Dr Wood's claim that 80% of the steel from the towers was turned to dust.

Discussion in '9/11' started by Fangbeer, Jun 18, 2012.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Fangbeer

    Fangbeer Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2011
    Messages:
    6,953
    Likes Received:
    1,288
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I asked this question in the previous thread about Dr. Wood, and it is as of yet, unanswered. I thought I would give the proponents of Wood's theory another chance to answer the question, and substantiate her claims.

    If 80% of the steel from the towers was finely divided into tiny particles of dust capable of floating away, why did we not witness the rapid oxidation of these particles?

    Given:

    1. Steel's mass is mostly comprised of iron.
    2. Small particles of iron are pyrophoric.
    3. Pyrophoric materials ignite at room temperature when exposed to oxygen.
    4. The burning of iron releases large amounts of light and heat.

    (- 1651 kJ of heat is released for every 4 mol (223.38 grams) of iron burned.)

    5. 80% of the steel from the building is tens of thousands of tons of steel

    Asserted:

    1. We did not witness a release of light and heat consistent with the burning of 80% of the iron within the building.
    2. A release of heat and light on the order of the entire annual energy use of the Earth would not go unnoticed.

    Does anyone who subscribes to Wood's theory have an answer for my question?
     
  2. garyd

    garyd Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2012
    Messages:
    34,764
    Likes Received:
    6,031
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Sorry sir but you are dealing with a group of people who if they cared about reality or truly understood it would long ago have figured out that their pipe dream isn't even physically possible. What's left of the truther movement is now composed of two elements, a peculiar sort of religious fanatic, and the miserable bastards who are simply in it to make money off them and/or get their fifteen minutes of fame.

    Your statements are of course dead accurate and they will be completely ignored.
     
  3. Fangbeer

    Fangbeer Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2011
    Messages:
    6,953
    Likes Received:
    1,288
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I certainly agree, however, one of the unedifying cries of those who still subscribe to Wood's nonsense (et al) is that what truthers call "the official story" defies the known laws of physics. I certainly disagree with that premise, and I take every opportunity to show them that their tentative grasp of the physical world is quite as sharp as they think it is. Moreover I love to show just how stunningly stupid truther science really is.

    So truthers, if you're out there, and capable, please help Dr Wood explain how the oxidation of iron was inhibited so as to validate Dr Wood's premise that 80% of the building's steel was "dustified." Surely it can be explained to the rest of us sheep.
     
  4. Jango

    Jango New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2012
    Messages:
    2,683
    Likes Received:
    16
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I went through your posting history here, not completely, but enough to paint a big enough picture. Why do you only post in the 9/11 section?
     
  5. Fangbeer

    Fangbeer Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2011
    Messages:
    6,953
    Likes Received:
    1,288
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You obviously didn't look too carefully. Perhaps you should broaden your search. Fangbeer is the only screen name I use on the internet.


    Beyond that, you asked a question that was answered in the post you responded to. Perhaps you should read it again.
     
  6. l4zarus

    l4zarus Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2012
    Messages:
    886
    Likes Received:
    20
    Trophy Points:
    18

    I see the CTers have come out in droves to share all their beyond a shadow of a doubt, absolute proof there is an inside job conspiracy and validates all of Judy Wood's research.

    Oh wait....
     
  7. l4zarus

    l4zarus Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2012
    Messages:
    886
    Likes Received:
    20
    Trophy Points:
    18

    Posting history of OP is irrelevant>>>> Ad Hominum fallacy. Might want to look at the history of this member who once made a habit of this.
     
  8. leftysergeant

    leftysergeant New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2012
    Messages:
    8,827
    Likes Received:
    59
    Trophy Points:
    0
    We should also ask why iron oxide was not a major component of the dust found in the area after the events. Steel made up a great deal of ther total mass of the structures, but the dsust is predominantly cementic or dry wall material.
     
  9. DDave

    DDave Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2010
    Messages:
    2,002
    Likes Received:
    34
    Trophy Points:
    48
    And what does that "big picture" tell you, Jango?

    And even if you were right, would that make the facts and assertions given by Fangbeer somehow incorrect?
     
  10. Jango

    Jango New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2012
    Messages:
    2,683
    Likes Received:
    16
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I'm not disagreeing with his physics - I'm no physicist.

    I am just curious why Fangbeer, who appears to be quite the smart person, would spend the overwhelming majority of his posting career here at Political Forums being an anti-truther debating truthers.

    There seems to be a couple of people who actively spend the majority of their posting career here being anti-truthers.
     
  11. Fangbeer

    Fangbeer Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2011
    Messages:
    6,953
    Likes Received:
    1,288
    Trophy Points:
    113
    If you want to discuss my posting habits, perhaps you should start a thread about it. This thread, however, is about Dr Wood's flawed presumption that steel turned to dust. If you have anything to add on this topic, such as how the oxidation of iron was inhibited by space based laser technology, I'd love to hear it.
     
  12. BullsLawDan

    BullsLawDan New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2010
    Messages:
    5,724
    Likes Received:
    97
    Trophy Points:
    0
    So what?

    Posting on internet forums is a hobby for people. They post about what interests them, or where their expertise lies. I don't post too much in 9/11 forums because (1) I'm a legal expert, not a physics expert, and (2) the 9/11 Denier movement has become a cult at this point, and trying to convince someone their cult is based on lies is like banging your head against a wall.

    However, I read and occasionally respond to posts in this subforum, because the psychology of 9/11 Deniers and other conspiracy theorists interests me - how do otherwise ordinary people have such a mental failing as to fall down the rabbit hole of these nonsensical cultlike groups of fanatics (9/11 Deniers, birthers, Holocaust deniers, moon landing deniers, chemtrails people, NWO conspiracies, etc)?
     
