Loose Change - Part II

[pgwenthold]

"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.”

911 myths actually has a section regarding this claim with some info

http://www.911myths.com/html/particle_size.html

I haven't seen anyone follow up on this, but it is important, because it seriously affects mutton-head's calculations.

If I use the numbers listed on this site, which are apparently from the original reference, I get the following average composition

< 2.5 1.1%
2.5-10 .35%
10 - 53 39.4%
> 53 59.1%

With the makeup of the >53 components something like
75 micron 35%
75 - 300 micron 45%
> 300 20%

Now, if I call the average <2.5 particle 1 micron, the 2.5-10 is 6 microns, the 10 - 53 is 30 microns, the 75 - 300 is 185 microns, and using only 300 for greater than 300, I estimate an average particle size of 113 microns.

At the ABSOLUTELY LOWEST LIMIT, where particles 10 - 53 are all estimated to be 10 micron, and 75 - 300 are all estimated to be 75, I get an average of 75 microns. The average particle size from the dust, if I am reading the data right, MUST BE greater than 75. 110 is even toward the low end of a realistic estimate. 120 is perfectly justified.

That means that the LOWER LIMIT to the average particle size is 75, 25% greater than Hoffman's supposed conservative estimate. A more realistic estimate is 120, twice the size.

Now, because these are particle diameters, the amount of material in them goes as the radius cubed. That means in terms of volume, a particle that is 60 microns is half the volume of one that is 75 microns. That means it takes _twice_ as much energy to "pulverize" the concrete into 60 micron pieces than 75 micron pieces. Therefore, if Hoffman used 60 microns as the average particle size, then his energy estimate is twice as large as the upper possible limit, and is EIGHT times higher than a more realistic estimate of the energy that would be needed.

So Mutton-Head, if the energy required is only half of that Hoffman claimed was needed, how does that change his conclusions?

And this analysis ignores the fact that this is only an analysis of the pulverized material, and does not take into account the possibility of non-pulverized material.

 

[delphi_ote]

Now THAT was fun. I got myself suspended again.

ETA I imagine it was probably this post that did it. I just couldn't resist rubbing salt in that wound.

 

[Polaris]

"911research" has put out another critique of LC2 called Sifting Through Loose Change. Its index page contains a link to Gravy's critique (and I think it contains information and images directly from the document):



edit: I guess I should make it clear that this critique is from a rival CT perspective, so its character is quite different from that of Gravy's piece.

The gist of 911research.com is "Loose Change is absolutely false and made by crackpots, but all their conclusions are spot on because I still don't want to admit that Bush hasn't done something that evil."

 

[delphi_ote]

Bwah ha ha... now they're claiming the video they ripped off is fake!

 

[Polaris]

Repent, sinners...you must comply...

http://www.gulf-times.com/site/topi...o=88799&version=1&template_id=57&parent_id=56

Nudge nudge WTC wink wink

How many passenger jetliners crashed into that building at top speed and fuel capacity?

 

[RandFan]

Now THAT was fun. I got myself suspended again.

ETA I imagine it was probably this post that did it. I just couldn't resist rubbing salt in that wound.

Sorry Delphi,

Fair use, I'm going to have to quote you.

Delphi
They're coming after Dylan because what he's saying doesn't match their first hand experience. He's using video they risked their lives to get to say something they don't agree with. They're not sitting on the video of what happened. It's in their documentary. It's just as easy for anyone to get their hands on it as it was for Dylan to get his hands on it.

Now Dylan is going to get his ass handed to him in court.

So sue me.

 

[Shrinker]

How many passenger jetliners crashed into that building at top speed and fuel capacity?

The fire's on the outsides of the buildings geggs. Helps to do a little investigating since your Looser buddies won't ever tell you this stuff.

http://skyscrapercity.com/archive/index.php/t-354990.html

I saw the fires at about 1500 when they seemd to be out of control on the second tower (the one furthest from City Centre Mall) but there was also clearly smoke coming from the first building. The flames were burning up the external faces and seemed to be the saem as last time - the external waterproofing on fire.

The fire appears to be concentrated only or mainly on the outside aluminum cladding where there are no sprinklers. Its just a guess. But maybe the fire started inside, but lets hope the fire did not reach the core, which could melt the steel causing the whole building to collapse.

http://img135.imageshack.us/img135/5724/dsc002721gp.jpg

 

[Gravy]

Repent, sinners...you must comply...

http://www.gulf-times.com/site/topi...o=88799&version=1&template_id=57&parent_id=56

Nudge nudge WTC wink wink

geggy, your lack of sincerity regarding 9/11 is deeply disturbing. I am appealing to you to reconsider what you are doing, and why you are doing it.

You have made 191 posts here. How many have contained accurate, relevant information? I'll bet I could count them on one hand. Why doesn't that bother you? Why do you not question the validity of your sources and methods? Why do you continue to rely on CT websites for information, when you've been shown time and time again that they are unreliable?

