| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
marky 54
Mega Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293
|
 Posted: Wed Mar 12, 2008 6:16 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Quote: | | You're wrong. I don't have an idea or figure in my head - I am quite comfortable with having little or no idea what the proportion of pulverisation was. |
fair enough, i apologize for presuming. but obviously some critics do have a idea in their head about the level of pulverisation. why would they argue against it otherwise?
| Quote: | Greening's paper seems to indicate that there was enough energy around to pulverise all of the concrete if necessary.
|
that is'nt the issue, i have no idea if greenings calculations are accurate or not, the issue is critics deciding if saying most of the concrete was pulverised is an accurate statement. they always seem to argue against it for no apparent reason other than to deny it.
hence im trying to understand critics reasons for argueing against it.
| Quote: | I don't think 98% is more unlikely than any other figure - I simply question Gage's authority to provide such an accurate figure. I also note that if 98% of the concrete was outside the footprint of the building, what happens to the "the building fell in its own footprint" claims?
|
i agree the buildings did'nt fall into their own footprints, maybe a lot of it did, but no way near all of it. wtc 7 on the other hand i have a different opinion but thats another story unrelated to our discussion. so who's claims are you talking about? mine? because i do not believe the towers fell into their own footprints just to be clear.
| Quote: | | Where I think you are on solid ground is that, of course, there was some pulverisation, as the analysis of dust samples seems to confirm. I don't think any critic here is trying to imply that there was absolutely no pulverisation as the towers came down. |
well thats what im trying to work out, as the arguements against pulverisation seem to suggest otherwise. i still do not undertsand the point in linking photos of small concrete debris and shattered floors. (ok i know you did'nt, but others have and do, and thats all im trying to understand.)
| Quote: | The points of contention are here, with my answers.
Was there any 'significant' level of pulverisation of concrete? (My answer: unproven)
Was pulverisation possible during a collapse (rather than a CD)? (my answer: undoubtedly)
Was the pulverisation more than might be expected from a collapse? (my answer: it's not proven that there was)
And if so, what caused this pulverisation? (I don't think there is a rational answer to this, as there is no evidence of explosives) |
thanks for your opinion, however i'm not intrested in the cause, that is'nt the point in my questions or contribution. the point is just being clear what some critics are trying to prove when argueing against pulverisation.
you seem to accept there was pulverisation, i would agree. the cause is neither here nor there. pulverisation can be caused by both scenerios.
i would disagree with your claim there is 'NO' evidence of explosives, i would be more inclined to say i am not sure if ALL the evidence suggests explosives were present.
but i respect your opinion and take it into consideration. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Alex_V
Wrecker
Joined: 24 Sep 2007
Posts: 515
Location: London, England
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 12, 2008 6:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| marky 54 wrote: | thanks for your opinion, however i'm not intrested in the cause, that is'nt the point in my questions or contribution. the point is just being clear what some critics are trying to prove when argueing against pulverisation.
you seem to accept there was pulverisation, i would agree. the cause is neither here nor there. pulverisation can be caused by both scenerios.
i would disagree with your claim there is 'NO' evidence of explosives, i would be more inclined to say i am not sure if ALL the evidence suggests explosives were present.
but i respect your opinion and take it into consideration. |
I think critics are trying to prove that some of the facts asserted by sections of the truth movement are not proven facts at all. For example, Gage's assertion that almost all of the concrete was pulverised - where is his proof for this?
If pulverisation can be caused by both scenarios, which it seems to me it can, then it's a bit of a dead end as evidence supporting a conspiracy theory viewpoint.
(apologies for the double posting) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
marky 54
Mega Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 12, 2008 6:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | I think critics are trying to prove that some of the facts asserted by sections of the truth movement are not proven facts at all. For example, Gage's assertion that almost all of the concrete was pulverised - where is his proof for this?
|
at the same time where is the evidence against? he is not saying ALL of it was pulverised. and so far critics are unable to give an esitmate they believe is accurate to beable to understand why they disagree.
| Quote: | | If pulverisation can be caused by both scenarios, which it seems to me it can, then it's a bit of a dead end as evidence supporting a conspiracy theory viewpoint. |
if it can be caused by both there should be a proper investigastion including CD hypothesis like they are doing with wtc 7. the fact they did'nt include it is why numerous people call for a new investigastion is it not?
it has nothing to do with believing conspiracy theory's. it's only about including all the facts and investigating them properly, rather than ignoring them and labeling it a conspiracy theory inorder to avoid it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Alex_V
Wrecker
Joined: 24 Sep 2007
Posts: 515
Location: London, England
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 12, 2008 7:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| marky 54 wrote: | | at the same time where is the evidence against? he is not saying ALL of it was pulverised. and so far critics are unable to give an esitmate they believe is accurate to beable to understand why they disagree. |
If I felt able to offer an estimate, it would be just that - I would never claim that my estimate was the definitive description of what happened. I don't agree with your point here - just because I can't prove that Gage is necessarily wrong about the amount of pulverisation does not make his estimate any more accurate than anyone elses.
