So the interiors of the buildings were collapsing even faster than we had initially thought; the lower floors were giving way at a speed even closer to freefall than we can observe externally (which was already very fast). I don’t see how this helps your case, and I don’t see how the explusions of matter from the lower floors can be accounted for merely by air pressure. For one thing, they were highly concentrated, and precisely patterned (blasting out of the center of multiple sides) and the buildings didnt have a structure that would have concentrated the air explusions like that (in isolated, straight and powerful bursts).
Well note that I did say “alleged basement explosions”. I wasnt sure about this, although I do remember seeing some video evidence of some large basement explosions somewhere.
Well ok, I will study the seismology evidence in more detail, but these findings do not discount the possibility of explosions up in the towers being involved in the collapse.
Also, I’d like to reiterate one of my main objections to the pancake theory which is highly relevent here, yet you don’t seem to have addressed at all, but to do this I’ll post from 911research.wtc7.net as they put it more concisely than I probably can (bold emphasis mine):
So, basically, the concrete-pulverisation problem. So yes, the building fell from the point at where the planes hit, but it also dissolved from that point and above in a manner that is unaccounted for.
Well, in that case the eyewitness reports that were used to determine what occured at the Pentagon must be treated with equal scepticism. Considering the well-known problems with the use of eyewitness testimony, there is an even more pressing need for the government to release footage of the Pentagon impact, at least to the commision. The qualified eyewitness testimony I’ve mentioned before (the room full of air traffic controllers) came from a source away from the main area of chaos, and could therefore be seen as of more use.
I think the reality is that eyewitness accounts are somewhat useful, but shouldnt be treated as gospel.
I dispute this on the usual grounds (the nature of the collapse), but shall forward here for clarity the “concrete-pulverisation” problem (which you have currently not addressed at all).
Are you claiming the US military could not have the resources to orchestrate such a demolition?
And also I think it is important to notice here that you have shifted from defending the pancake day theory to attacking the demolition hypothesis. And even if you “disprove” the demolition hypothesis, that does not prove pancake day.
There was apparently some “powerdown” time prior to 9/11 during which some “workmen” were allowed access to the towers. Now whether that can provide sufficient time for it all to be rigged is something the demolition hypothesis guys will have to ascertain.
I’d imagine the US military has some pretty nifty explosives.
If you look once again at the concrete-pulverisation problem, it could be explained by a sequential detonation of bombs from the higher levels down. I wasnt sure about the basement bomb hypothesis to begin with, to be honest, although I’m going to go over the evidence again.
Well of course you’ll say that. Your ideas don’t make sense to me either.
Here’s what Silverstein actually said (bold emphasis mine):
So, according to Silverstein’s testimony, the following occured:
- He suggested “pulling” to the fire department
- the fire department made the decision to “pull”
- they all watched the building collapse
Now, so far, there have been two offered definitions of “pull” in this context: a) demolish and b) remove firefighters from the area
So, either way, it seems that there was a chrnological link between what Silverstein said and what happened. Seems possible that people did listen to him, it was an exceptional day, you’d need to cross-examine everyone thoroughly to get some idea of whether standard proceedure was followed.
But while you’re bringing up personal testimony, I’d be very interested to hear your thoughts on Bush’s statements. He said, on two separate occasions, that he saw the first plane hit, and thought “now that’s one bad pilot”. The first hit was not televised until the next day.
All of these guys should be getting fiercely cross-examined in a court of law.
Lets not allow rhetorical techniques to interfere with the logic and reasoning, more like. Although I don’t deny that, whatever the subject matter, debating is fun. It’s also important though.
Josh: with regard the link attacking prof Jones.
They open by questioning the validity of the peer-review process (bold emphasis mine):
"His paper was peer reviewed but not by a civil engineering journal. One would think a serious professor would get his paper peer reviewed by a scientific journal which specializes in the field they are writing the paper on. "
What I’m saying is his paper was either peer reviewed, or it wasnt. They have acknowledged that it has been peer reviewed. Their objection isnt more substantial than saying “it wasnt peer reviewed by some body who share our views”.
Besides, despite what has been said here, there are qualified experts who have been on-record supporting the demolition hypothesis. I have linked to a radio interview with one such professional in my last long post, there is also the firefighters journal that was outraged by the collapses, and then there was the professional who remarked just after 9/11 on how demolition-like the collapses were… only to retract his statement much later, without elaborating on why. I have a long and detailed pro-demolition scientific piece that is pro-demolition, by a prof Green or Greening perhaps. It’s on my computer, I’ll find and post it here later.