Creative Speculation

> Okay, this is the normal response: an 'unrestrained thermal exansion.' Fancy terminology! Dude: that fancy word-salad you just tossed has as little to do with builings in contemprary architecture as it has to do with greens in that sentence. Repeating fancy language doesn't equate to valid explaination. We're still here, us conspiracy crazy-heads: HOW?? Or, as my man Meatwad says: "Do what now?"

So, if you don't even understand how unrestrained thermal expansion could cause WTC7 to collape, is there any point in trying to correct your misconceptions about "builings in contemprary architecture?" Probably not, but first...

> So the OKC building is different. Yup. Gotcha. But does that mean the code for building is 'that' different? Actually, how much of a diffence in years of completion are there between the Murrah building and the World Trade Center complex? The point I was making was to discontinue this absurd notion that damage to WT7 brought the building 'straight' down into its footprint. The OKC bombing proves that a contemporary building, meeting building codes, can withstand half of its weight-bearing girders et al being destroyed and still stand (well, until DEMOLITION EXPERTS come in to bring the rest down). Remember: they hired explosive experts just to bring down half of a building in OKC; and it wasn't even surrounded by much - compared to lower Manhatten).

That is complete nonsense. The Murray Building was reinforced concrete, while the WTC buildings were two different types of steel framing. There is no logical reason to think that three different types of structures would behave the same even in the same catastrophic conditions, much less three different types of catastrophes. The Murray Building proves nothing whatsoever about WTC, but you are talking through your hat, anyway, since there are no building codes that specify that buildings must be designed to withstand truck bombs or 767 impacts or 7 hour fires. Specifically, regarding WTC 7, there was no building code that required the beam-to-column connections to withstand thermal stress and progressive collapse, so they simply weren't. You seem to not grasp that these are matters of fact, not subjective opinion, and that you are in no position to debate the issue if you don't know the basic facts. Please stop trying to fake it.

> Dude, did you really just state "the uniqueness of it collapse is completely unremarkable"? That is your sentence. That sums it all up. Really, after the demand on logic that you made in that sentence, do I really have to say anything more?? Uniqueness would make something incredibly remarkable; its remarkable because its unique. That was my point.

Your reading comprehension is dismal. What I said was, "Since no similarly constructed building has suffered a similar unfought fire, the uniqueness of its collapse is completely unremarkable." Perhaps different phrasing will help: Given the uniqueness of the circumstances, the uniqueness of the result is not unexpected. And yes, the topic you dodged was the logical fallacy of claiming "first time in history" as a rational reason for thinking WTC 7 must have been a controlled demolition. Are you familiar with the concept of a "valid" logical inference?

> You state without batting an eyelach: "even though the Zapruder film shows JFK getting hit from behind." WHAT?!? Where are you getting that from? There IS evidence of a shot to the front of JFK: skull fragments were collected from Daely Plaza from the north of where the head shot occured. That means a shot from the south-west pushed his stuff to the opposite side of the head-shot bullet's origin.

I don't see any reason to repeat here the facts and reasons that I've detailed numerous times elsewhere, and which you have apparently already ignored. No, there is no actual evidence of a shot from the front; all the actual evidence says the shot was from behind, so CTers just declare it to be fake. My point was, contrary to "mainstream" JFK conspiracism, the Zapruder film is yet another piece of evidence that the shot was from behind, when properly interpreted. If you think you can refute my arguments, then have at it, but your inability to understand them is not a refutation.

> And here's another quick dismissal from you: "the "back and to the left motion" doesn't require any hit from the right front;" unquote dude. That's ALL you have to say about that: pretty much the most damaging evidence to the Warren Commision Report? Welp, to you: "Hey guys, it just doesn't 'require' any hit from the right front'". Really? WHY NOT?!?

Here we go again. If you don't even know the alternate explanations for that back-and-to-the-left motion, then you really aren't prepared to debate the topic, but the main ones are: recoil of the neck and spine after compression; neuromuscular reflex; and Alverez's "jet effect."

> Again you serve me up a softball. You say: "a bullet hit can't really explain the acceleration seen in that motion, anyway, so it's a particularly bad hypothesis". Really? Because, philosophical (and linguistically) that sentence you just used contradicts itself. If you're saying that the acceleration can't be explained, how can you explain that his theory is the wrong explaination? I respect you guy; really I do. I think you mean well. But this pretzel-logic you're using, which is very selective, won't work with me dude. Either try to explain it, or, if you can't, you can't dismiss others explainations. Sucks; I know. But that's how it works.

The answer to your question lies in actually understanding my argument, so I can't say I'm very hopeful, but let's give it yet another try: The bullet hit cannot explain that particular acceleration because the bullet is long gone from the scene by the time that acceleration happens. Acceleration requires force, but the bullet exerted a force on the head only while it was passing through the head between 312 and 313, not two frames later and certainly not continuing for that entire back-and-to-the-left motion where we continue to see acceleration. If this is "pretzel logic" to you, then I'm afraid you're only going to embarrass yourself by attempting any discussion of physics.

> Shutter speed: if I meant "completely irrelevant" I would have used that phrase. I used "spot-on". And it is important: you, I believe, are missing the point. A slow shutter speed can only capture so many frames of 'moving reality.' The dude I was agreeing with was saying that the frames you were focused on were missing a part of 'reality' due to slow shutter speed.

Shutter speed is completely irrelevant to the actual argument made. The argument made involves only what we see in the sequence of the frames and explaining what we see using actual physics. What we see in the sequence of events is that the bullet hit between 312 and 313, and the head has moved forward -- i.e. exactly what would be expected by a hit from the rear and completely unexplained by a hit from the front. The sequence of events then shows a back-and-to-the-left motion starting two frames later, with continued acceleration for several frames after that, which simply cannot be explained by momentum from the bullet, period. The only "missing part of 'reality'" that I can see is in your belief that the bullet hit explains that motion.

> Yeah, I'm sure 'earing' a shot isn't as simple as I think. But there is this reality: Zupruder reacted to the shots in his original film, and there were more than 3. Also, the Grassy Knoll area down to Elm is very confined; its not that large of a space. This is not hiding in a foxhole. These shots were 'right on top' of them. These witnesses were feet away. I'm sure you anecdotal army training means a lot to you; but I can't verity if you've really been there anyway. It could be true, or it could be someone coming up with cripe to support their viewpoint. Don't know...

What I know for a fact is what I said: Identifying where a high-velocity bullet came from is not nearly as easy as people think, so those reports of a shot from the knoll are simply not conclusive of anything. This point was the general weakness of what's offered as evidence by conspiracists.

> Talking about planting evidence: when it comes to conspiracy (not theory) all you need to look out for is damning evidence. The circumstantial stuff you can leave alone; no one will believe it or think it important after time anyway. You can testify to that.

If conspiracy theorists could substantiate their theories with credible evidence, then they wouldn't be called conspiracy theorists. I just don't know of any case where that happened.