Man…first Kipling is implicated, now Moose and Squirrel??? Just how deep does this conspiracy go??? :eek:
-XT
The core columns are irrelevant to your proposal. Several hundred posts ago, we already looked at videos of the cores still standing following the collapse of the floors. Even had the cores failed from a silent blast from Voldemort’s wand, they would not have been standing after the collapse of the floors.
You mean like convincing Duane Gish that Evolution actually occurred?
Convince me that you are open to actual evidence before I waste my time.
Whatever. (Although it does not actually “shut up” anyone until you provide more than a single uncorroborated anecdote in which the “silence” of the explosions is neither explained nor demonstrated. The idea that a charge could be rigged in some unidentified fashion to produce less noise than a “standard” explosion while destroying two hinges, probably less than 1/4" thick, while odd, does nothing to suggest that such a mechanism could be scaled up to sever mutiple columns, each several inches thick.)
This stat about the cores still standing would seem to go against your argument. If the weight of the buildings alone was enough to destroy the the core, why was any left standing at all? That the bottom section, which was subject to the most pressure, remained upright, might imply that the rest of the structure wasn’t just weakened by heat until it could no longer take the strain. Explain why any of the core should still be standing, if it was being progressively destroyed by the weight above it?
I’m looking for evidence that any of the ‘clearance’ crew were looking for the remnants of explosive or other devices, from day one. Got any?
It was new in 1988, apparently, and though mentioned in a somewhat casual manner, I’m sure someone with better research skills than me could find out how much this technology, if it existed - and the author seems to think it significant enough to mention - had been improved, prior to 9/11.
Why does it matter whether or not they were specifically looking for it?
Because if the thought never even occurred, or did, and was deemed “ridiculous” at the outset, I have to wonder what kind of ‘investigation’ it was at all.
Because your putting the cart before the horse. You don’t have the “thought” and then start looking for evidence; you make your judgements based on the evidence that was found.
Not having it. If you find a dead body with slash wounds and you smell gun powder residue, do you rule out the possibility of the killer injury occurring by gun shot, because the wounds on show were definitely done by a knife?
If at the start of the clear up there was no address to the workers stating that there might be a possibility of additional sabotage, how can you say the team had been briefed properly?
If nothing else, this lack of foresight would at least indicate that those charged with carrying out this most important of investigations, were a little lacking in thoroughness.
Thank you for making my point for me.
In your own example, there was *evidence *of a gunshot because of the smell of gun powder residue.
There was no evidence of additional sabotage found at the WTC site. Therefore, no conclusion of additonal sbaotage was arrived at.
Okay, clever clogs! 
Let’s pretend an independent witness saw someone carrying a gun in the vicinity of the crime and another heard a gunshot - would this ‘evidence’ be ruled out, if the crime was outdoors and gunpowder residue couldn’t be smelt?
I’m not sure what you are trying to claim.
The core was certainly destroyed along with the building. There is no “stat” involved.
What he have are videos of portions of the core still rising out of the descending building as it fell, then being pulled into the rest of the destruction. Had the cores been blown, they would either have fallen before the floors or with the floors, but they could not have stood for even a nanosecond longer than the floors if their destruction was what brought down the building.
This whole line of discussion is nothing but a red herring, anyway. it is one more example of saying, if I can through this turd against the wall, maybe it will stick.
When the CT crowd claims the buildings were brought down by controlled demolition, one tiny factoid, (amid the mountains of actual evidence), that gets mentioned was that that witnesses did not report explosions, so the CT crowd comes up with tree separate responses:
- some witnesses did hear “explosions”
- the bad guys used thermite
and now - the explosions were silent.
(Note that the first and third points don’t even agree with each other. It is just a matter of “I can’t believe those buildings fell and I insist that the government had to have something to do with it, so let me invent ever more fantastic claims to explain what “really” happened, getting further and further from reality as I do.”)
Okay, I’ll play your silly game.
No, the evidence wouldn’t be ruled out because there is positive evidence that a gunshit was involved.
So … where is your positive evidence, not supposition, suspicion, or theories, that shows that something else besides two big ol’ airplanes knocked down the twin towers?
You have heard of the concept of plausible deniability, haven’t you? At this stage, what level of evidence would you accept?
I would accept any evidence that isn’t “invisble pink unicorn” type of evidence.
Hey … the invisible pink unicorn could have done it! Why weren’t the firefighters briefed on that possibility?
Show me the evidence that blasting caps, detonator wire, or any of the other effluvia of a controlled demolition were ever found.
“They weren’t looking for it, so they never found it” does not count as evidence.