  13. BullsLawDan

    BullsLawDan New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2010
    Messages:
    5,724
    Likes Received:
    97
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Just a quick question that also supports your position - isn't there an even simpler math problem with Dr. Wood's theory?

    If 80% of the towers were "dustified," how did emergency crews and cleanup crews remove far more than 20% of the original mass of the buildings during the cleanup?

    The data on how much material was taken away from the site is freely available, at least in estimate form. If the total sum of the material is a decent amount greater than 20% of the standing mass of the buildings, that would essentially negate Dr. Wood's looney theory right there.
     
  14. Fangbeer

    Fangbeer Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2011
    Messages:
    6,953
    Likes Received:
    1,288
    Trophy Points:
    113
    That's good enough for you and me, of course, but unfortunately truthers are another matter. You have to discuss things in terms of the evidence they "trust." For Wood, that evidence is her perception of some photographs she reviewed. She sees dust in photographs, and assumes its main component is the steel from the building. That's a rather odd conclusion for an educated person to leap to, but there you have it. On the other hand, they don't trust estimates of debris removal because they feel things like that can be faked. Hell, they believe that aircraft slamming into buildings can be faked.

    So I'd rather appeal to her and her follower's sense of perception and logic, and deal with them in terms they can understand.

    Everyone has seen steel generate sparks. This is something that laypeople can relate to. If you can show that a release of energy from iron is a chemical property of iron that can't be faked, then they might take a moment to review their logic.
     
  15. l4zarus

    l4zarus Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2012
    Messages:
    886
    Likes Received:
    20
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Don't forget creationists. :roll:

    The attraction to these topics is similar to the attraction of watching a train wreck in slow motion....not proud of it, just a fact.
     
  16. l4zarus

    l4zarus Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2012
    Messages:
    886
    Likes Received:
    20
    Trophy Points:
    18
    This thread has been live for over 24 hours. I expect ANY MINUTE NOW the forum's regular CTers will be busting down the door IN MASS, to share their irrefutable evidence .

    Any minute now....

    Maybe they're shy.
     
  17. Jango

    Jango New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2012
    Messages:
    2,683
    Likes Received:
    16
    Trophy Points:
    0
    We're in the conspiracy section. Does being on topic mean anything?
     
  18. Fangbeer

    Fangbeer Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2011
    Messages:
    6,953
    Likes Received:
    1,288
    Trophy Points:
    113

    I don't see why it shouldn't. Do you have anything on topic to add, or are you going to try to continue to make this thread about me?
     
  19. Jango

    Jango New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2012
    Messages:
    2,683
    Likes Received:
    16
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Re-read the first sentence in post #10.
     
  20. Fangbeer

    Fangbeer Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2011
    Messages:
    6,953
    Likes Received:
    1,288
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Please re-read rule 14 and come back when you have something to add to the thread.
     
  21. NAB

    NAB Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2009
    Messages:
    1,821
    Likes Received:
    14
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Why beat around the bush when calling him a shill obvioulsy your intent? Clearly it's more "interesting" than addressing his OP.
     
  22. Jango

    Jango New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2012
    Messages:
    2,683
    Likes Received:
    16
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Shill, Anti-Truther, whatever. Fangbeer, since his debut here at Political Forums, has primarily only posted in the 9/11 section. And while I haven't searched, I am willing to bet that Patriot and Hannibal have the overwhelming majority of their TOS in this section too.

    I find that interesting. For some people say that people like truthers and birthers are the "bottom of the barrel". But the observation I note is that there is always a core amount of people that valiantly fight against the conspiracy people. So you could say that there is company at the bottom. And I'm more or less curious as to why so many people have dedicated themselves to being the antithesis of what a truther is. Particularly, the bunch that we have on our board and that post here regularly before us.

    And I just so happened to bring it up in this topic...

    And...GO:
     
    r3000 likes this.
  23. NAB

    NAB Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2009
    Messages:
    1,821
    Likes Received:
    14
    Trophy Points:
    38
    How do you explain those who primarily post in the ct forum pumping up one theory or another? Going by your supposed logic, they, clearly, can only be agents of another foreign entity, or terrorist organization.

    Now that the bs that you're leaning towards is out of the way......I primarily post in the ct forum at this forum. Not sure why, macabre fascination, old habits, whatever. The rest of this forum is complete crap and I post on other forums for my non-truther fix. In fact, the forum I spend most of my time on has absolutely no 9/11 conspiracy nonsense active. Mostly political theory, foreign policy, random bs, whatever, but no conspiracy theories. Believe it or not, the activity surrounding 9/11 inside job nonsense is pretty rare on the net these days. Outside a few circle-jerk forums, this is one of the few large forums that has any conspiracy atitivity.

    So your point was what again?
     
  24. Hannibal

    Hannibal New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    Messages:
    10,624
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Why I post in the 9/11 CT forum:

    "This is (*)(*)(*)(*). (*)(*)(*)(*) and Ink."

    Now, how about addressing the topic, or starting your own thread. Don't be a leech.
     
  25. l4zarus

    l4zarus Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2012
    Messages:
    886
    Likes Received:
    20
    Trophy Points:
    18
    ....Start you're own thread.

    What you are suggesting is actually against the forum rules. Thanks to a previous CT troll, I'm more aware of forum rules than I ever wanted to be. Or needed to be on any other forum.

    So think of the moderators....the long suffering moderators.... Start your own thread before they need to lift a finger to mod this one.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page