Posted: Nov 17, 2010 11:03 pm
Here is really good criticism against ROOSD (the only natural collapse explanation which might of had any worth):
ROOSD Criticism From a Scientific Perspective
I don't agree with your theories econ41. For instance, you seem to think that everything from above fell on the floors (in a way where the hits for each subsequent would only make a tiny minijolt) and that is why there is no deceleration found in the fall of the upper section of WTC 1. The Verinage demolitions do their part in proving you wrong. All the 'Verinage' graphs show measurable deceleration:
The 9/11 WTC1 collapse looks like this animation below. Debunkers note error in that Chandler and Szamboti only have one conclusion, albeit a very educated conclusion, that there was controlled demolition. However, every single video analysis of this part of the WTC1 collapse offers exact data points, and the data points are directly translated into accurate graphs like this one. Whatever other errors debunkers have claimed on Chandler or Szamboti's part do not make this graph any less factual. And it's entirely factual that there was no measurable deceleration.
A very reasonable video explanation to Chandler and Szamboti's conclusions:
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NiHeCjZlkr8[/youtube]
ps. yeah that's Szamboti in the Geraldo video.
pss. econ41, it seems like you keep denying the existence of any and all controlled demolition evidence because you are specifically campaigning against this "conspiracy theory"... I'm not entirely certain that your motivation for being a gung-ho debunker over the years isn't political. Just the fact that you started talking about politics, which I for one have no reason to mention:
ROOSD Criticism From a Scientific Perspective
I don't agree with your theories econ41. For instance, you seem to think that everything from above fell on the floors (in a way where the hits for each subsequent would only make a tiny minijolt) and that is why there is no deceleration found in the fall of the upper section of WTC 1. The Verinage demolitions do their part in proving you wrong. All the 'Verinage' graphs show measurable deceleration:
The 9/11 WTC1 collapse looks like this animation below. Debunkers note error in that Chandler and Szamboti only have one conclusion, albeit a very educated conclusion, that there was controlled demolition. However, every single video analysis of this part of the WTC1 collapse offers exact data points, and the data points are directly translated into accurate graphs like this one. Whatever other errors debunkers have claimed on Chandler or Szamboti's part do not make this graph any less factual. And it's entirely factual that there was no measurable deceleration.
A very reasonable video explanation to Chandler and Szamboti's conclusions:
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NiHeCjZlkr8[/youtube]
ps. yeah that's Szamboti in the Geraldo video.
pss. econ41, it seems like you keep denying the existence of any and all controlled demolition evidence because you are specifically campaigning against this "conspiracy theory"... I'm not entirely certain that your motivation for being a gung-ho debunker over the years isn't political. Just the fact that you started talking about politics, which I for one have no reason to mention:
If there is a genuinely held concern about conspiracy that warrants further investigation it will need political motivation to bring it about. Few if any politicians would want to have any part in it. And linking it to the ridiculous technical claims such as demolition at WTC will give the politicians the easy way out to do nothing.
Every sensible person looking at WTC 9/11 can either see for themselves that there was no demolition OR realise that genuine professionals say "no demolition". The lies of most of the leading truthers are readily discernible. Probably the simplest examples being the "opening broadsides" of their powerpoint presentations which simply ooze misleading propaganda trickery.
So a crazy political strategy tying genuine concerns about conspiracy to a dead set loser in demolition.