Quote:
Originally Posted by **********
You don't get it.
Let's say you were standing 10 feet away from any building as it fell apart. You would see pieces flying and falling all over the place: To the left, to the right, in front of and behind you. It would look like a cloud of debris.
|
Yes. Huge segments flew laterally away from the building at speeds that could only be accounted for by an external agent, such as an explosive.
Those movements cannot be accounted for by gravitationally driven, "organic" collapse.
Quote:
Originally Posted by **********
Now imagine yourself a few miles away. It would appear to you that the building is falling straight down because from your point of view, it is. There's nothing to the left or to the right, or in front or behind.
|
There was plenty pluming out from a distance. Nothing that could be accounted for by a gravity-collapse.
Quote:
Originally Posted by **********
The same analogy applies to anything. From a distance a snowflake looks like a single white dot. But under a microscope it is a highly detailed structure.
|
Under the microscope, WTC dust was highly detailed evidence of incendiaries.
Quote:
Originally Posted by **********
All of the up-close footage I have seen (and you have seen) looks like a cloud of frame-enveloping debris. All of the distant cameras look like a straight-down fall.
|
A gravity-driven collapse, or "pancake" collapse, does not produce a "cloud" or dust on the level of the WTC destructions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by **********
Even a true controlled demolition looks like a cloud of debris up close.
|
You're correct. A controlled demolition produces powdered, obliterated debris in cloud like formations because of the external agents such as explosives and incendiaries used to bring the building down. An "organic", gravity-driven collapse will not to such an extent...
Quote:
Originally Posted by **********
You are looking at the visual "evidence" and seeing only what you want to see, discounting everything else and / or finding excuses for things that do not fit your version of what happened. You are not truly skeptical, and you're not approaching this from a scientific or fact-finding point of view. Instead like most other conspiracy theorists you are looking for "evidence" that proves your pre conceived notions only.
Tisk tisk.
|
I'm acknowledging scientifically validated evidence and don't care for uncorroborated theories in this case - I don't have a "versin" of what happened. The government version/s simply don't carry any evidentiary weight for their theory to be considered .
Quote:
Originally Posted by **********
The term "Vertically" would mean absolutely no movement on the X or Y axis of any component of the building. Any video of the collapse clearly shows debris going on all directions outward from the building.
|
Uh, vertical descent is y-axis movement.
The videos show a building imploding due to external agents removing the paths of most resistance from the vertical movement of the undamaged segments above the damaged segments down into and through the majority of the undamaged building.
Quote:
Originally Posted by **********
It is not against all probability because it did not fall "perfectly, vertically".
Imagine yourself closer to the explosion, and you'll see that your statement is not valid and should be removed from any future arguments.
|
You say to "imagine yourself closer to the explosion" when in fact you subscribe to the "organic collapse" theory indicating there were no explosions or external, incendiary or explosive influences on the buildings' falls.
Be consistent?
:D