This is Gage's assertion from his website...
Mid-air pulverization of all the 90,000 tons of concrete and steel decking, filing cabinets & 1000 people – mostly to dust
I don't think there is proof for this assertion, and I don't think it necessarily supports a CD hypothesis any better than a collapse hypothesis. Why should I trust anything Gage says, when his so-called facts seem to have little basis in actual evidence? Don't even start me on pyroclastic flows...
| Quote: | | if it can be caused by both there should be a proper investigastion including CD hypothesis like they are doing with wtc 7. the fact they did'nt include it is why numerous people call for a new investigastion is it not? |
Who didn't include it? NIST? How was it part of their brief? I must say that I doubt pulverisation will be included in their WTC7 report either, so get ready to be disappointed.
I don't think you have a valid argument here. The pulverisation of concrete, which seems to be hard to estimate, and proves absolutely nothing as far as I can see, does not warrant any further investigation at all imo.
| Quote: | | it has nothing to do with believing conspiracy theory's. it's only about including all the facts and investigating them properly, rather than ignoring them and labeling it a conspiracy theory inorder to avoid it. |
This is just an unfounded accusation by you. I don't believe that anyone has 'avoided' the issue of pulverisation. Indeed, I pointed you to a scientific paper on the issue of pulverisation.
But I think you are wrong - it does have everything to do with believing conspiracy theories. It seems to me that conspiracy theorists are claiming that pulverisation of concrete somehow supports the idea that explosives were used - I don't think it does in the slightest. I also think conspiracy theorists are making wild claims about how much concrete was pulverised based on no actual evidence at all. I think that is wrong, and misleading, and helpful to nobody. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
marky 54
Mega Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 12, 2008 7:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | It seems to me that conspiracy theorists are claiming that pulverisation of concrete somehow supports the idea that explosives were used - I don't think it does in the slightest. I also think conspiracy theorists are making wild claims about how much concrete was pulverised based on no actual evidence at all. |
so all of a sudden there is no actual evidence of pulverisation?
i'll leave the debate here. as it has become obvious you are lieing or have lied. or your just making up what you say when it suits.
| Quote: | | Where I think you are on solid ground is that, of course, there was some pulverisation, as the analysis of dust samples seems to confirm. |
| Quote: | | I also think conspiracy theorists are making wild claims about how much concrete was pulverised based on no actual evidence at all |
one minute there is evidence of pulverisation, then there is none.
one minute you cannot estimate how much pulverisation took place, the next minute you critise anybody who gives a figure.
i ask for your opinion and estimate and make it clear it would not be taken as factual etc, you tell me you cannot answer because it would just be an estimate.
you tell me others are wrong for saying 98% was pulverised but are unable to offer anything that gives an accurate amount in your view.
you claim to know, whilst repeating how you cannot know.
i'll let everbody else decide who is the one misleading and making wild claims.
pulverisation is a fact. critics contridict this and class it as wild theories and claims, but critics are unable to provide anything they would consider more realistic.
if its NOT 98% then what is it in your opinion? if you don't know then how can you say 98% is wrong? let me guess, you have no idea but its just not 98%, you don't have any idea what it is, but just not 98%.
what about 70%? would that be right? 60%? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sam
Wrecker
Joined: 29 Dec 2007
Posts: 343
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 12, 2008 8:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| marky 54 wrote: | | Quote: | | It seems to me that conspiracy theorists are claiming that pulverisation of concrete somehow supports the idea that explosives were used - I don't think it does in the slightest. I also think conspiracy theorists are making wild claims about how much concrete was pulverised based on no actual evidence at all. |
so all of a sudden there is no actual evidence of pulverisation?
i'll leave the debate here. as it has become obvious you are lieing or have lied. or your just making up what you say when it suits.
|
You have competely failed to understand what he said, and have leapt in with a "you are lying" response.
Why?
He has denied the existence of any evidence for explosives. A fair point, as there is none.
He has pointed out that CTists make claims about levels of pulverisation without providing evidence for these claims. This is true.
In what way has he lied? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
marky 54
Mega Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 12, 2008 8:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| sam wrote: | | marky 54 wrote: | | Quote: | | It seems to me that conspiracy theorists are claiming that pulverisation of concrete somehow supports the idea that explosives were used - I don't think it does in the slightest. I also think conspiracy theorists are making wild claims about how much concrete was pulverised based on no actual evidence at all. |
so all of a sudden there is no actual evidence of pulverisation?
i'll leave the debate here. as it has become obvious you are lieing or have lied. or your just making up what you say when it suits.
|
You have competely failed to understand what he said, and have leapt in with a "you are lying" response.
Why?
He has denied the existence of any evidence for explosives. A fair point, as there is none.
He has pointed out that CTists make claims about levels of pulverisation without providing evidence for these claims. This is true.
