Verifiable, OBJECTIVE evidence of explosives

boloboffin said:
http://i56.photobucket.com/albums/g171/boloboffin2/911/Bowing.jpg

In this picture, the bowing of the south face of the North Tower is made manifest. A grid has been placed over the face, showing you where the face of the building should be. Small lines illustrate just how far away some perimeter columns are from where they should be (the furthest shown is 55 pixels of displacement, which equals 75 inches in this picture - or over six feet).

Between you and me, I don't need any explosives to explain why a building with over six feet of inward bowing might have collapsed.
Click to expand...
A small correction: the white numbers on the face of the building indicate inches, not pixels, so the maximum observed displacement of the columns on the north tower was 55 inches, with a margin of error of a few inches.

Here's the south tower:

87904546a451e4ccb.jpg

​
 
Could we also get the grainier/blurrier version, in that one is just too easy to tell what everything is.
 
mortimer said:
The flashes moved down. Falling glass or other reflective debris. Does this really constitute "good" evidence of explosives? Really?
Click to expand...

Whats noticeable in that video and ive noticed it in others, is that the squibs are all in similar positions. They seem to occur in pairs and coincide with the edges of the core structure
 
jessicarabbit said:
Whats noticeable in that video and ive noticed it in others, is that the squibs are all in similar positions. They seem to occur in pairs and coincide with the edges of the core structure
Click to expand...

Do you have evidence, or commentary from those with authority to comment on the topic, that the only possible cause for what is seen is explosives?
 
jessicarabbit said:
If I did you would immediate seek to discredit those experts. See im getting good at predicting your tactics.
Click to expand...

The correct term is "seek to verify."

But if they aren't discreditable, how can someone discredit them?
 
New rule for myself: the day that I have a theory that does not actually discuss the movie Star Wars yet still contains the phrase "Star Wars weapon" is the day that I will cease making theories, admit my defeat, and check myself into some sort of clinic.
 
jessicarabbit said:
If I did you would immediate seek to discredit those experts. See im getting good at predicting your tactics.
Click to expand...

Part of the scientific process is evaluating a claimant's validity of sources. For someone to speak on authority on a subject they must not be making a claim in isolation, and they must substantiate the claim with enough evidence that third parties can validate the claim. Additionally, for a person to speak from a position on authority on a topic they must be in a relevant field, and must be speaking as a professional in that field.

In brief, the source of the evidence must stand up to the same level of scrutiny as the evidence itself. That is how science works. Cope.
 
Gravy said:
A small correction: the white numbers on the face of the building indicate inches, not pixels, so the maximum observed displacement of the columns on the north tower was 55 inches, with a margin of error of a few inches.

Here's the south tower:

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/87904546a451e4ccb.jpg[/qimg]
​
Click to expand...

OOPS! My bad. So the displacement was about five and a half feet.
 
senorpogo said:
New rule for myself: the day that I have a theory that does not actually discuss the movie Star Wars yet still contains the phrase "Star Wars weapon" is the day that I will cease making theories, admit my defeat, and check myself into some sort of clinic.
Click to expand...

Who here advocates a star wars weapon as a reason for the towers destruction? I think it was plain old bombs, so does russell.
 
jessicarabbit said:
They made plenty of noise ask the witnesses. They were not invisible, that video just showed some.
Click to expand...
You mean the witnesses who heard bombs going off long before the towers fell? So I guess these "plain old bombs" explode loudly, but don't actually destroy anything for 20 minutes later? Okey-dokey...
 
jessicarabbit said:
They made plenty of noise ask the witnesses. They were not invisible, that video just showed some.
Click to expand...
If those were bombs in your video they're going off in mid-air while floating. "Plain old bombs" indeed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom