3 ms·

> There's much more but assuming usual explosives, this has to be considered... True, but it is possible to apply the same strict epistemology to the consensus

> There's much more but assuming usual explosives, this has to be considered... True, but it is possible to apply the same strict epistemology to the consensus narrative as well, like how is it that "many things happened" resulting in an orderly freefall that appeared magically homogeneous across the entire structure, resulting in a descent that is (afaik) largely indistinguishable from a controlled demolition. > but no footage had such sounds, nor did witnesses report such sounds, and any nearby seismology equipment would detect irregularities A strict epistemological examination wouldn't let such premises be deployed without scrutiny.

jcranmer 5y ago
> how is it that "many things happened" resulting in an orderly freefall that appeared magically homogeneous across the entire structure I mentioned in my other comment the Surfside condo collapse, and that accidentally illustrates a key point about the WTC7 collapse. In the video of the Surfside condo collapse, we get a decent view of the origin of the collapse, so we can see how the collapse progresses. But with WTC7, the video we have is of the roof of the back side (with respect to the collapse origin). So we don't have visual of the collapse progress until it reaches the fairly homogeneous progressive collapse phase. > resulting in a descent that is (afaik) largely indistinguishable from a controlled demolition. All progressive collapses are going to look superficially similar. The most notable facet of a controlled demolition is the sheer sound of the charges going off to initiate the collapse. I've had the pleasure of being able to view a controlled demolition live, and I can tell you that the sound is loud enough and distinctive enough that all of the rescuers working on the debris pile that was the twin towers would have been reporting the explosions.
- mistermann 5y ago
  > But with WTC7, the video we have is of the roof of the back side (with respect to the collapse origin). Which in itself seems a bit odd, not unlike the lack of footage of the Pentagon (publicly released footage, at least). > So we don't have visual of the collapse progress until it reaches the fairly homogeneous progressive collapse phase. Suggesting there is some uncertainty involved. > The most notable facet of a controlled demolition is the sheer sound of the charges going off to initiate the collapse. If one uses the traditional loud approach, agreed. > I've had the pleasure of being able to view a controlled demolition live, and I can tell you that the sound is loud enough and distinctive enough that all of the rescuers working on the debris pile that was the twin towers would have been reporting the explosions. Certainly seems plausible.

jcranmer 5y ago

> how is it that "many things happened" resulting in an orderly freefall that appeared magically homogeneous across the entire structure I mentioned in my other comment the Surfside condo collapse, and that accidentally illustrates a key point about the WTC7 collapse. In the video of the Surfside condo collapse, we get a decent view of the origin of the collapse, so we can see how the collapse progresses. But with WTC7, the video we have is of the roof of the back side (with respect to the collapse origin). So we don't have visual of the collapse progress until it reaches the fairly homogeneous progressive collapse phase. > resulting in a descent that is (afaik) largely indistinguishable from a controlled demolition. All progressive collapses are going to look superficially similar. The most notable facet of a controlled demolition is the sheer sound of the charges going off to initiate the collapse. I've had the pleasure of being able to view a controlled demolition live, and I can tell you that the sound is loud enough and distinctive enough that all of the rescuers working on the debris pile that was the twin towers would have been reporting the explosions.

mistermann 5y ago
> But with WTC7, the video we have is of the roof of the back side (with respect to the collapse origin). Which in itself seems a bit odd, not unlike the lack of footage of the Pentagon (publicly released footage, at least). > So we don't have visual of the collapse progress until it reaches the fairly homogeneous progressive collapse phase. Suggesting there is some uncertainty involved. > The most notable facet of a controlled demolition is the sheer sound of the charges going off to initiate the collapse. If one uses the traditional loud approach, agreed. > I've had the pleasure of being able to view a controlled demolition live, and I can tell you that the sound is loud enough and distinctive enough that all of the rescuers working on the debris pile that was the twin towers would have been reporting the explosions. Certainly seems plausible.