the particles are glued together and still remain in contact? How is this possible? If two particles are glued together, then the GLUE must be between them - because this is how any glue works, it covers the surfaces and then dries or polymerises, holding two pieces together. And there is NO REACTION between two SEPARATED reagents, what's unclear with this part for you? This is the same as to put two jars on one shelf - one with iron Oxide, another with Aluminium, they would spend 1000 years together and would not react even if your shelves are on fire.

* “I got down to the end of the block and turned the corner when a wave-- a hot, solid, black wave of heat threw me down the block. It literally picked me up off my feet and I wound up about a block away.”

* “As I turned to run, a wall of warm air came barrelling toward me. I tried to outrace it, but it swept me up and literally blew me into the wall of a building.”

Now bearing in mind this hot, dense debris cloud was lifting people off the ground, I see no problem with it being able to carry 3mm debris a considerable distance away.

You do not see the problem, but I do. What sort of a physical force must be applied to a human 80 kg weight to "push" him on a ground? Let's say, a 100 kg (if you apply more, you would damage this human...). Let us say that the surface area of this human, turned toward this "hot wave" is 1 square metre (it is less, but there are also the clothes and their wrinkles). Thus, 100 kg per 10,000 square centimetres... makes it to be a pressure of 0.01 bar! Now, let us take a "chip" 3mm by 3mm, allegedly "carried" by this hot wave... Say, its surface area is only half exposed to the pressure, let it be 3x3 mm= 9 mm square=0.09 cm square. This surface would be under the same pressure of 0.01 bar (kg/cm square) as the above mentioned human, means the force pushing it forwards would be equal to or not greater than 0.001 kg OR only 1 gram. Tell me, Mr Pascal-Newton-Descartes, how far would such chip fly if you push it with the force equivalent to the weight of 1 gram?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I showed how the Windsor Tower produced glowing debris stream. No one there claimed "thermite".

The WTC2 flow and Madrid fire debris share nothing in common as summarised in my post here.

So, the particles are glued together and still remain in contact? How is this possible? If two particles are glued together, then the GLUE must be between them - because this is how any glue works, it covers the surfaces and then dries or polymerises, holding two pieces together. And there is NO REACTION between two SEPARATED reagents, what's unclear with this part for you?

Depending on how the binder and reactants are engineered it is still possible for them to be in contact or in very close proximity. Also if the binder has a low melting point than the reactants can still come into contact. I did a quick search on thermite paste and thermite binder which gives quite a few results. Silacone sealant, plaster of Paris and organic compounds are all discussed.

Anyhow, why are we discussing this? The aluminium and iron oxide were in contact in the sample chips discovered and did produce a thermic reaction.

Tell me, Mr Pascal-Newton-Descartes, how far would such chip fly if you push it with the force equivalent to the weight of 1 gram?

I don’t know – you tell me, Pascal. I’m sticking to the thought that if the debris cloud could lift people off the floor, sweep them a block away or launch them into walls, then small debris could easily be carried further.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It’s comical how you accuse me of topic jumping. Look at my responses and you will see the only times I deviate slightly are where either it is directly relevant or YOU have brought another issue into the discussion. For example: -

In your post #185 above, you introduced, “It is this property, in fact, that makes it useless for melting through vertical columns, but we'll get to that later.”

Now I’m sure you would like to get away with this erroneous statement but it deserves immediate response to correct - “Well that would depend how the thermite charge is setup against the column.”

Then you act as though I’m the one jumping topic, “As I said, we'll get to that later.”

What is happening here is that you can throw in additional issues when you like but you berate me for responding to them! As I said, quite comical. :lol:

Stop trying to derail the topic, Q24. You have been repeatedly shown to be intellectually dishonest, and will take any opportunity, including this one here, to focus attention away from the actual point. I made it clear that the point was to be discussed later, which means it is not an additional issue.

Anyhow your insistence on limiting discussion to the thermite flow seems to have brought us to a bit of a dead end where I have responded to your doubts and there is nothing left to address. Unless you actually have a reason that can be upheld, then there is nothing to say that the WTC2 visible flow is not thermite.

Nonsense. Once again, you are wrong. We have barely begun. Good try at derailing, but it isn't going to work.

Now, to get back on topic, you claimed that that melt was pure, or near-pure, thermite. You acknowledge that this could not be from a charge in the center of the tower, and that the only way that it could be would be if it was a thermite charge that got knocked loose from a center support by the blast and and moved to within 5 feet of the window, where it managed to activate, causing the flow. Is that accurate?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Stop trying to derail the topic, Q24. You have been repeatedly shown to be intellectually dishonest, and will take any opportunity, including this one here, to focus attention away from the actual point. I made it clear that the point was to be discussed later, which means it is not an additional issue.

Nonsense. Once again, you are wrong. We have barely begun. Good try at derailing, but it isn't going to work.

