Scott I urge you to completely read this post
Could it have been a faked video? It certainly was pretty bad quality. The idea that explosives alone were used is a possibility. In any case, I'll bring it up with the loose change guys...
If it were faked, wouldn't they fake one of
higher quality? Wouldn't this make more sense?
And another thing: you have a tendency to refrain to the "Loose Change Guys" as some kind of experts. Scott, they are as
partisan as partisan could possibly be. They are not a happy-go-lucky gang of well-rounded unbiased observers; they are a clannish and insular group utterly and irrevocably devoted to the slogan "9/11 Was An Inside Job". This is a fact that cannot,
cannot be denied. You do yourself and your impartiality a huge discredit by constantly checking back with them to see how some reasonable objection or other could be overcome by contrived explanation.
84 videos....
The number 84/85 was a reference to an original number of videos the FBI received that could potentially have shown what happened.
From
http://www.911myths.com/index.php/FBI_hides_84_Pentagon_videos
“The FBI are talking about 85 videos, but this is just the result of an initial search that includes (for example) all videos obtained by the Washington Field Office. If we move on from that then the numbers begin to fall dramatically.
56 "of these videotapes did not show either the Pentagon building, the Pentagon crash site, or the impact of Flight 77 into the Pentagon on September 11."
Of the remaining 29 videotapes, 16 "did not show the Pentagon crash site and did not show the impact of Flight 77 into the Pentagon."
Of the 13 remaining tapes, 12 "only showed the Pentagon after the impact of Flight 77." Only one tape showed the Pentagon impact: the Pentagon's own security camera footage that would later be released.
I think this says it all. One video camera that actually got the impact.
There's a lot of evidence, but you don't see too interested in that. Anyway, I asked on the loose change forums concerning what your geomorphologist friend said. Here is their rebuttal:
http://s1.zetaboards.com/LooseChangeForums/single/?p=144208&t=663014
Unfortunately, Scott, MM's post on that site completely avoids the entire issue of concrete crumbled to dust and concentrates instead on steel. My friend has made a career out of natural formation collapse and there is little doubt at all that during a collapse of sufficient magnitude some stone is reduced to power; concrete certainly no less than stone. You are trying to apply the label of rebuttal to something that is not a rebuttal of the point at all. My friend is certainly an expert, unlike MM; but by all means look it up on some geological reference database.
They're saying that the way it collapsed is inconsistent in some ways with usual controlled demolitions. I personally find that it makes it look even more like a controlled demolition, because instead of everything falling inwards (someone who didn't know much could be led to believe that the columns were weak), a lot explodes outwards, thus making it seem clear it was an explosion. Seriously, for me the pictures say it all.
But clearly the pictures
don't say it all. Are you referring to the debris collapsing slightly sideways from the Towers? You are aware, I assume, that the top 30 stories were riding the Towers down like some horrifying slolum. In that case, where else should the debris go? Straight down? Only in some cartoonish version of reality. Debris showered in all directions because the building would have been torn to pieces; and you can hardly argue first that materials spewed sideways from an explosion and then say the entire structure collapsed straight down like in a controlled demolition. In which controlled demolition has thousands of tons of materials fallen all over the place and in all directions?? Every single video I see has a building that collapses straight into its own understory;
this is not what the Towers did on that day. I am being forcibly driven into the conclusion that, in your heart, you no longer
really can justify your belief about the incident. Take the next logical step.
I'm guessing it's further evidence of controlled demolition.
Because this is your pre-conclusion and faith. It's like arguing with a fundamentalist Christian:
what about useless anatomical features? I'll ask and they'll tell me
I'm guessing it's further evidence of Creation or intelligent design. But the words hold all the clues that one needs to see how their intellect is responding to the challenge:
I'm guessing. They know, inside, that their theory doesn't work and they're packpedaling for room to refute it with any outside point they can bring in.
A steel frame building has never pancaked
A steel frame building of the size of the WTC has never collapsed before either. It would be entirely objective to say that the pancaking is likely to be a feature of such a building collapse.
and the few decrepit buildings that have certainly don't happen the way the WTC buildings collapsed.
Again, not the same.
From what I've seen, the pieces that were ejected were certainly not consistent with the pancaking theory
Well, they were certainly
not consistent with free fall of the building, Scott. No massive chunks flew away via explosion. The top part of the building -
as every single video of the collapses shows - 'rode' the lower part to the ground. This is utterly,
utterly indisputable. Secondly, the parts of the building falling off
descend faster than the top piece; these parts, free of any constraint on gravity are moving at actual
free fall speed.
It is therefore absolutely, utterly impossible that the building is descending at free-fall. I'm sorry, and I know how much you think of the free fall explanation, but it simply, categorically, is not so.
I think based on its speed and its shape that it was a missile.
Again: absolutely impossible. What missile is that, the size of an airplane? A Polaris? Apollo 13?
You think it could be an aircraft or a whale.
Er...the whale comment was actually a joke. I'm hoping that was immediately apparent.
All of this isn't terribly scientific. Fortunately for us, there's a lot more evidence than that bad video. There's also a lot more videos, but, ofcourse, those are under FBI wraps.
I agree that the arguments being proposed - by the Troofers - are not terribly scientific in some instances. There are, further, apparently few or no additional videos.
I've also read a fair amount of official story stuff, but I couldn't stand more then a few minutes of ***** loose change.
Then we are at an impasse. You appear to have constructed a religious zeal around the institution of 9/11 "Troof". It does not need to be a hypothetical godhead, Scott. It can be challenged. It can be questioned; and if the responses fail the questions, it can be withdrawn, debunked, discarded. I appreciate the emotional attachment you feel to it; I can understand this. But it is not necessarily true, and the forcible double-think you must feel on considering it is not necessary - nor is it fair to try to convince others of something you now only partially believe in yourself. I understand your feelings, I do. But you must move beyond them.
Can you get me a link to that? I was checking the 'official story' "loose change guide" but I found no "are you ready for this?" in it.
That was actually Dylan Avery's comment in the middle of Loose Change; I don't recall which edition it was.
Whatever you like. Anyway, I've now tooken a look at some of your SLC stuff, so hopefully you'll look more at what I've said as well.
It would be more appropriate to see the film in its entirely. I have done so for LC; you can do the same for SLC. I promise; whatever you go into it believing, you'll honestly probably believe at the end anyway. No one is convinced by anything these days.
Alright; I've never seen an airplane coasting over lawns, but you're right, they do indeed usually land fairly smoothly.
Indeed. I understand autopilot is a wonderful thing and highly corrective.
The problem is I don't know enough on this. You say a lot of things and your explanation sounds plausible. But then some expert on loose change may say a lot of things that make what you say sound implausible. So I'll just wait and see what they say.
But that's just the thing: they're not unbiased experts. It's like asking the Archbishop of Canterbury for a naturalistic explanation of baby's souls - he's an expert at his interpretation, but it may not be so, objectively.
Best regards,
Geoff