In what way has he lied? |
let me explain, he said there was evidence of pulverisation, he then totally goes against it and says 'conspiracy theorists base their arguement on NO evidence what so ever. wait a minute, he just said there was evidence for pulverisation, prior to saying there is none.
also critics claims for pulverisation is also based on no evidence what so ever if that is the case. show me evidence that says 98% pulverisation is wrong? (here comes the pebbles)
im amazed i had to explain, its fairly simply.
as for your NO evidence claim, i respect your opinion but have to disagree. there are signs that match CD, im just not sure if there is enough evidence to say it was CD over natural collapse. or put another way, im not sure if all the evidence suggests CD. but i will not lie and claim there is NO evidence. theres no need. if no CD took place theres no problem being honest about what is seen and observed is there. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
marky 54
Mega Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 12, 2008 8:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
everybody bases their arguement on evidence. it is'nt made up from thin air. are you suggesting there is no evidence of pulverisation aswell?
the only dispute is how much. which critics so far have no idea about yet want to critise others when they say x amount was pulverised.
well im sorry if your going to dispute it at least give a reasoned arguement as to why. showing a few photo's of rocks that would fit in the palm of your hand and a lower level concrete floor smashed to pieces does not account for anywhere near 2%.
so if 98% is wrong at least give a figure that you think is accurate or would be more realistic. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sam
Wrecker
Joined: 29 Dec 2007
Posts: 343
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 12, 2008 8:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| marky 54 wrote: |
---
if a building was made of 10% concrete and 90% glass and it was pulverised into fine particles and then tested and they found 10% concrete in the dust, then it would suggest that 100% of the concrete was pulverised. |
And that assumption could (and probably would) be utterly wrong.
It would depend on the different particle sizes, the different particle densities and where the sample was taken.
For example -
Take a photo in a frame. Some glass, some metal , some paper.
Chop up half of it into large chunks.
Mince up the other half into extremely fine particles (metal, glass the lot).
Mix up the two halves and chuck it in the air in a decent wind.
Take a dust sample from 30' away and it will be all paper. The metal and glass is much more dense and will fall more quickly than the lighter paper.
Your conclusion would be that all the original paper was pulverised as the sample is 100% paper. Wrong. Only 50% was "pulverised".
Science cannot be reduced to the simple "sound-bite" analysis you seem to be seeking.
Regarding your other post - allowing sand to be classed as "dust" because it can be blown around in a strong wind would have the whole world of science disagreeing with you. Large stones can get blown around in a hurricane, but they are not "dust".
Dust is the stuff you see floating about in a shaft of sunlight coming through a window. If you see sand particles in there, then your draft-proofing really needs some serious attention. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
marky 54
Mega Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 12, 2008 9:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| sam wrote: | | marky 54 wrote: |
---
if a building was made of 10% concrete and 90% glass and it was pulverised into fine particles and then tested and they found 10% concrete in the dust, then it would suggest that 100% of the concrete was pulverised. |
And that assumption could (and probably would) be utterly wrong.
It would depend on the different particle sizes, the different particle densities and where the sample was taken.
For example -
Take a photo in a frame. Some glass, some metal , some paper.
Chop up half of it into large chunks.
Mince up the other half into extremely fine particles (metal, glass the lot).
Mix up the two halves and chuck it in the air in a decent wind.
Take a dust sample from 30' away and it will be all paper. The metal and glass is much more dense and will fall more quickly than the lighter paper.
Your conclusion would be that all the original paper was pulverised as the sample is 100% paper. Wrong. Only 50% was "pulverised".
Science cannot be reduced to the simple "sound-bite" analysis you seem to be seeking.
Regarding your other post - allowing sand to be classed as "dust" because it can be blown around in a strong wind would have the whole world of science disagreeing with you. Large stones can get blown around in a hurricane, but they are not "dust".
Dust is the stuff you see floating about in a shaft of sunlight coming through a window. If you see sand particles in there, then your draft-proofing really needs some serious attention. |
do you purposily miss the point of everything everbody says?
my point with how much concrete was found in the dustcloud is that it would NOT reflect the amount of concrete that was pulverised.
also i was only talking about concrete and not glass or metal or paper.
anyway..
your point about the dust is correct, which is why i pointed out sand being blown about being called a dust cloud.
in case you missed it or you cannot read i was asking you for a word that better described floating particles other than the word 'dust'
i was not saying i would class sand as dust at all, no matter how much you wish i was. however a sandstorm is also known as a dust storm wether you like it or not.
hence the reason i was saying we need to define what we call the 'debris cloud' , there we go, debris cloud, ive found a word that describes it better than dust.
can we get back to the issue or discussion now? rather than debate and argue over words and taking their meanings to the extreme.
dust, particles, debris cloud, which do you prefer? which one accounts for the debris that are airbourne? you decide and if you have a better word, then let me know.
i'll do my best to use it and apply it to avoid discussions like this one.