Here is a tip if you think I am derailing from your ‘point’ – don’t initially raise a subject or make a claim that you don’t want me to respond to in the first place. If you take a look at some of your unprompted accusations aside from the thermite flow, you cannot seriously expect them to go unaddressed. Plus I don’t need to derail anything as with every post you make it becomes more apparent that you don’t actually have a point.

Now, to get back on topic, you claimed that that melt was pure, or near-pure, thermite. You acknowledge that this could not be from a charge in the center of the tower, and that the only way that it could be would be if it was a thermite charge that got knocked loose from a center support by the blast and and moved to within 5 feet of the window, where it managed to activate, causing the flow. Is that accurate?

Yes.

Although I have been thinking about the ‘how far thermite can flow’ issue again and it really would depend on the quantity. Still, I’m content with the charge being within 5ft of the window – just not sure that it necessarily has to be the case.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Depending on how the binder and reactants are engineered it is still possible for them to be in contact or in very close proximity. Also if the binder has a low melting point than the reactants can still come into contact. I did a quick search on thermite paste and thermite binder which gives quite a few results. Silacone sealant, plaster of Paris and organic compounds are all discussed.

Anyhow, why are we discussing this? The aluminium and iron oxide were in contact in the sample chips discovered and did produce a thermic reaction.

I don’t know – you tell me, Pascal. I’m sticking to the thought that if the debris cloud could lift people off the floor, sweep them a block away or launch them into walls, then small debris could easily be carried further.

"Very close proximity" is not close enough for a reaction to start, there must be a contact. If you keep a hamburger in a very close proximity to your mouth, you still cannot chew it. It is like either pregnant or not. Silicone and plaster of Paris I just do not bother to respond to...

I gave you the estimates of the excess presure in such a dust cloud; a chip 3x3x1 mm has volume just under 0.1 cm cubic, means at estimated density of 4 g/cm cub it weighs 0.4 gram. The latter figure would be the force of gravity, which affects it - so if it is pushed ahead with the force of 1 gram and pulled the same down with the force of 0.4 grams, then on every metre of its way it would come down for 40 cm, this is what Vector Algebra says about the vector sum... Means if it is pulled for 100 metres from some height, it would fall 40 metres down, this is precisely why the chips cannot be found in the dust samples - because they are not dust and can not get airborne. Get back to school!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Marbob, your argument about 3 mm particles ignors many factors like the wind, the density of the dust cloud and the duration of the force "pushing" the particles. But mostly your argument seems to contradict what we all saw on 9/11.

Do you really believe that a tiny 3 mm particle caught up in this is going to fall to the ground like you describe -

linked-image

Edited by el midgetron
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Marbob, your argument about 3 mm particles ignors many factors like the wind, the density of the dust cloud and the duration of the force "pushing" the particles. But mostly your argument seems to contradict what we all saw on 9/11.

Do you really believe that a tiny 3 mm particle caught up in this is going to fall to the ground like you describe -

linked-image

Midge, I fully agree that "this" looks extremely impressive, I myself was impressed when saw it on CNN. But "this" is only a cloud of DUST, spread around by the surge of air pressure during the collapse of the building, and it has one only initial push, not the continuous source of pushing force. There is no wind, storm, samum, sirocco behind this dust cloud - it was just spreading towards the areas with lower pressure in them. The fact that the cloud was spreading along the streets and periodically turning (as far as I understood of course) proves that there was nothing heavy in it at all, only dust particles. And dust is airborne, it takes ages for it to settle on the ground, as at such size the surface area ratio to the particle volume is huge, so the air resistance counters the gravity force.

If you throw a cement or flour bag from a chopper, this beautifully imitates a ground bomb explosion - but it can not hurt anyone, unless you get the bag itself on your head. There was not a single victim of that spreading dust cloud, despite it looked almost like Independence Day attack.

It is important to understand the difference from the dust and the chips - the former can fly in the air flow, but the latter can not. This comes from Geometry, the explanation of this property of the dust to fly: the surface area of a round particle is equal to 2*3.1416*R^2 while its volume is 4/3 *3.1416* R^3, so the surface-to-volume ratio is proportional to 1/R. This means the greater is the Radius, the smaller is the surface in relation to the volume - this is particularly a reason of why smaller mammals eat more in proportion to their own weight, as they LOSE more energy per unit of weight, than some horse or elephant. Relative surface area of solid particles falls down with the decrease of their size, and about 500 microns becomes small enough for their weight to be equal or SMALLER than the lifting force of the upcoming air flows, hence these are called DUST and behave differently from larger particles. Therefore those 3mm "chips" simply could not be the part of the dust, someone CLAIMED them as being its part. Bogus sampling and bogus results - by the way, the chief editor of that miserable Open Chemistry has already resigned, does it tell you anything? The reason was that the "report" has nothing to do with any Chemistry or Physics, but is only a strongly biased, provocative, politically motivated article.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Very close proximity" is not close enough for a reaction to start, there must be a contact.

