RE: "But what I can't understand is that you accept the debris is evidence of explosives but not the dust, when both arise
from the same process?"
I may not have made myself clear on that point. My reference was to the isolated plumes of dust and debris emerging from the building far below the collapse event.
It's not that I doubt some of the dust may have been caused by explosives. I've looked at plenty of clips and come away with the impression that it certainly looks like what my opinion of an explosive event might look like. My objection is how do I move that opinion from the opinion category into the fact category without getting bogged down in an endless list of, yeah, but's. If you'll pardon my having used you as a sounding board to demonstrate just how quickly the argument digresses into ambiguity, I think you can see how difficult it is to support without falling back on unsupportable speculation.
The sad fact of the matter is the vast majority of Americans have endlessly viewed the same evidence as we're discussing, and currently believe the entire event may be accounted for by gravity and fire alone. They've seen the grate in the fireplace glowing cherry red as the result of a wood fire. They've seen cracks in the sidewalk, and have crunched concrete with a hammer. They've bumped sheetrock walls with something heavy and have had to fix the holes. They've dropped flat objects on the floor and have seen it raise dust. They've tumbled to the floor when a box or chair exceeds it's design strength. They've even watched implosions on TV and come away with the impression buildings aren't really that strong after all.
What I'm getting at is I believe if one is to make a case for explosives, the first step is to demonstrate something people haven't seen before, and to show there is no alternative explanation for its existence other than explosives.
As you may recall, the current discussion more or less evolved as a result of my discovering what I view as a rather glaring error in the topic post. While we've wandered rather far afield, I'm still trying to come up with an idea for something to replace it with. What I have in mind is a photo or a still, of reasonable resolution, that can be explained in 25 words or less why it is evidence of an explosion, and that doesn't immediately get picked apart on cross examination. |
