Just incidentally:
A "roofline kink" is a classic indicator of a controlled demolition by implosion I might add.
Here's a classic example of what truthers do when they want evidence of something, but can't find it; they just take whatever they see and pretend it's evidence of what they want to prove. The above claim is entirely specious, for two very good reasons.
Firstly, there is, of course, no such thing as a "
classic indicator of a controlled demolition by implosion"; an indicator is what is required to determine the nature of an unknown. Since there has never in history been a covert controlled demolition, there has never been an instance where an indicator of controlled demolition was needed; it is always known that a demolition is intentional. Therefore, no body of work exists (as the term "classic" implies) to determine what is, or is not, a characteristic of controlled demolition. Even if there were
indicators, therefore, they could not be
classic indicators. The word "classic" has the form of the appeal to common sense; it suggests that this is so well-known an indicator of controlled demolition that everybody should be aware of it. It is of course no such thing.
Secondly, the term "indicator" implies a means of determining whether a specific condition is true or false. In order to determine whether a specific observation qualifies as an indicator of controled demolition, one would therefore have to have studied collapses of steel-framed buildings and to have divided those collapses into two categories - those caused by, and those not caused by, controlled demolition - and verify that one's proposed indicator was almost always present in one, and almost always absent in the other. But this causes a major problem for truthers, because they will frequently claim that no steel framed high rise building has ever collapsed as a result of fire damage. This claim therefore carries the implication that there is not, and cannot, be a means of determining that the absence of a roofline kink is an expected feature of a collapse due to fire. Ironically, truthers disallow the examination of their own null hypothesis.
It's worth noting that no evidence is offered, or ever will be, that a roofline kink is even expected in a controlled implosion, let alone impossible in any other type of collapse. This is because, quite simply, it isn't. In, for example,
the demolition of the Landmark Tower in Fort Worth, no significant deformation of the roofline is clearly visible at any time in the collapse. The
Seattle Kingdome roof fell in sequential sections, showing complete breaks rather than any kinks. The
J L Hudson department store demolition shows the roofline disintegrating as the structure below it is progressively removed. The
Aladdin Hotel in Las Vegas again shows separate sections of roofline falling independently, some showing kinks at late stages of the collapse, others not. The nature of controlled implosions is that
they are controlled, and a building can be brought down in a wide variety of ways, which will all look different.
It's superficially convincing when someone makes a statement along the lines that "X is an indicator of Y." It carries the implied suggestion of the statement, "I have studied, or consulted people who have studied, broad and varied experience of examples where Y may or may not be true, and found that in the majority of instances there is a positive correlation between Y being true and X being true." In the case of statements made by truthers, this impression is misleading; the actual statement being made is more along the lines of "I want you to believe Y, so I'll pretend that X being true, which we all agree on, means Y must be true as well."
It's not a direct lie, but it's a lie by implication. But, in that sense, it justifies part of the language originally used; the appeal to implied but actually nonexistent authority is such a popular form of lie by implication in the truth movement, I would happily admit that it's a
classic truther lie.
Dave
.