As long as we’re playing let’s pretend…
Let’s pretend hundreds of witnesses saw someone get stabbed and that the stabbing was shown on live TV. Let’s pretend that when the autopsy was performed, the coroner found (surprise!) fatal stab wounds. Let’s pretend a videotape shows up of the accused stabber boasting about having stabbed his victim. Under the circumstances, would you yell, “Hey, nobobdy specifically looked for a bullet so how do you know the victim wasn’t really shot?”
If we used the same “Astikov” for everything else in our lives, we’d never get out of bed in the morning. Life is all about taking the information at hand, combining that with our life experience, then making rational decisions and taking appropriate action based on that information. Going to get out of bed? I can’t, I don’t know if the floor will hold my weight today. Take a shower? How do I know that acid won’t come out of it today? Walk down the stairs? How do I know they won’t collapse? Nothing in life is 100% rock solid. In order to survive life, the 99% test must be good enough.
Under your guise of being “thorough” or “intelligent” or “not being a dupe”, you’ve created an impossible set of circumstances that can never be met. Trillions of decisions made by billions of people were made on September 11th and beyond. From how did a specific terrorist get on a specific plane to what one fireman put in his coffee before he went to work. Some are important, and some are unknowable and trivial.
There seems to me more proof of this disaster that any other one in history, that I can think of. Hundreds of TV cameras, tens if not hundreds of millions of viewers on TV. Tens of thousands of New Yorkers actually watching events. Tens of thousands of man-hours spent looking though rubble and investigating. It all points the same way, and yet you refuse to believe. Fundamentally because you just want to be the only guy on your block who “really knows.” But it manifests itself by you tossing up one trivial and unimportant road block after another. You want a level of certainly of events surrounding 9/11 that by definition cannot be obtained. Your test by definition forces you to believe in a conspiracy.
I have no idea if the construction workers looked for “red” primer cord. Say we know that they did? What’s next? "We’ll they didn’t look for “blue primer cord! Ohh they did? We’ll they didn’t look for yellow!” And while you do this, you lose the forest for the trees. Because it just doesn’t matter what they looked for. There is so much evidence that points in one direction getting our boxers in a bunch because we don’t know if Fireman Jones put one creamer of two in his coffee that morning just doesn’t matter.
If we used your absolute Astikov test, no one would be convicted or a crime, no question would ever be answered and we’d stay in bed all day.
Was digging around looking for some specifics (outside of the extensive one’s already cited and ignored in the NIST report) about the examination of the structural members that failed and caused the collapse. I found this cite which deals with a lot of the civil engineering aspects of the collapse (posted here for future reference, or for anyone who is following along and actually reading the cites with comprehension or at least an open mind).
Here is a cite (previously ignored) that talks about the examination of the structural supports from a metallurgical perspective (no evidence of explosive use found, but then, perhaps they simply ignored it, ehe?). (warning: PDF)
Another cite (which will again be ignored) talking about the metallurgical analysis of the WTC debris. I note that they are looking at the microscopic crystaline structure of the steel (Their conclusion? The members deformed due to heat…go figure). Even if they weren’t specifically looking for explosives damage they would have seen indications of this in the form of shock damage to the underlying structure (not to mention, you know, the rather distinctive pattern and scorch marks left from explosives cutting through the members).
Anyway, I realize this is all pretty futile…no way the faithful are going to see reason at this point in the thread. But thought I’d add a few cites just so I don’t have to look them up again in the next thread…I think that just about everything has been covered here by everyone, so next time this insane subject comes up it should be a simple cut and paste exercise.
-XT
Well, if there were 3000 other witnesses who reported no such things–even if they would have been in the same vicinity as the 2 witnesses–I’d assume that those two witnesses were mistaken/lying/crazy.
These guys repeat some twoofer talking points (e.g.: “near-free fall collapse”) but even they say the failure was due to fire caused by impact by a 90,000 liter Molotov cocktail.
.
I won’t go to your level. I am sure this is too high for you.
How do you compute what the fire could do in less than 2 hours if you don’t know the quantity of steel in the vicinity of the fire?
All you can do is imply people are stupid if they don’t agree with the majority. But the fact of the matter is that all of you people that BELIEVE the plane brought the buildings down can’t come up with information as simple as the quantities of steel and concrete that were on each level of the towers. It is certainly curious not to have information that simple after nearly EIGHT YEARS. What kind of PHYSICS is that?
Here is some data about LEVELS for you:
http://www.eskimo.com/~miyaguch/combnorm.html
I let my MENSA membership expire back in the 80s. I took their IQ test to get in. According to that table 75% of people score below 111 and 90% below 121. What level were you referring to.
psik
Nobody believes that the planes brought the buildings down, Psik. You believe that we believe that, but we don’t.
We merely know that the fires which erupted because of the plane crashes brought the buildings down.
Why are you arguing against a point that nobody is making?