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

I love your link!!!

For anyone that wants proof of my claim that debris does not rise higher then the original structure just watch the link Fangbeer provided here.

Then watch the WTC fall, and tell me if you can see a difference.

Here let me make it easy for anyone reading this:

[video=youtube;7xLzTKQ4-qU]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7xLzTKQ4-qU&feature=player_detailpage[/video]


[video=youtube;wk9uTjRNdVI]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wk9uTjRNdVI&feature=player_detailpage[/video]

Go to 3:00, and explain how the debris rises higher then the structure.

 

So no, you can't do it, but still want to pretend like you have a superior point to make?

 

Doesn't matter where the debris went, there was no controlled demo. There was no explosives on the site, and none were used. Airplane crash + fires + gravity = collapse. This is all a moot point unless you can explain how the explosives got there. Tallest known CD was 20 stories high, and it took 4 months to prepare, they also had to take the sheetrock off to get to the support. How did they do that in the WTC? How did the fires not set off the explosives? Impossible.

 

debunkers always have supurior points, especialy in physics

[video=youtube;wvRzWYCZ2e0]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wvRzWYCZ2e0[/video]

 

Oops. A truther failed to get the facts straight. I'm shocked. Look at your quote again, Guy. I didn't link any link in what you quoted. I made no claims about the dust. You did. You said that dust rising above a certain height requires bending the rules of physics. Who's the one having trouble supporting their own claims? It's not me...

So by all means, go ahead and explain how the expansion of heated gasses and aerosols requires bending the rules of physics. Let's hear it. Back up your claim.

 

Here's where you said it, just it case there's any doubt. See where it says "originally posted by pimptight?" That means it was quoted from your post. You said it. You back it up. Let's talk about the "rules of physics" that you think are bent by heated gasses and aerosols rising.

 

yeh it will be trash like the heated iron immersed in co2 is the same as cold iron immersed in o2 trick.

its all about sales, not physics

 

Ahhh, so now we are going to play a semantics game between gasses, and debris that actually has mass that should pull it back to the ground?

Anything lighter then air, would have no problem rising above the original structure.

Now if you could explain how energy is generated falling down in excess to the energy required to push a mass upwards beyond the original structure(when the object in question is heavier than air), I will be entertained!

 

Obvious troll is obvious. Too bad you can't have an honest discussion about this.

 

Your argument is that gas doesn't have mass? That's quite an understanding of physics you have. Besides, you're the one that said that it was DUST rising above a certain height that caused the rules of physics to be bent. Another word for dust is aerosol, and aerosol more accurately describes the particles you see in the video you referenced. I used the word aerosol with the incorrect assumption that you might be worried that you have your foot wedged in your mouth and would be motivated to look up what causes aerosols to be suspended in gasses.

That clearly didn't happen. What did happen is that you tried to change what you said. Now you want to use the word debris? Who's playing the semantics game? What debris do you think raises above the height of the building? Is it the same stuff you were talking about before?

Buoyancy is not JUST affected by mass. There's something else you're forgetting about.

Here's how I know you don't know what you're talking about:

I even gave you a clue when I said we should talk about Archimedes principal and Boyles law. Now; do you actually want to have a discussion about this, and possibly learn something, or are you simply going to continue to troll?

 

Apparently retards can't tell the difference between posters. Wow. Anyone else wonder why Pimptight has no credibility?

 

So you claim debris can't rise above the height of the structure. I showed that was patently false. Instead of being a man and admitting you were wrong, you pretend that the tower doing the same as the kingdome somehow proves that debris can't rise above the structure.

So let's go at this from a different angle and expose more of your lunacy. What, in your professional opinion, made the debris rise up above the structure? Explosives? Maybe you should take a class in fluid dynamics which applies to gases as well. And since debris suspended in the air follows the air, well, you know what happens next.

Thanks for playing and thanks for proving just how wrong you are and just how honest you are once you are exposed as being wrong.

 

Now I am only guessing of course, but my understanding of what he was trying to say is that it does not rise into a plume like a nuke

 

for all you woods fans!

to dust!



more dust


lots of dust






the above guys really screwed up their demolition cuz they couldnt get their steel turn to dust!



(*)(*)(*)(*) came down pretty much intact!

bunch a losers huh OS huggers?

Thatll teach to use a plane next time and they wont have those non-disintegration problems.

 

NO steel was turned to 'dust' on 9/11

 

Koko, you still agree with Judy Woods? Do you also believe in the tooth fairy, santa and a little fella I call the easter bunny?

 

By all means, you should attempt to explain why gasses and aerosols expand differently based on the method of heating.

I'm sure Guy Fawkes will be back to do the same. He was so sure that the laws of physics were bent. Surely he can explain how or why.

 

superheating, however I do not intend to (*)(*)(*)(*) away my time dancing with anyone on the subject.




nice plume though huh?

looks just like a nuke plume doesnt it

 

Who's "dancing"? and you didn't answer the question. How do gasses and aerosols expand differently based on the method of heating? Superheating is not a method of heating. It's not even a term that applies here. Superheating is when you heat a liquid to a temperature beyond its sea level boiling point without the liquid boiling. This can be accomplished by increasing the vapor pressure, or by eliminating nucleation sites.

The latter method is discussed here:

[video=youtube;1_OXM4mr_i0]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1_OXM4mr_i0[/video]

 

told ya I am not going to dance with ya. you wanted an example I answered your question with one and now I am done with it.




man will you look at that metal dust just pouring off those colums!



I especially like this one because it sprays in 4 directions at once. unbelievable! Dust!

Dust and its not bursting into flames. The irony! pun intended LMAO



probly just super rust though.



was it you that said that you get super rust from plane fire?

I bet the judy woods fans gonna make some nice hay with those pics huh



when ya gonna join us in the winners circle?

 

Do we get a sweet Bart Simpson gif too? I'd even think about joining you in the "winners circle" if being in the "winners circle" didn't mean I had to be considered a complete moron by the intellectual community.

 

I did not ask for an example. I asked a simple question and you did not answer it. The one word answer you did give had nothing to do with the question I asked. This appears to be yet again another instance of a truther having no clue what he's talking about.

I would never have written such a stupid sentence. If you bothered to actually read the OP, it discusses the properties of iron, and in specific the characteristics of the oxidation of iron. Wood claims that steel was turned to dust on the site. You just claimed the same. This did not happen. If steel was rapidly turned to dust the iron within would have reacted with the oxygen in the atmosphere. This rapid oxidation would have released massive amounts of energy in the form of light and heat. The reaction would have been unmistakable and easily recognizable even to the simplest minded truther.

 

yep your typical misapplication just like your pyrophoric iron gig, trying to sell off iron II in pretense it is neutral. NOT. Nice try though.
same with this, another misapplication from what I am referencing trying to drag me into another bull(*)(*)(*)(*) dance, and it aint gonna happen.

you have no explanation for the spraying iron that can be seen on the scene and the after math.

Look at the pic below and tell us where all the iron went and why it did not burst into flames!

Either that or you are sorta stuck with saying it rusted a lot! which will it be?




maybe thats what those white flashes were LOL

So much for your flaming iron.

 

The only people I have seen that are OS huggers are in it for greed. The troughers and their wannabes!



Rather than use their own head they simply require government approval.

if "inteligent" people want believe cgi is a real plane they can be my guest.




Especially from a government that lied about everything else. Why would they lie about 911. LOL