When the binder and reactants which are in very close proximity begin to melt and agitate they will come into contact.

Means if it is pulled for 100 metres from some height, it would fall 40 metres down, this is precisely why the chips cannot be found in the dust samples - because they are not dust and can not get airborne. Get back to school!

As el midge said - you are ignoring factors such as the density and heat of the dust cloud.

Also, your counters are beginning to catch up with themselves and now don’t make sense. On the one hand you think small particles up to 3mm cannot have been found in the dust but you also argue that the same particles are paint chips. The idea that the scientists who wrote the paper planted paint chips in the dust samples is nonsensical.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When the binder and reactants which are in very close proximity begin to melt and agitate they will come into contact.

As el midge said - you are ignoring factors such as the density and heat of the dust cloud.

Also, your counters are beginning to catch up with themselves and now don’t make sense. On the one hand you think small particles up to 3mm cannot have been found in the dust but you also argue that the same particles are paint chips. The idea that the scientists who wrote the paper planted paint chips in the dust samples is nonsensical.

Now... Before you were quoting those, whom YOU thought to be a scientific authority; now you start to quote... Midge, who is unaware that 2+2=4, not =5 and not =3... Ask Acidhead to ask the CREDENTIALS from the one you quote.

You are talking about "binder and reactants which are in very close proximity begin to melt and agitate they will come into contact" without (once again) understanding what you are talking about. To initiate thermite reaction one needs already several hundred degrees Centigrade, it does not start if you just throw a cigarette butt to the mixture! In fact I often use the electric fuse, providing over 600 C to start it, or a gunpowder tubular fuse. it is NOT EASY to initiate a conventional thermite reaction at all, while when some "plaster of Paris" is involved it is simply IMPOSSIBLE. Just make a pinch of the discussed mixture yourself - all ingredients are around you, in Dulux and other paint shops; for God's sake do it ONCE, and then you would at least know what you are talking about. You are trying to persuade the public that WTC was looking like a hedgehog with the high-temperature fuses sticking around like the spikes - go, go, check it yourself!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To initiate thermite reaction one needs already several hundred degrees Centigrade, it does not start if you just throw a cigarette butt to the mixture!

I am well aware of that and did not suggest otherwise.

You are trying to persuade the public that WTC was looking like a hedgehog with the high-temperature fuses sticking around like the spikes - go, go, check it yourself!

I was not aware that is what I was trying to do at all. :lol:

*Waits for aquatus’ ‘points’…*

Link to comment
Share on other sites

*Waits for aquatus’ ‘points’…*

Yeah, sorry about that. I've been real busy now that we are getting ready for the conversion to Windows 7. I can't get my aircard to work on it, so I can't really post while I should be working. <_<

Okay, so, we have determined that the flow, if it was thermite, was neither pooled anywhere, nor did it come from the center support columns of the WTC. So, let's move on to the next point:

As previously mentioned, thermite melts through 4 inches of concrete in about 30-40 seconds. We see the flow start and continue sporadically for about 6-7 minutes, till the building collapsed.

How did thermite, flowing across a flat concrete surface, not only not melt through it, but didn't even carve a groove for itself?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is important to understand the difference from the dust and the chips - the former can fly in the air flow, but the latter can not. This comes from Geometry, the explanation of this property of the dust to fly: the surface area of a round particle is equal to 2*3.1416*R^2 while its volume is 4/3 *3.1416* R^3, so the surface-to-volume ratio is proportional to 1/R. This means the greater is the Radius, the smaller is the surface in relation to the volume - this is particularly a reason of why smaller mammals eat more in proportion to their own weight, as they LOSE more energy per unit of weight, than some horse or elephant. Relative surface area of solid particles falls down with the decrease of their size, and about 500 microns becomes small enough for their weight to be equal or SMALLER than the lifting force of the upcoming air flows, hence these are called DUST and behave differently from larger particles. Therefore those 3mm "chips" simply could not be the part of the dust, someone CLAIMED them as being its part. Bogus sampling and bogus results - by the way, the chief editor of that miserable Open Chemistry has already resigned, does it tell you anything? The reason was that the "report" has nothing to do with any Chemistry or Physics, but is only a strongly biased, provocative, politically motivated article.

Just curious... are you now claiming that all the samples are "bogus" or faked? Is this is your new argument?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey.... I just DISCOVERED a website where Steven Jones will answer all of your questions in the comment section....

