1337m4n
Alphanumeric Anonymous Stick Man
- Joined
- May 10, 2007
- Messages
- 3,510
I wish to distinguish "lack of evidence" from "evidence against". Lack of evidence simply means just that: there is no evidence something is true. Evidence against means that and more: there is actually evidence that the same something is false.
For instance, a claim that aliens live underneath the surface of Mars could be described as having a lack of evidence. However, if you claim that those same aliens live above the surface of mars, there is now not only a lack of evidence, there is now evidence against their existence (in the form of satellite photos of the surface of Mars that show something that contradicts the claim, in this case nothing but empty red desert).
Okay, okay, I'm sure you can all find ways to nitpick my example to death, but hopefully you all understand the distinction I'm trying to make.
We conspiracy skeptics tend to say that "there is no evidence for controlled demolition of the WTC". In fact, we are understating things; it is even better than that. There is actually evidence against controlled demolition. In this thread, I would like to sum up all of that evidence.
No sounds of demolition: By its very nature, an explosive device powerful enough to cut through the structural steel of a 110-story building is going to produce a heck of an air pressure wave that should be clearly audible to anyone anywhere near the event. Dozens of audio and video recording devices were present at the scene; not one of these recordings picked up anything remotely similar to the sounds of a highrise demolition. The best Truthers can come up with are occassional, sparse, nondescript sounds that only a tiny handful of eyewitnesses heard, and that no recording devices picked up. These findings are not consistent with a controlled demolition, which would produce a series of extremely loud, clearly distinct blasts audible to all within a great distance and with a frequency akin to a semi-automatic pistol. Therefore, there was no demolition.
No seismic recordings: By its very nature, an explosive device powerful enough to cut through the structural steel of a 110-story building is also going to create powerful ground vibrations. The demolitions company, Protec, had several portable field seismographs in the vicinity at the time of the collapses. Protec notes that these seismographs did not detect any spikes consistent with explosive blasts. A true demolition would have produced several such spikes; therefore, there was no demolition.
No explosives found in the rubble: Demolitions require a number of implements to be placed inside the building, such as detcord--not to mention the explosives themselves. Over time, the entire rubble pile was cleaned up. The remains of such implements would have been found had they existed. No remains of demolition equipment or explosives were ever found in the rubble; therefore, they did not exist, and consequently there was no demolition.
Got any more? Post it here!
For instance, a claim that aliens live underneath the surface of Mars could be described as having a lack of evidence. However, if you claim that those same aliens live above the surface of mars, there is now not only a lack of evidence, there is now evidence against their existence (in the form of satellite photos of the surface of Mars that show something that contradicts the claim, in this case nothing but empty red desert).
Okay, okay, I'm sure you can all find ways to nitpick my example to death, but hopefully you all understand the distinction I'm trying to make.
We conspiracy skeptics tend to say that "there is no evidence for controlled demolition of the WTC". In fact, we are understating things; it is even better than that. There is actually evidence against controlled demolition. In this thread, I would like to sum up all of that evidence.
No sounds of demolition: By its very nature, an explosive device powerful enough to cut through the structural steel of a 110-story building is going to produce a heck of an air pressure wave that should be clearly audible to anyone anywhere near the event. Dozens of audio and video recording devices were present at the scene; not one of these recordings picked up anything remotely similar to the sounds of a highrise demolition. The best Truthers can come up with are occassional, sparse, nondescript sounds that only a tiny handful of eyewitnesses heard, and that no recording devices picked up. These findings are not consistent with a controlled demolition, which would produce a series of extremely loud, clearly distinct blasts audible to all within a great distance and with a frequency akin to a semi-automatic pistol. Therefore, there was no demolition.
No seismic recordings: By its very nature, an explosive device powerful enough to cut through the structural steel of a 110-story building is also going to create powerful ground vibrations. The demolitions company, Protec, had several portable field seismographs in the vicinity at the time of the collapses. Protec notes that these seismographs did not detect any spikes consistent with explosive blasts. A true demolition would have produced several such spikes; therefore, there was no demolition.
No explosives found in the rubble: Demolitions require a number of implements to be placed inside the building, such as detcord--not to mention the explosives themselves. Over time, the entire rubble pile was cleaned up. The remains of such implements would have been found had they existed. No remains of demolition equipment or explosives were ever found in the rubble; therefore, they did not exist, and consequently there was no demolition.
Got any more? Post it here!
