Debunking the 9/11 "Dust" Theory
http://georgewashington2.blogspot.com/2008/11/debunking-911-dust-theory.html
Some peripheral folks in the 9/11 truth movement claim that exotic high-energy weapons were used to bring down the Twin Towers. The overwhelming majority of credible scientists, engineers and others in the movement do not believe this.
The proponents of the star wars weapons theory argue that video footage shows metal spires "turning to dust", which they think proves that futuristic weapons were used.
Many of us have pointed out that the spires actually fell down, and that dust from the pulverized concrete simply fell off the spires as they were falling, hiding the fact that the spires were falling and creating the visual illusion that the spires were "turning to dust". For example, Reprehensor posted this video clip last year:
This matter has now been settled. Specifically, the following newly-released video shows the spire collapse from a different angle. the video proves that the spires of the Twin Towers merely fell over:
(12 seconds into the video)
This video - shot by the same person as the one above - shows that World Trade Center Building 7 did not have any big fires when it suddenly collapsed:
The government's theory that fire alone brought down Building 7 makes about as much sense as the argument that high-energy weapons brought down the Twin Towers.
- GeorgeWashington's blog
- Login to post comments
exotic high-energy weapons
This is the first I ever heard of the 911 Dust Theory. If you put aside the argument between exotic high-energy weapons or no exotic high-energy weapons, and look at the first video objectively and closely, the remnants of the core do not appear to just fall away. Something else is happening. I don't know what, but they are not just falling away. Maybe they are crumbling away? But I think it is critical that we be able to openly discuss what we see in these videos without mentioning exotic high-energy weapons, or directed energy weapons, or UFOs. To continue to sideline the conversation with those terms is counterproductive.
Many people find it obvious that the core remnants are falling away leaving a trail of dust, and that was what I assumed when I first watched 911 MYSTERIES. When I look at the latest videos provided here, I have more questions about exactly what I am actually seeing.
I personally focus on waking people up in mass numbers, and not on debating the details. The pan and scan of the second video stood out blatantly to me, and that made me curious as to why anyone would alter the video.
With you in the struggle,
Bruno
WeAreChangeLA - http://www.wacla.org
"Assumptions" based on unreliable data
"Many people find it obvious that the core remnants are falling away leaving a trail of dust, and that was what I assumed when I first watched 911 MYSTERIES."
Making assumptions is always dangerous. What happens frequently in the 9/11 movement is frequently an emphasis on photographs and videos with POOR resolution, quality, etc. as a basis for faulty conclusions. If the the data you are looking at is not accurate or reliable, it is not safe to make "assumptions" based on that data.
You can only make reliable conclusions on reliable data. What appears to be "turning to dust" is only an "appearance" based on the poor resolution of the video.
For an excellent example of this, look at the so-called "nose out" hoax promoted by TV fakery advocates. It's the same game plan: take some poorly out of focus images out of context and now you've got a "nose" of an aircraft. And then when you look at the entire video without stopping and different shots of the same event, it's pretty clear that it's an explosion, not a "nose". A lot of pranksters depend on misleading interpretations of data (i.e. disinformation) to mislead and confuse.
The idea that the steel turned to dust is ludicrous for a whole host of reasons. And the data (the reliable data that is), shows that there were truck loads of steel. The analysis of "dust" samples shows how big the "dust" was (scientifically speaking most of it was too big to be considered "dust" if you want to be precise) and the composition of that material. If you want to look at the hard data you can figure out what happened. Start with the Journal of 9/11 Studies.
Solving The Great Steel Caper: DEW-Demolition Contrary Evidence
http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/2007/Fe-DustStudies44.pdf
Dr. Gregory S. Jenkins
"Directed energy weapon (DEW) demolition proponents claim that a large majority of above-grade structural steel from the World Trade Center (WTC) towers was dissociated into dust and aerosols during and/or after collapse. However, multiple quantitative dust and aerosol measurements show that no significant fraction of structural steel was dissociated into dust or aerosols."
_______________
A 9/11/2008 Resolution: Start Your Own 9/11 Blog
The matter has been "settled"? By THIS video?
Is this some kind of a joke? My guess is that you are unaware that pictures of the very tall column falling over, next to the columns that constitute the "spire", have been available on the internet for years. Furthermore, I am guessing that this is what you are putting forward as "proof" that a similar fate must have befallen the spire.
If you want to convince us that you haven't let your imagination dominate your thinking, I suggest that you 1) look at David Chandler's work, and in particular where he shows how he used the Physics Toolkit to make his measurements and 2) take this video, which you are presenting as some kind of "proof", and similarly plot the the points at the top of the spire. Not the column(s) that fell over before the spire fell/disintegrated/whatever, but the spire, itself.
As far as I can see, the camera is not even showing the spire during it's last few moments when the top is clearly discernible. Whoever held the camera started pointing it downward, then upward, during this critical time, which should be more than obvious by inspection; but please used the Physics Toolkit, as I mentioned (or some similar tool), so that we, too, can follow the collapse of the spire as you claim to. If you're not willing to do that, then please retract this specific claim - viz., that this particular video "proves" that the spire "just fell down". If you can't even clearly show us the top of the spire going through some kind of motion - any kind of motion - why should we accept your 'explanation' for a motion which isn't even visible?
http://www.pdamerica.org
http://www.change-congress.org
GW GW GW...
This is all you need...
It clearly didn't work.
Do these people deserve to know how and why their loved ones were murdered? Do we deserve to know how and why 9/11 happened?
Dustification and exotic vs. commonplace technology
Speaking from well beyond the periphery of the self-defined 9-11 truth movement, but as the first to have noticed and commented on the collapse of the WTC-1 core remnant, I must say that I find the video quite unconvincing in that it is shot from so close that most of the "spire" is hidden by the ground level dust cloud. Only the very top is visible, and even it cannot really be seen at the moment of collapse.
The idea that dust could cling to the sides of vertical columns in sufficient amounts to completely hide the columns, and remain attached despite the violent collapse of the building around it, only to dislodge as the columns began to fall, simply beggars the imagination. Any of the better videos of this process show a very distinct point at which the sharp, dark outline of the columns simply disappears - not blurred but completely gone, replaced by a wider outline in dust that continues to fall at a slower rate as it continues to widen and drift.
some examples here
I am not a proponent of unspecified directed energy weapons, and don't really care about the usefulness (or not) of this particular anomaly as an educational tool for making people question 9-11. I don't believe that anything more exotic than some type of nuke would be called for to explain this kind of disintegration of metal, and in any case see "pockets of criticality" from unexploded nukes as the only plausible explanation for the evidence of extremely high temperatures in the pile for many weeks after 9-11.
dust theory
I don't know anything about the use of nukes, and I am of the camp that we should not be pushing ideas that we can not prove, but I did like this paragraph about the dust theory:
"The idea that dust could cling to the sides of vertical columns in sufficient amounts to completely hide the columns, and remain attached despite the violent collapse of the building around it, only to dislodge as the columns began to fall, simply beggars the imagination. Any of the better videos of this process show a very distinct point at which the sharp, dark outline of the columns simply disappears - not blurred but completely gone, replaced by a wider outline in dust that continues to fall at a slower rate as it continues to widen and drift."
Believing that the remnants of the core were still covered in such a thick layer of loose dust immediately after the total disintegration of the building around it, seems a bit preposterous. How did the dust get there? And how did it stay there? That's all.
With you in the struggle,
Bruno
WeAreChangeLA - http://www.wacla.org