..... leave your comments there and see what one of the Authors of the paper has to say!

http://www.911blogger.com/node/19761?page=3

More responses... Tuesday morning 7 April 2009

1. Far from "refusing" to speak before university or other groups to defend the findings of this paper, I welcome such opportunities. I spoke on these results at a colloquium of the physics Dept. in Sept 2008 at Utah Valley University (about 28,000 students last I heard -- a large university). I will be speaking at Univ of Calif at Davis (and in Sacramento) on April 20- May 1, mainly on the red/gray chips and iron-aluminum rich microspheres and high energy yields which they generate upon ignition, and later this year in Australia. I welcome serious questions from other scientists.

I have an appointment in 3 minutes, gotta run. More later.

Best wishes to all who seek the truth... I admit it helps if you know the science to counteract the noise the debunkers generate. Note that the ultimate test for them is not to rant on forums like JREF but to PUBLISH A REFUTATION IN AN ESTABLISHED PEER-REVIEWED JOURNAL, if they can do it! Until then, our paper stands.

Submitted by ProfJones on Tue, 04/07/2009 - 9:00am.

Edited by acidhead
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Midge, I fully agree that "this" looks extremely impressive, I myself was impressed when saw it on CNN. But "this" is only a cloud of DUST, spread around by the surge of air pressure during the collapse of the building, and it has one only initial push, not the continuous source of pushing force.

You are way over simplifying your claims. "only one initial push", yeah so? What about the duration of that push? What about the desity of the cloud?

If your argument anything to do with reality, we wouldn't have seen a dense cloud behaving like this -

linked-image

According to you those particles are FAR to small to be propelled to that distance. Its clearly a tightly bound cloud still moving with great force even blocks away from ground zero. If your claims were accurate we wouldn't see this at all. What we would see would be a very slow moving could with soft edges, moving in all directions, including upward.

You seem to have based your claim on the idea that a 3 mm particle would need more force than you can account for to travel to the sample locations. However, you have not explained how even smaller particles could travel in a flow like this without being subject to continuous engery. The above photo clearly shows a moving flow of air-born debris BUT it does not show particles simply "suspended" in air as your argument contends they should be.

Now take a look at this photo. There is still your "air-born particles" suspended in air but the heavier solution has lost momentum and dissipated. What we are left with are your "air-born particles".

linked-image

The fact that the cloud was spreading along the streets and periodically turning (as far as I understood of course) proves that there was nothing heavy in it at all, only dust particles. And dust is airborne, it takes ages for it to settle on the ground, as at such size the surface area ratio to the particle volume is huge, so the air resistance counters the gravity force.

Yet as I pointed out above, even this point of yours is in direct conflict with your argument. How is the "dust" "tuning" corners and moving as shown in the many photos I have posted for you, if it wasn't being propelled? The photo I posted yesturday clearly shows a moving cloud with sharp edges. The first photo above in this post shows the same thing even thought the cloud has traveled several blocks from ground zero. These are not "suspended" particles simply "dissipating" in the air as your entire argument suggests they should be.

Just curious... are you now claiming that all the samples are "bogus" or faked? Is this is your new argument?

Yep, that must be his "plan B" after his claim that the samples were "to small to even been seen with the naked eye" didn't work out. Now they are to big to exist at all.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Midge - look more carefully on the picture you posted - there is the ground, covered with debris, and there is a car, on which only a dust layer is seen! This means the larger pieces were not carried in the air, but over the ground, like any wind would carry them.

Of course there was some sort of the time length of that pushing pulse, perhaps a minute or so. But the pulse itself was not the explosion shockwave, but simply a compressed air; the excessive pressure in it was not sufficient even to break the glass in the windows (as one can see on your image). The impressive cloud is just a dust cloud, it is dense optically but not physically.

However, you have not explained how even smaller particles could travel in a flow like this without being subject to continuous engery.
I did! Dust particles are between 20 and 500 microns, they go with the air movement without immediate settling. The term "smaller" is non-scientific, it is like to ask how long is a piece of string. Smaller than what? Then those bigger?

There is nothing surprising in the dust settling unevenly - of course, those airborn particles which are in hundred microns range settle faster than those in tens of microns range. Absolutely the same happens behind the cars, driving over a dusty road - dust behind them "clears" slowly, first losing its heavier content.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Scenario 1-

Hijacked planes hit buildings, and 2000 people die. Damaged buildings are salvaged. Meanwhile, U.S. invades Afghanistan to hunt and kill the group responsible.

In a somewhat related event, the U.S. ousts the Husseins of Iraq, seeking the emplacement of a democratic government.

Department of Homeland Security is created.

Scenario 2-

Hijacked planes hit buildings, and 2000 people die. Damaged buildings are not salvaged. Meanwhile, U.S. invades Afghanistan to hunt and kill the group responsible.

In a somewhat related event, the U.S. ousts the Husseins of Iraq, seeking the emplacement of a democratic government.

Department of Homeland Security is created.

There does not seem to be any difference in these two scenarios. Except to those troubled with chips. Chips on their shoulders. They just want to stick it to someone, rather than deal with the reality of this world.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.