12-08-2013, 02:59 PM
Lauren Johnson Wrote:Jeffrey Orling Wrote:I was unaware of seeing dust ejections from all faces of both twin towers. Are those who claim these were or detonation origin claiming that they appear on all four faces and both towers? If they are not appearing on all faces in both towers... what do we make of this claim?
The obvious thing for someone to do who seeking to come to conclusions about this the following. First, do the research which is quite easy to do. Second, say what you think your findings mean. Why not just do that?
Lauren,
I think I've represented my position based on the work I've done. I don't call it research... but this wiki found definition may apply:
"Another definition of research is given by Creswell who states - "Research is a process of steps used to collect and analyze information to increase our understanding of a topic or issue". It consists of three steps: Pose a question, collect data to answer the question, and present an answer to the question."
My tools for investigation are limited.... to basically what my own education and profession as an architect has given me. And this is how I approach my quest at understanding the collapse of the 3 towers. I was expecting NIST to provide a sensible explanation. That never happened.
All sorts of others came forward with their conclusions, and what led them to reach these conclusions. I reviewed these works as best I could and found deficiencies in all... hardly different than NIST. I then tried to connect the dots I could see.. some dots that others apparently don't or choose to ignore. I am trying to include all observations and known "facts" but how can one ever know?
I've offered explanations which satisfy me within the limits of what I can know... obviously including some guesses and assumptions. If it was all there in black and white there would be no need to figure it out... would there? My explanations are MECHANISMS which account for the entire sequence from start to finish. While one can destroy with devices... destruction can and does take place from such things as fire, heat and other natural forces. The WTC matter also included the enormous input of the jets hitting the towers and the fact that they were fully occupied and ENERGIZED with electricity, steam, gas and so forth.
I do not see the case for placed devices...because I see no unmistakable evidence of them. At best a device is asserted to do what we know natural "forces" can. In the case of heat it's been a matter of amplitude not that heat is not capable of destroying the integrity of building materials and systems. And fire is chemically destruction as well... rapid oxidation.
Tony has proposed something approaching a mechanism using unspecified devices. Unfortunately he ignores observations and data others have found and this invalidates his model. Gage proposes no model. Peter Jennings or Ashley Banfield are talking out of technical ignorance... no different from a child really. David Griffin admits he relies on others for his facts... again not competent to solve the mystery of explaining what happened. Jones makes things up and hides beyond his credentials. That's shameful because of his lying. Many others try to use logic to support their conclusions... twisted logic. Fetzer is a clown, his friend Boldwyn doesn't know his stuff though he claims to. Chandler is also peddling his bias as fact.
And the bigger political picture complicates this... and as I've said whether we were attacked by 19 Arab hijackers or it was something else... the outcome was a foregone conclusion. The MIC was going to milk it for all its worth. This does not mean they pulled the whole thing off. And that sort of "research" is outside my expertise and it's just speculating.