I debated on what section of the board to put this, but since there’s no question involved, I decided on MPSIMS, even if the subject matter is not mundane.
This amateur video got released onto the net in 2006, but I’d never seen it until tonight. I’m sure there have been many others that people have released over the years, but this one just stunned me.
Most reports that I’ve seen have said that the WTC inner core remained at least partially intact after the collapse of the rest of the building. In several documentaries, you can see the core through the debris/smoke for a split second before it becomes obscured again (I believe the footage was from a news camera.)
In this video, if you go to about 19:39, you can see the second tower collapse.
At about 19:57, as the camera is panning down, you can clearly see the inner core of the building; one large piece of it breaks and falls on the left side. Then the camera pans too far down to see it.
As the camera pans back up, the core is still mostly standing. As the camera operator opens the window, right at 20:01, the core is very, very clearly standing. It then begins to fall, finally dropping into the debris cloud at about 20:09.
It’s not really groundbreaking, but it amazed me that there was footage of it. I would think this would drive another nail into the ‘truth’ movement, as it is obvious that the internal core of the building wasn’t detonated to bring the towers down.
Wow - that is really…“impressive” is definitely not the right word, but all I can muster right now. It is a much different angle than I’ve ever seen, as well as having a very personal perspective on it. What really strikes me is the tragedy of the little things - things we know that the people in the video didn’t. Seeing the fire trucks pull up, the cellphone conversation in the background, etc.
That’s one way of looking at it. Another way would be to ask why, if the combined weight of the collapsing structure above and the force of gravity, were all that was needed to overcome all resistance from beneath, there was any of the structure left standing at all?
Trying to apply logic to a truther? Truthers and their ilk are missing (either in whole or only in part) a capacity for rational thought. Saying that this video or that evidence has any hope of penetrating their malignant mindset is futile. Ivan’s fanwanking is spot on–any one of a host of absurdities can be brought to bear to justify the distorted reality they live with.
My brother-in-law is an architect, and he had gone downstairs from his office and was watching it on a TV in a bar. He told the people sitting next to him:’'that building is going to collapse" and no one believed him.
I’m not a “truther”, I’m just a sceptic on the other side of the fence from most of you. This doesn’t mean I believe every line of bs that I am fed, as much as some of you’d like to portray that as being the case.
While we are on the subject tho’, is there anybody who has questioned The Official Account Of 9/11 who you wouldn’t label a “truther”?
And, how many of you even want to face what might be the truth, if all your vociferous protestations were proven to be wrong?
Erm… I question that the towers could only be brought down in a “controlled manner” by using tons of explosives; that the US intelligence agencies were caught “totally by surprise” by this incident; that a terrorist’s passport managed to survive one of the crashes and was conveniently found in the street; that of all the luggage on one flight to be held up, it had to be one of the terrorist’s, and also contained relevant “clues”; that for such a conspiracy to take place, thousands would have to be in the know… how’s that for starters?
I think scepticism of certain mundane elements to varying degrees is one thing. I have little doubt that as the Commission Report was coming together, many areas saw significant disagreement and discord among its authors. I also have little doubt that these disputes did *not *uniformly and consistently come out on the correct side (“correct” ranging from proper degree of emphasis to interpretation of inconclusive facts). Lastly, I have little doubt that the vast majority of Dopers would find the above premises to be trivial in nature and boringly uncontroversial.
If you’re claiming some sort of more-sceptical-than-thou mantle because you think you’re alone in above, then it’s understandable why your efforts to distinguish yourself from the rest results in mislabelling you as a truther.
However, asserting scepticism of the Report’s major and middling conclusions is a wholly different matter. It moves from pedantic ignorance-fighting to Time Cube-like dismissibility. Not that in the early days—well before evidence began to pile up—such questioning wasn’t valid. It’s not even that much of a stretch to suggest that some shocking titbit of truth remains buried among the vast sea of truther claims. But asserting truther’s core claims or continuing to treat them as legitimate areas to investigate—claims ranging from an inside job, to overt or tacit approval of the attacks, intentional demolition, or planned attacks as a pretext for war or expansion of government power—takes it from healthy or even aggressive scepticism and deposits it deep in Woowoovania.
As for facing what “might” be the truth? GD is full of hypotheticals and all sorts of fanciful questions that get taken seriously. There’re always a handful of snide comments from folks who have difficulty with hypothetical questions, but they’re generally in the minority.