Last edited by marky 54 on Wed Mar 12, 2008 9:16 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Alex_V
Wrecker
Joined: 24 Sep 2007
Posts: 515
Location: London, England
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 12, 2008 9:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| marky 54 wrote: | | let me explain, he said there was evidence of pulverisation, he then totally goes against it and says 'conspiracy theorists base their arguement on NO evidence what so ever. wait a minute, he just said there was evidence for pulverisation, prior to saying there is none. |
Unfair - if I didn't know you better I would assume you were being deliberately mischevous. I said many times that there was pulverisation. What I question is on what evidence Gage makes his 98% claim. At no point am I saying there is no evidence of pulverisation - I am saying there is no evidence of 98-100% pulverisation, which is his claim. It's more than a claim, it is his statement of fact!
If he does have genuine evidence to back up his assertiion then I will withdraw the comment. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
marky 54
Mega Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 12, 2008 9:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Alex_V wrote: | | marky 54 wrote: | | let me explain, he said there was evidence of pulverisation, he then totally goes against it and says 'conspiracy theorists base their arguement on NO evidence what so ever. wait a minute, he just said there was evidence for pulverisation, prior to saying there is none. |
Unfair - if I didn't know you better I would assume you were being deliberately mischevous. I said many times that there was pulverisation. What I question is on what evidence Gage makes his 98% claim. At no point am I saying there is no evidence of pulverisation - I am saying there is no evidence of 98-100% pulverisation, which is his claim. It's more than a claim, it is his statement of fact!
If he does have genuine evidence to back up his assertiion then I will withdraw the comment. |
at the same time though, if you can give me a reason why its not 98% and give a realistic figure that you feel fits better, others would be less inclined to listen or believe it.
you cannot say its not 98% when you have no idea yourself.
i believe it to be around 70% which i said at the start. is this wrong? you accept that pulverisation happened (unless a conspiracy theorists mentions it, then its based on no evidence whatsoever), but what degree of pulverisation would you be satisfied with somebody saying? 10%?
less then half more than half? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
marky 54
Mega Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 12, 2008 9:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
i don't even know why im discussing this anymore, again i came to gain some insight and went away with none.
i ask for simple opinions and it seems even though your willing to dispute the level of pulvisation, you have no idea how much it was yourselves.
leaving me with no more reason to disbelieve the 98% claim, or take seriously the arguements against pulverisation showing evidence of less than 2% not being pulverised.
it seems all im left with is my own opinion. and the impression critics on this board don't even know why they dispute it themselves. other than to say well i don't know but its not 98%
so i take it if somebody says most of the concrete was pulverised they would be fine in doing so?, it would not be a wild theory? wait are you going to tell me you do have a an idea afterall? by telling me its a wild theory?
if so how much was it? roughly. most? a little? half? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Alex_V
Wrecker
Joined: 24 Sep 2007
Posts: 515
Location: London, England
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 12, 2008 10:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| marky 54 wrote: | at the same time though, if you can give me a reason why its not 98% and give a realistic figure that you feel fits better, others would be less inclined to listen or believe it.
you cannot say its not 98% when you have no idea yourself. |
If you read what I said I'm not saying that it isn't 98%. (Actually on his website he says 100%).
There IS visual evidence of bigger chunks of concrete at ground zero. This would suggest that at least a bit of the concrete wasn't pulverised.
| Quote: | | i don't even know why im discussing this anymore, again i came to gain some insight and went away with none. i ask for simple opinions and it seems even though your willing to dispute the level of pulvisation, you have no idea how much it was yourselves. |
I know you have a real bee in your bonnet about this, but really I don't think what I or others on here have said is particularly complicated - you just misunderstood it for some reason.
You also seem to want easy answers rather than any insight - you don't seem to want to accept what I see as the truth in this case, that there isn't an obvious answer to the question of how much concrete was pulverised. Would you rather I just lied and made up a figure just to make life easier for you?
As I say, Richard Gage provides a very easy answer, and claims that his answer is fact. He is a respected member of the truth movement, the leader of one of the most respected groups in the truth movement - he is on the lecture circuit supposingly offering a convincing explanation of why 9/11 involved CD. I don't know why you doubt that his figure is convincing - after all, it's only us filthy critics who question it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
marky 54
Mega Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 12, 2008 11:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
i do not dispute what richard gage says. what im trying to understand is why 'some' critics argue against pulverisation and dispute the level of pulverisation whilst being unable to offer any calculation of their own or even a simple opinion, which would shed light on why they dispute other claims so strongly.
im also simply intrested to see if all those who think CD go for 90+ %
and all those who claim there was no CD go for figures in the 10-20% area.
i can understand critics disputing claims about pulverisation if they had an idea themselves, factual or opinion based.
the overall point and the point your missing, is pulverisation cannot be disputed, however im intrested to see if ive missed something. my opinion is 70%, if i am wrong and critics think it is much lower, then i'll understand why they argue against pulverisation and enquire about what i have missed if i have missed something, even though i cannot understand what the photos in this thread prove other than it was'nt ALL the concrete. but then i never see many if any at all that claim it was all the concrete, and if anybody has then it is clearly a false claim, but so is the claim it was none, just incase somebody has said that.
