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 SlightlyAbovePar
- There does appear to be a valid argument for too much dust, too large a cloud and too wide the debris field
- Dust samples only measure fine dust and do not provide a sample size indicative of all the concrete present, only the size of the particles sampled. Which, by the nature of a dust sample, is fine dust. Meaning, the anything larger than a few hundred microns (really small) was not included in the sample
- Arguments galore and finger pointing between the mathematicians. Each side seems to use figures or assumptions that are favorable to the desired outcome
- Each of the equations run through appear to have assumptions included, no matter which side. What this means to me is that until a basis can be agreed upon, no real, total consensus can take place
- Each side tends to claim the others' calculations are incomplete and use "faulty" or is missing components that take into account all the present factors
- The sample size in Lioy's study are ridiculously small (3) and by no means representative
- I haven't been able to find a work-through including the contents of the building itself (furniture, dry walls, stairwells, doors, computers, etc)
- This needs further investigation
- Neither side, to me, has "proven" it's case
And that's the truth and I will admit it to you.
Now having said that, I think once a widely accepted explanation has been put forward rabid truthers will ignore it and rabid debunkers will cling to it.
Therefore, I implore my fellow physicists and engineers who may have the time, expertise, and (ideally) supercomputer access to get to work on the physics of the World Trade Center collapses and publish their findings in refereed journals like, say, the Journal of Applied Physics.
I still believe we're being lied to though, one day the lies will come to light.