QUOTE (SanderO @ May 21 2012, 12:52 PM)
Oh My..OSS speculates! But doesn't know how the explosive would initiate the collapse. Here is where understand the structure and the mechanism/mechanics of the collapse initiation are critical.
Yet when I propose a speculation about the collapse of B7 based on the mechanism and the mechanics of that tower I am roundly criticized for speculation and not providing bullet proof evidence... despite the speculation matching the observables. Interesting OSS. Very telling.
Jesus man, calm down.
As usual, it just flies right over your head. Unlike you, any speculation by me is based on observation. Tom's book speaks of looking at the events in Manhattan through different lenses. I agree 100%, though I don't fall into any of the three main categories listed. Nor do you.
And when I talk of speculation, I mean theories that are based on a desired result. Void of evidence.
The majority of areas listed below (bar #2) are areas where an architectural degree or higher knowledge of physics aren't necessary to know that external forces were at work. At the very least
, they show that Manhattan was not a straightforward case of "accident" due to an accumulation of coincidences.
1) I can't dismiss witness testimony to explosions although I accept that there were other combustibles capable of exploding. Especially when 118 of those witnesses are qualified
to differentiate between the various heat induced explosions of cars/combustibles and events they described simply as "explosions". That is, unexplained sources. Within and without the building.
2) I definitely accept that there is more than one way of skinning a cat. That the term "gravity driven collapse" has been hijacked by government loyalists as somehow equating this term with an acceptance of the OCT. Of course gravity played a major part. What I can't accept is that the initiation and the progression of collapse that ensued went unaided. The very fact that there has been no acceptable natural explanation
(specifically on the initiation AFAIK) after 11 years lends credence to sabotage or outside influence. Does a negative prove a positive? No. But it does mean that there is a missing element that physics and architecture can't explain, not only to this admitted layman but among genuine qualified researchers.. Wholesale rejection of valid doubts about multiple anomalies, based on speculation or simple handwaving away of what doesn't "fit" is unacceptable.
3) I can't accept speculation that the heat levels recorded at Ground Zero were the result of "office fires" smouldering in oxygen deprived areas or that the "office fires" could even survive a collapse that pulverized the inner part of the buildings into fine powder.
4) I can't accept speculation that molten metal seen falling from the south tower and witnessed during the Ground Zero clear up post collapse were the result of "office fires". Especially when the area from where the molten metal was seen dripping happens to be at one of the main areas where initiation of collapse apparently occured.
5) I can't accept speculation that the eutectic material found among the sparse evidence shipped off can be put down to some freakish natural reaction in all of the chaos of the collapses. Especially when there is no precedent to compare to or the "gypsum"-type theory nonsense.
And no, SanderO, I, nor anybody on any forum where you've brought up your speculation on "diesel fires",transformer explosions, "cooked trusses" or where the internal collapse of wtc7 was followed by the outer shell, have entertained it. Because your speculation is based on no proof whatsoever. Nor observational data!
If you want to go on a tirade, bring it into the debate section? Or you can actually have a go and point out the flaws in my layman observations on what was occuring in the area above the impact just prior to collapse.
From Tom's book:
"The inevitable consequence of the philosophy of "good enough" is to dump all our contradictions on the shoulders of Joe Average. If he doesn't accept being dumped on with a smile, he is then berated as "stupid" for sensing and pointing out some of these internal contradictions."
Sound familiar SanderO?
Excellent addition regarding "average Joe". Information (vacuum) overload lol.
I'm still reading through the links. Is there one that specifically deals with collapse initiations? And do you believe that they were inevitable? Fully explained?