so whats is critics point, that is what im trying to gain insight on, however critics have been unable to say what exactly they dispute.
if i said most of the concrete was pulverised would i be wrong? what would the above photos on page 9 prove? what is the point critics are getting at? to dispute it was not most, must mean you have a figure in mind, or at least a vague idea.
the other point is accuracy. if its a wild claim to claim most of the concrete was pulverised, then what level of pulverisation is more accurate to say, inorder not to give a misleading impression to others in critics opinion?
you really cannot see the point, and if i have misunderstood you, then you have certainly misunderstood me. critics are the ones who dispute the claims on pulverisation, yet are unwilling to comment on what they would consider to be accurate.
i am still here now trying to think why somebody would dispute something they agree happened but have no idea about the level of pulverisation themselves. whats the point? disagreeing for the sake of disagreeing? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Alex_V
Wrecker
Joined: 24 Sep 2007
Posts: 515
Location: London, England
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 13, 2008 1:49 am Post subject: |
|
|
| marky 54 wrote: | i do not dispute what richard gage says. what im trying to understand is why 'some' critics argue against pulverisation and dispute the level of pulverisation whilst being unable to offer any calculation of their own or even a simple opinion, which would shed light on why they dispute other claims so strongly.
im also simply intrested to see if all those who think CD go for 90+ %
and all those who claim there was no CD go for figures in the 10-20% area.
i can understand critics disputing claims about pulverisation if they had an idea themselves, factual or opinion based.
the overall point and the point your missing, is pulverisation cannot be disputed, however im intrested to see if ive missed something. my opinion is 70%, if i am wrong and critics think it is much lower, then i'll understand why they argue against pulverisation and enquire about what i have missed if i have missed something, even though i cannot understand what the photos in this thread prove other than it was'nt ALL the concrete. but then i never see many if any at all that claim it was all the concrete, and if anybody has then it is clearly a false claim, but so is the claim it was none, just incase somebody has said that.
so whats is critics point, that is what im trying to gain insight on, however critics have been unable to say what exactly they dispute.
if i said most of the concrete was pulverised would i be wrong? what would the above photos on page 9 prove? what is the point critics are getting at? to dispute it was not most, must mean you have a figure in mind, or at least a vague idea.
the other point is accuracy. if its a wild claim to claim most of the concrete was pulverised, then what level of pulverisation is more accurate to say, inorder not to give a misleading impression to others in critics opinion?
you really cannot see the point, and if i have misunderstood you, then you have certainly misunderstood me. critics are the ones who dispute the claims on pulverisation, yet are unwilling to comment on what they would consider to be accurate.
i am still here now trying to think why somebody would dispute something they agree happened but have no idea about the level of pulverisation themselves. whats the point? disagreeing for the sake of disagreeing? |
Well let me be categorical about what I think.
I think the word 'pulverise' is misleading, and may be being used for different purposes. This word in some cases seems to mean reduce to dust, and in other cases is just used to mean destroy. It seems to me that some of the concrete in the twin towers was reduced to dust, and other bits to rubble of a bigger size - to say that all of it was pulverised to dust would seem to me to be a major assumption to make that would be hard to justify.
What Gage says in a recent interview is that all of the concrete was "pulverised to a fine talcum powder" - how can he make such a specific claim about ALL of the concrete?
I'm not sure that other critics actually dispute the claim that most or all of the concrete in the twin towers was pulverised. I can only speak for myself. Greening's paper, as I understand it, makes an estimate on the relative sizes of the pieces of concrete rubble - what I'm not clear on is what consistutes pulverisation, and what is just rubble. So I'm totally unclear on the criteria I'm supposed to be using.
It's on that basis that I think it's dangerous to speculate too much - every piece of concrete wasn't catalogued at ground zero all around. Samples may be representative or may not. What seems certain is that all the concrete would have been reduced to rubble - does that mean all of it was pulverised? I'm not sure.
I'm happy for you to estimate 70% was turned to dust, because that is an estimate. What I wouldn't be happy for you to say is that it was definitely 70%. Which I feel is EXACTLY what Gage is doing in his presentations - he is making a claim which I can't justify with the evidence.
