It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Griff
Can you list the people he has debated? Thanks.
Since his name has been spread around the 911 web, there are no leaders of the truth movement that are willing to debate him.
I always hate to do this but I see you've got 600 or so ATS points, which means you've not been here very long. Fine, newbie.
But have you gone back and read prior threads on these subjects before posting about this subject?
Pure and simple, micronized concrete simply does not occur in a normal building collapse. Gravity and the collapse of building members is not going to break concrete into micron-sized particles--as fine as flour--nor is it going to do so for the buildings' contents. You are going to get broken chunks and such like--your are certainly not going to find it all turned to superfine particulate--so fine that it wafts out far into NY Harbor
Available statistics about particle sizes of the dust, such as the study by Paul J. Lioy, et al., characterize particle sizes of aggregate dust samples, not of its constituents, such as concrete, fiberglass, hydrocarbon soot, etc. Based on diverse evidence, 60 microns would appear to be a high estimate for average concrete particle size, suggesting 135,000 KWH is a conservative estimate for the magnitude of the sink.
And there’s a final problem. Dust studies are based on, well, samples of the dust, and that means by definition they’ll include only small particles. Larger pieces of concrete would not be carried so far. This means that dust studies alone can never be used to say what happened to “most” of the concrete: they’ll always produce an underestimated average particle size
Originally posted by billybob
he's(jay) got a nice thread going at pysorg about the lack of falsifiability of the NIST report.
Originally posted by SlightlyAbovePar
So what were the reported micon-sized chunks of concrete in the Lioy study?
Check here: 2.5 to more than 53 microns
The majority of particles were 53 microns or larger. How much larger? It doesn't say. For the claim to be true, all of the particles MUST be 60 microns or smaller. They aren't.
the point is, there was 1000s of tons of fine dust. enough to be out of place.
The capability to conduct rigorous simulations of the aircraft impact, the growth and spread of the ensuing fires, and the effects of fires on the structure is a recent development. Since the approach to structural modeling was developed for the NIST WTC investigation, the technical capability available to the PANYNJ and its consultants and contactors to perform such analyses in the 1960s would have been quite limited in comparison to the capabilities brought to bear in the NIST investigation
Originally posted by Sublime620
Already starts off on a bad foot in assuming that everyone is "certain" instead of just questioning. That's just one thing wrong with using this quote in the context it is used.
You wouldn't see the initial explosions, as they would be at and above the collapse zone. The remaining would also mostly be hidden by the falling inferno.
The NIST pictures I've viewed only showed bowing at or above the impact zone. I think most CT's would argue that doesn't show the structural integrity of the rest of the building to be lacking. So... and really, no new evidence there either.
Would that not be the natural place the building would begin to collapse if the collumns were cut at and above the impact zone? What area of the facade would you expect to give first?
True. But what about the testimony of witnesses who heard loud popping bangs? I didn't hear them in the video, however, that camera appeared pretty far away and I'm sure it's possible the ambience noise could have drowned that out.
I feel he almost hurt his position. For one, public demolitions are often times a show. They intentionally over dramatize the explosions. Often times, they try new methods and different styles simply to fit the show they want to put on. Look at Las Vegas demolitions for example.
However, what this video did show was similar squibs and in ALL of the examples a large explosion in the basement before the collapse sequence. Both are major factors in the demolition theory that I read all the time on the forums.
9) A giant "dishonest" tag is placed over the creators of loose change due to the previous point.
A little over dramatic wouldn't you say?
Originally posted by CaptainObvious
911 Truth: Ask Questions; Ignore Answers