You behavior is disrespectful of the many thoughtful people here who make the effort to be sure their arguments conform to logic and evidence. You have been shown to be wrong in almost every post of yours, yet you show no signs of learning from your mistakes. Instead, you seem to revel in your stupidity. You remind me of a school kid who plays the fool because that's the only way he can be accepted socially. That's a bad tactic here.

Your behavior is also disrespectful to the victims of 9/11, to the people who worked in rescue, recovery, clean-up, and investigation, and to the thousands of people who feel the effects of that day all the time. Have those people done something to deserve your disrespect? Is "Nudge nudge WTC wink wink" really the best you can do by them?

I want to believe that you're a better person than that, but so far the evidence says otherwise. I've asked you a number of times to reconsider your behavior, and as long as you keep posting in this way, I'll continue asking, because your lack of sincerity about 9/11 is offensive to me.

So I'll ask again, earnestly: geggy, please reconsider your behavior, which is an embarrassment to you and an affront to others.

-Mark Roberts

 

[RandFan]

Bwah ha ha... now they're claiming the video they ripped off is fake!

Rich.

 

[hellaeon]

wow, I just came back this morning to work thinking, what have I missed.

I cant believe the same arguements are persisting but the best news of the morning for me is that lawsuit. I have such a feeling of gratification at this time. Reality now is enforcing itself onto their 'agenda'. This is awesome news and I for one feel this is a great result for common sense.

Man, stoked. Suffer the children.

Just awesome news, very very pleased.

 

[Pardalis]

Nudge nudge WTC wink wink

I think geggy is mentally retarded. If so, I apologize for any insult I might have said to him in the past.

 

[Regnad Kcin]

geggy, your lack of sincerity regarding 9/11 is deeply disturbing. I am appealing to you to reconsider what you are doing, and why you are doing it.

You have made 191 posts here. How many have contained accurate, relevant information? I'll bet I could count them on one hand...

For some reason our little friend enjoys the heck out of posting links. Oh, and asking questions. But putting together a persuasive, coherent point of his own, never mind engage in back-and-forth debate/discourse, seems far beyond his abilities. What are you gonna do?

---

RandFan! You've certainly missed a lively one so far. (Check out part 1 (simply titled "Loose Change") as well as "Has Anyone Seen a Realistice [sic] Explanation For Free Fall Of The Towers?") Anyhow, welcome back.

 

[Regnad Kcin]

Now THAT was fun. I got myself suspended again.

ETA I imagine it was probably this post that did it. I just couldn't resist rubbing salt in that wound.

And a couple posts later Mr. Avery "toasts" a poster who says there's "no use arguing with someone like" you, "nor will it be the end of loose change [sic]..."

Then, I lost a tooth when my jaw hit the floor reading this, from a DabeesUK:

"No use arguing with someone like that.."

True Jessica, but it's good to have people who disagree with our views on the truth.

It helps us to learn how to debate and refine the reasons why we believe what we do. I have garnished so much in how to debate in the year i have been investigating 9/11. Much of it from the people who agree with the official line.

They help us learn, and eventually they will also learn the TRUTH, when the powers that be are finally held responsible.

I'm not holding my breath.

I...just...I don't know what to say.

 

[Gravy]

I just wanted to say a big public Howdy-do to delphi and RandFan! You have been missed around here.

p.s. Does anyone else find it suspicious that they returned at the same time?

 

[Gravy]

I haven't seen anyone follow up on this, but it is important, because it seriously affects mutton-head's calculations.

Thanks for doing that dustbunking. It IS a very important point. Not to mention that we have no idea how much of the concrete was actually pulverized. The CTs seem to think it's okay to use any old random figure, for example...um...let's see..it's coming to me...100%!

 

[Regnad Kcin]

Bwah ha ha... now they're claiming the video they ripped off is fake!

Well, I read through about half. And now my head hurts. Much like that writer's spine must from bending backwards for so long.

 

[delphi_ote]

And a couple posts later Mr. Avery "toasts" a poster who says there's "no use arguing with someone like" you, "nor will it be the end of loose change [sic]..."

Brave words. He'll be crying like a baby in court. And his parents are going to be really mad when they have to pay up.

Then, I lost a tooth when my jaw hit the floor reading this, from a DabeesUK:


I...just...I don't know what to say.

Irony is not their strong point. "Keep around dissenting opinions... until you don't like them!"

 

[Gravy]

I'm afraid they've got you pegged, delphi.
http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=5091&view=findpost&p=4847174

 

[delphi_ote]

I'm afraid they've got you pegged, delphi.
http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=5091&view=findpost&p=4847174

No. I'm not the master of the obvious, because this footage was obviously all faked. The lawyers are fake, too. It's all part of the cover up.

I can't even see the obvious fact that I'M part of the cover up!

 

[pgwenthold]

Thanks for doing that dustbunking. It IS a very important point. Not to mention that we have no idea how much of the concrete was actually pulverized. The CTs seem to think it's okay to use any old random figure, for example...um...let's see..it's coming to me...100%!

And even then, they can't get it right.