What I am fairly categorical about is that whatever your or anyone else's estimate might be, it adds very little to the debate about explosives or the lack of them. Pulverisation could be created by a collapse, or by CD. That's why I take offence at Richard Gage parading pulverisation as key evidence of a CD - why is it evidence of a CD? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
marky 54
Mega Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 13, 2008 3:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Alex_V wrote: | | marky 54 wrote: | i do not dispute what richard gage says. what im trying to understand is why 'some' critics argue against pulverisation and dispute the level of pulverisation whilst being unable to offer any calculation of their own or even a simple opinion, which would shed light on why they dispute other claims so strongly.
im also simply intrested to see if all those who think CD go for 90+ %
and all those who claim there was no CD go for figures in the 10-20% area.
i can understand critics disputing claims about pulverisation if they had an idea themselves, factual or opinion based.
the overall point and the point your missing, is pulverisation cannot be disputed, however im intrested to see if ive missed something. my opinion is 70%, if i am wrong and critics think it is much lower, then i'll understand why they argue against pulverisation and enquire about what i have missed if i have missed something, even though i cannot understand what the photos in this thread prove other than it was'nt ALL the concrete. but then i never see many if any at all that claim it was all the concrete, and if anybody has then it is clearly a false claim, but so is the claim it was none, just incase somebody has said that.
so whats is critics point, that is what im trying to gain insight on, however critics have been unable to say what exactly they dispute.
if i said most of the concrete was pulverised would i be wrong? what would the above photos on page 9 prove? what is the point critics are getting at? to dispute it was not most, must mean you have a figure in mind, or at least a vague idea.
the other point is accuracy. if its a wild claim to claim most of the concrete was pulverised, then what level of pulverisation is more accurate to say, inorder not to give a misleading impression to others in critics opinion?
you really cannot see the point, and if i have misunderstood you, then you have certainly misunderstood me. critics are the ones who dispute the claims on pulverisation, yet are unwilling to comment on what they would consider to be accurate.
i am still here now trying to think why somebody would dispute something they agree happened but have no idea about the level of pulverisation themselves. whats the point? disagreeing for the sake of disagreeing? |
Well let me be categorical about what I think.
I think the word 'pulverise' is misleading, and may be being used for different purposes. This word in some cases seems to mean reduce to dust, and in other cases is just used to mean destroy. It seems to me that some of the concrete in the twin towers was reduced to dust, and other bits to rubble of a bigger size - to say that all of it was pulverised to dust would seem to me to be a major assumption to make that would be hard to justify.
What Gage says in a recent interview is that all of the concrete was "pulverised to a fine talcum powder" - how can he make such a specific claim about ALL of the concrete?
I'm not sure that other critics actually dispute the claim that most or all of the concrete in the twin towers was pulverised. I can only speak for myself. Greening's paper, as I understand it, makes an estimate on the relative sizes of the pieces of concrete rubble - what I'm not clear on is what consistutes pulverisation, and what is just rubble. So I'm totally unclear on the criteria I'm supposed to be using.
It's on that basis that I think it's dangerous to speculate too much - every piece of concrete wasn't catalogued at ground zero all around. Samples may be representative or may not. What seems certain is that all the concrete would have been reduced to rubble - does that mean all of it was pulverised? I'm not sure.
I'm happy for you to estimate 70% was turned to dust, because that is an estimate. What I wouldn't be happy for you to say is that it was definitely 70%. Which I feel is EXACTLY what Gage is doing in his presentations - he is making a claim which I can't justify with the evidence.
What I am fairly categorical about is that whatever your or anyone else's estimate might be, it adds very little to the debate about explosives or the lack of them. Pulverisation could be created by a collapse, or by CD. That's why I take offence at Richard Gage parading pulverisation as key evidence of a CD - why is it evidence of a CD? |
thanks for that imput. i would say i'd agree with almost all of that! although i'm not upto date with what gage says. i try to do my own research on information and come to my own opinions. rather than mimicing what others said. i only agree if its a good point.
good point about the pulverisation term. all i can think to do is get a dictionary definition.
| Quote: | pulverisation
noun
1. a solid substance in the form of tiny loose particles; a solid that has been pulverized [syn: powder]
2. the act of grinding to a powder or dust [syn: grind]
3. annihilation by pulverizing something [syn: pulverization]
|
to be honest people use terms, you see them used over and over and pick them up like a bad habit. i think excluding steel, which im aware made up most of the towers, i'd still stick to around 70% estimate of the rest being turned to dust, only going by what i have seen though, which to be honest is all i can go by. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sam
Wrecker
Joined: 29 Dec 2007
Posts: 343
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 13, 2008 7:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
| marky 54 wrote: |
---
i can understand critics disputing claims about pulverisation if they had an idea themselves, factual or opinion based.
---
|
It isn't necessary to be able to put a figure on it oneself to justify disputing another figure. If Gage says "100% talcum powder" then he's plain wrong.
If you really want a guess I'd say the following:
5% reduced to a powder capable of significant drifting, let's say 100m or more.
25% reduced to particles the size of grains of sand.
40% reduced to fragments sized between sand and pebbles
30% larger than that
Based on visual clues. Does that help? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
marky 54
Mega Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 13, 2008 8:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | It isn't necessary to be able to put a figure on it oneself to justify disputing another figure. If Gage says "100% talcum powder" then he's plain wrong.
|
i never mentioned gage, you and alex did. i was asking why you were disputing the pulverisation claim earlier in this thread inorder to understand what it is exactly you were disputing(as well as understanding why other critics have disputed it or may dispute in future).
also if you scroll up and read you'll see ive said countless times that not ALL the concrete or whatever was pulverised.
here we go again, we discuss, get nowhere untill alex's last post which i'd mostly agree with, then i spend the next 20 posts repeating myself as i have words put in my mouth i never said.
| Quote: | If you really want a guess I'd say the following:
5% reduced to a powder capable of significant drifting, let's say 100m or more.
25% reduced to particles the size of grains of sand.
40% reduced to fragments sized between sand and pebbles
30% larger than that
Based on visual clues. Does that help? |
i was not asking for help, just an opinion. thanks for your opinion.
i did'nt realise it was going to cause such a hassle, maybe i should of asked someone like gage for his opinion instead?
i apologize if trying to get both sides of the story troubles some people. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Alex_V
Wrecker
Joined: 24 Sep 2007
Posts: 515
Location: London, England
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 13, 2008 2:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Marky, there's no need to get so dramatic about everything. I think the truth movement is mostly a crock, is it really that surprising that I would use the conversation to attack the lies of Richard Gage? It kind of goes with the territory surely?
It isn't only Gage either - the claims that all of the concrete was turned to dust seem to pretty consistently turn up from all areas of the truth movement. Along with the claim that all of this pulverisation happened in mid air - a preposterous claim. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
marky 54
Mega Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 13, 2008 9:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Alex_V wrote: | Marky, there's no need to get so dramatic about everything. I think the truth movement is mostly a crock, is it really that surprising that I would use the conversation to attack the lies of Richard Gage? It kind of goes with the territory surely?
It isn't only Gage either - the claims that all of the concrete was turned to dust seem to pretty consistently turn up from all areas of the truth movement. Along with the claim that all of this pulverisation happened in mid air - a preposterous claim. |
im puzzled why you think im being dramatic? im simply being clear, i do not support gage's claims to his extreme.
and pulverisation did take place as the building collapsed, wether that is classed as mid-air or not is for others to decide, but imo when you see the collapse you can clearly see clouds of dust and debris.
can you explain why you disagree with the mid-air claim? is it all down to wording again?
would saying pulverisation was occuring before the debris reached the floor be more accurate?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K75BF9BTpbU |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sam
Wrecker
Joined: 29 Dec 2007
Posts: 343
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 14, 2008 7:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
| marky 54 wrote: |
and pulverisation did take place as the building collapsed, wether that is classed as mid-air or not is for others to decide, but imo when you see the collapse you can clearly see clouds of dust and debris.
|
If you ever knock down a plasterboard ceiling or wall then you'll understand that a good proportion of that "mid-air" dust is probably gypsum powder from smashed drywalling. It takes very little force to smash it. Being lightweight and small particle size, it also drifted a long way.
My guess (and it's strictly a guess) is that most of the lightweight powder from concrete (i.e. cement dust) would more likely be produced during harder impact i.e. when the debris hit the top of the pile and then had further debris raining down on it.
Have a look at:
http://www.ehponline.org/members/2002/110p703-714lioy/EHP110p703PDF.PD F
For a well-known alanlysis of 9/11 dust samples. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
marky 54
Mega Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 14, 2008 9:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
thanks for the link i'll read that later for the sample calculations they say.
on the first page in the light blue box it says.
"The explosion and collapse of the wtc"
do you have any idea who made this report? did you take it from a CD theory website?
if not, its not hard to see how that can be interprated. careless wording? or people making wild claims?
infact if you look at the bottom of the light blue section it has what appears to be the source for that section. it says gov/docs/2002 etc.
dos'nt gov stand for goverment? so even a goverment document uses terms which critics would argue against and label as wild claims?
ok they are not saying anything about CD. but they seem to have no problem using the term explosion to describe what was seen.
at least i know im not alone in thinking that it did appear to exlode, wether it was caused by explosives or not.
but if i mentioned it to a critic i'd be shouted down as making wild claims.
http://www.ehponline.org/members/2002/110p703-714lioy/EHP110p703PDF.PD F
im certainly not suggesting it proves or hints at CD, what i'm getting at is the terminology used to describe the collapse. yet critics pick fault with words like 'dust' and 'pulverisation' etc.
then you read through a report and see all the same terms used along with explosion(more than once) that a critic is offering as advice.
surely critics cannot trust this report, they make lots of wild claims.
heres another example taken from this report.
"it was anticipated that the actual compounds and materials present in the plume would be simular to those found in building fires or implosion of collapsed buildings. the primary differences would be the simultaneous occurrence of each type of event , the intense fire (> 1,000 C), the extremely large mass of material (> 10x10 (6 above and to the side of the second 10, im typing this and don't have such key on my keyboard) tons) reduced to dust and smoke, and the previously unseen degree of pulverisation of the building materials."
so they anticipated the materials in the plume would be simular to that of both a normal building fire and a implosion.
why would they even consider anything like an implosion in with their research, when critics seem to think there is NO evidence what so ever for explosives or a CD.
obviously it dos'nt mean it was a CD, but they must of thought it showed many simularities inorder to compare it to one. and to continue to use the word explosion.
please tell me these people ARE conspiracy theorists. because if their not i think critics are in denial about certain things. one of them being there IS evidence for CD, though it was'nt necessarily a CD.
no doubt critics will now spin the meaning of the report, the same way they spin everything else inorder to avoid some of things which are evident but they don't like to admit. that the buildings showed some simularites to an implosion, therefore meaning there is evidence which could point to a CD or is simular to what you'd expect from a CD(evidence does not mean fact or proven, it means reasons to believe it could of occured). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sam
Wrecker
Joined: 29 Dec 2007
Posts: 343
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 14, 2008 2:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| marky 54 wrote: | thanks for the link i'll read that later for the sample calculations they say.
on the first page in the light blue box it says.
"The explosion and collapse of the wtc"
do you have any idea who made this report? did you take it from a CD theory website?.... |
No, it's just a study into the composition of the lightweight, drifting dust, considering the health implications. It was funded (as in says in the report, if you would read a little closer) by various health organisations, hence the ".gov" I suppose.
I first encountered it, however, a few years ago when it was used (in fact seriously misused) by CTist Jim Hoffman and others to justify calculating how much energy was required to reduce all the concrete in WTC to powder similar to that found in the Lioy study. After a while Hoffman withdrew his "study", having realised it was nonsense.
The authors and their places of work are clearly listed at the top, so I don't know why you ask who wrote the report.
It also says on the right of page 1 :
"Address correspondence to P.J. Lioy, Exposure
Measurement and Assessment Division,
Environmental and Occupational Health Sciences
Institute, 170 Frelinghuysen Road, Piscataway, NJ
08854-8020 USA. Telephone: (732) 445 0150. Fax:
(732) 445 0116. E-mail: plioy@eohsi.rutgers.edu "
So the primary author welcomes correspondence. Why not write to him?
They also state "after the explosion and fire and the concurrent collapse of the two structures...." indicating that these three things happened in that order and strongly suggesting that their use of the word "explosion" refers to the explosions caused by the aircraft at impact.
I would respectfully suggest you actually read things before sounding off so frantically about them. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
marky 54
Mega Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 14, 2008 8:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
on the "explosion and collapse" part i can see how what you say fits with the plane impact(which i admit i forgot to account for)
however i fail to see how anticapating results simular to a building implosion, is not highlighting simularities between the wtc collapse and a building implosion. meaning those who did this reports felt there was simular observations inorder to make the comparsion or expect simular results. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sam
Wrecker
Joined: 29 Dec 2007
Posts: 343
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 14, 2008 9:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| marky 54 wrote: | on the "explosion and collapse" part i can see how what you say fits with the plane impact(which i admit i forgot to account for)
however i fail to see how anticapating results simular to a building implosion, is not highlighting simularities between the wtc collapse and a building implosion. meaning those who did this reports felt there was simular observations inorder to make the comparsion or expect simular results. |
It seems to me that they - justifiably in my opinion - expected similar results. When large buildings fall down the structural material, such as concrete, gets the cr#p knocked out of it.
There's no way the Towers could fall down without generating large amounts of dust, is there? It's totally predictable. That the authors of that study anticipated this is no grounds for supposing that they were suggesting that the WTC Towers were "imploded". |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
marky 54
Mega Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 15, 2008 12:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | That the authors of that study anticipated this is no grounds for supposing that they were suggesting that the WTC Towers were "imploded". |
i never said they were suggesting the towers were imploded.
i said they obviously see some simularites to a CD, why else compare to a CD.
| Quote: | | There's no way the Towers could fall down without generating large amounts of dust, is there? |
theres also no way a CD building could fall without creating lots of dust either.
this is the simular event the report acknowledges. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pepik
Banned
Joined: 08 Oct 2006
Posts: 591
Location: The Square Mile
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 15, 2008 12:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
So why not contact them with your questions?
_________________
"could it be that ww2 and the extermination of jewish people was planned as a way of creating a race of people who it would be difficult to blame for anything, a cover race for the illuminati?" - a quote NOT from the 'controversial theories' section. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
marky 54
Mega Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 15, 2008 1:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
| pepik wrote: | | So why not contact them with your questions? |
they are not denying there were simularites are they?. why would i need to contact them?
i agree with them. there were simular events to an implosion. they were right to expect dust samples to be simular prior to the results. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sam
Wrecker
Joined: 29 Dec 2007
Posts: 343
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 15, 2008 7:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
| marky 54 wrote: |
i agree with them. there were simular events to an implosion. they were right to expect dust samples to be simular prior to the results. |
You're making some confusing remarks here. Earlier you said :
| marky 54 wrote: | | why would they even consider anything like an implosion in with their research, when critics seem to think there is NO evidence what so ever for explosives or a CD. |
The fact that the authors expected dust profiles similar to a CD does not mean that critics are wrong in saying there is "NO evidence what so ever for explosives or a CD". There is no such evidence. The buildings fell down unassisted by explosives. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Chat
Usergroups
Calendar
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
